Direct pointing

[Canfora]

Hi Rob and thank you for your reply. It seems to me that when you have a look you are aware of what is happening and that you also know how to describe what is appearing. That's the idea. Well done!

Let's talk about thinking. If possible notice the content of thoughts that are arising now, instead of thinking about thinking. And if possible have fun doing this exploration. We have the tendency to believe an immense conceptual universe of thinking seems to exist on its own and then, when we look, there isn't a single thought in the sight. How amazing.

Can a thought change what is going on here? Can the thought pink elephant make a pink elephant appear here/now? Or can the thought "I should be happier" make you feel happier? What can a thought do?

When you became aware that you were lost in story-land, would you say that getting lost in thoughts is something that you do, that you can control and switch on and off?

When you wake up in the morning and the ever compelling story of the I starts playing, is the story necessary for you to get out of bed? Is the mental chatter helpful? Or is it more like a radio station that turns on and it seems important to listen to, because it seems to be about you?

What is the story about? An imaginary past or an imaginary future? Can the thinking change a past or a future?

Would you say you are the thinker of thoughts?

Or that a thought can think?

Let me know how this goes.

Take care,
S

[Roberto]

Hi Sandra,

Thank you for these questions, they’ve been really helpful to look into.

When I look at thoughts as they are arising now, it becomes clear that they just appear on their own. There isn’t a sense of choosing or creating them. They come and go, and when they are simply noticed, they seem quite insubstantial—more like fleeting appearances than something solid.

Looking at what thoughts can actually do, it seems they don’t have real power over immediate experience. A thought like “pink elephant” doesn’t produce anything real in direct experience, only an image or idea. Similarly, the thought “I should be happier” doesn’t create happiness—if anything, it can create tension or a sense of lack, but that also seems to come from other thoughts and reactions arising, not from a thought having real control.

Regarding getting lost in thoughts, it doesn’t seem like something that is consciously “done.” It feels more like attention is pulled into thinking automatically. There isn’t a clear moment of deciding to get lost, it just happens, and then at some point it’s noticed. That noticing also seems to happen on its own.

In the morning, the “I” story does seem to start up automatically, like a kind of narration. Looking closely, it doesn’t seem necessary for getting out of bed or functioning. Actions like getting up, walking, or brushing teeth happen without needing that commentary. The mental chatter feels more like a background radio—it often claims importance, but doesn’t seem essential.

The content of thoughts is mostly about past or future—replaying situations or imagining what might happen. Looking at it directly, thoughts don’t seem able to change either the past or the future. They just describe, imagine, or comment.

When I look for a thinker of thoughts, none can be found. Thoughts appear, but there isn’t anything behind them generating them that can be located. It also doesn’t make sense to say a thought is thinking itself—it just appears and disappears.

One thing that is still very noticeable is the sense of an internal voice that seems to argue with or comment on other thoughts. This creates a kind of tension and emotional reaction. Even here though, when looked at closely, both the “voice” and the thoughts it reacts to seem to arise in the same way—spontaneously, without control. There is still a habit of identifying with that voice, but it isn’t clear that it is actually any different from other thoughts.

There is still some doubt, but it is also seen that doubt itself is just more thoughts appearing.

Thanks again for guiding me through this.

Rob

[Canfora]

I will read your post and reply tomorrow. Having a busier than normal day.

[Roberto]

👍

[Canfora]

Hi Rob,

Thank you for these questions, they’ve been really helpful to look into.

You're welcome! Happy to guide you.

When I look at thoughts as they are arising now, it becomes clear that they just appear on their own. There isn’t a sense of choosing or creating them. They come and go, and when they are simply noticed, they seem quite insubstantial—more like fleeting appearances than something solid.

Yes. Let's say a very strong sense of choosing and creating thoughts arise. Would that sense mean there is a real chooser and creator of thoughts? Would that sense prove the existence of a separate self?

Looking at what thoughts can actually do, it seems they don’t have real power over immediate experience. A thought like “pink elephant” doesn’t produce anything real in direct experience, only an image or idea. Similarly, the thought “I should be happier” doesn’t create happiness—if anything, it can create tension or a sense of lack, but that also seems to come from other thoughts and reactions arising, not from a thought having real control.

I would agree but let's say that thoughts can do something, change how we feel and stuff like that. Would that point to the existence of a thinker? A little me inside a head thinking thoughts? A little controler of what pops up in a mind?

