The Gate

Hi Vivien,
I watched most of the actions happened today from the time of getting out of the bed for the purpose of finding out how I make decisions. For some actions, I noticed the intension to do it and then the action happened. Some other actions just happened without my awareness of a clear decision-thought or intension. In both types of cases I haven't made the decision thought to come up. According to the situation it came up. For example, I woke up in the morning without knowing any decision about it, then there was an intension to get up, then I got out of bed. Feeling cold then turned the heater on an so on. Clearly, I did not perform any act of decision making. I became aware of the intension in some cases.

When there is something I needed to do, that thought (the intension) came up in the mind time to time until that action is done. The thought coming up was automatic and the action happened as a response.
When the thought came to my mind "Now I have to make a decision to explore the process of decision making" then the mind was silent for some time. Then I tried saying "should I use the blue pen or red pen?" then the decision to use the blue pen popped up. Clearly, I didn't make it come. When I say it as a question to me like that, then I see a decision comes up, but during the day in normal operations I didn't always see the decisions, yet alone how it was made.

HOW you perform the act of making a decision? So how do you do it? Literally, HOW do you do it? 
How do you perform the act of decision making?

I don't perform the act of making decisions

Are you making the decision-thoughts to arise? Is it your doing?
Or the ‘decision-thoughts’ appear on their own, just as any thoughts coming from nowhere, just suddenly there, and you are aware of this ‘decision-thought’ AFTER it is there.

I am not making the decision thought to arise, it is not something I can do. It appears automatically like any other thought. I become aware of it after it comes. Sometimes, I don't know the decision thought, but the action happens. 

That's where I am now.
Thank you for your patience and support in seeing the truth

Hi Grace,

You did a great looking.

When the thought came to my mind "Now I have to make a decision to explore the process of decision making" then the mind was silent for some time.

Can you observe what you call ‘mind’ here and now?
What is it in the very moment you observe it?
What about its shape? Color? Texture? Size?

How ‘mind’ as such is experienced?
As a thought? Sensation? Sound? Imagination?

Vivien

Thank you Vivien.

When the thought came to my mind "Now I have to make a decision to explore the process of decision making" then the mind was silent for some time.

Can you observe what you call ‘mind’ here and now?

When I look for what I feel as mind here and now, I don't find any tangible object or any location of it. I feel it as just the arising thought at the moment. 

What is it in the very moment you observe it?

In the very moment of observing the mind, it is a thought about the "mind"

What about its shape? Color? Texture? Size?

Since I don't feel the mind as an object, can't talk about a shape, color, texture or size. It doesn't have these characteristics.

How ‘mind’ as such is experienced?
As a thought? Sensation? Sound? Imagination?

I could experience what I called mind as thoughts, liveliness, awareness or sensations. Since imagination is also a thought, mind is experienced as such too. Sound: When I paid attention to sounds in the background, l heard a dog barking, a car passing by etc and the mind is experienced thought those sounds. Then again, it's the thought that says "It's a dog barking" that revealed the mind.

Looking forward to experience and explore more about the mind, then again it's a thought that came up.

Hi Grace,

I feel it as just the arising thought at the moment.

So there are just thoughts arising.

So the question is, is there REALLY such thing as thoughts coming from a mind?
Or this is just an unquestioned assumption believed to be true?

I could experience what I called mind as thoughts, liveliness, awareness or sensations.

No. This is just a speculation.
Thought is the experience of the arising of a thought, NOT the experience of a ‘mind’.
Sensation is the experience of a sensation, and NOT the experience of a ‘mind’.

Since imagination is also a thought, mind is experienced as such too

Imagination is a thought, yes, so imagination is the experience of the presence of thought, and NOT a ‘mind’.

Sound: When I paid attention to sounds in the background, l heard a dog barking, a car passing by etc and the mind is experienced thought those sounds

No, not at all.
The sound is the experience of a sound, and NOT the experience of a ‘mind’.

Then again, it's the thought that says "It's a dog barking" that revealed the mind.

This is just a thought speculation. A thought doesn’t reveal a ‘mind’.

Can you see that with all the above, ‘mind’ is just inferred? Just assumed? But NEVER a reality?

In the very moment of observing the mind, it is a thought about the "mind"

Is there mind outside of words that speak of one?
Is there mind independent of thoughts that are imagined to come from 'a mind'?

