The Gate

Thanks or the PM, It's ok I have time to help..

So what do you know so far of what we do, and have you looked at why we've been pointing at?

hi, ta.
i have been devouring ruthless truth for several months, and i followed various threads and blogs elsewhere.
so i've been immersed in this for a while, which may indicate a problem, because i don't seem to have shifted. and i have to ask myself why that would be? am i keeping this at an intellectual distance?
my motivation to be interested in this stuff in the first place is that i decided enlightenment exists, it's doable, i've got nothing better to do with my life and have the time to find it, so why don't i do something about it? the path of investigation has led me to the knowledge, or possibly intuition, that it is the illusion of self that is the core impediment to a clear view of reality, or at least that is my interpretation of what i read and consumed. the last books i bought before i found ruthless truth was 'the illusion of i and other', because it seemed to be pointing to this core problem (it was mostly crap, as far as clarity was concerned to me), and a much more useful book, the book of not knowing, by peter ralston, which had as its central goal making the reader question their assumption of self, and knowing thoughts about a self for just thoughts.
but i think something in the way i practiced my 'search' may have held a true recognition from taking place, as the search itself became a ritual. there were insights and stuff, and what felt like progress, but still a hunger or lack too. i also was doing shikantaza style meditation every day for about five years. i stopped this year, and haven't been able to get back into it yet.
so when i found ruthless truth (a link on a jed mckenna discussion board) i was pretty excited. i felt renewed focus on an old idea.
but, i tried a duel, and got nowhere. i thought i was doing well, i was analysing reality, my self as i experienced it, my thoughts, but i was told that i was continuing to intellectualise this, that i was in love with my own ego, and that i would probably never get this unless i could drop that. as i didn't know HOW i was doing that, i was pretty devastated, and so stopped, determined to get this on my own, or maybe just give up.
and my girlfriend got through this about the time i failed my own duel, so i was pretty demoralised about my own ability to become enlightened, or the amount of solidified crap i have to drop to get it.
several months later, i'm still reading dialogues, and still listening to the arguments about how seeing no-self is not enlightenment, or why ruthless truth are deluded and dangerous, and so on (they really piss me off).
i can't let it go. obviously i've accepted that this lack of a self, as we have assumed it, is true, but i don't think i've let it erase my continued belief in my special self, or really looked into the abyss at the center of 'me' - i don't think i'm free.

Well you're clearly keeping this at an intellectual distance mate. It's like reading book after book on how to ride a bike, the actual riding of it is a completely different experience than the theory of how to, you know?

We can show you the gate - and i'm sure you've read enough by now to know what I mean by this - but YOU have to do the work and actually look, and get this done. That part is essential. Without it, it will forever remain a theory for you. It doesn't even matter if you agree with it, because that won't help you.

So when you look for a self, a 'me', what can you see?

i can see sets of various programmed feelings that come into play as the situation around me changes - automatic responses to different situations, that feel quite important as an expression of myself, but can be watched and seen as just sets responding as appropriate, as my programming has written itself or evolved.
the watching itself can become a set if i think that is a new me. but it never was, until i ran after it going, aha there i must be! but, if self is knowable at all, it is not self. i've tried to analyse this to see if i can prove it to myself...
if self were existent, self would be the act of perception. it could never perceive itself. if anything is perceived, the perceiver is separate from it. If self were an object of perception, it could no longer be self - unless it is proposed the self is ceasing to be itself in those moments and become something else, some other super-observing-self that presumably exists for just such moments. Even if the self is downloaded into this other location in order to observe the previously located self, it is no longer looking at a self - it is what is looking. So if self exists, we can never know this. If we can never know whether self exists, then it is not in the realm of existence, because anything in the realm of existence is knowable or experienceable to some extent.
and that's where the provability or not of the self comes to for me and my limited powers of reason.
there is definitely a strong FEELING of self, and the habit of associating this feeling with something that exists is just the lazy habit of cognition.
and yeah, i guess i can talk in what SOUNDS like an intellectual way, that's just the way i talk/write. i don't know if it would be correct to say i'm intellectualising it at the expense of experiencing though. but i guess that's your call?

