The Gate

Hi Edward,

I can't recall reading in your posts whether or not you have noticed thoughts just arising like when you first wake up in the morning before you get out of bed or even move there is a silence there and then thoughts arise. Have you noticed this? or have you been in other situations where the 'mind' is still and thoughts just arise?

Cheers

Finoh

I think that when I first wake up in the morning, I'm already thinking. I could be wrong, I don't have a very good memory for experiences. There are probably times when the mind is still, which means that obviously thinking at some point starts again. I'm not sure what you mean about thoughts "just arising", though.

Isn't that what thoughts always do Edward? Do you ever know what a thought is going to be before it appears?

Do you think that you are the thinker of thoughts? If you do then are you able to completely stop all thoughts at will? Are you able to decide to only ever have happy thoughts? Are you able to decide what every single next thought will be?

Or do thoughts just seem to "arise"?

Remember that if you are not the thinker of some thoughts then you can't be the thinker of any thoughts - unless of course there are two of you, with one thinking some thoughts and another thinking the rest of the thoughts.

Isn't that what thoughts always do Edward? Do you ever know what a thought is going to be before it appears?

Do you think that you are the thinker of thoughts? If you do then are you able to completely stop all thoughts at will? Are you able to decide to only ever have happy thoughts? Are you able to decide what every single next thought will be?

Or do thoughts just seem to "arise"?

Remember that if you are not the thinker of some thoughts then you can't be the thinker of any thoughts - unless of course there are two of you, with one thinking some thoughts and another thinking the rest of the thoughts.

I don't believe that I control my thoughts. It's obvious that I am not making my thoughts happen. Something is presumably organizing thoughts and forming them into sentences, but obviously I'm not doing it because I would have no idea how to go about doing so.

I don't believe that I control any of my actions. My idea of me is of some sort of invisible thing which has a body, has thoughts, has experiences, but doesn't do anything, it only experiences the doing of things.

Isn't that what thoughts always do Edward? Do you ever know what a thought is going to be before it appears?

Do you think that you are the thinker of thoughts? If you do then are you able to completely stop all thoughts at will? Are you able to decide to only ever have happy thoughts? Are you able to decide what every single next thought will be?

Or do thoughts just seem to "arise"?

Remember that if you are not the thinker of some thoughts then you can't be the thinker of any thoughts - unless of course there are two of you, with one thinking some thoughts and another thinking the rest of the thoughts.

I don't believe that I control my thoughts. It's obvious that I am not making my thoughts happen. Something is presumably organizing thoughts and forming them into sentences, but obviously I'm not doing it because I would have no idea how to go about doing so.

I don't believe that I control any of my actions.

Ok, that's a great observation!

So now that we know that you're not the thinker of thoughts, do you see how important it is that you don't rely on thought when searching for truth?

You've already realised the logical conclusion that since you are not the thinker of thoughts then you can't be the doer of doing, so no thinking or doing is under your control.

So if you are not the thinker of thoughts, and you are not the doer of doing, can you be held in any way responsible for any thinking or doing? Can you make anything happen? Could you possibly choose to improve life in any way? Are you able to choose anything at all?

My idea of me is of some sort of invisible thing which has a body, has thoughts, has experiences, but doesn't do anything, it only experiences the doing of things.

Here you've allowed thought to sell you its version of reality. Direct experience tells you that you are aware of bodily sensations, direct experience does not tell you that the body is "yours". Nor does direct experience tell you that the body has thoughts, or that the body has experiences.

Direct experience tells you that you are aware of thoughts, and you are aware of experiences, and you are aware of bodily sensations - that is all it tells you. It's thought that goes on to add the ideas that the body is thinking, or the body is experiencing. So you're right, what you said is just your "idea of me".

The body, and thoughts, and experiences appear simultaneously in awareness, but only thought ties them all up into a package called "me".

There is experiencing, but do you notice that the subjective experience (not the thoughts about the experience) is something that you can have no doubt about? And yet, although there is the experience, you have already seen that you are no the thinker of thoughts ABOUT the experience. So that which is aware of the experience is NOT that which is creating thoughts about the experience, even though it is aware of the running commentary of thoughts about the experience. Without thought running around and bundling all of this stuff into a package called "me", can you see any reason why the experiencing should be assigned to a "me" or even to a "something"?

