Who am I?

[Vivien]

Hi Marcus,
You did a nice investigation.

In the 1% of time where I can think that I am consciously thinking, for example repeating the word "monkey" in my mind, I also realize that there was really no control in regards to what I would "consciously" think about; that also just appeared out of nowhere.

Exactly. And this needs to be seen again and again. If this is not investigated, then this could give the impression of control and will.

What are in control / charge of in any given moment?

Is there anything that could be controlled?

Is there any decision made by someone?
Is decision actually made?

Vivien

[FinnApe]

Hi Vivien,

What are in control / charge of in any given moment?

Nothing is in control. It's just happening and appearing from pure nothingness. At times it appears as if thoughts are in control since the story is so familiar, but it can then also be seen that the thoughts are simply coming from nothing.

Is there anything that could be controlled?

No there isn't. I can't find anything to control. There's thoughts, there's visions, there's feelings; the whole show. All outside of control, simply popping up out of nothing. The thought of "I am in control" pops up just like any other thought or sensation would.
As an experiment, I even try to move a glass on my table, thinking: "this I can control, I can control how far I move this glass, I can control what I do with this glass, I can control if I do or don't move the glass". But I investigate that, and I see even there it's hopeless, the glass is moving yes, thoughts are appearing yes, but I am not making any of that happen, so I can't even control how far I slide the glass on the table. It just happens, then thoughts spring up about how I did that. But I cannot actually find a moment where I decided to do that. It just happened, then an explanation for it happened.

Is there any decision made by someone?
Is decision actually made?

"Decisions" aren't made. They are stories, thoughts about something that is occurring.

Let's say I "make the decision" to go for a run. OK. That activity in itself is just thinking activity. Then either going for a run happens, or it doesn't, and then the thought story appears of either "I stuck to my decision" or "I didn't stick to my decision". Then that might trigger a cascade of stories and emotions reacting to how "disciplined" I am or how "lazy" I am. But essentially, all that happened in the whole process was thinking -then- running or not running -then- thinking -then- emotions. There is no actual causal link between them, they occur independent of each other.

Only with a sense of identification and a story around the thoughts and with the emotions could there be something tying them together, bundling them up into the experience of a cohesive "me".

I can see how this creates suffering, since reality is not seen for what it is moment by moment, but it is filtered through a narrative, a story about the one who is "making decisions".

[Vivien]

Hi Marcus,

You’ve done an excellent inquiry. Here is an exercise along the same line, to help the seeing deepen.

The following link is a 7-minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice. It seems to feel as though they can influence, somehow, what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

What did you find when doing this exercise?
Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

Notice this inner narration as often as you can for today.
What is it that you can discover about it? What do you notice?

Does the comment influence the play? Does it do it at all?

How about the comment commenting on Marcus’ every move?

Vivien

[FinnApe]

Hi Vivien,

What did you find when doing this exercise?
Is the commentary on the soccer game a necessity for the play to happen?

I could see that the people running around, chasing the ball is just something that is happening. Life happening. The commentary is absurd, it's not necessary, the play happens regardless. The play doesn't care about the commentary, it's totally fine by itself. The commentary is something that is happening and if believed in, it produces seeming divisions in the appearance. The ball going like this is good, if it goes like that it's bad, this should happen, that shouldn't happen and so on.

And in the same way, is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

No, it's not.

Notice this inner narration as often as you can for today.
What is it that you can discover about it? What do you notice?

The inner narration is about judgements, assumptions and analysis on life. "I should have said that, I shouldn't have said that, what did he mean, where will I be, what will happen, what do they think of me" and so on.

It goes on automatically, relentlessly, it never really stops. But when I observe it narrating, and see the narration as another appearance of life, it becomes funny. I might burst out in laughter at the absurdity of the narration. All of these stories are thought up, when in reality life is just happening right here, life asks nothing, it gives nothing, it just is.