sorry, re-reading my response i don't know if i really answered your question IN THE PRESENT TENSE.
so right now, i can feel my desire to get this 'right', to not get lost in irrelevancies, to not keep unconsciously stepping into abstraction.
there is a basic recognition of stuff before me, room, colour, sound. thoughts arise as phenomena in much the same way as my sight of the table and the feeling of the keyboard does. i'm not in control of it, i just receive it. the 'i that receives it' is really a designator, a pin stuck in an empty space to locate and define, where location and definition don't really exist. eg. if i was in empty space, then i would go, okay i'm going to call this 'up' and that 'down', and here is 'point A'. reference points are conceptual tools only.
my toes are cold. not yours, mine. that's what that 'my' means. there is a feeling of cold in the feet attached to this nervous system. any move to comfort the feeling in my feet, to increase their protection from cold, is so utterly dependent on conditions outside of me that i cannot claim any real freedom from that outside, ie, no independent agent.
my engagement with the physical reality in front of me comes and goes as i get lost in thoughts. correction, as thoughts get lost in thoughts.

Ok, firstly I can tell you've really studied this subject. The first message is essentially 'if I am this, and then i'm that, but I can't be this if that....'. That's the essence of the first message.

You can't intellectualize this, and 'work it out'. You can't read how to ride a bike, then think you know how.

The second message is better, you're looking, and that's awesome. The first paragraph..

"i can see sets of various programmed feelings that come into play as the situation around me changes - automatic responses to different situations, that feel quite important as an expression of myself, but can be watched and seen as just sets responding as appropriate, as my programming has written itself or evolved."

Ok so you're seeing these programmes (great word) running, and they're being watched. So that's cool. Is there a self needed for this, or are they autonomous?

"the watching itself can become a set if i think that is a new me."

See what you're doing here? Can you spot it? You're trying to capture 'me' in a bottle and exclaim 'AHA! Now I know what this is, THIS is me.' See what I mean? You're looking at these thoughts, but getting lost in different ones when you 'think that this is a new me.'

There is no 'me' mate, this is the thing. Everything exists, we know this to be true by direct observation, right? But at the very core, the very heart of the matter, no self is running the show. There are thoughts, clearly. But do they belong to anyone?

Won't go into the rest of the message because there's a few questions in this and I don't want to overload..

cool, thanks for recognising actual effort as opposed to abstraction. i recognise it (abstraction) myself if i take a second look, as long as i remember. it still happens.

Ok so you're seeing these programmes (great word) running, and they're being watched. So that's cool. Is there a self needed for this, or are they autonomous?

no, absolutely no self needed to do this. the self that thinks it is needed is kind of tacked on to each movement as it occurs. it keeps the illusion continuous somehow, though it is really just renewing itself each time, it's not really continuous.

"the watching itself can become a set if i think that is a new me."

See what you're doing here? Can you spot it? You're trying to capture 'me' in a bottle and exclaim 'AHA! Now I know what this is, THIS is me.' See what I mean? You're looking at these thoughts, but getting lost in different ones when you 'think that this is a new me.'

very true, and i'm aware of this, that's why i pointed it out. it's frustrating to know it's happening, like i can see it yet still be helpless. i just constantly transfer the error i am seeing in the first place (the paradox inherent in thinking i am a separate thing or an 'i' at all, and all the unnecessary complications that arise from that) to the new place, it's not dropped. it's not that that is what i'm trying to do, at least i don't think i am. it's just the tendency of this 'self' idea to identify with something is so pervasive that any new perception or vantage point is subtly identified with.
i think the dynamics of that are set up in the search itself for what is true, as i have proposed it to myself - 'what am i? not that, so i must be this, now i feel better' - but no, the same error is there.
the question itself is wrong in that it supposes there's an answer to a mythical concept. the correct answer is you are not, pay attention to what is. ask a better question.
but doesn't the fact that i can see this shifting of identification mean i can dismiss it as it happens? surely i can't be taken in by it again?

Everything exists, we know this to be true by direct observation, right? But at the very core, the very heart of the matter, no self is running the show. There are thoughts, clearly. But do they belong to anyone?

tricky to answer this one, as there are two meanings to it. thoughts are happening HERE, and we use words such as 'belonging to' to differentiate between us. but that is the only context in which i could say they are mine. that 'belonging to' is so utterly temporary and devoid of any real ownership, or even causer. it is the nature of thoughts to happen here, in the environment of this brain/body system, as it is in others. there is nothing special about it, and no causative agent a step behind them cranking them out.