Quite obviously there is awareness of stuff, but what in direct experience says that the awareness has a "location"? And one more final question: Do you have any direct experience of ANY awareness other than the awareness that you experience? Before you answer this question remember that dream characters all SEEM to be aware, but upon awakening it's quite clear that none of the dream characters had any awareness at all.

So now that we know that you're not the thinker of thoughts, do you see how important it is that you don't rely on thought when searching for truth?

Hmm, without thought, I don't think you could search for truth, or find it. Without thought there wouldn't be any sense of truth or falsehood.

So if you are not the thinker of thoughts, and you are not the doer of doing, can you be held in any way responsible for any thinking or doing? Can you make anything happen? Could you possibly choose to improve life in any way? Are you able to choose anything at all?

No, I can't choose anything, make anything happen, and so on.

Without thought running around and bundling all of this stuff into a package called "me", can you see any reason why the experiencing should be assigned to a "me" or even to a "something"?

Intellectually, I don't see any reason to believe there is a me. This doesn't change anything, though.

Quite obviously there is awareness of stuff, but what in direct experience says that the awareness has a "location"? And one more final question: Do you have any direct experience of ANY awareness other than the awareness that you experience? Before you answer this question remember that dream characters all SEEM to be aware, but upon awakening it's quite clear that none of the dream characters had any awareness at all.

Nothing in direct experience says that awareness has a location. And, obviously I don't have any direct experience of any other awareness.

Hi Edward

Hmm, without thought, I don't think you could search for truth, or find it. Without thought there wouldn't be any sense of truth or falsehood.

How stubborn you seem to be. Holding on to this belief, though it seems to had brought you absolutely no help in seeing through the illusion of I, which you appear to want to.

What do you experience is the reason for holding on to it? Please do not write what you think or believe.

Greetings Vivi

Hi Edward

Hmm, without thought, I don't think you could search for truth, or find it. Without thought there wouldn't be any sense of truth or falsehood.

How stubborn you seem to be. Holding on to this belief, though it seems to had brought you absolutely no help in seeing through the illusion of I, which you appear to want to.

What do you experience is the reason for holding on to it? Please do not write what you think or believe.

Greetings Vivi

It just seems to be obviously true. Without writing about what I think or believe, I guess that's all I can say about that.

I guess that's all I can say about that

When guessing - it is not knowing, it is a belief/ thought. If you don't want to challenge this belief you will be standing in the way of your own seeing there is no 'I'.

Greetings Vivi

So now that we know that you're not the thinker of thoughts, do you see how important it is that you don't rely on thought when searching for truth?

Hmm, without thought, I don't think you could search for truth, or find it. Without thought there wouldn't be any sense of truth or falsehood.

Yes, but the point is that thoughts can not be relied upon for the truth, and they can not be stopped. For that reason there needs to be some intelligent discernment between which thoughts can be confirmed as truth by direct experiential evidence, and which ones are telling stories that can not be verified by such evidence.

So if you are not the thinker of thoughts, and you are not the doer of doing, can you be held in any way responsible for any thinking or doing? Can you make anything happen? Could you possibly choose to improve life in any way? Are you able to choose anything at all?

No, I can't choose anything, make anything happen, and so on.

I have a feeling that you're saying this but not actually knowing it to be the truth. It seems that you're prepared to accept the argument so long as the argument has an effect. This is not a matter of accepting an argument. If you just pay lip service to the enquiry you're doing yourself a disservice.

To KNOW, as an experientially verifiable truth, that you are not the doer of any doing, or chooser of any choosing, is liberating in itself because when it's clear that you never had any choice about anything, and that you are completely unable to change whatever comes in the future, there is nothing to do but relax into "this". This is simply allowed to be because there is no other choice.

Without thought running around and bundling all of this stuff into a package called "me", can you see any reason why the experiencing should be assigned to a "me" or even to a "something"?

Intellectually, I don't see any reason to believe there is a me.

Just because you "can see no reason to believe that there is a me" doesn't mean that you don't believe that there is a "me", it just means that you can see no reason why you believe it. Do you believe that there is a "me", and if so why?