It's as meaningful as static image on a tv screen, and the narration is as absurd as if someone were to make a story about how the black pixels and white pixels are fighting on the screen and started narrating it. It means nothing in itself, yet the inner narration makes it seem as if some part of the appearance is more or less important than another.

Does the comment influence the play? Does it do it at all?

Not at all. The play is totally untouched.

How about the comment commenting on Marcus’ every move?

Life is totally untouched by the comments. Marcus is happening as life. Marcus is part of the life itself that is happening. The commentary is also just happening. But it's not influencing the life that is seen at all. The narration isn't needed for life to keep happening.

[Vivien]

Hi Marcus,

You did another nice investigation.

What do you do in order to be?

What do you do in order to see?
What do you do in order to hear?
What do you do in order to feel?
What do you do in order to taste and smell?

What do you do for thoughts to be?

What do you do in order for the body to be?

Is there anything that does not happen automatically?
Is there anything that needs your doing? Or everything is just happening?


Here is another way to look at this:

Please sit for some time and just notice how everything is just happening effortlessly.

Look around.
What is being done for colors and shapes to be? Is there anything be done for colors and shapes to be, or they are just there effortlessly?

Listen to the sounds.
What is being done exactly for the sounds to be?

And when the attention is on a sound, what is being done to know the sound? Is there any doing? Or it’s just known effortlessly?

Now shift the focus on FEELING the body.
What is being done exactly for the body to be?
Or the body just IS, effortlessly?

Is there any effort in being?

Focus on the sensations of the hands.
What is being done for the sensations to be?
Aren’t the sensations happens effortlessly?

Look at the hands.
What is being done exactly for the image of the hand to be, to exist?
Is there a you making the image of the hands happen?
Is there any effort in seeing?

Now notice thoughts.
What is being done for thoughts to be?
Is there any effort for thoughts to appear? Or they just appear effortlessly?

What is not happening effortlessly and needs a doer?

Please investigate each questions thoroughly many times throughout the day. You might need 2 days since I've given lots of questions, please don’t rush. Take your time.

Vivien

[FinnApe]

What do you do in order to be?

Nothing at all, I simply am.

What do you do in order to see?
What do you do in order to hear?
What do you do in order to feel?
What do you do in order to taste and smell?

I don't do anything, all of those simply appear.

What do you do for thoughts to be?

I don't do anything. I never found a thought I created, all thoughts simply are.

What do you do in order for the body to be?

Nothing, it just is. It is as it is.

Is there anything that does not happen automatically?
Is there anything that needs your doing? Or everything is just happening?

Everything is just happening without any mediator in between.

What is being done for colors and shapes to be? Is there anything be done for colors and shapes to be, or they are just there effortlessly?

They are simply there. They exist effortlessly. Perfectly.

What is being done exactly for the sounds to be?

Nothing, they simply are.

And when the attention is on a sound, what is being done to know the sound? Is there any doing? Or it’s just known effortlessly?

Nothing is being done. Sounds are known the exact moment they are heard. Through the experience of hearing, sounds are known. Thoughts simply comment on the experience that is happening, the hearing that is happening.

What is being done exactly for the body to be?
Or the body just IS, effortlessly?

The body is. Nothing is being done.

Is there any effort in being?

Zero effort. Being couldn't be any more effortless.

What is being done for the sensations to be?
Aren’t the sensations happens effortlessly?

Totally, utterly effortlessly. Nothing is being done and nothing could be done.

What is being done exactly for the image of the hand to be, to exist?
Is there a you making the image of the hands happen?
Is there any effort in seeing?

There is no "me" that can be found making the image of the hands appear. It simply is. There is absolutely no effort in seeing. It is just like being.

What is being done for thoughts to be?
Is there any effort for thoughts to appear? Or they just appear effortlessly?

They are totally spontaneous. They pop up and disappear. No effort there either.

What is not happening effortlessly and needs a doer?