Vivien

Thank you Vivien,

Hi Grace,

I feel it as just the arising thought at the moment.

So there are just thoughts arising.

So the question is, is there REALLY such thing as thoughts coming from a mind?  Or this is just an unquestioned assumption believed to be true?

I can't find thoughts coming up from any particular place. They just become known.  There can not be really a thing that thoughts coming from. The reason we use the term "mind" appears to be a belief as there is no evidence of its existence.
I wonder if there Is a way to experientially know it? 
In the normal usage of terms, is the word mind same as consciousness?

At first there was a resistance to see that "the mind is not real but just assumed" Looking closely, it was a thought saying "It can't be true, mind exists" Another thought saying "I doubt it" They are all thoughts and not to be believed. There is no evidence or direct experience of the mind other than concepts (thoughts) about it. Based on what we learned, when we experience a thought, sensation etc, we take it as a function of the mind. I looked more about the doubt. Physical body and the assumed mind are the main reasons behind the self-illusion. We identify ourselves with our mind and body. Accepting the fact that there is no mind does not support this illusion that is automatically operating. Perhaps the doubt-thought is a part of self-illusion-thought.
Then a question arose what thoughts (contents) are true and what are not. I think anything that challenges the self are not true (that's another thought too). The the idea of the mind need to be dropped because it is a belief, a long hold belief that we are our body and mind. I am ready to leave behind all beliefs and start looking with fresh eyes

I could experience what I called mind as thoughts, liveliness, awareness or sensations.

No. This is just a speculation.
Thought is the experience of the arising of a thought, NOT the experience of a ‘mind’.
Sensation is the experience of a sensation, and NOT the experience of a ‘mind’.

Since imagination is also a thought, mind is experienced as such too.

Imagination is a thought, yes, so imagination is the experience of the presence of thought, and NOT a ‘mind’.

Sound: When I paid attention to sounds in the background, l heard a dog barking, a car passing by etc and the mind is experienced thought those sounds

No, not at all.
The sound is the experience of a sound, and NOT the experience of a ‘mind’.

Then again, it's the thought that says "It's a dog barking" that revealed the mind.

This is just a thought speculation. A thought doesn’t reveal a ‘mind’.

Can you see that with all the above, ‘mind’ is just inferred? Just assumed? But NEVER a reality?

Yes, I can see it now. Its just like the belief of a self, you can't find it but you believe that it is there. Thoughts can be known, but a mind is assumed. Based on the acquired knowledge, we accept the  thoughts, feelings, sensations etc. represent the function of a mind. So its not direct experience. It makes sense, in the way you put that in to words: "Thought is the experience of the arising of a thought, Sensation is the experience of a sensation"

In the very moment of observing the mind, it is a thought about the "mind"

Is there mind outside of words that speak of one? 
Is there mind independent of thoughts that are imagined to come from 'a mind'?

No, there is no mind other than a thought about it. It is an imagination that thoughts are associated with a mind. It is something learned and accepted without questioning. Seems like lot of illusions to see through. The concept of mind is a big one.
I keep looking at all the actions happening directly and trying to identify where speculations/concepts interfere. Beginning to see how thoughts create illusions. Thank you Vivien for pointing. I really appreciate your help. Without your guidance, I wouldn't have looked, would only think and conceptualize (more and more thoughts to support illusion)

Hi Grace,

I can't find thoughts coming up from any particular place. They just become known. There can not be really a thing that thoughts coming from. The reason we use the term "mind" appears to be a belief as there is no evidence of its existence.
I wonder if there Is a way to experientially know it?

Experientially knowing is just what you described. To SEE that thoughts don’t come from anywhere. To SEE that there is nothing which thinks thoughts. To SEE that the word ‘mind’ nowhere to be found, other than a concept/thought.

Physical body and the assumed mind are the main reasons behind the self-illusion. We identify ourselves with our mind and body.

Yes, exactly.

Perhaps the doubt-thought is a part of self-illusion-thought.

Yes :) Doubt is part of narrative story about the ‘me’.

I am ready to leave behind all beliefs and start looking with fresh eyes

Very good. This openness will help you a lot.

Yes, I can see it now. Its just like the belief of a self, you can't find it but you believe that it is there. Thoughts can be known, but a mind is assumed. Based on the acquired knowledge, we accept the thoughts, feelings, sensations etc. represent the function of a mind. So its not direct experience.