This doesn't change anything, though.

Why would it change anything? If there is no "me" now then there never was a "me", so how could anything change? What are you expecting to change? What do you expect to be the benefits of seeing through the idea of a personal I?

In your opening post you said:

I participated in another thread in the one on one forum a month or two ago, and by the end people declared me to be liberated. I definitely was not, as afterwards I realized that I still believed that there was a me which could control my thoughts and so on. I've spent a bunch of time looking at this since then, and some things have changed in terms of my beliefs on all of this, but there is definitely still the experience of there being a me.

Firstly, seeing through the personal I doesn't mean that the sense of being here vanishes, nor that thoughts, or emotions, or doings, stop happening.

Secondly, in these latest replies you have said that you can see that you are not the thinker of thoughts, nor the doer of doing, so what has changed since your opening post?

Quite obviously there is awareness of stuff, but what in direct experience says that the awareness has a "location"? And one more final question: Do you have any direct experience of ANY awareness other than the awareness that you experience? Before you answer this question remember that dream characters all SEEM to be aware, but upon awakening it's quite clear that none of the dream characters had any awareness at all.

Nothing in direct experience says that awareness has a location. And, obviously I don't have any direct experience of any other awareness.

Ok, so your direct experience tells you that the only awareness here is the one that is aware of reading of this sentence right now, and it tells you that you have no control of any thinking or doing, and it tells you that this awareness has no location, and it tells you that there is no reason to believe that there is a "me", and yet you are aware and you are here.

So what are you then?

I have a feeling that you're saying this but not actually knowing it to be the truth. It seems that you're prepared to accept the argument so long as the argument has an effect. This is not a matter of accepting an argument. If you just pay lip service to the enquiry you're doing yourself a disservice.

To KNOW, as an experientially verifiable truth, that you are not the doer of any doing, or chooser of any choosing, is liberating in itself because when it's clear that you never had any choice about anything, and that you are completely unable to change whatever comes in the future, there is nothing to do but relax into "this". This is simply allowed to be because there is no other choice.

I don't know whether I "know" it to be true or not. I know it intellectually, at least.

Just because you "can see no reason to believe that there is a me" doesn't mean that you don't believe that there is a "me", it just means that you can see no reason why you believe it. Do you believe that there is a "me", and if so why?

Intellectually, I don't believe there is a me.

This doesn't change anything, though.

Why would it change anything? If there is no "me" now then there never was a "me", so how could anything change? What are you expecting to change? What do you expect to be the benefits of seeing through the idea of a personal I?

If seeing that there was no self changed nothing in any way, then there would be no point in having this website, and it wouldn't exist. So obviously you believe there is some positive benefit to seeing that there is no me.

I find the existence of me to be stressful, since a lot of energy has to be put into looking out for and protecting this me, and since I exist off into the future, then endless future problems must be constantly watched out for and solved. It would come as a relief to see that this me wasn't actually there.

In your opening post you said:

I participated in another thread in the one on one forum a month or two ago, and by the end people declared me to be liberated. I definitely was not, as afterwards I realized that I still believed that there was a me which could control my thoughts and so on. I've spent a bunch of time looking at this since then, and some things have changed in terms of my beliefs on all of this, but there is definitely still the experience of there being a me.

Firstly, seeing through the personal I doesn't mean that the sense of being here vanishes, nor that thoughts, or emotions, or doings, stop happening.

Secondly, in these latest replies you have said that you can see that you are not the thinker of thoughts, nor the doer of doing, so what has changed since your opening post?

Nothing has changed since the first post in this thread, but since the first post on this forum (back sometime in May, in the first thread here which I was in), I have stopped believing that I control my thoughts and actions. This happened while posting in another thread on the truth strike forum (I'm no longer posting there).

Ok, so your direct experience tells you that the only awareness here is the one that is aware of reading of this sentence right now, and it tells you that you have no control of any thinking or doing, and it tells you that this awareness has no location, and it tells you that there is no reason to believe that there is a "me", and yet you are aware and you are here.

So what are you then?

If I'm answering based on direct experience, then there is no me and there's just this experience. And, I believe that to be true.