All that is, is already happening regardless of a sense of a doer. There is nothing that is not happening effortlessly. The belief in a doer is totally unnecessary.
I realize how the belief in a doer produces anxiety. When I am at home, by myself, it is easier to give up and see the doer for what it is, to simply allow what ever happens happen. I might sing, or jump around, sit in silence or dance in spontaneous ecstatic bliss of simply being and realizing there is nothing and nobody in control. Life is simply happening! But when I am in public with other people, an anxiety can surface, which I think comes from a belief in a doer that is responsible for what happens or what is said etc. There is a sense of responsibility that I can at times see as an illusion, but it can still surface and make the experience of interacting with new people especially heavy in a way. It seems as if it's more difficult in that environment. Maybe there's something that would benefit from some more looking in that area. But ultimately, at a deeper level now I can recognize the environment is not the issue. It is simply what is. I will apply this seeing, and some of those pointers in those settings as well. There's more trust now. More trust in life. That life will take care of everything. And that it is all perfect to the core, and doesn't need any sense of struggle.

[Vivien]

Hi Marcus,

Through the experience of hearing, sounds are known.

Are the words ‘hearing’ and ‘sound’ point to two different things?

Are there a hearer, hearing and the heard?

Is there an actual difference between hearing and the heard?

Are these three things separate, referring to 3 separate (existing on its own) phenomena?

All that is, is already happening regardless of a sense of a doer.

Zoom onto this ‘sense of doer’.

What is this ‘sense of a doer” is made of?
What is it actually there in reality that is interpreted to be the ‘sense of a doer’?

What I’m pointing to here is that there is actually something there in experience that is mistaken perceived as a ‘sense of a doer’. What is that?

When I am at home, by myself, it is easier to give up and see the doer for what it is, to simply allow what ever happens happen.

Give up? What is doing the giving up?
Is ‘giving up’ actually happening?

Or is this just a nice thought story commenting on what is happening (whatever experience is showing up in that given moment), calling it ‘giving it up’?

Similarly, is there really such thing as ‘allowing’ or ‘not allowing’ things to happen?

Just notice, in order to allow it (or not), there must be something separate from the thing being allowed. But is there?

Is allowing (or not allowing, or giving up, or not giving up) ever happening?

But when I am in public with other people, an anxiety can surface

You are in public? Can that ever be possible?

You must be the body in order to be in public with other people. So, look at this, are you the body?

And what other people? There are other bodies yes, but are there people (entities) inside those bodies?

Just notice that this belief stems from the idea that there is a me inside this body, hence there are other ‘me-s’ inside other bodies. But is that so?

There's more trust now. More trust in life. That life will take care of everything. And that it is all perfect to the core, and doesn't need any sense of struggle.

Yes. This comment is ‘true’ in the everyday sense, but just notice that it contains a hidden belief that there is someone trusting or struggling.

So what is there to trust?

And when there is struggling, what is it that struggles?

I’ve given you lots of questions again, so please be thorough. Don’t rush.

Vivien

[FinnApe]

Hi Vivien,

Are the words ‘hearing’ and ‘sound’ point to two different things?

Oh, they are the same. Can't find a real distinction between them in experience

Are there a hearer, hearing and the heard?

Not that I'm aware of. There's the sound. That I am sure of. Is there a hearer? I don't know for sure. Hearing? I don't know. Heard? I don't know. Sound? Yes. For sure.

Is there an actual difference between hearing and the heard?

Not an actual difference. Not when I really look. What there is, is the heard only. Or rather, the sound. The "heard" implies someone who hears sounds. Sounds are simply happening.

Are these three things separate, referring to 3 separate (existing on its own) phenomena?

Can't find these distinct, independently existing phenomena. I don't see signs of them actually existing.

What is this ‘sense of a doer” is made of?
What is it actually there in reality that is interpreted to be the ‘sense of a doer’?