Won't go into the rest of the message because there's a few questions in this and I don't want to overload..

thanks, i hope i gave them the proper attention. if not, whittle it down again for me...

a question occured to me to do with intellectual knowledge and whether it can work here or not. if it is correct to say the self is purely an intellectual idea because it's conceptual and doesn't represent anything real in the first place, isn't the level that recognition of this takes place going to be intellectual too? that is, the seeing of the error in the sum/equation itself will be intellectual.
i understand there's a second part to this process though, because if thought is used to see how another thought is not corresponding to anything real, a movement into what is real then has to take place to see what is simply there.
the question 'if this is not, then what is?' has to happen.
so i just have to ensure the second part happens.
so yeah, i can use thought to see thought for what it is, but then to know what actually is, just see.
or am i doing it again? dividing this into two parts when it's really just one?

no, absolutely no self needed to do this. the self that thinks it is needed is kind of tacked on to each movement as it occurs. it keeps the illusion continuous somehow, though it is really just renewing itself each time, it's not really continuous.

Exactly. No self is needed, and that's kinda lucky because there isn't one. The illusion of self, the thoughts of self, are still just thoughts.

Can you see this as true?

When you ask yourself, 'do i exist?' what comes up?

very true, and i'm aware of this, that's why i pointed it out. it's frustrating to know it's happening, like i can see it yet still be helpless.

Who gets frustrated?

Yeah frustration arises, but is it yours?

i just constantly transfer the error i am seeing in the first place (the paradox inherent in thinking i am a separate thing or an 'i' at all, and all the unnecessary complications that arise from that) to the new place, it's not dropped. it's not that that is what i'm trying to do, at least i don't think i am. it's just the tendency of this 'self' idea to identify with something is so pervasive that any new perception or vantage point is subtly identified with.

I see what you're saying. It's like 'this is me'. Then you look at something slightly differently, and it's like 'ah, THIS is me'. Well what's looking at these thoughts? Yeah, everything you're witnessing exists, it's real, but is it you?

Don't try and capture this, let life be.

i think the dynamics of that are set up in the search itself for what is true, as i have proposed it to myself - 'what am i? not that, so i must be this, now i feel better' - but no, the same error is there.

It's still there because it's the same structure. Whatever you fill it with will lead to the same conclusion. See what I mean?

What's looking at that thought process? If you were to say 'ah, this is me', then what's looking at that?

the question itself is wrong in that it supposes there's an answer to a mythical concept. the correct answer is you are not, pay attention to what is. ask a better question.

No mate, honestly, you gotta stop asking questions and trying to figure this out mentally. You have to set this kind of process down because you won't 'find' it. Just look, search for a you, a self, a 'me'. Can you find it. That. THAT. Focus there. Stop being stuck in your head, 'this it? No. That it? No.'

Stop that, and LOOK.

but doesn't the fact that i can see this shifting of identification mean i can dismiss it as it happens? surely i can't be taken in by it again?

Once you see this, you can't un-see it. Once you KNOW something is false - not believe to be, but see, and KNOW - then you can't take it as real anymore. Could you believe in Santa again now you know there isn't one, even if you wanted to?

a question occured to me to do with intellectual knowledge and whether it can work here or not.

You need to put this aside for a minute man, really. It's too easy to think you can find this intellectually. It's that split second of pure honesty and actual looking that will show you this.

Stop with the intellect, ok? Just for now.

Is there a you ddm? Do you exist?

Exactly. No self is needed, and that's kinda lucky because there isn't one.

this kind of triggers something. the fact that this is happening WITHOUT A SELF, whether i think and feel there's one there or not. there's nothing that the seeing of this is going to change because it's already happening.

When you ask yourself, 'do i exist?' what comes up?

at first, a protective urge to assert my sovereignty, 'of course i exist', then a kind of let-down feeling when i see how futile that really is in the face of reality, then a slight feeling of freedom from not having anything to protect or assert.
and i'm not saying there is no existence here, there is, but there's no owner of that existence, just an ongoing experience. and to say there is an 'experiencer' doesn't really add up either, because in what separate container does that experiencer reside? the experiencer is really just a story of things experienced, after the fact.

it's like i've created a virtual space for a me to exist, but as the virtual space isnt real, it's just a kind of pocket universe, then what it contains is only a temporary file cache that gets deleted when the attention is brought back to the real, not the virtual.