But I also believe that there is a me, and that I am some sort of object which is here (but which can't be found) and which has beliefs, thoughts, a body, and so on. This is the belief which feels true, the idea that there is no me is just intellectual and doesn't affect anything.

I have a feeling that you're saying this but not actually knowing it to be the truth. It seems that you're prepared to accept the argument so long as the argument has an effect. This is not a matter of accepting an argument. If you just pay lip service to the enquiry you're doing yourself a disservice.

To KNOW, as an experientially verifiable truth, that you are not the doer of any doing, or chooser of any choosing, is liberating in itself because when it's clear that you never had any choice about anything, and that you are completely unable to change whatever comes in the future, there is nothing to do but relax into "this". This is simply allowed to be because there is no other choice.

I don't know whether I "know" it to be true or not. I know it intellectually, at least.

I don't understand what you mean by "know it intellectually". It sounds to me like it means "I'm prepared to accept it logically and to say that I know it intellectually".

What do you mean by "I know it intellectually"?

Do you know that you are aware of this sentence or do you just accept it intellectually? Please answer this question honestly.

Then tell me whether your knowing of your awareness of this sentence is the same as your knowing that you are not the thinker of thoughts or the doer of doing?

If it's not the same type of "knowing" then please explain the difference.

Just because you "can see no reason to believe that there is a me" doesn't mean that you don't believe that there is a "me", it just means that you can see no reason why you believe it. Do you believe that there is a "me", and if so why?

Intellectually, I don't believe there is a me.

Again, do you KNOW that there is no "me", or do you just "accept it intellectually". Why do you continually qualify your answers with the word "intellectually"? It seems to me that when you say "I know it intellectually" you don't mean any such thing. It seems that you mean "I will accept it as a valid argument if I see some benefit from it".

We are not asking you for stuff that you "accept" or "know intellectually", were asking for stuff that you KNOW from direct evidence to be true.

From now on please reply ONLY with answers that you KNOW to be true from direct evidence. We're not interested in intellectual stuff here, we're interested in direct experience. We're looking at the true nature of subjectivity, so we need reports of direct experience.

This doesn't change anything, though.

Why would it change anything? If there is no "me" now then there never was a "me", so how could anything change? What are you expecting to change? What do you expect to be the benefits of seeing through the idea of a personal I?

If seeing that there was no self changed nothing in any way, then there would be no point in having this website, and it wouldn't exist. So obviously you believe there is some positive benefit to seeing that there is no me.

Yes, but you're expecting to see the benefit before seeing that there is no "I". It doesn't work that way. You will NEVER see the benefit until you see the truth of direct experiential evidence. The 'benefit' can only ever become apparent after the "I" is seen through. That's why you don't fool any of us with your talk about knowing stuff "intellectually".

It's patently obvious that you do not KNOW any of the things that you're claiming to "know intellectually".

I find the existence of me to be stressful, since a lot of energy has to be put into looking out for and protecting this me, and since I exist off into the future, then endless future problems must be constantly watched out for and solved. It would come as a relief to see that this me wasn't actually there.

Here you've just admitted that you have not yet seen that "this me wasn't actually there", and yet you want to tell us that you have seen such a thing "intellectually".

Please don't send us on wild goose chases by giving dishonest reports of the results of your investigation. We rely on honesty from you in order to be able to assess where your 'stumbling blocks' are. If you're dishonest with us then we have no way of knowing how to guide you.

In your opening post you said:

I participated in another thread in the one on one forum a month or two ago, and by the end people declared me to be liberated. I definitely was not, as afterwards I realized that I still believed that there was a me which could control my thoughts and so on. I've spent a bunch of time looking at this since then, and some things have changed in terms of my beliefs on all of this, but there is definitely still the experience of there being a me.

Firstly, seeing through the personal I doesn't mean that the sense of being here vanishes, nor that thoughts, or emotions, or doings, stop happening.

Secondly, in these latest replies you have said that you can see that you are not the thinker of thoughts, nor the doer of doing, so what has changed since your opening post?

Nothing has changed since the first post in this thread, but since the first post on this forum (back sometime in May, in the first thread here which I was in), I have stopped believing that I control my thoughts and actions.