Thoughts, stories, webs of thoughts about (mostly) the past. There are thoughts about thoughts about thoughts, nonstop. The past is also just thoughts. I don't see how it could ever actually exist. But the story, the web of thoughts makes it seem so.

Give up? What is doing the giving up?
Is ‘giving up’ actually happening?

Thoughts are springing up and spontaneously forming a story about the one who gives up and lets go. The "giving up" is another story about something that is totally uninfluenced by the thought or the story. "Giving up" isn't actually happening, more stories it is. And there's a frustration appearing, since the thoughts thought they were getting a handle on this

Or is this just a nice thought story commenting on what is happening (whatever experience is showing up in that given moment), calling it ‘giving it up’?

oh yes it is

Similarly, is there really such thing as ‘allowing’ or ‘not allowing’ things to happen?

That would require control. I haven't found any controller who could do the allowing or not allowing. So really, there isn't as far as I know.

Just notice, in order to allow it (or not), there must be something separate from the thing being allowed. But is there?

No.

Is allowing (or not allowing, or giving up, or not giving up) ever happening?

No. Just the thought-story about all that is happening. But it's not actually happening.

You are in public? Can that ever be possible?

Only if others (as entities that control themselves) exist. And I'm not totally sure about that. But I'm also not totally sure that they don't exist. So if they exist, then I can be in public, if not, I can never be in public. Now I also see, if there is no "me" in here, there cannot be a "you" over there, since it would require a relationship between two distinct (me vs. you), separate entities.

You must be the body in order to be in public with other people. So, look at this, are you the body?

The body appears. That I am sure of. But is it a real separate entity, distinct and uniquely controllable unlike everything else that appears "outside" the body, I'm not so sure of that. Based on investigation so far, I haven't found anything that doesn't appear automatically/spontaneously in the body; which implies that the body has no fundamentally special status (control) on its own.
I'm not the body. I cannot be. The body in its totality appears in whatever I am, but who I am doesn't appear from inside the body!

And what other people? There are other bodies yes, but are there people (entities) inside those bodies?

Honestly I don't know. This is a tough one. If there is no "me" here, there could be no "you" there or in any body, even if the body is seen, or words are coming from the body, or the body is moving in a dance etc. There is just one undifferentiated appearance, any kind of independent "you" over there, implies a "me" over here, a split in the appearance.

Just notice that this belief stems from the idea that there is a me inside this body, hence there are other ‘me-s’ inside other bodies. But is that so?

I never found the me, never found some central control unit. Or really even any control.

So what is there to trust?

Nothing. There's just what is. Trusting something would imply separation. I haven't been able to find the "me" who could do the trusting either.

And when there is struggling, what is it that struggles?

The struggling is just another appearance in the wholeness of what is the case in each and every moment. There can be thoughts and a story of struggle, emotions that are associated with struggle, but the whole of all that is, never struggles.

[Vivien]

Hi Marcus,

The body appears. That I am sure of. But is it a real separate entity, distinct and uniquely controllable unlike everything else that appears "outside" the body, I'm not so sure of that. Based on investigation so far, I haven't found anything that doesn't appear automatically/spontaneously in the body; which implies that the body has no fundamentally special status (control) on its own.
I'm not the body. I cannot be. The body in its totality appears in whatever I am, but who I am doesn't appear from inside the body!

Let’s look at the body from a different angle.

Is the body the experiencer?
Is the body the one having the experience of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, sensing/feeling, thinking?

That’s the everyday assumption, for sure, but is this what is actually going on?

In other words, is the body the experiencER, or is the body itself just an experience?

Is experience happening TO the body, or AS the body?

Is life happening TO the body, or AS the body?

Vivien

[FinnApe]

Hi Vivien,

Is the body the experiencer?
Is the body the one having the experience of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, sensing/feeling, thinking?

