Poll: Can you self-observe 100% of the time?

[Laura]

sinimat wrote:

What about focusing on the hara (aka tan dien, or belly). Eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism, teaches of its importance. However, there are not many books written on it. Coinsidence (spelling?), or is it the ghouls/lizzies trying to hide the truth?

Personally, I think breathing into the belly, and focusing on that is good. I too, am trying to do this 100% all of the time. However, I'm just starting smile

What you have described above has nothing to do with "self-observing." As has been noted in this thread also, even the concept of "self-observing" is somewhat uncertain. However, Gurdjieff did say some things about it that might help to understand it better and these are reflected in an essay by Jeanne De Salzmann:

Gurdjieff wrote:

First Initiation

You will see that in life you receive exactly what you give. Your life is the mirror of what you are. It is in your image. You are passive, blind, demanding. You take all, you accept all, without feeling any obligation. Your attitude toward the world and toward life is the attitude of one who has the right to make demands and to take, who has no need to pay or to earn. You believe that all things are your due, simply because it is you! All your blindness is there! None of this strikes your attention. And yet this is what keeps one world separate from another world.

You have no measure with which to measure yourselves. You live exclusively according to "I like" or "I don't like," you have no appreciation except for yourself. You recognize nothing above you-theoretically, logically, perhaps, but actually no. That is why you are demanding and continue to believe that everything is cheap and that you have enough in your pocket to buy everything you like. You recognize nothing above you, either outside yourself or inside. That is why, I repeat, you have no measure and live passively according to your likes and dislikes.

Yes, your "appreciation of yourself" blinds you. It is the biggest obstacle to a new life. You must be able to get over this obstacle, this threshold, before going further. This test divides men into two kinds: the "wheat" and the "chaff." No matter how intelligent, how gifted, how brilliant a man may be, if he does not change his appreciation of himself, there will be no hope for an inner development, for a work toward self-knowledge, for a true becoming. He will remain such as he is all his life. The first requirement, the first condition, the first test for one who wishes to work on himself is to change his appreciation of himself. He must not imagine, not simply believe or think, but see things in himself which he has never seen before, see them actually. His appreciation will never be able to change as long as he sees nothing in himself. And in order to see, he must learn to see; this is the first initiation of man into self-knowledge.

First of all, he has to know what he must look at. When he knows, he must make efforts, keep his attention, look constantly with persistence. Only through maintaining his attention, and not forgetting to look, one day, perhaps, he will be able to see. If he sees one time he can see a second time, and if that continues he will no longer be able not to see. This is the state to be looked for, it is the aim of our observation; it is from there that the true wish will be born, the irresistible wish to become: from cold we shall become warm, vibrant; we shall be touched by our reality.

Today we have nothing but the illusion of what we are. We think too highly of ourselves. We do not respect ourselves. In order to respect myself, I have to recognize a part in myself which is above the other parts, and my attitude toward this part should bear witness to the respect that I have for it. In this way I shall respect myself. And my relations with others will be governed by the same respect.

You must understand that all the other measures-talent, education, culture, genius-are changing measures, measures of detail. The only exact measure, the only unchanging, objective real measure is the measure of inner vision. I see-I see myself-by this, you have measured. With one higher real part, you have measured another lower part, also real. And this measure, defining by itself the role of each part, will lead you to respect for yourself.

But you will see that it is not easy. And it is not cheap. You must pay dearly. For bad payers, lazy people, parasites, no hope. You must pay, pay a lot, and pay immediately, pay in advance. Pay with yourself. By sincere, conscientious, disinterested efforts. The more you are prepared to pay without economizing, without cheating, without any falsification, the more you will receive. And from that time on you will become acquainted with your nature. And you will see all the tricks, all the dishonesties that your nature resorts to in order to avoid paying hard cash. Because you have to pay with your ready-made theories, with your rooted convictions, with your prejudices, your conventions, your "I like" and "I don't like." Without bargaining, honestly, without pretending. Trying "sincerely" to see as you offer your counterfeit money.

Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. That this lying rules you to such an extent that you cannot control it any more. You are the prey of lying. You lie, everywhere. Your relations with others-lies. The upbringing you give, the conventions-lies. Your teaching-lies. Your theories, your art-lies. Your social life, your family life-lies. And what you think of yourself-lies also.

