Thanks for the encouragement. I’ve gone down with a cold and am feeling a bit rotten today.

Sorry I missed out the word ‘No’ (as in ‘no need’) in posting the first answer to Q3.

I see our posts have crossed a bit. I’ve been putting thoughts down while you’ve been posting again.

I’ll go back to Qs ...

You're right. I had left out the word 'NO' in my answer to Q3. At the moment I can't see how to re-thread it though.
I'll go over Q2 and 3 again. Sorry.

Ok I'll go back to that one. it relates to Q2 doesn't it. I'll look more closely!
R

Hi Vivi

Happy experiencer here!

Here are my answers

1) Is there a 'me', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?
No. No!

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works.
When attention turns inward to reflect on experience itself ...

OK. Questions in. As you suggest, I'll take my time.
Thanks
R
x

There is nothing missing. All the usual stuff is still there. What need is there for there to be a 'me' as a place for it to be happening in? I 'imagine' or 'think' I control stuff, but that's not how it happens when I really look. Dropping the perspective of an 'I' – nothing in the experience ...

I was showing the line of reasoning. There is no controller, no thinker, AND there's no actor or intender. They're all the same kind of posited concepts. Stuff happens, thoughts, activity ... I can't say how or why any of it happens. There is no 'experience' of me! I'm only inferred. There is stuff ...

Hi again

the second page of posts confused me. I'm being thwarted by technology. And sorry, my iPad extended your name to 'Vividly'!

You're taking a big eraser to my habitual way of thinking. If there is no controller, no thinker, then there's no actor or intender is there? Thought arises, action ...

Hi Vividly

I'm still here. Hope all's well with you.
R

Hi Vivi

I know you'll not reply today. I hope you're having a nice time.

This one brought up resistance. But looking closely I see that making choices is no more explainable than thoughts arising. Choices (and decisions) are made, but I don't know how. The process is no more open to me than ...

No. I see. None of them can be controlled. No identifiable controller! So why invent one?
: )

Hah. Thanks. Yes, it's simply yet another fictional construct. An 'explanation' that isn't needed. The notion of 'understanding' is an addictive compulsion – but also a construct.

Hi Vivi
What I’m calling the ‘ego’ is not something I actually experience as such. I use the word to label the source of the flow of stories. I can’t know what it is. I’m talking about it metaphorically I suppose. By giving it a name I’m not saying it is ‘real’. But somehow there are stories.
Happy ...

Hi Vivi

A succinct question! Answer less likely to be so. ; )

Hmm. The thoughtstream tends to be (isn’t always) a commentary on, interpretation of or reaction to experience. This is a kind of self-story-telling. I (experiencer) am sceptical about those stories. Neutral stuff is easier to sift or ...

Thoughts come from somewhere mysterious. No I'm not in control of them. But I can choose whether to attend to them or not. Some seem more worth paying attention to than others. Some seem to come from a better (more sane/healthy/balanced) place than others. A lot of them are just unhelpful or neutral ...