What a nice discovery :)

Thank you Vivien for pointing. I really appreciate your help.

You are very welcome :)

Do you have unpleasant thoughts? Do you chose them?
Why do you have them if you have control over thoughts?
If thoughts can be thought or created, why not make it so that only pleasant thoughts are thought?
If you had any control over thoughts, why don’t you just stop choosing unhappy or negative thoughts?
If you were the thinker of thoughts, wouldn’t it be the easiest thing to think whatever you like, and not think what you don’t like?

Please set a timer for 5 minutes. The task is to think EXCLUSIVELY pleasant thoughts for the whole duration. Not a single negative thought, and not even a neutral one. But 100% positive. If you are the thinker/creator of thoughts, this should be the easiest thing to do :)

Let me how it goes.

Vivien

Thanks Vivien.

Do you have unpleasant thoughts? Do you chose them?

Yes, I do have unpleasant thoughts. A thought is considered unpleasant when I believe another thought that says it is so.
No, for sure I don't and I can't choose them, who would want to?  Some times the same negative thought (means same content) comes again and again frequently for an extended period of time, days, weeks and months. Then it stop coming. Noway to predict how long it will repeat.

Why do you have them if you have control over thoughts?

No, I don't have any control over what thought will arise. That's why we are having to experience unpleasant thoughts. 

If thoughts can be thought or created, why not make it so that only pleasant thoughts are thought?

No, thoughts can't be created by anyone, that's why we all experience some unhappiness. 

If you had any control over thoughts, why don’t you just stop choosing unhappy or negative thoughts?

Had I any control over thoughts, for sure I would stop unhappy ones. Everybody experiences negative thoughts because nobody is able to control what thoughts to come.

If you were the thinker of thoughts, wouldn’t it be the easiest thing to think whatever you like, and not think what you don’t like?

Nobody is a thinker. One can only experience thoughts that happen to come. Only in conventional talking we say "I think/thought this.. that etc" But in reality it's just an experience of such a thought arising.

Please set a timer for 5 minutes. The task is to think EXCLUSIVELY pleasant thoughts for the whole duration. Not a single negative thought, and not even a neutral one. But 100% positive. If you are the thinker/creator of thoughts, this should be the easiest thing to do :)
Let me know how it goes.

When I read the instructions for the exercise, a topic-thought came up "I am going to think about my graduation day" Set the timer: Few thoughts into the exercise, suddenly had a thought on another topic; neutral thoughts about something I was planning to do this afternoon. Then a memory arose saying that already few thoughts long that line passed. Happened few times. When the time was up I was with another thought about a movie I watched.

Did the exercise again, this time a topic-thought did not come. Few random happy thoughts then "How do I write this up"- a neutral thought. Attention went to the breath, noticing the breath back and fourth few times in between thoughts. Thoughts about sensations on the leg. A thought saying "I want to think about happy moments"- that's neutral thought. When the time was up and recall, couldn't remember all in the order they appeared. They were random mix of thoughts.

It's not possible to have 100% of any kind of thoughts or any planned way of thoughts to appear. It confirms that I don't have any control over the thoughts.

Hi Grace,

You did a nice looking :)

It's not possible to have 100% of any kind of thoughts or any planned way of thoughts to appear. It confirms that I don't have any control over the thoughts.

What is this ‘I’ that doesn't have control over thoughts?

Is the I/self something like an entity, or is it rather insubstantial, like a character in a story?

Is there an ‘I’ outside of the story of the me-character?

Vivien

Thank you Vivien, for your comments and questions.

What is this ‘I’ that doesn't have control over thoughts? 

     
  "I" is the sense felt of an entity referring to the body, thoughts and feelings all together such as "Here I am" "I am Grace" etc.  But when looking at the feeling directly, it's just a thought that arise constantly among other thoughts. This "I" created by thoughts doesn't have a control over thoughts. It's not possible for the one that is created to create the creator.

 The ability to think is what convinces us of a person (self/me). However, now looking at the thinking process which is actually not even a process, rather a thought-arising phenomenon happening automatically, doesn't need any person or entity to do it. So the thinking (the felt ability to think) doesn't have much weight anymore in contributing to the sense of a self/I.