Who gets frustrated?

Yeah frustration arises, but is it yours?

well the frustration is, or was, seen as evidence of myself somehow, i don't know why exactly, as if negative emotions or reactions somehow prove an independence that must be a 'me', perhaps as opposed to more mundane reactions like hunger or cold - they seem to indicate preferences, which must belong to something to have preferences right? but this is just assumed, and doesn't bear out in observation. how is a preference in any way independent of the world which formed me, this body/mind here? it doesn't indicate any agent occupying my body.
so frustration is a natural thing to happen when a paradox is seen, or something cannot be added up. my being recoils from it. but it just happens here.

I see what you're saying. It's like 'this is me'. Then you look at something slightly differently, and it's like 'ah, THIS is me'. Well what's looking at these thoughts? Yeah, everything you're witnessing exists, it's real, but is it you?

Don't try and capture this, let life be.

It's still there because it's the same structure. Whatever you fill it with will lead to the same conclusion. See what I mean?

What's looking at that thought process? If you were to say 'ah, this is me', then what's looking at that?

yeah, what's looking at these thoughts? other thoughts. still the same cycle. an obvious self-perpetuating trap.
i don't have to stop it, but there's certainly no need to agonise over it.

No mate, honestly, you gotta stop asking questions and trying to figure this out mentally. You have to set this kind of process down because you won't 'find' it. Just look, search for a you, a self, a 'me'. Can you find it. That. THAT. Focus there. Stop being stuck in your head, 'this it? No. That it? No.'

Stop that, and LOOK.

You need to put this aside for a minute man, really. It's too easy to think you can find this intellectually. It's that split second of pure honesty and actual looking that will show you this.

Stop with the intellect, ok? Just for now.

Is there a you ddm? Do you exist

?

okay, i'm keeping it simple, no extrapolations. the 'this it? no. that it? no.' cycle is pretty much a dead end, i can see that. nothing is it if it is nothing. no endless frustration necessary.
and the answer inevitably has to be 'no'. that's all. what happens now?

this kind of triggers something. the fact that this is happening WITHOUT A SELF, whether i think and feel there's one there or not. there's nothing that the seeing of this is going to change because it's already happening.

Exactly man, life is just happening whether you believe in this fictitious self or not. And you're right again, it is a fact, not a belief. Double win.

at first, a protective urge to assert my sovereignty, 'of course i exist', then a kind of let-down feeling when i see how futile that really is in the face of reality, then a slight feeling of freedom from not having anything to protect or assert.

Wow man, just wow. See the process here? Protective urge and a 'course i exist' THOUGHT. Then you looked at the REALITY of it, and saw NOTHING to protect or assert.

That's awesome because you've stopped getting stuck at the level of thought, and looked at the reality. That's the magical step to this, the actual process of looking at what's real, not thinking about what it. Nice man.

and i'm not saying there is no existence here, there is, but there's no owner of that existence, just an ongoing experience. and to say there is an 'experiencer' doesn't really add up either, because in what separate container does that experiencer reside? the experiencer is really just a story of things experienced, after the fact.

THIS IS SPOT ON DUDE. Awesome. Yeah life is existing, but no you to control it, or make it happen. It just is, no self needed.

it's like i've created a virtual space for a me to exist, but as the virtual space isnt real, it's just a kind of pocket universe, then what it contains is only a temporary file cache that gets deleted when the attention is brought back to the real, not the virtual.

This is one of the best descriptions i've ever heard man, so spot on. Very nice.

well the frustration is, or was, seen as evidence of myself somehow, i don't know why exactly, as if negative emotions or reactions somehow prove an independence that must be a 'me', perhaps as opposed to more mundane reactions like hunger or cold - they seem to indicate preferences, which must belong to something to have preferences right? but this is just assumed, and doesn't bear out in observation. how is a preference in any way independent of the world which formed me, this body/mind here? it doesn't indicate any agent occupying my body.

Exactly again.

"but this is just assumed, and doesn't bear out in observation."

This is that process working again. Before you would have assumed it and not pushed to question it, to see it's reality, and kept debating it over and over in your mind. Now you've actually observed it, and can clearly see it doesn't bear out.

Awesome.

so frustration is a natural thing to happen when a paradox is seen, or something cannot be added up. my being recoils from it. but it just happens here.