But you never stop yourself in what you are doing or in what you are saying because you believe in yourself. You must stop inwardly and observe. Observe without preconceptions, accepting for a time this idea of lying. And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself, without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never before seen in yourself until this day. You will see that you are different from what you think you are. You will see that you are two. One who is not, but takes the place and plays the role of the other. And one who is, yet so weak, so insubstantial, that he no sooner appears than he immediately disappears. He cannot endure lies. The least lie makes him faint away. He does not struggle, he does not resist, he is defeated in advance. Learn to look until you have seen the difference between your two natures, until you have seen the lies, the deception in yourself. When you have seen your two natures, that day, in yourself, the truth will be born.

This essay was originally published in Gurdjieff: Essays and Reflections on the Man and His Teaching, New York: Continuum, 1996, edited by Jacob Needleman and George Baker, from the French edition compiled by Bruno de Panafieu. Earlier versions of this essay-sometimes under the variant title, The Only Exact Measure-have been incorrectly attributed to G. I. Gurdjieff.

Copyright 2003 Gurdjieff Electronic Publishing
Featured: Fall 2003 Issue, Vol. VII (1)
Revision: November 1, 2003

 

[Guest]

What about focusing on the hara (aka tan dien, or belly). Eastern philosophy, especially Buddhism, teaches of its importance. However, there are not many books written on it. Coinsidence (spelling?), or is it the ghouls/lizzies trying to hide the truth?

Personally, I think breathing into the belly, and focusing on that is good.

Actually, I found quite a bit of literature on the subject. You can google Qi Gong or Taoist Alchemy, and most martial arts practices advocate Tan Tien meditation and breathing. And if you do read the literature or even talk to an expert, you will learn that the practice has the primary benefit of increasing health.

You will also notice that the practice is quite mechanical with a breathing, and sensing rhythm that albeit spontaneous is very regular. Technically, what you observe is the mechanical flow of sensations and breath. You do not observe for true "I" here, and if you do it is really independent of this practice.

The practice itself (according to Taoist practices) is to generate Qi energy, which is only a first step to further practices. In my view, these may have originated for the purpose of inner integration, but have become corrupted along the way, leaving only the mechanical aspects these days.

So while I personally wouldn't knock the practice, and while it is a good precourser to getting a sense of the energy flows in the body, which can be useful even in self-observation (because the body sense is part of what we are observing, but not the only thing), it is best to view it as a preperatory and not really a necessary step in terms of self-observation as discussed here, which in my view is the practice of inner discernment, as the quote above describes.

 

[sinimat]

That makes sense and thanks for your response.

I do feel like it is a first step. For me, I will take this step and at some point the second step will become clear.

I participated in a zen meditation group awhile ago. The first step in zazen, or meditation, is counting the inhales and exhales. The next step is to count only the exhales or inhales. The next step is to just observe the breath. I believe after that, they can either practice that or work with koans. I do remember being taught to observe the breath through the belly, meaning that the belly is the center of your observation.

I think this highly relates to this concept of self-observance. Where is your observance point? Where is the mind that you are observing with?

I think we are possibly connected to this universal mind through the tan dien. That is why the taoists utilize this center.

I agree that the mechanistic approach is diluted and corrupted, as you say. The zen buddhist teacher who lead the meditation group, did tell me to make it more of an organic, natural practice, and not to make it mechanistic. I think that is a good thing.

Namaste

 

[Guest]

I think this highly relates to this concept of self-observance. Where is your observance point? Where is the mind that you are observing with?

That's the thing, self-observation as described here has no observance point. All of you is the observance point, and the observer is also non-local in physical terms. Others posting on this forum have also undergone similar disciplines and turned to more abstract self-observance as a "step up", as it were. There is no reason why more abstract self-observance can't complement your current practices. I think, also, it would be useful to check out this thread for those viewpoints.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=524

All in all, it is a useful technique, and a good first step if you are so inclined toward it. My point is that these methods often lead to more methods of localized concentration, which can be helpful, but seriously do not connect with the universal. They connect you with your body and awaken energetic sensing within the body.

So it may be helpful to consider how others (such as those commenting on the thread linked above) took their second steps, just to broaden your options.

