I'm not sure how it would be possible to function without it, as actions are based to a great extent on beliefs.
There are thoughts, and beliefs but you've just said, at the start of this post, that you are not the thinker of thoughts or believer of beliefs.
When you said that you were stating it FROM DIRECT EXPERIENTIAL EVIDENCE.
So when you said that, you were speaking about REALITY as DIRECTLY as you could ever hope to be able to assess it!!
So whose beliefs?
Yes, there are thoughts showing up, and there are beliefs showing up, and there is doing showing up, but has there ever been an "I" involved in any of it - EXCEPT as an idea generated by THOUGHT?
They're the beliefs that are being experienced here. They're still here regardless of whether or not there is an I. I can't control them.
Yes, quite correct. That's MUCH clearer. So there are beliefs that show up 'here', but they are not your beliefs because, as you've said, you're not the thinker of thoughts or believer of beliefs.
And, just like thoughts, you have no control over them. So if these beliefs are not your beliefs, do these beliefs affect YOU? We know that beliefs affect thoughts, but since you're neither the believer of beliefs nor the thinker of thoughts, do they have any effect on YOU?
It would require the decision to live based on the idea that thoughts were not true.
No it would not. You would have to be a thinker of thoughts to make a decision to live a certain way. Whatever thoughts pop up will pop up a they always have. They will continue to speak about an "I" that needs to do things, and doing will continue to be done.
Are you the thinker of those thoughts, or the decider of decisions, or the doer of that doing?
No, but I seem to be the experiencer of those things. I don't know whether or not that is actually true.
What is this "experiencer"? Is there ANY difference at all between the experience and the experiencer? If so what is it? Remember to stay true to direct experiential evidence in your answer.
What "I" is there to function? What is this "I" that you speak about? The thinker of thoughts? The doer of doing?
There seems to be an I, but I'm not sure whether or not there is one. If there isn't, there is still functioning, or the lack of it.
Agreed, there is still functioning, and it's always been going on, but where was the "I" in any of it, except for in thought?
Thought takes care of itself, and functioning takes care of itself, but where is the thinker and doer aside from in thought?
There's the desire to be functional, and not to be living on a park bench because I can't support myself. There's the belief that the belief in an elsewhere is necessary to be functional.
And they are nothing but thoughts and beliefs. You once also believed there was a thinker of thoughts.
Direct experiential evidence gives you no reason to think that those beliefs are real either. If there has never been an elsewhere, and you were never the thinker of thoughts, or the believer of beliefs, then obviously functioning has been going on just fine without any of that - regardless of the belief.
Yes, there are thoughts, and beliefs, and functioning, but where is the "I" in any of that? That stuff has been happening all along, but (excluding thoughts that can not be verified through direct experiential evidence) has there EVER been an "I" in there?
There's the belief that the belief in an elsewhere is necessary to be functional.
Yes it's a thought constructed belief that you are not the believer of. You know of beliefs that thought says are necessary, but thought also says that there is a thinker of thoughts. You've discovered that's not true.
If you're not the thinker of thoughts, where is the "I" that believes things?
I don't believe things, but there seems to be an I which experiences having beliefs.
Ok, let's look at this "I" that is not the thinker or believer of anything but "seems" to be there.
The conundrum is that there is a sense that all of this is known "by something", and yet no "I" can be found that is doing this knowing. So what is doing this knowing if not an "I"? I'm going to try to put into words what can't really be put into words. Try to follow this, but don't worry if you can't. If you keep staying true to direct evidence you'll see this for yourself.
This 'knowing', that seems to know stuff, is what we refer to as awareness. Thought says that there is a separation between this awareness (knowing) and the stuff that it is aware of (known), but you've discovered that there is no such separation in direct experience. A thought, emotion, sensation, or perception, can not in ANY WAY be separated from the awareness/knowing of it.
So the 'knowing-known' are absolutely and completely inseparable. They arise as ONE("this"). The knowing, and known are indivisibly "this" (a universe of thought, sensation, emotion, people, and planets) that is known. And the knowing-known' knows that it is known.
Are you in any way different or separate from this 'knowing-known'?
Like I say, if the above confused you, just forget it. It will do its own 'work'.
This I can't be found anywhere, and if it exists, must be outside experience somewhere.
Ok, so excluding thoughts that can't be confirmed through direct experiential evidence, you can find no "I" and no "elsewhere".
So if thought is making stuff up, like a thinker of thoughts, and an idea of an elsewhere, and there really is no "I" or no "elsewhere", what is it that knows of this?