The body isn't the experiencer. It is experienced. Awareness is having the experience of the body, seeing, tasting, smelling, sensing/feeling and thinking. All equal. And awareness IS those things it is "aware of", there isn't a separate awareness chilling somewhere, looking at things. It's all equally awareness. There's just an occasional misperception of the body being the experiencer, the body being the source of awareness. But it can't be so in actuality. Only seems so.

In other words, is the body the experiencER, or is the body itself just an experience?

The body is an experience.

Is experience happening TO the body, or AS the body?

The body is part of experience. So "AS the body" would be closer to reality.

Is life happening TO the body, or AS the body?

Life is happening, the body is a part of it. Life is happening as the body, as the trees, as the air, as the sensation.

[Vivien]

Hi Marcus,
Thank you for your replies.

Please look very carefully, one-by-one, with the following questions. Spend a several minutes with each. Literally scan through the whole body from head to toe, with particular attention on the head. Look behind the eyes, into the forehead, the top of the head, the throat, look everywhere. Also scan through all aspects of experience, thoughts, sensations, feelings, everything.

Is there a thinker?

Is there a doer?

Is there a decider?

Is there a seer?
Is there a feeler?
Is there a hearer?
Is there a taster?
Is there a smeller?

Is there an experiencER?

Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?
Is there anything what the experience is happening TO?

Is there an enduring, autonomous, independent self, separate from the rest of experience?

Has there ever been an independent separate self?

Is searching/seeking still going on?

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

Vivien

[FinnApe]

Hi Vivien,
thank you for your guidance and patience with the inquiry.

Is there a thinker?

No. Thoughts occur.

Is there a doer?

No. Things happen. The "doer" is a strory made of thoughts.

Is there a decider?

Not any I can find.

Is there a seer?
Is there a feeler?
Is there a hearer?
Is there a taster?
Is there a smeller?

No, seeing happens. No, feeling just happens. No, hearing just happens. No, tasting just happens. No, smelling just happens. I can't find anyone who is doing these things.

Is there an experiencER?

There can't be an experiencer that is separate from experience. So no. But in some sense yes. It's just not separate from experience, which is happening. Experience is all there is, happening to no separate one. The whole of experience can't be pinned down and reflected upon, as that is clearly just more experience.

Is there anything having the experience of whatever is happening?
Is there anything what the experience is happening TO?

It's simply happening. Even if there's awareness of/as sensations or thoughts, I wouldn't say the awareness is the one having the experience, since the awarenss is also just experience.

Is there an enduring, autonomous, independent self, separate from the rest of experience?

Not any I can find.

Has there ever been an independent separate self?

I see no reason to believe so.

Is searching/seeking still going on?

At some level yes. There's glimpses, and intellectual understanding, but not a total "getting it" directly. Searching/seeking is appearing.

Is there anything that is not totally clear and you would like to look at?

The story of "me". My past, how I came here, what my identity is and along those lines. That story is so pervasive and the story seems to capture me and convince me so deeply. Maybe we can look into that.
Also, it's not totally directly clear to me if this is all really equal. Is the thought story about "me" or the body walking or dancing really equally "mine" as a dog running on the street, or a leaf blowing around in the wind? Just as little control? I can't see where the split would be.
So is everything that is, totally equally "me"/not me? Nothing has any more special or less special status? This is what I am starting to realize, but still lost in the confusion story at times.

[Vivien]

Hi Marcus,

At some level yes. There's glimpses, and intellectual understanding, but not a total "getting it" directly. Searching/seeking is appearing.

Well, either you clearly see in experience without any doubt that searching is just appearing on its own without anything or anyone making it happen…. Or you believe that I am searching, I am seeking. Which is one is the truer for you?

The story of "me". My past, how I came here, what my identity is and along those lines.

How you came here?? When you say “how I came here” what is it that you are referring to with the word ‘I’? the body? Or something else?

What is it that came here?

That story is so pervasive and the story seems to capture me and convince me so deeply.

“The story capture me and convince me” – look for the me that is being captured by the story. Where is that one?

