Here

[Bella]

Hi Hawthorne,

You did very well with the exercise. The next questions are also about thoughts. Please start in the same way, by sitting for a few minutes, observing your thoughts. After the few minutes, shift your attention to the questions below. This time the focus will be on looking for the separate self that is having these thoughts.

Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
“I think” - What is 'I'? What is the one that thinks?
What is the thinker of thoughts?
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?
Do you think thoughts or you are just ‘being thought’?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

Please go through these questions and answer and quote them one-by-one. LOOK well! Take your time.

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?

"I" want to write " I can't find an I" but apparently "I" can if "I" can't ...?
I have not yet found an I that generates thoughts.
But yet I continue to refer to "Me" when I write to you. There's nothing wrong with that, but it appears as a paradox, right ?
I can say "I can't find an 'I'" and that makes sense to 'me'. A bit of a mind-bender. Of course, the confusion is a thought too.

“I think” - What is 'I'? What is the one that thinks?

Thoughts labelled differently.

What is the thinker of thoughts?

Apparently it is a brain structure. This inquiry shows that there is no 'someone'. There must be 'something' from which thoughts originate, which would appear to be the physiological structure of the brain and body, by elimination.

Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?

So far, the thinker of thought has not been found.

could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?

In searching for the "I", all that appears are thoughts. It certainly seems that "I, the thinker" could be a thought.

Do you think thoughts or you are just ‘being thought’?

Thoughts just happen and they have nothing to do with 'me existing' or not. The entire concept of 'me' is apparently a rumour or something like a religion or a language- it's the environment surrounding a person and therefore invisible until questioned.

Do I think thoughts... No. Thoughts simply have a quality which is labelled "me" sometimes. Sometimes they dont. The tendency to label them is a thought, and the intention to not label them is a thought. There's no "me" in this anywhere.
So, yes, we are "being thought". It is a cool double entendre - is that intentional? Being thought by what? Or just being thought like one is just being awake or being curious or being human.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

In the course of this experiment, it was not possible to prevent any given thought from appearing. Similarly to how it is difficult to write without the use of the word "I' or "me", it is difficult to think without encountering "I" or "me".
Especially given that trying not to think is also a thought, it seems difficult to prevent a thought, although maybe some people can do it.
Sometimes it seems that thoughts cease for a time, but to do this deliberately is unknown to me.
Even in a float tank or in a long retreat, thoughts come and go. So in my experience, including this immediate inquiry, thoughts are not preventable, and neither is "I".

[Bella]

Hi Hawthorne,

There's nothing wrong with that, but it appears as a paradox, right ? 

Weird as it seems, it’s totally ok. The ‘I’ will continue to manifest. Also when its illusory nature is fully recognised. We need it to express ourselves. It is just we cease to believe it actually exists.

Apparently it is a brain structure. This inquiry shows that there is no 'someone'. There must be 'something' from which thoughts originate, which would appear to be the physiological structure of the brain and body, by elimination.

Try not to guess, but only look for what is actually there. If you suspect something is there, go and look for it. From where do thoughts originate? Can you find it?

In searching for the "I", all that appears are thoughts.

Good!

It certainly seems that "I, the thinker" could be a thought.

Is it? Is there a thinker outside the thought with content “I am the thinker”? What is the actual/direct experience of ‘thinker’?

Being thought by what?

Look well in your experience. Is there something behind/underneath the thoughts?

Thoughts just happen and they have nothing to do with 'me existing' or not.

Very good. Is it totally clear to you that you are not your thoughts?

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Thank you again for your amazingly prompt and thoughtful reply.
I need a little more time to answer these questions. I will respond tomorrow.
Best,
Hawthorne.

[Bella]

Thanks for letting me know

[Hawthorne]

From where do thoughts originate? Can you find it?

I suspect the silence is the origin of thoughts. I tried to approach this methodically. First, since I needed to isolate a thought, I stilled the mind until it was quiet and I could watch a new thought emerge. A new thought did not emerge until the last one ended. So it appeared that it was the 'gap' or the 'space' where a new thought came from. However, I am not entirely sure I wasn't missing something in the gap. Perhaps there's something deeper?
Would I know this 100% clearly, for sure, if I saw/experienced it?