 

[Gillian]

I'm still haven't read all the stuff related to this forum but I've practiced self-observation for a while so I hope I can contribute something here. I find that trying to self-observe indefinitely eventually reaches a point where the "observer" part of me can build up "debris" - I think that creating a strong attachment to just being self-observant creates a strong "I" in itself. I had a qigong teacher once who used to say that too much yang will become yin and too much yin will become yang. I didn't know what he was talking about and just thought he was saying the usual stuff - but I kind of get it now. Self-observation starts off being very gentle - but it can change over the weeks and months to become very "rigid". Hope I described that alright - I'm not the best with articulating this sort of stuff.

 

[Guest]

I find that trying to self-observe indefinitely eventually reaches a point where the "observer" part of me can build up "debris" - I think that creating a strong attachment to just being self-observant creates a strong "I" in itself. I had a qigong teacher once who used to say that too much yang will become yin and too much yin will become yang. I didn't know what he was talking about and just thought he was saying the usual stuff - but I kind of get it now. Self-observation starts off being very gentle - but it can change over the weeks and months to become very "rigid". Hope I described that alright - I'm not the best with articulating this sort of stuff.

I believe that when self-observation becomes rigid, it is not self-observation anymore, but identification with the resistance to it. Action results in reaction, and when we take a stance of self-observation resistance rears its ugly head, mostly because we are not participating in the programs, and so our observing self becomes targeted by them. They do not want to be seen, so they create discomfort.

If rigidity developes in self-observation, perhaps it is too yang, in the sense that instead of being a receptive state, it is a struggle to maintain a state labelled "self-observation". In that case, I believe, it might be useful to relax and release all ideas of self-observation or what it should be, and simply open to the here and now and what it has to offer.

On the other hand, even observing rigidity in ourselves can come from a standpoint of true I. So even though resistance accumulates, eventually it will spend itiself because we are not participating in it, simply letting it happen as something that is not really who we are. Eventually, underneath the rigidity a more fluid presence of self can become apparent.

Another thing I think is important is that these things take time. We took a life time to get conditioned, and deconditioning is a correspondingly gradual process, unless strong shocks are applied. And that is not always adviseable.

 

[noise]

I like this and agree with everything stated.. except:

EQ: If rigidity developes in self-observation, perhaps it is too yang, in the sense that instead of being a receptive state, it is a struggle to maintain a state labelled "self-observation". In that case, I believe, it might be useful to relax and release all ideas of self-observation or what it should be, and simply open to the here and now and what it has to offer.

And specifically:
EQ: "In that case, I believe, it might be useful to relax and release all ideas of self-observation or what it should be.."

Yeah we should all abandon self-observation and just fall back into the pre-approved state, the old zombie walk that we were used to. Since you've been struggling to maintain "self-observation" perhaps you should just rest and maybe go back to sleep. I could be wrong but I almost 'think' the statement hints toward that. I can see where becoming to rigid would put a stop to learning but lets not trick ourselves into thinking there is any reason to stop being self-observant.

 

[Russ]

For me, self remembering is seeing things how they are, such as - "hardly anything I believed is proven!", and everything, for a brief moment, is completely "new". I suppose its the realisation that experience itself is miraculous - why is the whole "story" here? Why is there anything at all, its all completely pointless! From that perspective, you can see how you "were" acting, like it was all real. But in this state, what is real is only direct experience. Its hard to explain but its like reaching the very basis of you existence, and looking at it all from the point of a "pure" observer, with no desire. So, that brings me to my next idea, which is that self observation is actually not possible without doing exactly that - you need self remembering in order to self observe, or you aren't able to observe yourself "clearly" enough.

For example the idea that you are a human being is just an idea, it should be seen as such. Its not to say whether its true or not, but that you just don't know. And so with all else. And when you make a decision to do something, its with the knowledge that you aren't fully aware, that you don't know, instead of wishfully thinking.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[The Gardener]

I can see where becoming to rigid would put a stop to learning but lets not trick ourselves into thinking there is any reason to stop being self-observant.

When observation becomes rigid, identification starts. This is what you say, noise. And this is where observation started: To stop identiification.
I dont see why this is a 'hint' to stop self observation. Can you elaborate on the 'trick' you see?

 

[anart]

I could be wrong, but I think he's merely pointing out that 'simply opening up to the here and now and what it has to offer' is exactly what one should not do, if they are trying to self-observe.