Regarding getting lost in thoughts, it doesn’t seem like something that is consciously “done.” It feels more like attention is pulled into thinking automatically. There isn’t a clear moment of deciding to get lost, it just happens, and then at some point it’s noticed. That noticing also seems to happen on its own.

That's also what it seems to be going on here. Although I believe that it's possible to practice coming back to This.

In the morning, the “I” story does seem to start up automatically, like a kind of narration. Looking closely, it doesn’t seem necessary for getting out of bed or functioning. Actions like getting up, walking, or brushing teeth happen without needing that commentary. The mental chatter feels more like a background radio—it often claims importance, but doesn’t seem essential.

The content of thoughts is mostly about past or future—replaying situations or imagining what might happen. Looking at it directly, thoughts don’t seem able to change either the past or the future. They just describe, imagine, or comment.

When I look for a thinker of thoughts, none can be found. Thoughts appear, but there isn’t anything behind them generating them that can be located. It also doesn’t make sense to say a thought is thinking itself—it just appears and disappears.

Yes.

One thing that is still very noticeable is the sense of an internal voice that seems to argue with or comment on other thoughts. This creates a kind of tension and emotional reaction. Even here though, when looked at closely, both the “voice” and the thoughts it reacts to seem to arise in the same way—spontaneously, without control. There is still a habit of identifying with that voice, but it isn’t clear that it is actually any different from other thoughts.

OMG, yes. Do you expect the content of the voice to change? Could the voice be any different than it is?

There is still some doubt, but it is also seen that doubt itself is just more thoughts appearing.

What seems to be causing the doubt? What makes you doubt the seeing? What could be a self or prove that there is a self?

Take care,
S

[Roberto]

Hi Sandra,

Yes. Let's say a very strong sense of choosing and creating thoughts arise. Would that sense mean there is a real chooser and creator of thoughts? Would that sense prove the existence of a separate self?

The sense of choosing doesn't prove that there is a real chooser but the illusion of a separate self is so convincing it seems real. It seems that the illusory self is trying to get this no self and can only get it as a concept.

I

would agree but let's say that thoughts can do something, change how we feel and stuff like that. Would that point to the existence of a thinker? A little me inside a head thinking thoughts? A little controller of what pops up in a mind?

The fact that thoughts without a thinker can change how I feel for the better or worse means a life of happiness or struggle is out of any control whilst the illusory self runs the show.
Maybe I have an unreasonable expectation or belief about what fully realising no self would feel like. I don't expect that there would be control of thoughts and the feelings that follow but maybe less of a believing that thoughts have authority to produce feelings.

Regarding getting lost in thoughts, it doesn’t seem like something that is consciously “done.” It feels more like attention is pulled into thinking automatically. There isn’t a clear moment of deciding to get lost, it just happens, and then at some point it’s noticed. That noticing also seems to happen on its own.

That's also what it seems to be going on here. Although I believe that it's possible to practice coming back to This.

I suspect that I have a belief that direct experiencing can weaken the getting lost in thought? It seems that getting lost in thought steals attention from direct experiencing. You say you believe that it's possible to practice coming back to This, is the practice direct experience?

OMG, yes. Do you expect the content of the voice to change? Could the voice be any different than it is?

There is probably a belief that the content of the voice could be seen as another passing thought with no or little authority.

What seems to be causing the doubt? What makes you doubt the seeing? What could be a self or prove that there is a self?

The doubt I suspect is caused by a lack of direct experiencing and being lost in thought.
In direct experience a sensation is just that, hearing and seeing when looked at closely are not personal but the thoughts and sensation package create a sense of ME. This combo creates a very convincing center.
It seems that I have a belief that if no self can be fully realised then the sense of a self would be seen as just another appearance. It seems simple but the thoughts and sensations combo make it seem very difficult.

Thanks
Rob

[Canfora]

Hi Rob,

The fact that thoughts without a thinker can change how I feel for the better or worse means a life of happiness or struggle is out of any control whilst the illusory self runs the show.

How would a illusory self run the show?

I suspect that I have a belief that direct experiencing can weaken the getting lost in thought? It seems that getting lost in thought steals attention from direct experiencing. You say you believe that it's possible to practice coming back to This, is the practice direct experience?