Since the feelings are nothing but suggestions by thoughts, the feeling of "I", sense of "I" is brought about by thoughts. Thoughts only say there is this person called Grace, who does this and that.  If put aside what thoughts say, no reason to  believe there is this separate self doing all this.  When I am looking often throughout the day at actions happening, it is obvious, other times "I am doing..." is believed automatically.
Since recently a thought saying "It is just a thought" arise often. I didn't make it to come about, but it does come. Perhaps a new conditioning.

Is the I/self something like an entity, or is it rather insubstantial, like a character in a story?

I see that it is a character in a story, but I still feel as if this body is separate from other bodies (therefore an entity?). Although I see that the body operates automatically responding to stimuli, I feel like it's operating separately.  

It feels real to be proud or ashamed when remembering of achievements and failures-which are parts of the story of me-character. Looking closely being proud or ashamed are just thoughts. Clearly nothing more than that. Perhaps out of habit, those feeling arise, despite the fact that is is seen through.
Feelings are just thoughts; I have noticed, while the indoor temperature remains the same day to day, when I see through windows that it is sunny outside I don't feel cold but when it is seen cloudy and gloomy, feeling of cold arise and end up in putting on several layers of clothes. Thoughts are believed and the body responds. Believing the thoughts also happens automatically.

Is there an ‘I’ outside of the story of the me-character?

"I" is all in the story of the character-me. Whenever there is an "I, me, my" in a thought, the content of that thought gets added to the story. This story gets bigger and bigger and the belief in it gets stronger. When I tried to describe me, it's always a part taken from this story. There is nothing outside the story that can describe "me"
If I drop all what thoughts are telling, then there is nothing to support "me" There is just liveliness, a life form living.
I wonder though, since thoughts arise automatically without being controlled by any entity, how to stop the "This is me, I did this etc" thoughts? Should we just let it happen? A thought arose "yes, just let it happen"

More peace here! Thank you.

Hi Grace,

So the thinking (the felt ability to think) doesn't have much weight anymore in contributing to the sense of a self/I.

Can thinking actually felt? Or thinking being felt is just part of the story of me?

I see that it is a character in a story, but I still feel as if this body is separate from other bodies (therefore an entity?).
Although I see that the body operates automatically responding to stimuli, I feel like it's operating separately.

Be careful with expectations and assumptions about separation or non-separation.

Do you expect that the body somehow will merge with other bodies or with its environment?
Or that you won’t be able to distinguish ‘your’ body form other bodies? Or not being able to distinguish the body from a tree?
It’s not about not seeing/feeling the body being different from other bodies, it’s about seeing if there is a self INSIDE the body living through the body, experiencing through the body, and having power of the body, being in the driving seat.

We will investigate the topic of separation later.

I wonder though, since thoughts arise automatically without being controlled by any entity, how to stop the "This is me, I did this etc" thoughts? Should we just let it happen? A thought arose "yes, just let it happen"

Why should thoughts of ‘this is me’ or ‘I did this’ to stop?
Whose problem are these thoughts?

Is there another ‘me’ outside of the story of ‘this is me, and I did this and that’ who wants to stop them?
Or wanting to stop thoughts is ALSO part of the story?

And who says and judged that these thoughts should or shouldn’t to happen? The me-character in the story?

Or there is another me outside of the story who judges these thoughts, has control over them, and has a power to let them be or not?

Look very carefully with each question.

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

So the thinking (the felt ability to think) doesn't have much weight anymore in contributing to the sense of a self/I.

Can thinking actually felt? Or thinking being felt is just part of the story of me?

No, thinking can't be felt, what I mean here is "the assumed thinking ability". There is no real thinking ability, it is just a thought about a thinking ability. This thought is also a part of the story of "me"

I see that it is a character in a story, but I still feel as if this body is separate from other bodies (therefore an entity?).Although I see that the body operates automatically responding to stimuli, I feel like it's operating separately.

Be careful with expectations and assumptions about separation or non-separation.

I see it now, an expectation had crept up, despite the advice to leave them aside as they are hindrances to seeing through the self.

Do you expect that the body somehow will merge with other bodies or with its environment?

No, I didn't expect the bodies to merge. Since the "self" is defined as a 'separate entity', there was an assumption that once the self is seen through, there won't be a feeling as a separate being.  Assumptions are just thoughts and need to be dropped.

Or that you won’t be able to distinguish ‘your’ body form other bodies? Or not being able to distinguish the body from a tree?