Basically, you either put forth a concerted effort, with all of your being, to wake up and de-program, or you don't - and 'opening up to here and now and all it has to offer' is, in no way, shape, or form, trying to wake up - the 'here and now' is an illusion - it is a trap, a dream, a realm of sleep. At least, this is how it seems to me, and, as I said, I could be mistaken.

In that case, I believe, it might be useful to relax and release all ideas of self-observation or what it should be, and simply open to the here and now and what it has to offer.

 

[Laura]

Henry has nailed the problem in his recent article on Mahraji what's his face:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/maharaji.php

One of the great New Age and Eastern religion memes is that of "living in the moment" or that "the present is all we have". Concretely, that often gets interpreted as "if it feels good, do it", if you are feeling "love" for someone, profit from it, benefit from it, live it while it lasts. Whatever you do, don't waste it. It is special, so live it now and don't worry about the future. Allow it to consume you. "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with."

But what if one has a different experience of the "Present" or the "Moment"?

Eugene Canseliet writes in the preface to the second edition of Fulcanelli's Dwellings of the Philosophers:

According to the meaning of the Latin word adeptus, the alchemist has then received the Gift of God, or even better, the Present, a cabalistic pun on the double meaning of the word, underlining that he thus enjoys the infinite duration of the Now.

So Canseliet speaks of the "infinite duration of the now". What can that possibly mean? Surely "now" is just a brief instant?

Mouravieff writes about the duration of the Present in Gnosis:

In reality, the Present is not known to endure, and in fact it has no duration. It does not last; all that lasts extends in Time, and so in fact automatically exists in the domain of the Future-Past. The expression: 'duration of the Present' is a convention. It gives easier access for our intelligence - which takes Time as an absolute category - to the notion of the Present, a category which is actually situated outside Time. From now on, whenever we use the conventionalized term 'the duration of the Present', we must take care not to lose this factor from view.

[...] It is in fact correct to measure the individual Present by means of units of Time; but when we do so we do not measure the Present itself, which has no measure, but the breadth of the slot through which we observe the film of the kaleidoscope, the film of life.

This is a very interesting comment: measuring the present is not done directly, but via the "breadth of the slot through which we observe the film of the kaleidoscope, the film of life." What can that mean?

Mouravieff continues:

Here is another example, chosen to help us better understand this mechanism which rules us.

Let us imagine a being without dimension, a living point endowed with the intelligence of the first dimension. Let us agree that this being lives on a geometrical line, let us say a curve. To him, his whole notion of space is reduced to three representations: what is in front, what is behind, and what is here. In addition, because his mind has no notion of a second dimension, which is necessary to visualize a curve, he believes that the curve on which he lives is a straight line.

The human being, three dimensional in space, is monodimensional in Time. He lives on a straight line in Time, and perceives nothing outside that line. All his notion of Time is reduced, in analogy to the above example, to three representations: ahead - the Future; behind him - the Past; and lastly here - the Present, which he conceives as without extension. But if, by appropriate exercises, our living point could acquire a sense of the second dimension, and if he is torn away from the geometrical line on which he lives, believing there is nowhere else - he would realize at that moment, very surprised, that it is possible for him not only to observe the point here, but simultaneously to observe two fragments of the line, one in front, and the other behind him.

How is it possible for us to tear ourselves away from the geometrical line on which we live? Is he talking about astral travel or some other form of paranormal experience? He is speaking of nothing of the sort. So how can we get this higher view on ourselves, a point from whence we can see both the past and the future so to speak?

Let us imagine an example.

Two people meet. They are both, from all appearances, on a spiritual path. Everything is wonderful, they enjoy a Love between them that neither has ever known before. It all seems perfect. However, as they get to know each other, one discovers that the words they share have different meanings, that the other is interpreting everything everywhere through the false and subjective "spirituality" of Maharaji.

No matter the arguments brought, the data presented, the person caught in the thrall of Maharaji is incapable of seeing the "Master" in his true colours.

The first may well have different forces pulling and pushing him. The heart, the emotional centre, full of this never-before-experienced Love will be wanting to paper over the differences, denying that they are important in the face of what it is feeling.

The intellectual centre, however, remembers previous experiences when small differences at the beginning, differences that were pushed aside and ignored, later emerged to create great pain and suffering to both individuals involved. It is able to project into the future and see the results of ignoring these lessons, so hard-won in the past.