Who's being, is it yours?

yeah, what's looking at these thoughts? other thoughts. still the same cycle. an obvious self-perpetuating trap.
i don't have to stop it, but there's certainly no need to agonise over it.

Don't beat yourself up over it, just observe it in action and you'll break identification with it. Then you'll see it's futility and end up laughing at the absurdity of your previous thought patterns.

okay, i'm keeping it simple, no extrapolations. the 'this it? no. that it? no.' cycle is pretty much a dead end, i can see that. nothing is it if it is nothing. no endless frustration necessary.
and the answer inevitably has to be 'no'. that's all. what happens now?

Well keep looking at what is. When you look for a self, what do you actually see right now?

Describe that my friend.

(Hope you're online now, i've got some free time...)

I've quoted that a little wrong, i'm sure everyone can see the quotes that were ddm and my answers to them in the huge qoute box.

#quotefail

shit. i almost feel embarrassed now that i seem to have got the trick that is too straight-forward to be called a trick. it's not just a retreat from error, it's a retreat from complication.
yeah, praise makes me blush and cringe a little.
what's the cringing from, whose does it belong to? a 'get over yourself' would work well for me here, because clearly it's a program from the thought-self, which is shown, as i look into it, to be a shadow puppet.

how often to i have to look at this shell i've always taken myself for, to know that i am never going to mistake it again for a me? it's not like there's a big effort to see it. it's a split-second reminder.
and language here is going to start sounding ridiculous - how do 'i' not mistake it for 'me'?
whatever, 'i' can do all it wants, it wont change a thing in reality.
is there a time to develop this? how did you do it? does it still throw up shadow-shapes against the cave-wall for you?

sorry, not really going over your points, just rambling a little.

so, to describe what i see when i look for the shape called a self...
there's certainly a pitiful story of a self. it almost a remnant. like one of those raggedy shadow nasgul things from lord of the rings, all empty billowing cloak and a lot of bad air.
there's almost a temptation to look for and describe the 'real' self, to think that something else must be it, something simpler and purer and life affirming. but no, bad move, logic fail. life is affirmed, it doesn't need any me for that.
the hunger for this illusion to keep itself fed in some way is observable. i almost feel sorry for it.
i mean, the sorrow is the feeling any empathic being would feel for any struggling creature. but the struggles of a shadow? why bother?
i can sense a trap lurking in identifying as the abscence of self. but that's just a failure to appreciate the beauty of the thing properly, even that would be redundant. i'll keep on eye on it though, just in case. maybe full identification with no-self is just a necessary stage in the movement to truth, something that passes quick enough if sense persists.
bit of speculation there, just my compulsive pessimism.

i guess the only question is how is this developed? how does growth happen? do i even need to worry about that?

again, back to what is seen right now - there's just the actions of a life living itself. less guilt. not a lot for 'me to do about it. 'me' is out of a job.

:)

this verse, from this song, from i see a darkness, by bonnie prince billy, seems to work right now;



I've been to a minor place
and I can say I like its face
if I am gone and with no trace
I will be in a minor place

shit. i almost feel embarrassed now that i seem to have got the trick that is too straight-forward to be called a trick. it's not just a retreat from error, it's a retreat from complication.

This is incredibly straightforward when you look and don't get lost in the mind trying to figure it out, because you won't.

what's the cringing from, whose does it belong to? a 'get over yourself' would work well for me here, because clearly it's a program from the thought-self, which is shown, as i look into it, to be a shadow puppet.

Exactly, a shadow puppet. Is it you?

how often to i have to look at this shell i've always taken myself for, to know that i am never going to mistake it again for a me? it's not like there's a big effort to see it. it's a split-second reminder.

Once you've truly seen this, you never have to remind yourself. Identification is broken, you can see it's a fictitious entity and was never you in the first place. Once you see the pattern, you can't un-see it.

Could you believe in Santa now, even if you wanted to?

and language here is going to start sounding ridiculous - how do 'i' not mistake it for 'me'?

Stop labeling this. What's looking?

whatever, 'i' can do all it wants, it wont change a thing in reality.

Exactly. It doesn't stop being true because you don't believe in it. True is without any belief. All we're doing is looking at reality. Stripping life of mystery and seeing what's real.

is there a time to develop this?

What do you mean develop this?

how did you do it?

Do what?

does it still throw up shadow-shapes against the cave-wall for you?