Is there an actual, real me being captured and then convinced?

Is there an actual I behind the word ‘I’?

Is the thought story about "me" or the body walking or dancing really equally "mine" as a dog running on the street,

Mine? Just notice that you mistake the “I exist” for an actual I, an entity, a person, a thing, which has/owns things. Do you see that?

So where is the owner?
Is there an actual owner in reality? Where?

Just because “I exist” it doesn’t mean that there is an I. Rather, it would be more precise to say that there is existence, but not an I existing. Just existence itself. Existence exists. Life is. Existence is.

So, is there an I as part of existence that owns other parts of existence?
Or there is only existence, without any owner?

What owns a tree?
What owns the leaves on a tree?

What owns the body?

What owns thoughts?

So is everything that is, totally equally "me"/not me? Nothing has any more special or less special status?

Special for who?

What does even special mean?

Is specialness actually rooted in reality?

Can you experience speicalness?

Please be very thorough, as usual. :)

Vivien

[FinnApe]

Which is one is the truer for you?

I don't see totally clearly in experience that searching is appearing on its own without anyone making it happen. But I also don't believe "I am searching, I am seeking" because I find no proof of that in direct experience. Mostly I don't know, but maybe there is some underlying belief going on that is not in awareness.

When you say “how I came here” what is it that you are referring to with the word ‘I’? the body? Or something else?

This body, this story, this seeming continuity, this tension in my forehead and eyebrow area. They still all seem to be tied together in some way, and that is what is being identified with most of the time.

What is it that came here?

I can't find anything essential. All of those things change and shift , yet the sense of "I" remains through it all. So the sense of "I" is what came here if anything. But I don't know what that is, if anything.

“The story capture me and convince me” – look for the me that is being captured by the story. Where is that one?

I can't find it when I look thoroughly. It's like an optical illusion that I have to really look at, then there's a shift in perception and the illusion is seen as it really is, but the illusion has to be looked through with seeming intention each time again and again for it to be seen through.

Is there an actual, real me being captured and then convinced?

Not any can be found. There's just more story. Story after story.

Is there an actual I behind the word ‘I’?

There's just nothing. The "I" is another thought in that sense. "I am here" "I came here" what is the I referring to? Nothing. It's just a word pointing to nothing.

Mine? Just notice that you mistake the “I exist” for an actual I, an entity, a person, a thing, which has/owns things. Do you see that?

Yes I see that.

So where is the owner?
Is there an actual owner in reality? Where?

Nowhere to be found.

So, is there an I as part of existence that owns other parts of existence?
Or there is only existence, without any owner?

Only existance. No owner to be found.

What owns a tree?
What owns the leaves on a tree?

Nothing. It just is. As existance. The tree doesn't own the leaves on the tree even though they are connected to each other. Both are equal parts of existance. Only a story can imply ownership for the tree, only a projected belief in "me" can imply that the tree could own something. As if the tree had a "me" and "not me".

What owns the body?

Nothing. It just is. As existance. The thoughts form a story of ownership. But just like the leaves on the tree, they are comnected in some way, but it doesn't mean that thoughts own the body, or that the body owns thoughts. The thoughts are a thing that exist. The body is a thing that exists. There's no hierarchy between them though. They are just existance.

What owns thoughts?

Nothing. Thoughts appear. Yes. Thoughts exist. Yes. But an owner? Nowhere to be found.
Thoughts appear to be difficult to see through as just another equal part of existance, since it seems there are "private" thoughts. I never experienced the thoughts that I assume are located in other bodies, so it's easy to think that thoughts are somehow a sign of individuality.
For example, a hand I can see in this body, and in other bodies, and understand that hands are simply appearances in existance. But a thought I can only see appearing in this body, so that perhaps results in a belief in a centralized, localized separate self. Since thoughts only seem to appear in this one location. Maybe this is helpful.

Special for who?