No, I didn't expect not being able to distinguish one's body from others bodies or other objects. If that is the case, it would be a problem. It would be kind of funny.

It’s not about not seeing/feeling the body being different from other bodies, it’s about seeing if there is a self INSIDE the body living through the body, experiencing through the body, and having power of the body, being in the driving seat.

I see it now what seeing through self is about. No, I don't see there is a "self" inside the body living and experiencing through it and having power of the body, being in the driver seat.No need of a "self" inside the body to experiences seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and sensations, these happen to no one. Nobody exist inside telling how to respond to those stimuli. Bodily actions happen in response to them in accordance with the conditioning or habit patterns.  Thoughts happen by itself, nobody is in control of them. 

I wonder though, since thoughts arise automatically without being controlled by any entity, how to stop the "This is me, I did this etc" thoughts? Should we just let it happen? A thought arose "yes, just let it happen"

Why should thoughts of ‘this is me’ or ‘I did this’ to stop?

Expectation-thought. A thought now arose to drop it. Story been edited.

Whose problem are these thoughts?

If it is a problem, it should be thought's problem, because there is nobody else to own it.

Is there another ‘me’ outside of the story of ‘this is me, and I did this and that’ who wants to stop them?

There is no other "me" other than that in the story. "me" doesn't exist outside of the story. Story is story, "me" inside the story is also not real, its imaginary. "Wanting to stop the me-narration" is also a part of the story of "me", because it is also a thought referring to "me"

Or wanting to stop thoughts is ALSO part of the story?

Yes, that is also part the story of "me", the latest development of the story. 

And who says and judged that these thoughts should or shouldn’t to happen? The me-character in the story?

Yes, it is the me-character in the story, the thoughts which made up the me-character said so. Should be discarded.   

Or there is another me outside of the story who judges these thoughts, has control over them, and has a power to let them be or not?

No, there is no other "me" outside of the story to do anything at all. There is nobody even inside the story to do anything, not to mention controlling thoughts.
   
Thank you for your time. I appreciate it very much.

Hi Grace,

I see it now what seeing through self is about. No, I don't see there is a "self" inside the body living and experiencing through it and having power of the body, being in the driver seat.No need of a "self" inside the body to experiences seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and sensations, these happen to no one. Nobody exist inside telling how to respond to those stimuli. Bodily actions happen in response to them in accordance with the conditioning or habit patterns. Thoughts happen by itself, nobody is in control of them.

How does it FEEL to see this?

Can you say that this reply is coming from experientially seeing it, or rather from an intellectual understanding?

Expectation-thought. A thought now arose to drop it. Story been edited.

And what edits the story?
How is the story made?
Is there a narrator of the story?

V: Whose problem are these thoughts?

G: If it is a problem, it should be thought's problem, because there is nobody else to own it.

Are thoughts some sort of agencies who could have problems?
Does a thought have volition?
What can a thought do?

Yes, it is the me-character in the story, the thoughts which made up the me-character said so. Should be discarded.

What is it that has the power to discard thoughts?

No, I didn't expect the bodies to merge. Since the "self" is defined as a 'separate entity', there was an assumption that once the self is seen through, there won't be a feeling as a separate being.

Please describe me the ‘feeling of a separate being’ as precisely as you can. But only describe the raw feeling itself, without any speculation, fantasy, theory or analogy.

Vivien

Thank you Vivien.

I see it now what seeing through self is about. No, I don't see there is a "self" inside the body living and experiencing through it and having power of the body, being in the driver seat.No need of a "self" inside the body to experiences seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and sensations, these happen to no one. Nobody exist inside telling how to respond to those stimuli. Bodily actions happen in response to them in accordance with the conditioning or habit patterns. Thoughts happen by itself, nobody is in control of them.

How does it FEEL to see this?

I don't feel anything dramatically different. I am at peace with everything. I see more acceptance of what is. Often see that thoughts arising automatically and how they create feelings which are not real. Feeling of excitement, sadness etc. etc. are dampened.

Can you say that this reply is coming from experientially seeing it, or rather from an intellectual understanding?

It may be partly experiential and partly intellectual; I see it often, but not always. With your experience, you would be able to spot where it is coming from. I don't want to jump into conclusion, rather want to see the truth clearly. Often when there is a feeling of happiness, boredom, excitement etc etc., I notice a thought follows "It is only what thoughts say" Some times that thought is not noticed or it may not come immediately. Is that considered experiential or is it then thinking going on?

