Ok. We have this one in the bag. We'll leave it for now and come back to it later.I don't find any I in direct experience doing anything. And, I don't have any proof, or even any evidence, that I am the thinker of thoughts. Thoughts seem to be happening on their own without any me making them happen.And when you do that do you find an "I" in there doing all of that? Remember to judge only from direct experience.
We're not asking you to tell us who/what is the thinker of thoughts, we're asking you whether you are the thinker of them. Do you have any proof whatsoever that you are the thinker of thoughts? If so what is it? I'm going to assume that you're going to rely only on direct evidence, and are intelligent enough to think about this very carefully before answering.
Ok, so there is no evidence of a me in direct experience. This one is almost in the bag.If there is a difference between "self" and "personal I", I don't know what it is. I use the terms interchangeably.Here you're jumping the gun again. We aren't asking you about the self, we're asking you about the personal I. We're trying to discover whether the "personal I" is anything but a thought. When the mind says "is there a me here?" what does direct evidence tell you? Do you find a "me" in direct experience, or do you just find perceptions?
The mind says that there is a me here, direct evidence says that there is no me here in this experience.
Do you see that is just a thought? Nobody has said that you don't exist, we've only said that you're not what thought says you are. Let's not worry about what you are until we've discovered what you're not.There is no me in direct experience. This doesn't necessarily mean there is no me, though. It means that if there is a me, it must be somewhere else besides experience.
What makes you think that there is anything outside direct experience? This is an important question, please think carefully about it and answer as fully as possible.This is why I'm not sure how I would ever see that there is no me, since I can't see outside of experience to see that there can't be a me anywhere.
Ok, it seems that we're making some progress now. Yes, direct experience does say that there is just experience and awareness of experience, and these can not be in any way denied. It also says that "I" or "me" is not necessary for this awareness/experience.No, there is no separation between experience and awareness.Ok, now that is a valid observation. In direct experience do you find any separation whatsoever between the experience and the awareness of it? Do you find any separation whatsoever between a thought and the awareness of it?From the standpoint of experience, there's just this experience and everything is part of it.
Do you find any separation whatsoever between ANYTHING 'here' and the awareness of it? If not then why does a "thing" in 'this' (the entire field of perception) have to be aware of 'this'. Why can the field of perception (the universe appearing 'here' in this moment) not be aware of itself? Not the stuff in the field of perception - the entire field of perception as One completely indivisible whole?
Is there ANYTHING in direct experience that says this is not the case?
The thoughts about I say that I am aware. However, direct experience says that experience and awareness are here, and there's no sign of any I in this experience. It would seem that no I is necessary to have awareness, and that therefore some of the thoughts about "I" are not true.
This is much more difficult, and I only brought it up in order to try to break the impasse that we were having. This is something that takes a while to realise, and is really just a logical step that you naturally arrive at once the personal I is truly seen through. But having raised it I would be unkind not to satisfy your curiosity :)I'm not sure what you mean about the field of perception being aware of itself.
You'll notice that, relying purely on direct experience, you've discovered that there is no "I" to be found in direct experience. What you do find is experience and awareness of experience. You've also discovered that the two are actually in no way separate - awareness and experience are seamlessly and inextricable ONE. You've also discovered that there are no other awarenesses or "other's-experiences" in direct experience. So you've discovered that the universe of direct experience is purely experiencing and awareness. The universe of direct experience is therefore the "field of perception". Now we know that the "field of perception" is just experiences and awareness as ONE UNDIVIDED WHOLE, so clearly the "universe" or "field of perception" is aware of itself.
And it is the ONLY universe in existence anywhere!! There are no "other"awarenesses. There are no other "fields of perception". You are the only one here. I and Edward are appearances in you ALONE.
The only thoughts that are true are the ones that can be verified by direct experience.Yes, what thought says about anything is not necessarily true. This is one thought saying this, though. The rest of the thoughts don't agree. Or rather, those thoughts which are seen as being true, are still seen as being true, even though one thought which is seen as being true says that the others aren't necessarily.
Well this shows some fantastic insight Edward. It's way in advance of what we're working on with you. The answer is that you're right. All objects including planets and people are abstractions of one indivisible whole, and they're random abstractions generated by thought. In essence there is just "this" and it is aware of itself, and thoughts, perceptions, and objects are just random abstractions of "this". Does that make any sense to you?I don't know whether or not I can discover which thoughts are verifiable through direct experience. Can you give me a simple example of this?
A simple example might be, "The book is on the table", but the result for me is not so simple. The book seems to be on the table, but I would definitely not say that I am 100% certain that it is. I'm not certain that there is such a thing as a book or a table, and there's something within me which says that there definitely is no such thing as a book or a table or any other object, that there are no objects.