Yes. Well, it's kinda difficult to talk about this without going into a story. It seems there is less thinking and more seeing going on because I look everyday and after a while it becomes habitual. It seems I have found some ways to make myself keep looking. The main reason why I'm guiding you is because guiding is one of the things I can do to keep the looking going on. I can't point without looking first to what I want you to see. Anyway nothing I write about me is going to be helpful to you. This is about you. And you are doing great. Everyone has a story. But the seeing there is no self is a fact. Keep looking.

There is probably a belief that the content of the voice could be seen as another passing thought with no or little authority.

Who knows? It may happen.

The doubt I suspect is caused by a lack of direct experiencing and being lost in thought.

Ok. What do you think direct experiencing is? When lost in thoughts are you lacking the very direct experience of being lost in thoughts? Does getting lost in thoughts mean there is a self getting lost in thoughts? Does looking mean there is no self doing the looking? Thoughts = self, no thoughts = no self? How does that work?

In direct experience a sensation is just that, hearing and seeing when looked at closely are not personal but the thoughts and sensation package create a sense of ME. This combo creates a very convincing center.

Yes. Absolutely. That's the self illusion playing. Isn't this kinda happening on automatic?
What happens if you look to that center? It may seem to be convincing, but when you look at it, is it more than an illusion that can be seen through?

It seems that I have a belief that if no self can be fully realised then the sense of a self would be seen as just another appearance. It seems simple but the thoughts and sensations combo make it seem very difficult.

Seeing isn't difficult. That's the beauty of it. The truth is in plain sight, always available, regardless of the story that pops up at the moment.

Have a look right now. Can you see a self? Could this be easier than just having a look?
The answer is in plain sight. Have a look. Do you see a self?

Take care,
S

[Roberto]

Hi Sandra,

I do feel that I am not using critical thinking and I am overlooking things that should be obvious. I also feel that I don't articulate language clearly. This combination might make it difficult to understand where I am with this investigation, it's confusing me a little :(

How would a illusory self run the show?

The illusory self doesn't exist, it seems that there is confusion and identification with thoughts and what thoughts actually are, especially the internal voice. I feel that I am not looking closely and clearly enough at this, it seems that thinking about thinking is happening. While this continues without seeing it for what it is the illusory self that doesn't exist seems to run the show.
Round and round in circles instead of clearly seeing what is happening.

Yes. Well, it's kinda difficult to talk about this without going into a story. It seems there is less thinking and more seeing going on because I look everyday and after a while it becomes habitual. It seems I have found some ways to make myself keep looking. The main reason why I'm guiding you is because guiding is one of the things I can do to keep the looking going on. I can't point without looking first to what I want you to see. Anyway nothing I write about me is going to be helpful to you. This is about you. And you are doing great. Everyone has a story. But the seeing there is no self is a fact. Keep looking.

This is very encouraging :)
I feel that I am not looking clearly enough and when I do look that concepts jump in. It's like labelling of experience is done automatically with the assumption that the internal voice is me talking to me.
Crazy when looked at but it continues, after a lifetime of this habit happening it seems very much like conditioning. Almost makes me laugh 😂.

Ok. What do you think direct experiencing is? When lost in thoughts are you lacking the very direct experience of being lost in thoughts? Does getting lost in thoughts mean there is a self getting lost in thoughts? Does looking mean there is no self doing the looking? Thoughts = self, no thoughts = no self? How does that work?

This does seem to clear things up for me!!
Direct experiencing is all there is, this made me laugh a little.
Getting lost in thoughts does not mean there is a self lost in thoughts, it's thoughts commenting on thoughts with accompanying sensations that gives an appearance of phycological tension. This seems to be habit.

Does looking mean there is no self doing the looking?

I have not considered this until now.
It seems that a thought prompts looking that gives an appearance of intention and curiosity. It has been assumed that a self is doing the looking ( habit ) but when looked at closely there is just looking happening, this seems to make the internal voice lost for words.

Thoughts = self, no thoughts = no self? How does that work?

It has been assumed that thoughts play a huge part in holding together the illusion of a self but when there are no thoughts there is still a sense of a centre. This sense of a centre is nowhere to be found yet the sense continues, these assumptions and senses have not been looked at clearly.

What happens if you look to that center? It may seem to be convincing, but when you look at it, is it more than an illusion that can be seen through?

It is an illusion and very convincing!!
It feels like this is more understood than seen through.
Does looking at this more directly for longer periods help with seeing through?

Seeing isn't difficult. That's the beauty of it. The truth is in plain sight, always available, regardless of the story that pops up at the moment.