I wanted to write more here but I am honestly just not sure about this.

Is it? Is there a thinker outside the thought with content “I am the thinker”? What is the actual/direct experience of ‘thinker’?

When I search for the 'thinker', all that seems to appear are more thoughts or moments of quiet without thoughts. The intention to seek for a thinker seems to spur further thinking and is itself a thought.
Am I not finding a thinker because there isn't one, or because my mind isn't sharp enough? I don't remember ever seeing a thinker, even on a long retreat or whatever. Certainly not this afternoon.
I want to say there is not 'thinker' but they must come from somewhere.
How can I get clearer on this?

Is there something behind/underneath the thoughts?

I can discern sensations, and silence. Silence seems to underly every thought. There could be something behind or under that as well, but I don't know. Am I going beyond it or coming back out of it? Would it be easy to tell? I am looking for clear and certain phenomenon to describe, so I'm not finding anything fitting those criteria on this question.

Is it totally clear to you that you are not your thoughts?

Yes, completely. I'm not there anywhere. It's plain to see. It's a very anticlimactic realisation.

[Bella]

Hi Hawthorne,

I suspect the silence is the origin of thoughts. … So it appeared that it was the 'gap' or the 'space' where a new thought came from. However, I am not entirely sure I wasn't missing something in the gap. Perhaps there's something deeper? 
Would I know this 100% clearly, for sure, if I saw/experienced it?

In this inquiry we focus on direct or actual experience. So your looking was on the right spot. Experience is made up from our senses. That is the 5 physical senses and thought. So everything that is there, can be broken down to those 6 sense bases. Even in the gap between thoughts, other senses can be discerned. Only thought is absent.
The next thought is not there and the next moment it suddenly is. As if it suddenly popped up out of nothing, full content. Thoughts are just there when they are there. And when they are not there anymore, then they are just simply not there.

Can it be discerned that anything appears in ‘silence’/the gap between thoughts? Or is it just at first there is nothing , and then there is a thought (full content)?

I want to say there is not 'thinker' but they must come from somewhere. 
How can I get clearer on this?

How can anything else than that what is known with the 5 physical senses and thought, be known? Is is possible?

There could be something behind or under that as well, but I don't know

Exactly, you can’t know it, because there is no sense experience. There is nothing known.

I am looking for clear and certain phenomenon to describe, so I'm not finding anything fitting those criteria on this question.

The only phenomena we are looking for, are that what is known by the 5 physical senses and thought. That is what you described. You can’t describe what is not there. So you’re doing well as it is.

B:Is it totally clear to you that you are not your thoughts?

H: Yes, completely. I'm not there anywhere. It's plain to see.

Great! This is the kind of clarity we’re looking for.

I’m going to write some statements about thoughts. Please read them careful, and see if you are clear on them. If any of them are not totally clear, please let me know.

- In actual experience thoughts don’t come and go from anywhere. They just there when they are there. And when they are not there anymore, then they are just simply not there.
- The supposed ‘me’ has no power over thoughts. None.
- Thoughts just appear on their own, without anyone or anything doing it.
- There is nothing that is thinking thoughts. Thinking happens, or rather say thoughts appear but without a thinker. There is no thinker of thoughts.
- Thoughts have no power whatsoever. They cannot think or do anything.
- Thoughts have no volition. There might be thoughts about intentions, but not the thoughts themselves intending or wanting it. They just ‘talk’ about wanting or intending.

Look at each statement carefully. Is there anything in the above text that is not totally clear?

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Can it be discerned that anything appears in ‘silence’/the gap between thoughts? Or is it just at first there is nothing , and then there is a thought (full content)?

In my direct experience, it is simply 'no thoughts', then 'thoughts'.

How can anything else than that what is known with the 5 physical senses and thought, be known? Is is possible?