Again you're just kidding yourself here Edward. If you didn't believe that you controlled your thoughts or actions then there wouldn't be all the stressing about future problems. You would realise that no amount of stressing would make an ounce of difference because there IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO to change the way that things play out.

What can you do about the future if you're not the thinker of thoughts or the doer of doing?

Ok, so your direct experience tells you that the only awareness here is the one that is aware of reading of this sentence right now, and it tells you that you have no control of any thinking or doing, and it tells you that this awareness has no location, and it tells you that there is no reason to believe that there is a "me", and yet you are aware and you are here.

So what are you then?

If I'm answering based on direct experience, then there is no me and there's just this experience. And, I believe that to be true.

I don't believe you. I think you're being dishonest in this answer.

There is awareness of this experience. Does the awareness have a location?

But I also believe that there is a me, and that I am some sort of object which is here (but which can't be found) and which has beliefs, thoughts, a body, and so on.

I believe this because this answer is consistent with the suffering that you report.

Now remember that you have earlier told us that you do not believe yourself to be the thinker of thoughts nor the doer of doing. So please explain how that statement ties in with this statement that you just made.

Can you see how you are saying two completely different things to us?

First you tell us that you believe that there is no you and there is just experiencing, then you tell us that you believe that you are "some sort of object".

In an earlier post you told us that you do not believe that you are the thinker of thoughts, and then in this post you say that you believe that you are something "which has beliefs thoughts and a body".

Do you see that you're not being honest with yourself and you're not being honest with us.

[/quote]="xyzzy"] This is the belief which feels true, the idea that there is no me is just intellectual and doesn't affect anything.[/quote]

Ok, so you've just admitted that none of the answers that you gave me "feel true". So we need to go right back to the start of the enquiry and start from the beginning again. I could to go back to all my questions on page 10 and answer them again - but this time honestly.

Instead we will begin this whole process again by starting with the questions about being the thinker of thoughts.

Do you think that you are the thinker of thoughts? If you do then are you able to completely stop all thoughts at will? Are you able to decide to only ever have happy thoughts? Are you able to decide what every single next thought will be?

Or do thoughts just seem to "arise"?

Remember that if you are not the thinker of some thoughts then you can't be the thinker of any thoughts - unless of course there are two of you, with one thinking some thoughts and another thinking the rest of the thoughts.

Please don't reply that you "know intellectually" that you are not the thinker of thoughts because we both know that's not true. You've just said "I also believe that there is a me, and that I am some sort of object which is here (but which can't be found) and which has beliefs, thoughts, a body, and so on."

If there is no "me" then what is it that believes all of this? If there is no thinker of thoughts then how can there be a believer of beliefs? What is it that is believing beliefs? Is there something that believes beliefs, or are there just thought constructed ideas that thought says are beliefs?

Again, when answering the questions in this post, please be as sure as possible that you are answering from direct experience. Take your time, and answer each one please. Each one has been asked for a reason.

I don't understand what you mean by "know it intellectually". It sounds to me like it means "I'm prepared to accept it logically and to say that I know it intellectually".

What do you mean by "I know it intellectually"?

Do you know that you are aware of this sentence or do you just accept it intellectually? Please answer this question honestly.

Then tell me whether your knowing of your awareness of this sentence is the same as your knowing that you are not the thinker of thoughts or the doer of doing?

If it's not the same type of "knowing" then please explain the difference.

Ultimately, the only thing I really know is that this experience is happening. Obviously I wasn't referring to this type of knowing when I said I know it intellectually. What I meant was that it was something I had logically concluded was true. I know that I am aware of that sentence in a completely different way than I know that 5 + 5 = 10 or anything else which the mind believes or concludes.

Again, do you KNOW that there is no "me", or do you just "accept it intellectually". Why do you continually qualify your answers with the word "intellectually"? It seems to me that when you say "I know it intellectually" you don't mean any such thing. It seems that you mean "I will accept it as a valid argument if I see some benefit from it".

We are not asking you for stuff that you "accept" or "know intellectually", were asking for stuff that you KNOW from direct evidence to be true.