Have a look right now. Can you see a self? Could this be easier than just having a look?
The answer is in plain sight. Have a look. Do you see a self?

It seems that the assumption there is a self that is doing the looking is an incorrect belief.
It seems that thinking about no self reinforces the illusion of a self and that ME assuming that more critical thinking about what is being seen would be the wrong tool.
There seems to be hesitation or resistance to looking clearly or maybe the habit of getting lost in what is being experienced is strong.
It seems that this could be seen in an instant.

Thanks very much for your support with this
Rob

[Roberto]

Hello again,

I have not considered this until now.
It seems that a thought prompts looking that gives an appearance of intention and curiosity. It has been assumed that a self is doing the looking ( habit ) but when looked at closely there is just looking happening, this seems to make the internal voice lost for words.

This statement was written after reading this question

Does looking mean there is no self doing the looking?

This question seemed to prompt a looking at looking and there seemed to be a recognition of looking happening just happening. It seemed like a split second recognition. Usually when the thought to look happens there is then a sense of effort to look that gives the sense of someone looking.
What I'm trying to say is

Does looking mean there is no self doing the looking?

Prompted looking without any thinking about it, the sense of effort was absent.

Thanks
Rob

[Canfora]

Hi Rob,

Thanks very much for your support with this

My pleasure.

I do feel that I am not using critical thinking and I am overlooking things that should be obvious.

That's funny! This would be easier if you didn't use any critical thinking.
You don't need to think to see there isn't a self here, the same way I don't need to think to know it's raining outside.

I also feel that I don't articulate language clearly.

Ahhh. No. You are very clear and articulate. This is just overthinking mixed with perfectionist mode. Don't go there, you're doing fine.

Reading your replies I get the idea that you are struggling with the way you are doing this exploration.

What exactly are you doing when you are inquiring?

I ask "Can you see a self?"

Do you know how to look for the answer? What do you do?

Do you know where to look for the answer? Where do you look?

Do you know what we are looking for? What are you trying to see?

Take care,
S

[Roberto]

Hi Sandra,

Reading your replies I get the idea that you are struggling with the way you are doing this exploration.

When I’m inquiring, it seems that I first read your question and then there is a kind of pause where attention turns toward immediate experience. At times this feels quite natural and simple, but other times it quickly turns into thinking about the question rather than just looking.

What exactly are you doing when you are inquiring?

When you ask “Can you see a self?”, I think what I tend to do is scan experience — sensations, thoughts, the sense of a centre — to try and find something that could be identified as a self. But I also notice that very quickly thoughts jump in, trying to interpret or confirm what is (or isn’t) being seen.
So instead of a simple check, it can become a kind of analysis, which I feel might be where I’m going wrong.

Do you know where to look for the answer? Where do you look?

In terms of where I look, it seems to be in direct experience — thoughts, bodily sensations, and this sense of a centre. The centre feels convincing at times, but when I look for it, I can’t actually find anything solid there. It’s more like a sensation that is being interpreted as “me”.

Do you know what we are looking for? What are you trying to see?

As for what I’m trying to see, I think this is where some confusion is. It seems like I may be trying to confirm that there is no self, rather than simply looking to see if a self is actually present in experience.

There have been brief moments where looking seems to happen without effort and without much thought, and in those moments it feels very simple — like just looking and nothing else. But often that is followed by thoughts coming in and creating a sense that “I” need to do something more or do it better.

So I think my main difficulty is that the looking is not always as direct as it could be, and it often gets mixed up with thinking and subtle effort.

Thanks again for your guidance.

Rob

[Roberto]

Hi Sandra,

I’ve been looking a bit more closely at what’s happening during inquiry.

When I look at a sensation, I can’t actually find a self there. The same seems to be true for thoughts as well. However, I noticed that even when a self isn’t found in a specific sensation, there are still other experiences present like sound and vision, and these seem to maintain a kind of overall sense of a centre.

Looking more carefully at this, it seems like I might be assuming that because experience is still happening as a whole, there must be something at the centre of it. But when I check each part individually — sound, vision, sensations — I can’t find a self in any of them.

The sense of a centre does still feel convincing at times, but when I look directly at it, it seems to be more like a sensation that is being interpreted as “me,” rather than something that actually contains a self.

It also seems that instead of finding a self in any one place, there is a tendency to assume it exists in the combination of everything that’s happening.