Aside from the scientific method, which is still dependent on the nervous system and it's sensors to quantify data, there is nothing even close to that.
It is not possible to 'know' things even if they are detected by the senses, as the senses can be easily fooled. Thinking can be tricked or deluded.
It seems that we can only form a useful working understanding of the world, at best- not a 'true' one.

Nonetheless, I would hesitate to actually negate the existence of something simply because I have not encountered it experientially. I have never seen the far side of the moon, for instance.
So I am comfortable saying that I have no experience of a 'thinker' but I don't know if I can certainly and clearly state that there 'is' no thinker.

- In actual experience thoughts don’t come and go from anywhere. They just there when they are there. And when they are not there anymore, then they are just simply not there.
- The supposed ‘me’ has no power over thoughts. None.
- Thoughts just appear on their own, without anyone or anything doing it.
- There is nothing that is thinking thoughts. Thinking happens, or rather say thoughts appear but without a thinker. There is no thinker of thoughts.
- Thoughts have no power whatsoever. They cannot think or do anything.
- Thoughts have no volition. There might be thoughts about intentions, but not the thoughts themselves intending or wanting it. They just ‘talk’ about wanting or intending.

Look at each statement carefully. Is there anything in the above text that is not totally clear?

Why are there thoughts at all, if they're so useless? What function does this serve, if anything? why did we evolve to have rumination if it has no function? Is it a glitch, like some kind of artifact of developing higher cognitive capacities?
I am unclear on why there are thoughts, period.

And as I think about this line "There is nothing that is thinking thoughts. Thinking happens, or rather say thoughts appear but without a thinker. There is no thinker of thoughts.", it becomes clearer to me that although it can't be 'proven' not to exist, there's no reason to believe in it in the first place. It's a mirage. Like an optical illusion. There's that famous analogy of a rope that looks like a snake that applies here. I might jump, thinking it's a snake, but it's always been a rope, regardless of my misapprehension. I could go looking for a snake, but the proof is right there, as a coil of rope.

All the statements above seem very easy to accept. I can look in my mind and see the proof of them, with little effort.

[Hawthorne]

Can it be discerned that anything appears in ‘silence’/the gap between thoughts? Or is it just at first there is nothing , and then there is a thought (full content)?

In my direct experience, it is simply 'no thoughts', then 'thoughts'.

How can anything else than that what is known with the 5 physical senses and thought, be known? Is is possible?

Aside from the scientific method, which is still dependent on the nervous system and it's sensors to quantify data, there is nothing even close to that.
It is not possible to 'know' things even if they are detected by the senses, as the senses can be easily fooled. Thinking can be tricked or deluded.
It seems that we can only form a useful working understanding of the world, at best- not a 'true' one.

Nonetheless, I would hesitate to actually negate the existence of something simply because I have not encountered it experientially. I have never seen the far side of the moon, for instance.
So I am comfortable saying that I have no experience of a 'thinker' but I don't know if I can certainly and clearly state that there 'is' no thinker.

- In actual experience thoughts don’t come and go from anywhere. They just there when they are there. And when they are not there anymore, then they are just simply not there.
- The supposed ‘me’ has no power over thoughts. None.
- Thoughts just appear on their own, without anyone or anything doing it.
- There is nothing that is thinking thoughts. Thinking happens, or rather say thoughts appear but without a thinker. There is no thinker of thoughts.
- Thoughts have no power whatsoever. They cannot think or do anything.
- Thoughts have no volition. There might be thoughts about intentions, but not the thoughts themselves intending or wanting it. They just ‘talk’ about wanting or intending.

Look at each statement carefully. Is there anything in the above text that is not totally clear?

Why are there thoughts at all, if they're so useless? What function does this serve, if anything? why did we evolve to have rumination if it has no function? Is it a glitch, like some kind of artifact of developing higher cognitive capacities?
I am unclear on why there are thoughts, period.

And as I think about this line "There is nothing that is thinking thoughts. Thinking happens, or rather say thoughts appear but without a thinker. There is no thinker of thoughts.", it becomes clearer to me that although it can't be 'proven' not to exist, there's no reason to believe in it in the first place. It's a mirage. Like an optical illusion. There's that famous analogy of a rope that looks like a snake that applies here. I might jump, thinking it's a snake, but it's always been a rope, regardless of my misapprehension. I could go looking for a snake, but the proof is right there, as a coil of rope.