From now on please reply ONLY with answers that you KNOW to be true from direct evidence. We're not interested in intellectual stuff here, we're interested in direct experience. We're looking at the true nature of subjectivity, so we need reports of direct experience.

I only intellectually accept that there is no me, I don't know it.

With many of the questions that I'm being asked here, I would have no idea how to answer them only from the standpoint of direct experience. I'll attempt to do so, though.

Again you're just kidding yourself here Edward. If you didn't believe that you controlled your thoughts or actions then there wouldn't be all the stressing about future problems. You would realise that no amount of stressing would make an ounce of difference because there IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO to change the way that things play out.

What can you do about the future if you're not the thinker of thoughts or the doer of doing?

(This is an example of a question I would have no idea how to answer from direct experience, so I'm not going to)

I believe that I don't control my thoughts and actions. It's possible that I still have the opposite belief that I do control my thoughts and actions, but that I am unaware of this belief.

Obviously you can't do anything about the future if you're not the thinker of thoughts or the doer of doing. I believe that I can't do anything about the future. It may be that I also have the opposite belief, but if so, I don't realize that.

There is awareness of this experience. Does the awareness have a location?

I don't know how to answer this question, as I'm not really sure what awareness is.

Now remember that you have earlier told us that you do not believe yourself to be the thinker of thoughts nor the doer of doing. So please explain how that statement ties in with this statement that you just made.

Can you see how you are saying two completely different things to us?

First you tell us that you believe that there is no you and there is just experiencing, then you tell us that you believe that you are "some sort of object".

In an earlier post you told us that you do not believe that you are the thinker of thoughts, and then in this post you say that you believe that you are something "which has beliefs thoughts and a body".

Do you see that you're not being honest with yourself and you're not being honest with us.

Yes, I fully understand that I am saying two completely different things. This doesn't mean that I'm being dishonest, it means that I have multiple contradictory views on things, multiple contradictory answers to questions that I am asked. See page 2 of this thread, 6 messages down, where I was giving two completely opposite answers to a question I was asked.

Apparently this is causing confusion, but I wasn't intending it to, and I definitely wasn't trying to deceive anyone (or myself).

Ok, so you've just admitted that none of the answers that you gave me "feel true". So we need to go right back to the start of the enquiry and start from the beginning again. I could to go back to all my questions on page 10 and answer them again - but this time honestly.

Instead we will begin this whole process again by starting with the questions about being the thinker of thoughts.

Do you think that you are the thinker of thoughts? If you do then are you able to completely stop all thoughts at will? Are you able to decide to only ever have happy thoughts? Are you able to decide what every single next thought will be?

Or do thoughts just seem to "arise"?

Obviously I can't stop all thoughts at will, decide to only have happy thoughts, or decide what every single next thought will be.

I don't think that I'm the thinker of thoughts. You've suggested above, though, that maybe I still believe that I am controlling my thoughts. If that's the case, I'm not sure how to find this belief.

I'm not sure whether or not thoughts just seem to arise. It feels like I agree with my thoughts, or maybe a more direct way of saying that is that it feels like my thoughts are true.

If there is no "me" then what is it that believes all of this? If there is no thinker of thoughts then how can there be a believer of beliefs? What is it that is believing beliefs? Is there something that believes beliefs, or are there just thought constructed ideas that thought says are beliefs?

I don't know how to answer these questions from the standpoint of direct experience.

I don't know how to answer these questions from the standpoint of direct experience.

Oh my Edward. This answer is SO great!

Do you really want to know how to experience directly?
Read the post where Empty Mirror explains in details how to do it. Then start.

If there is something in the explanation that you do not understand, ask. Have in mind though that experiencing directly is the best way to understand what it is and how to do it.

:)
Vivi

Hi Edward

I want to make one thing very clear here. We are NOT here to spoon-feed you, and we're NOT here to baby you or do the work for you.

I don't understand what you mean by "know it intellectually". It sounds to me like it means "I'm prepared to accept it logically and to say that I know it intellectually".

What do you mean by "I know it intellectually"?

Do you know that you are aware of this sentence or do you just accept it intellectually? Please answer this question honestly.

Then tell me whether your knowing of your awareness of this sentence is the same as your knowing that you are not the thinker of thoughts or the doer of doing?