You'll still gets thoughts of self, but that's all they are. You've really gotta focus and look at the reality.

Thoughts clearly exist, we can see this. But what's behind it? Is there a me needed, or life just living?

sorry, not really going over your points, just rambling a little.

Stop rambling, start looking and seeing the reality to answer your own questions.

so, to describe what i see when i look for the shape called a self...
there's certainly a pitiful story of a self. it almost a remnant. like one of those raggedy shadow nasgul things from lord of the rings, all empty billowing cloak and a lot of bad air.
there's almost a temptation to look for and describe the 'real' self, to think that something else must be it, something simpler and purer and life affirming. but no, bad move, logic fail. life is affirmed, it doesn't need any me for that.

Yep, no 'me' needed. Just life living. No self, no controller.

the hunger for this illusion to keep itself fed in some way is observable. i almost feel sorry for it.
i mean, the sorrow is the feeling any empathic being would feel for any struggling creature. but the struggles of a shadow? why bother

It's been thought of as you for your whole life, and now it's being seen as an illusion. All this is is a subtle shift of perspective, a seeing of what's real behind and the delusion and mystery.

Just observe it, watch it.

i can sense a trap lurking in identifying as the abscence of self. but that's just a failure to appreciate the beauty of the thing properly, even that would be redundant. i'll keep on eye on it though, just in case. maybe full identification with no-self is just a necessary stage in the movement to truth, something that passes quick enough if sense persists.

You're starting to make an identity out of no self. See how the mind likes to label and say 'ah, THIS is me.'?

Watch this happening, and see it as thoughts again.

Is it really who you are, or the mind trying to identity with something again?

bit of speculation there, just my compulsive pessimism.

Push this. Test it. What's true won't go away when you really focus on it. Run the numbers yourself.

i guess the only question is how is this developed? how does growth happen? do i even need to worry about that?

It's not growth, it's deepening. Keep looking at what comes up, just see what's real.

See the space in which all this happens, this void. Stare into that. Stare into the void, and really notice the space in which these thoughts arise.

again, back to what is seen right now - there's just the actions of a life living itself. less guilt. not a lot for 'me to do about it.

Always look at what's seen. Focus, and don't let your focus drift off into ramblings. Look at the reality. Keep your focus there.

'me' is out of a job.

When liberating, it's always great to hear how people describe it when they see the reality. You've posted some great quotes man, it's always exciting to watch someone wake up from the delusion.

:)

Indeed.

okay, i want to get this baby nailed to the floor.
(eugh, i mean, well...)

am feeling slightly frazzled with this. it's ordinariness is almost frightening. mundane and powerful. like an earthquake.
(or, whatever, i don't know).
i felt a slight need to go all christian-mystic and say that the things i thought i owned are no longer mine, but god's, as they always have been. but that could raise 'issues'. ;p
rather, it's like 'Life' has become an entity now that THIS entity has looked through itself. and i don't feel the need to say 'I am Life' or anything, it's just cool the way it is.

thinking is going on for sure, playing its game, throwing up something useful or relevant every now and then, but the 'i' in that process is not kept separate anymore from thought - it's not apart in some special place, it's not composed of any other material except thought. thinker is a thought. duh.
this knowledge or whatever has always been here, but it's just that constant cycling of the identification process that throws up enough noise to make it missed.
thanks for seeing the obvious for me.

i'm really interested in exploring this realm, out of the cocoon.
it's definitely a 'space' in which stuff can happen. it's just, spacious, like i've become permeable and stopped blocking the flow.
not that i have the hang of it yet or anything, really baby steps, but this is the reason i got interested in zen an' all that crap in the first place, because it points towards THIS!

these quotes of yours will keep me on track, i'll remember them, make them my own.

See how the mind likes to label and say 'ah, THIS is me.'?

Watch this happening, and see it as thoughts again.

Is it really who you are, or the mind trying to identity with something again?

Push this. Test it. What's true won't go away when you really focus on it. Run the numbers yourself.

It's not growth, it's deepening. Keep looking at what comes up, just see what's real.

See the space in which all this happens, this void. Stare into that. Stare into the void, and really notice the space in which these thoughts arise.

Always look at what's seen. Focus, and don't let your focus drift off into ramblings. Look at the reality. Keep your focus there.

thanks for the relatively pain free birthing here. it's been a long labor.

gratitude brother.