Expectation-thought. A thought now arose to drop it. Story been edited.

And what edits the story?

Nobody. It happens by thoughts. Whenever something happens and a thought arise saying "that happened to me" "I feel this and that", "I did this and that", that means the story is updated with the new content. 

How is the story made? 

The story is made by thoughts. Every time a thought arise, it becomes a part of the story of "self" The story has a past and future, which are created by thought. 

Is there a narrator of the story?

Narrator is also a thought.

V: Whose problem are these thoughts?
G: If it is a problem, it should be thought's problem, because there is nobody else to own it.

Are thoughts some sort of agencies who could have problems?

No, thoughts are not agencies to have problems. Thoughts just arise and pass away. 

Does a thought have volition?

No, a thought doesn't have a volition. It may have "a volition" as its content.

What can a thought do?

A thought can't do anything. It just arises and passes away. They can't do the arising and disappearing. It happens. Thoughts can contain ideas or images. That's all to it.

What is it that has the power to discard thoughts?

It is just another thought saying to discard/disregard the thought. That thought doesn't have any power to discard a thought or do any action what so ever, only it has the contents saying so. There is nothing that has any power to discard a thought. All thoughts pass away.

Please describe me the ‘feeling of a separate being’ as precisely as you can. But only describe the raw feeling itself, without any speculation, fantasy, theory or analogy.

Actually, experientially I can't feel being a "separate being" or otherwise. Sometimes thoughts say selfish things like "my things have priority over others", "why others bother me" etc, etc. This is what I meant by feeling as separate being. I mean I don't feel others needs are equally important to me as mine. But all these are nothing but thoughts, not raw feelings.

Hi Grace,

Often when there is a feeling of happiness, boredom, excitement etc etc., I notice a thought follows "It is only what thoughts say" Some times that thought is not noticed or it may not come immediately. Is that considered experiential or is it then thinking going on?

Seeing the self illusion is not about what thoughts say. Not at all.
It’s about actually SEEING that the self is not there, it’s just imagined. Regardless of what thoughts say.

If you rely only on what thoughts say, and not seeing in that very moment that indeed there is no self, then it’s just intellectual.

If I ask you what colour socks you are wearing right now you have two ways to come up with an answer:

You can have a think about it, you can think back to this morning and try to remember putting your socks on, and you can probably tell me what colour you think they are.

Alternatively, you can take a quick look at your socks and tell me what colour they actually are!

Hopefully you would agree that you can only be 100% certain by looking, and not what thoughts come up about the colour of your socks.

You have to actually SEE the colours, and NOT just THINK about the colours.

And form your replies it seems to me that you often resort to thoughts, to memories about what has been seen before, and not to LOOK and SEE here now, in this very moment.

Nobody. It happens by thoughts. Whenever something happens and a thought arise saying "that happened to me" "I feel this and that", "I did this and that", that means the story is updated with the new content.

Did this reply come from actually LOOKING and SEEING in that moment, or you just thought about the answer?

Please tell me, how many of my previous questions you actually looked in the moment of replying and how much of it were just based on memory or thinking?

With looking, you ALWAYS have to LOOK AFRESH and NEVER RELY ON MEMORY of previous looking. Why? Because if you rely on the memory of a previous looking in a form of a thought: “I know there is no self” without actually looking afresh for a self, then in that moment the no-self is just a belief. So every time it seems like or feels like as if there were a self, but you just remind yourself with the thought “there is no self”, then you just covering up one belief (the seemingly perceived self) with another belief (there is no self).

It’s the looking and looking and looking and more looking that brings about the realization.

So every time I ask a question, you always have to look afresh, to see it again and again what is being pointed it. Can we agree on this?

Actually, experientially I can't feel being a "separate being" or otherwise. Sometimes thoughts say selfish things like "my things have priority over others", "why others bother me" etc, etc. This is what I meant by feeling as separate being. I mean I don't feel others needs are equally important to me as mine. But all these are nothing but thoughts, not raw feelings.

Can you see that you are taking thoughts for granted?
What does having the thoughts ‘why others bother me’ has to do with the FEELING of separation?

What is you concept about separation and non-separation?
Please tell me what do you believe what is separation and what is non separation?

How do you imagine what non-separation would be like?