If it's not the same type of "knowing" then please explain the difference.

Ultimately, the only thing I really know is that this experience is happening.

Finally you've given one answer that seems to have been verified with direct experience!!!

And with a little more effort you'll find that it's not the only thing you know.

Obviously I wasn't referring to this type of knowing when I said I know it intellectually.

What's so obvious about it Edward? What on earth is "knowing intellectually" if it's not knowing in the same way that you know that you're aware of this sentence? If it's just intellectual theorising then quite clearly it can't be called knowing in any way shape or form.

We're not interested in any other type of "knowings" that you might like to imagine. We're interested EXCLUSIVELY in the real type of knowing. We only want you to report what you KNOW in the same way that KNOW that you are aware of this sentence.

This is VERY important if you want to continue this enquiry. There are a limited number of guides, and this process requires effort from both sides. If you're incapable of, or unwilling to, actually put in the effort of discerning between the two then there is little point in going on with this.

Again, do you KNOW that there is no "me", or do you just "accept it intellectually". Why do you continually qualify your answers with the word "intellectually"? It seems to me that when you say "I know it intellectually" you don't mean any such thing. It seems that you mean "I will accept it as a valid argument if I see some benefit from it".

We are not asking you for stuff that you "accept" or "know intellectually", were asking for stuff that you KNOW from direct evidence to be true.

From now on please reply ONLY with answers that you KNOW to be true from direct evidence. We're not interested in intellectual stuff here, we're interested in direct experience. We're looking at the true nature of subjectivity, so we need reports of direct experience.

I only intellectually accept that there is no me, I don't know it.

Forget about "intellectual acceptance" because it is a ridiculous concept anyway. "Intellectual acceptance" is nothing but lip service, and the fact that you can say this after so much enquiry doesn't bode well for you unless you're prepared to actually put in some effort here. We've continually emphasised that we do not want to know what your "intellectual" answers are, and have continually stressed the need to verify the thoughts about your replies by referring to direct experiential evidence.

With many of the questions that I'm being asked here, I would have no idea how to answer them only from the standpoint of direct experience.

Are you saying that you're incapable of describing direct experience? Are you saying that you can't report experience without attaching some story to it? You're having the direct experience aren't you? Why aren't you able to describe it?

I'll attempt to do so, though.

Ok, I'll take you at your word on that. Let's see how you do.

Again you're just kidding yourself here Edward. If you didn't believe that you controlled your thoughts or actions then there wouldn't be all the stressing about future problems. You would realise that no amount of stressing would make an ounce of difference because there IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO to change the way that things play out.

What can you do about the future if you're not the thinker of thoughts or the doer of doing?

(This is an example of a question I would have no idea how to answer from direct experience, so I'm not going to)

That's fine, obviously if the question is asking you about experience then we are asking for a reply from direct experience, and if the question is a question that sounds like a logical question, which doesn't need any reference to direct experience then you can answer it logically.

I believe that I don't control my thoughts and actions. It's possible that I still have the opposite belief that I do control my thoughts and actions, but that I am unaware of this belief.

Obviously you can't do anything about the future if you're not the thinker of thoughts or the doer of doing. I believe that I can't do anything about the future. It may be that I also have the opposite belief, but if so, I don't realize that.

Ok, so what you've said above is that you don't believe you're the thinker of thoughts unless you do believe that you're the thinker of thoughts. You've given no answer here Edward. You're wasting your time and ours with this sort of reply.

Is this your "attempt to do so"?

Now remember that you have earlier told us that you do not believe yourself to be the thinker of thoughts nor the doer of doing. So please explain how that statement ties in with this statement that you just made.

Can you see how you are saying two completely different things to us?

First you tell us that you believe that there is no you and there is just experiencing, then you tell us that you believe that you are "some sort of object".

In an earlier post you told us that you do not believe that you are the thinker of thoughts, and then in this post you say that you believe that you are something "which has beliefs thoughts and a body".

Do you see that you're not being honest with yourself and you're not being honest with us.

Yes, I fully understand that I am saying two completely different things. This doesn't mean that I'm being dishonest, it means that I have multiple contradictory views on things, multiple contradictory answers to questions that I am asked.