All the statements above seem very easy to accept. I can look in my mind and see the proof of them, with little effort.

[Bella]

Hi Hawthorne,

In my direct experience, it is simply 'no thoughts', then 'thoughts

Good!

Nonetheless, I would hesitate to actually negate the existence of something simply because I have not encountered it experientially. I have never seen the far side of the moon, for instance. 
So I am comfortable saying that I have no experience of a 'thinker' but I don't know if I can certainly and clearly state that there 'is' no thinker. 

Good! The first bit from your last sentence, you have seen directly in your own experience right?
The second bit you state from memory, from thoughts.
When you think about something that you have experienced in the past, this is now only a memory, a thought. It is not ACTUALLY experienced right now. But you do REMEMBER (right now) having experienced it in the past. Is this clear now?

Why are there thoughts at all, if they're so useless?

Thoughts have their use. But in this inquiry we look at them this way to be able to guide you to a clear and undeniable understanding of the absence of a separate self, or the fact that our idea about the self is an illusion.

it becomes clearer to me that although it can't be 'proven' not to exist, there's no reason to believe in it in the first place. It's a mirage. Like an optical illusion. …
All the statements above seem very easy to accept. I can look in my mind and see the proof of them, with little effort.

Good! You’re doing excellent with the looking.

Here is an exercise.
Get a sheet of paper and draw a line that divides that sheet in half. Label one half 'self' and the other side 'other'. Sit down and start a timer for 5 minutes. Every time you have a thought make a mark on the sheet. If that thought is about the self, put a mark on the self side, if it’s about something else, mark the other side. If a thought about food occurs due to feeling hungry, mark that on the self side. Any thought that refers back to a self should go on the self side. (I'm bored, I'm tired, is the door locked (my safety) that video was funny (I was amused), my back hurts, I am frightened, I wonder what is my daughter doing in school (‘my’ daughter), etc.
Let me know how you go and what you notice.

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Hi Bella,
Sorry I didn't post yesterday. I simply lost focus and forgot. I'm sorry. I can be a real space cadet. I hope you don't take this as a comment on how seriously I take this... I really appreciate the care you've placed on this conversation, and I feel like I failed to reciprocate by missing my mark yesterday. Nothing I can do to correct that, but thank you for helping me.
Here's today's report.

Is this clear now?

In my own direct experience, there's no thinker, which for these purposes is more than enough. I can remember things "I've" done, or whatever, but in this actual moment, there's no 'me'. Is that what you are pointing to?

Let me know how you go and what you notice.

I noticed a lot of different thoughts, of different types. But separating them in this way was interesting because they cleanly go into these two categories. A thought is either about 'me' or about something else.

I noticed that doing this highlighted the contrived nature of many thoughts about 'myself'. I would think about something 'about me' and it would appear highly superficial. Just some random thing. Substanceless. Not that I was having thoughts judging that thought or this thought, just noticing that these thoughts about 'me' were not really about anything. They just seem to drift in from nowhere. Other thoughts like "Making the garden beds this way rather than this other way' seem to have a lot more significance in that they are relevant to something.
The self-referential thoughts are basically useless, in terms of having a relationship to reality. If they didn't happen there'd be no change whatsoever, except there'd be more quiet, which is nice!

Does self-referential dialogue stop? or does it just keep going and we stop caring about it?

[Bella]

Hi Hawthorne,

Sorry I didn't post yesterday. ... Nothing I can do to correct that, but thank you for helping me.

That can happen. It’s my pleasure to help you.

In my own direct experience, there's no thinker, which for these purposes is more than enough. I can remember things "I've" done, or whatever, but in this actual moment, there's no 'me'. Is that what you are pointing to?

Yes, I’m pointing to the now. Only now there is experience. There is no other ‘place’ or ‘time’ were experience is.
What do you exactly mean with “which for these purposes is more than enough”? Do you have other experiences in which things can be seen? :)
Another exercise is looking at What is a memory? What is the actual experience of a memory?