Vivien

Hi Vivien,

And form your replies it seems to me that you often resort to thoughts, to memories about what has been seen before, and not to LOOK and SEE here now, in this very moment.

Nobody. It happens by thoughts. Whenever something happens and a thought arise saying "that happened to me" "I feel this and that", "I did this and that", that means the story is updated with the new content.

Did this reply come from actually LOOKING and SEEING in that moment, or you just thought about the answer?

I did look Vivien, now I am not sure if I am doing the "looking' correctly though. The socks example is very clear.  In the case of something you can see with eyes, notice with the ears, nose, tong or a body sensation, I clearly understand how to "look" (directly experience, get the raw data) without thought interpretations involved, but some other cases where I can't use the five senses, like in the above example (questions of "How is the story made, what edits it, is there a narrator?), now I am not sure whether I am doing the "looking" right. 

This is how I looked to answer the above questions about the "me-story":
I looked for "the story", couldn't find except thought about me, description of me, "all about me" (I can't distinguish this looking and thinking)I thought (the thought came) "I am doing this inquiry at LU" Someday, I will be talking about it as "I have done the inquiring exercise at LU, I felt this way/that way, this happened etc" together with other descriptions of me which I am using when talking about "me". That would be the new description of "me", the edited story. I looked for an editor, looked for a narrator, but nothing was perceived except the thought "The editor, narrator is a thought".

I wrote the previous answer from this. Is that the right way? Please, I need help here Vivien, I know you are already helping me a lot and I can't ask for more, but I don't know how to proceed further with such questions where 5 senses are not involved because then the thoughts come up automatically. I don't mind doing it all over again (without taking your time) if I find the correct way to "look". I looked up in Enlightening Quotes also, but did not get a clear idea about how to do "Looking"Is it possible to show me how to "look" in this particular case? If possible, could you please? I appreciate it.

Please tell me, how many of my previous questions you actually looked in the moment of replying and how much of it were just based on memory or thinking?

Every time, I did try each at the moment anew and not from the past memory, but now I am not sure whether the looking was correct, because thoughts come automatically.

With looking, you ALWAYS have to LOOK AFRESH and NEVER RELY ON MEMORY of previous looking. Why? Because if you rely on the memory of a previous looking in a form of a thought: “I know there is no self” without actually looking afresh for a self, then in that moment the no-self is just a belief. So every time it seems like or feels like as if there were a self, but you just remind yourself with the thought “there is no self”, then you just covering up one belief (the seemingly perceived self) with another belief (there is no self).

Your explanation is very helpful. I will keep trying to understand how to look correctly. I don't want to keep doing it wrong or just to replace one belief with another belief. I want to know beyond doubt what is true.

It’s the looking and looking and looking and more looking that brings about the realization.

So every time I ask a question, you always have to look afresh, to see it again and again what is being pointed it. Can we agree on this?

Yes, certainly I agree, but I am sorry Vivien, I really want to learn how to "Look" correctly in such cases as I showed in above example. 

Actually, experientially I can't feel being a "separate being" or otherwise. Sometimes thoughts say selfish things like "my things have priority over others", "why others bother me" etc, etc. This is what I meant by feeling as separate being. I mean I don't feel others needs are equally important to me as mine. But all these are nothing but thoughts, not raw feelings.

Can you see that you are taking thoughts for granted?

Yes, but here I only tried to explain what I understood by the word "separate self" in concepts. I had the wrong interpretation as, "once you see through the self, it will bring about a "selfless behavior""(not to be selfish)

After reading the Enlightening Quotes, I understood the word "Separate entity" refers to "a self separate from life" (the belief that the life is something and the self is a separate entity from that). Is that correct? I want to understand the concept, the conventional meaning of the word, so I can use the word correctly.

What does having the thoughts ‘why others bother me’ has to do with the FEELING of separation?

What I mean is not treating the others same as me. But again all these came from the misunderstanding of the word "Separate entity" as above.

What is you concept about separation and non-separation?

The concept I had was wrong. Now I think it means "A Self separate from life" (life is something and the self is a separate entity from that) vs. "self as not separate from life".

Please tell me what do you believe what is separation and what is non separation?

I don't clearly see if I have any belief about it as it is a new concept for me.
How do you imagine what non-separation would be like?With my current understanding, I would imagine, It is like "life goes on, life is happening" and not like "Here is the self and it is doing the life"
Appreciate your help.