Are you being serious???

Well perhaps it would be best for you to go away with all of the questions that we've given you and mull them over, and come back when you are able to come up with some single answers to the questions, rather than multiple contradictory ones.

The vast majority of people on this forum are able to come up with answers that they know are right. They do this by actually taking the time to investigate their direct experience and be certain of their answers.

You come back within a matter of minutes of reading our replies and your answers are usually one liners which show clearly that you've put no effort in on your side. It seems as if you're expecting someone to do the 'looking' for you. It's as if you want to have the answers handed to you on a plate.

See page 2 of this thread, 6 messages down, where I was giving two completely opposite answers to a question I was asked.

You seem to say that with a measure of pride, as if it demonstrates some sort of deep wisdom to be incapable of recognising your own direct experience.

Apparently this is causing confusion, but I wasn't intending it to, and I definitely wasn't trying to deceive anyone (or myself).

It's only because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and choosing to believe this sentence, that I've even bothered to reply Edward.

If what you say above is true then you need to seriously sit yourself down and get a hold of yourself. This is not a difficult thing to do. You must be over-complicating things if you're genuinely incapable of coming up with answers that are verifiable with direct experiential evidence.

Ok, so you've just admitted that none of the answers that you gave me "feel true". So we need to go right back to the start of the enquiry and start from the beginning again. I could to go back to all my questions on page 10 and answer them again - but this time honestly.

Instead we will begin this whole process again by starting with the questions about being the thinker of thoughts.

Do you think that you are the thinker of thoughts? If you do then are you able to completely stop all thoughts at will? Are you able to decide to only ever have happy thoughts? Are you able to decide what every single next thought will be?

Or do thoughts just seem to "arise"?

Obviously I can't stop all thoughts at will, decide to only have happy thoughts, or decide what every single next thought will be.

What's so obvious about it? If it's so "obvious" then how do you believe that you're the thinker of thoughts????

I don't think that I'm the thinker of thoughts. You've suggested above, though, that maybe I still believe that I am controlling my thoughts. If that's the case, I'm not sure how to find this belief.

I didn't suggest it, you said it yourself. You said that you believe that you are "something which has beliefs thoughts and a body".

I'm not sure whether or not thoughts just seem to arise. It feels like I agree with my thoughts, or maybe a more direct way of saying that is that it feels like my thoughts are true.

Ok, so here you're calling them your thoughts again. Please answer this question: Are you prepared to accept that what thoughts say is true, without first discovering whether they are your thoughts?

Are you prepared to even go to the effort to try to discover whether they are or aren't?

If there is no "me" then what is it that believes all of this? If there is no thinker of thoughts then how can there be a believer of beliefs? What is it that is believing beliefs? Is there something that believes beliefs, or are there just thought constructed ideas that thought says are beliefs?

I don't know how to answer these questions from the standpoint of direct experience.

Well you're the one making the claim, so then what you're saying is that you think things and believe things, but are unable to confirm this through direct experiential evidence.

And you seem quite happy to just leave it at that. Or are you perhaps expecting somebody to somehow do the investigation of your own subjectivity for you? I suggest that you either just leave it at that, or else actually put in some effort to answer the questions honestly and directly, without any bullshit.

Read through my previous posts, especially the one that describes how to recognise direct experience, and answer all of the questions again (no point in my repeating them) to yourself. If you find that you are unable to notice the difference between what is direct experience and what is thought stories about direct experience don't bother answering, and we'll just close the thread and stop wasting one another's time.

If any of your answers are "I don't know" then keep investigating until you do KNOW. We're not interested in multiple contradictory answers or "I don't know" answers. Don't reply until you do KNOW.

Like I say, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and I'm assuming that you're not trying to make fun of this process, but if you give me any more answers like "I don't believe I'm the thinker of thoughts unless I do believe that I'm the thinker of thoughts" I'll just refer you back to this post.

Your next replies will either show that you've put in the effort or else they will receive no replies from any guides other than to refer you back to the thread and the questions that you've already been asked.

Your call buddy.

Hi Edward

Take a look at these two videos which may help you:

First watch this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Biv_8xj ... e=youtu.be

and then this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BM8aQTrHOo