…just noticing that these thoughts about 'me' were not really about anything. They just seem to drift in from nowhere. Other thoughts like "Making the garden beds this way rather than this other way' seem to have a lot more significance in that they are relevant to something.

You made a distinction between thoughts referred at as ‘useless’ and thoughts that you find ‘relevant to something’. But is the thought “making the garden beds in this way rather than that way” really other-referent? It is your narrative about your garden and the way you do or don’t like it.
Please review the thoughts you noted as ‘other’ again in this light.
You will hopefully discover that almost every thought, if not all, is about the self. Sometimes it might not be as obvious, but when looked at it a bit more closely, it turns out that these narrating thoughts are always about me (some way or another).

Actually, these narrating thoughts create the illusion of the self.
These thoughts describes ‘what I am’.
They describe my past, present and future.
They produce a story of my life.
They describe how I feel, and what I have to do.
They describe what things in the world and others mean to me and can give to me.
These thoughts define who I am and what is my relationship to the world.

Please read carefully the above sentences. Look if they are really true. Let me know what you find.

Bella

[Hawthorne]

What do you exactly mean with “which for these purposes is more than enough”? Do you have other experiences in which things can be seen? :)
Haha, good question. I meant we're not doing a science experiment, we're trying to see what can be seen directly, no BS ,ifs ands or buts. I have a tendency to think "Oh well what if this" or "here's an exception", to the point of missing the point you're making.
To answer your second question, no, there's just the one experience. Haha
What is a memory? What is the actual experience of a memory?
It is colours, thoughts, etc. So there's a real experience of 'memory' (which is a thought), but it not the experience that it depicts. It's like a map. ... Much like other thoughts, I guess. Hm.

You made a distinction between thoughts referred at as ‘useless’ and thoughts that you find ‘relevant to something’. But is the thought “making the garden beds in this way rather than that way” really other-referent? It is your narrative about your garden and the way you do or don’t like it.
Please review the thoughts you noted as ‘other’ again in this light.

Wow... ok very interesting. Yes, they're all 'me' oriented. I think I was only seeing them as other because I was looking for them. They must be 'me' related, because they're about my interpretations of the world. That makes sense. Thanks for pointing that out!

Actually, these narrating thoughts create the illusion of the self.
These thoughts describes ‘what I am’.
They describe my past, present and future.
They produce a story of my life.
They describe how I feel, and what I have to do.
They describe what things in the world and others mean to me and can give to me.
These thoughts define who I am and what is my relationship to the world.

Please read carefully the above sentences. Look if they are really true. Let me know what you find.
I am going to keep working on this and finish tomorrow.
Thanks for these thoughts, Bella. Very interesting.

[Bella]

Hi Hawthorne,

Great. I will respond to you after your next message.

Bella

[Hawthorne]

Actually, these narrating thoughts create the illusion of the self.

Without these thoughts, there's simply nothing to call 'me'. What else is there to say?

These thoughts describes ‘what I am’.

"I" am comfortable. "I" need some food. "I" am a man. And so on and so on to infinity. Every thought has something to do with this. What I am now, What I plan on doing later, what I want to be, what I was, and so on.
The thoughts do not describe "what is". They describe what "I" think about what is.

They describe my past, present and future.

They produce a story of my life.

Without the tape loop of thoughts, I would have nothing to refer to as "me" or "my life". It would be similar to how I observe the life cycle of a bug or something. A process without elaboration.
Thoughts can only come after the fact.

They describe how I feel, and what I have to do.

Yes, they can be quite useful for that. There's nothing wrong with them, as you said. Very handy for keeping myself fed, clothed, fulfilling responsibilities, etc.

They describe what things in the world and others mean to me and can give to me.

Is it possible to understand without thinking?

These thoughts define who I am and what is my relationship to the world.

I sat down to write more in-depth about these, but all I can really do is agree wholeheartedly. When I look at my experience, I simply have to say 'yes, I agree'.
I felt I had more to say about this but really, it's just evidently true.