That seeing of past and present is alive and vivid, so alive and vivid that it can't be shrugged off by saying to oneself "Ah, well, maybe this time it'll be different" or "the high I'm on now, so strong, so beautiful, will certainly be worth the problems later".

And all of this, the pleadings of the heart and the knowledge of the head are going on at the same moment. And if the intellectual centre can stay firm in the face of the emotional kicks, those kicks can be tempered and the emotional centre can be made to "see" the truth of the intellectual centre's wider view of past and present. The energy of the emotional centre changes its colour and a harmonious understanding of heart and head occurs.

At that moment, the slot through which the individual views the film of his or her life has widened - past, present and future merge to become the Present.

The Present expands by an expansion of our awareness, of what we can retain while the emotions are pulling us into a narrow view. Can the intellectual centre see what is real at the same time as the emotional centre and the moving centre just want it to find excuses and justifications? Can the work of all the centres be merged together into Knowledge?

We must regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future.

Consider an intelligence which, at any instant, could have a knowledge of all forces controlling nature together with the momentary conditions of all the entities of which nature consists. If this intelligence were powerful enough to submit all this data to analysis it would be able to embrace in a single formula the movements of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the lightest atoms; for it, nothing would be uncertain; the future and the past would be equally present to its eyes.

Pierre Laplace

 

[Cyre2067]

Along the lines of Laura's post, recently, as I've been practicing the art of self-ob, i've noticed that time does seem to stretch into a long instant. What i mean is, while im self-obing, it seems as if im in an instant all unto itself, the present seems to have duration to it.

Not sure if im expressing that clearly, or if its an idea that can be expressed, it may have to be experienced directly to be understood.

 

[noise]

Howdy,

I must have misinterpreted what was stated.
EQ: In that case, I believe, it might be useful to relax and release all ideas of self-observation or what it should be, and simply open to the here and now and what it has to offer.

ME:I'm perhaps missing something but to me it says "Stop self-observation" and relax. I'm certainly capable of tricking myself, but 'I think' that stopping self-observation (intentionally) is not the right thing for a person who can grasp its use, function and method. In my own experience I cannot even say I have even begun self-observation, there have been a time or two where I think/feel I was attaining something but again self-trickery may come into play.
So I don't agree that if someone who is capable of observing themselves (the reactionary machine..) should stop. In becoming to rigid with it I was implying that one should keep an open mind. For example I know chocolate ice-cream is good for everyone. If that is the case why did someone who has an allergic reaction die from my sureness?
Obviously with my lack of abilities (maybe experience is a better word) my view is pretty limited.

TG:When observation becomes rigid, identification starts. This is what you say, noise. And this is where observation started: To stop identiification. I dont see why this is a 'hint' to stop self observation. Can you elaborate on the 'trick' you see?

ME:I thought EQ's post or particularly that statement was somewhat misleading. I could be wrong however. Maybe I posted ignorantly. I just thought I saw some twisting going on to the extent of stop and take a break, don't struggle, perhaps you can fall asleep and get back to thinking you know everything. Maybe I am just reading into it too deeply or I am simply ignorant, then again there is the possibility I am intentionally misleading, but I strongly felt the statement was misleading to a degree.

I'm more than willing to be brought up to speed.

 

[Russ]

I think its quite simple. Just accept what you don't know! It all starts to come together, when you learn that there is so much that YOU don't know. Nearly everything that people believe is UNFOUNDED. Its this unfounded perception that locks us into illusion, In My Opinion. Of course, just saying that doesn't make it happen, you have to really examine, really look, with the openness and innocence of empty space. You literally become empty space, in order to see, to contain all - a vase cannot contain everything if it is restricted by measurements.

It is not proven that we "got into" this situation. Its here, thats all. How do we see our situation clearly? We must work to know it, as it IS, not how things are going to be, or have been, imo.

Our situation is SIMPLE, imo. We are too scared to see the simplicity of it, and so we hide it with complexity. Knowing something is a microcosm of spiritual awakening, when you know something, it is simple. Thats what I have found anyway...

The C's said: "Your mind represents all that exists." "You are all a duplicate of the universe within which you dwell."