No one I can find. Perhaps the thought story of a self is what was being referred to.

What does even special mean?

To be distinct from something else in a way that implies uniqueness. To be above something else like in a hierarchy. If it were true that the thoughts are controlling the body for example, it would make them special in the sense that they had some unique control over something else. The opposite would be 100% equality with everything and between every possible distinction. This equality looks like closer to reality.

Is specialness actually rooted in reality?

Not when I look. Total equality looks more real.

Can you experience speicalness?

Not really, not truly. Distinction yes. A distinction between a table and a chair can be made. But a hierarchy/specialness between distinctions is a whole other leap of faith.

[Vivien]

Hi Marcus,

I don't see totally clearly in experience that searching is appearing on its own without anyone making it happen. But I also don't believe "I am searching, I am seeking" because I find no proof of that in direct experience. Mostly I don't know, but maybe there is some underlying belief going on that is not in awareness.

Intellectual understanding cannot undo belief. What I mean by that? Just because I cannot find a self and yet I FEEL to a self who is searching, my belief is intact. Just because I understand that there is no inherent self since I could not find it, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the belief is gone.

As long as it FEELS LIKE that I am searching, the belief is active. (At least in those moment when it feels like that)
This body, this story, this seeming continuity, this tension in my forehead and eyebrow area. They still all seem to be tied together in some way, and that is what is being identified with most of the time.

The body is here yes. But where is the I which HAS a body?

There is a tension in the forehead, yes. But where is the one FEELING it?

Please make sure that you are very honest with yourself. If you cannot find an owner or a feeler but it still FEELS like there is an owner or a feeler, then your investigation is not done. Focus on that 'feels like' part. Investigate that.

I can't find it when I look thoroughly. It's like an optical illusion that I have to really look at, then there's a shift in perception and the illusion is seen as it really is, but the illusion has to be looked through with seeming intention each time again and again for it to be seen through.

Yes. Intention is needed to look, as long as the belief in a self is there. Then it feels like that I am intend / decide the looking.

Now look for the one that decide to look. Do the looking, but this time look a step earlier…. Start looking at the moment the intention to look arise.

Where is the intender?
(Again, focus on the 'feels like there is an intender).

Thoughts appear to be difficult to see through as just another equal part of existance, since it seems there are "private" thoughts. I never experienced the thoughts that I assume are located in other bodies, so it's easy to think that thoughts are somehow a sign of individuality.

Notice the falsity of this story. It’s a reasoning only. If you could be aware of others’ thoughts, then it would mean that there are no individuals? Do you see that this is just a reasoning trying to justify something, instead of ‘stepping outside of the box’, stepping outside the usual thinking framework?

The gallbladder produces bile. The brain produces thoughts. Then what? Thought is just the result of the functioning of the brain. Just another biochemical process.

So each body/brain produces its own sets of thoughts based on conditionings. Just as each body’s gallbladder produces bile. Each heart pumps blood. Each set of kidneys filters the blood in each body.

So what? The belief is not simply the functioning of the body, including the production of thoughts, but that all of these doesn’t happen on their own, but done by a person / entity / agency that lives or housed somewhere inside the body, directing it. Intentionally producing thoughts. Intentionally doing this inquiry. Intentionally moving the body.

A central controller. ME. Doing.

For example, a hand I can see in this body, and in other bodies, and understand that hands are simply appearances in existance. But a thought I can only see appearing in this body, so that perhaps results in a belief in a centralized, localized separate self. Since thoughts only seem to appear in this one location. Maybe this is helpful.

Yes, thoughts appear in this centralized location, called body. Just as bile produced in this body, and not in other body, so it is also centralized. This body cannot access biles from other bodies, just as it cannot access thoughts produced by other brains.

Consider this. The body totally functions on its own. The immune system, digestion, blood pressure, and all the complicate things that we don’t even know or understand, all of them are happening on their own. Except one little thing? Thoughts?

Vivien