So I think what I’m starting to see is that the sense of a centre might not be coming from anything solid, but from how these different experiences are being interpreted together.

Thanks again
Rob

[Canfora]

Hi Rob,

Thank you for your reply.

when I check each part individually — sound, vision, sensations — I can’t find a self in any of them.

How do you check each part? What do you do exactly?

Take care,
S

[Roberto]

Hi Sandra,

When I check each part, what I do is bring attention to one aspect of experience at a time and look directly at what is there.

For example, with seeing, I look at what is seen and then check if there is a separate looker present. I can’t find anything apart from the visual experience itself. However, there is often a strong sense of effort when I do this, especially with seeing, and that effort seems to give a sense that there is a “seer” doing the looking.

With hearing, I listen to the sound and check if there is a hearer separate from it. Again, I can’t find anything other than the sound.

With sensations, I focus on the raw sensation and look to see if there is a feeler. There is often a sense of a centre to the sensations, but when I look for it directly, I can’t actually find anything solid there. It seems more like something that is assumed rather than found.

With thoughts, I notice that they appear on their own. However, there is also an internal voice that comments on thoughts, argues, and seems to be doing things like working out problems or repeating words when reading. This voice feels more like “me.”

When I look at that more closely, it also seems to be thoughts appearing, but it is more convincing and harder to see clearly.

I’ve also noticed that when I do this inquiry at home there are often a lot of distractions (TV, radio, people, etc.), and my attention gets pulled from one thing to another. I am considering sitting in a quieter room with fewer distractions, and possibly reducing input further (like closing my eyes or using earplugs or headphones) as a kind of training aid, as it feels like this might slow things down and make it easier to see what is happening more clearly, including how distraction itself works.

So overall, what I am doing is looking at each part of experience and checking if a self can be found there, and so far I can’t find anything solid, although the sense of a centre, the effort in looking, and the internal voice still feel like they could be “me.”

I feel quite certain that the self is an illusion, but I also recognize that this is not known as a fact in direct experience. It makes perfect sense that experiences are happening and that the mind naturally assumes a self, even though, when looked at carefully, no self can actually be found.

Given all of this, I feel that the technique I have been using is clumsy. Often it seems like I am scanning for a self or feeling for it, rather than looking directly at what is actually present in each moment. Even with intention, the process can become caught in assumptions, effort, or expectation, rather than staying with the raw experience itself.

I realize that I don’t have a solid technique or structured practice for this inquiry. My looking tends to happen intermittently throughout the day, and it can become scattered or caught in assumptions. I’m considering setting aside dedicated practice time, perhaps 30 minutes twice a day, to focus more deliberately on direct experience, giving attention fully to each moment and each sense, without distraction or expectation. This might help me see more clearly and notice subtler aspects of the sense of self and the illusions around it.

I feel this is a clear picture of what I am noticing and doing in practice. I hope this helps with understanding where I am going wrong.

Thanks
Rob

[Canfora]

Hi Rob,

Thank you for that very detailed description of what is going on.

To me it doesn't seem that you are doing something wrong. You've been looking for a self and that's what you are supposed to do. At the same time it seems that you are applying a lot of effort and time doing this and struggling to get results.

You said that when you look you can't see a self. Is this true?

Isn't the no seeing the answer to the question "is a self real"?

I understand the need to look again and again to be sure that you can't find a real self. I'm not sure if i understand what is keeping you from being sure there is no self when you can't find/see one.

Could it be a question of trust? Maybe you don't trust what is being experienced? Could it be that you don't trust your capacity to see this?

I’m considering setting aside dedicated practice time, perhaps 30 minutes twice a day, to focus more deliberately on direct experience, giving attention fully to each moment and each sense, without distraction or expectation. This might help me see more clearly and notice subtler aspects of the sense of self and the illusions around it.

How about looking now instead of trying to match this imaginary scenery where you are going to do something in the future?
Do it now. Have a look. Just use the eyes.
There is all this stuff here.
Can you see a self?
Look.

It doesn't get clearer than this. You don't need to look for a long long time. If a self is real it has to be present here/now. Can you see such a thing?

If you feel the need to do extra inquiry I would prefer that you don't sit thinking about this. If you sit it's very likely that you go into thinking mode. I would suggest that you try to find a self while moving. Observe the body moving and see if there is a self making the body move.

You can do that now. Move a hand. What can you see moving the hand?

Take care,
S