I think this ties in with what I am saying. The unmanifest is creation, the manifest is a reflection of creation. You can't SEE creation, you can only see its reflection (and think about - what limits are there to what creation can create? What level of illusion can it create?). Its not just creation either, but all that is unmanifest - that which is the reflection of manifestation. There are lots of things which can't be seen, they aren't "physical". The unmanifest is what "learns", and the manifested is a reflection of what is learnt as lessons. I think a lot of people think that there is a need to "lose 3D", expel it, but if you done that, you wouldn't be able to communicate with people that live there. Like the C's say, you retain it as a function of your understanding (if thats what they meant anyway). There is a need to explain things within the belief of time, in order to break people out of the exclusive belief of it - to use the illusion as a means to reveal the illusion and therefore reality.

Here, I think, is a good way to shock into self remembering: Stand up and look down, look at your vision, and see your body streaming from it. Look at your legs - you believe that they go down, but if you actually look at your vision without that belief, they can only go "UP". If you drew your vision on a piece of paper, you would see that your legs go from the bottom of the paper up to the middle of the sheet (btw - where do your legs go "up" from??). They do not only go "down", its only an assumption that they do. This kind of thinking can shock you into realising how you strongly believed that your legs went down, and now its so obvious that its not necessarily true... isn't it? Can anyone see the benefit in this?

The benefits I think are mainly to do with not being locked into a single way of looking at things, and the benefit of that is to not be driven by "exterior" influences, such as being afraid, or overcome with desire, the benefits of that is freedom, the benefit of freedom is witnessing the everlasting, wonderous, miracle of creation. I know that sounds like new age garbage because it sounds good, but consider that the new age program is taking effect in a different way - "what sounds good is automatically wrong". Its neither right nor wrong until you know it is though.

 

[noise]

Well maybe your right I do not know a thing. My perception though is that one does not relax and turn it of if one is able to self-remember. I think it would be factual to state though that if one IS capable of it, one would be aiming to attain that they are seeking to do it 100% of the time.

Quote: http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=42&lsel=S

"This is the 4th Way practice of dividing attention. Normally, one is in a state of constantly shifting identification. Sellf-remembering can be used to break this automation.

In its basic form, the practice involves being aware of one's inner state, including body, emotions and thinking, while also paying attention to an external object or activity. Self-remembering can bring presence of consciousness into human activity which usually is mechanical and simply happens.

Self-remembering is a prerequisite of self-knowledge and work on the self. Self-remembering is not simply analysis of self based on past data. It is by definition an activity that takes place in the present and concerns the present. It is not for example 'recapitulation,' which concerns the past.

A simple exercise of self-remembering is becoming conscious of one's body, emotion and thought and then alternatingly look at objects, while holding all these present to one's attention. One notices that one very easily falls into identification, where attention is drawn to a single object from its divided state.

Self-remembering in the middle of emotional shocks is specially difficult but also very valuable to the Work. Repeated practice of this goes in the direction of forming a constant I which is less and less subject to being captured into identification with passing circumstance. This is essential for forming cohesive being, intent and eventually capacity to 'do' in the 4th Way meaning of the term."

My theory based on that is that by the use of self-remembering one is able to fuse the centers which I have limited understanding. "Just accept what you don't know!" I believe I am acceptant of that fact. I just don't find what I understand of these concepts to be in line with the statement EQ wrote: "In that case, I believe, it might be useful to relax and release all ideas of self-observation or what it should be, and simply open to the here and now and what it has to offer." Which to me sounds like, just stop, take a break, rest.
As I said all along I could be wrong, but I am trying to use the concepts that I am grasping and what I THINK I have understood thus far do not imply resting, relax, take a break.. but are more related to work, understand, wake-up. Correct me if I am misinterpreting the facts.
I'm not arguing anyones point I just find simply that I have an issue with that one sentence and that is all. At the level I am at in any of this is more to the tune of *spark* some slight self-observation *spark* off. -To the tune of it is not even something I can 'do' but something that has sparked once or twice and I aim to be able to do it and keep it until I am able to integrate it fully and actively and it becomes a constant.. thus 'the "I"' I believe is not something once found a person would desire to toss away, take a break from but mearly be.
In terms of accepting I don't know are you implying that you DO know? If it is that you do then were there ever slight sparks toward the beginning? Certainly I could be BS'ing us both but I have not the intention to lie to you but more particularly myself. Though again my perception may not have the experience you have to make measure of my tricking myself as in, you may recall the times you tricked yourself and they sounded something like what I have implied.
Salutations!