Would be grateful for a guide

[Alexw]

I was referring to the ability to contain any situation without wishing it were different. This includes both "positive" and "negative" situations. Equanimity regardless of the situation is the meter which I use to know whether this has happened to any degree.

There simply can not be a meter for liberation as any measuring is only useful for defining an illusionary state of non-liberation...

Liberation is not a state that you are always aware of as a specific way of being - you don't walk around thinking "Ah... This equanimity that I am experiencing is great. No matter what happens I am perfectly at peace!"
You still are happy, sad, angry and peaceful. Anger is a natural expression of life just like peace. You just don't torture yourself anymore about your "mistake" of being angry. You don't dwell on judgements about why you are not in a different state. Whenever you do judge/grasp/resist then its time to look again and see that this moment is just as much an expression of life as the peaceful state that you have been in a few moments ago.

Its not about restricting life to permanent equanimity - its about not having states become "sticky"... States come and go, experiences come and go - so let them... if you catch yourself judging or rejecting or hanging on to certain states (for too long) then look... Look at what is here/now. Who is the one that is grasping or rejecting? Is it more than a story about a me that needs to hold on to a special state?
If you catch yourself overthinking this process, look at who is the thinker? Who is it that defines a state as good/bad? Who will benefit from a solution? Who is it that would be in a state of equanimity?
Is life in a permanent state of equanimity? When a volcano erupts next to you would you be in a state of equanimity?

[placebo8]

Anger is a natural expression of life just like peace

So stabbing someone due to a rage of a bruised ego would also be a natural expression? In that case my natural expression is to seek how not be controlled by these natural expressions.
Even if I accept life in the jungle as natural expression playing out, this make-belief "I" with it's make-belief suffering recognises this suffering in other "misguided souls" and wishes to diminish it to the degree it can rather than letting it play out, because it seems like the right thing to do, as opposed to the wrong thing which is to be controlled by anger. So yes, there is a value judgement on my part but it's based on a conviction that there is such a thing as right and wrong - that ethics is not some random story made up and believed by the mind, in the same way that the laws of physics aren't random stories - they both point to something real and true, and it is that which I seek.

Who is the one that is grasping or rejecting? Is it more than a story about a me that needs to hold on to a special state?
If you catch yourself overthinking this process, look at who is the thinker? Who is it that defines a state as good/bad? Who will benefit from a solution? Who is it that would be in a state of equanimity?
Is life in a permanent state of equanimity?

These are good questions which I'll add to the ammunition to use against my belief and investment the concept of a personal "I". It struck me however that not being able to find the "I" isn't a good enough indication to stop believing in it. Suppose I went to the doctor with a headache and he wouldn't believe me because I can't "find" my headache. It's not something you can find or show - it's something you deduce from processing patterns and arriving at conclusions.

When a volcano erupts next to you would you be in a state of equanimity?

I think equanimity is the term that you used to describe what arrives with the ceasing of a belief in a personal "I". This has become the holy grail. If I understand correctly, it's a club no "I" can enter so my logic accepts this and asks, "ok, given that this is the case, how does one get rid of the I? How can the I kill itself?"

[Alexw]

So yes, there is a value judgement on my part but it's based on a conviction that there is such a thing as right and wrong - that ethics is not some random story made up and believed by the mind, in the same way that the laws of physics aren't random stories - they both point to something real and true, and it is that which I seek.

I am not saying that all these goals are not honorable, but what you are trying to achieve is a re-modelling your belief system into a "better", more honorable one. The process you are seeking is a re-shaping of the separate self, not a deconstruction if it.
Nobody can tell you what will happen in your case when one belief is dropped (e.g. the one in the separate self) and what will happen next. They can only talk about their own experience and this is of no value to you.
You might construct a new belief of "you" now being a liberated being and thus all your actions should be automatically sanctioned as it is obviously just life doing its thing. Or you might simply continue to live life as you always did, following your feelings of what is right and wrong and do the best you can to life an honourable and positive life.
Realisation will not protect you from making mistakes, from being angry, and maybe even doing something stupid while being angry. It will make you see though that there really was no other choice at the time. It simply happened and also the consequences will simply happen. No matter if you work against it, reject it and thus suffer or if you simply accept it, learn from it and go on with this life.

It struck me however that not being able to find the "I" isn't a good enough indication to stop believing in it. Suppose I went to the doctor with a headache and he wouldn't believe me because I can't "find" my headache. It's not something you can find or show - it's something you deduce from processing patterns and arriving at conclusions.

Yes, in a way having a headache but not being able to display it as a perceivable object is the same as not finding a separate self... but not in the way you think it is...

When you experience a headache there is a physical sensation - a pressure or stabbing sensation in the head. We call this sensation "headache" and the label points to the otherwise indescribable happening of throb-pulse-pressure... Calling it "headache" is a helpful tool for communication.
But: It has no baggage attached as you don't identify with this headache.
You HAVE a headache, but you ARE NOT the headache, right?

When you believe you experience this separate self there might also be certain sensations, this time you call them "I/me", but when looked at, these sensations are again just a tingling-pressure-pulsing... an indescribable happening... Now, where is the difference?

Yes, sure, one hurts the other feels maybe nice, but besides this diversity there really is no difference to be found in the direct experience itself, is there? Its only your knowledge that names and conceptualises these two sensations. When looked at, can you really define them? Is any word, or conceptual structure, able to precisely define anything?

Look at an apple. You know the label "apple". There is a huge amount of knowledge attached to the word "apple".
You know its size, colour, where it comes from, how to eat it etc etc... But does any of this define the direct experience of "apple"? When you grab an apple, look at it and touch it. Does this direct experience have any connection to your knowledge at all? Can you really define the sensation of touch in words? Or are you only obscuring it by naming it?

If I understand correctly, it's a club no "I" can enter so my logic accepts this and asks, "ok, given that this is the case, how does one get rid of the I? How can the I kill itself?"

First find the "I", then you know how to "kill" it... Tell me, what is this separate "I"?

[placebo8]

It's paradoxical how on one hand I hope this correspondence together with "my effort" will help stopping "my" belief in the I story, and yet at the same time I sense it's not really up to me as things will just turn out as they will and I have absolutely nothing to say in the matter considering there's really no "I" to say anything about it.

I find it really difficult and exhausting to see through this illusion, probably because I'm trying to use my mind to crack a puzzle, - a puzzle which is my own doing.

I am not saying that all these goals are not honorable

True, but it seems that what is implied is that honorable goals are just as valid as dishonorable ones, as it's all just life playing out. While you have me at a disadvantage as my "I" belief is very much intact, it seems to me that honorable goals are better - not in some holier-than-thou moralistic sense, but simply because they are better aligned with existence. Being "bad" is simply being ignorant of what is real.

Realisation will not protect you from making mistakes, from being angry, and maybe even doing something stupid while being angry.

How can life playing out be stupid?

When looked at, can you really define them? Is any word, or conceptual structure, able to precisely define anything?

I think giving names probably started out as a useful tool, but with time gave rise to an "I" delusion that is further self deluded into equating knowing the name or description of something with understanding it...

But: It has no baggage attached as you don't identify with this headache.
You HAVE a headache, but you ARE NOT the headache, right?

I find the question non-trivial and doubt I can answer it without further thought. Also not sure what the "You" refers to here. If there's no "I" then how can it have a headache? In any case, the identification is not with the headache, but with the complex mind/body process that the headache is a part of - in fact this "I" is completely defined by this process - so why is this process any less real than the headache it senses?

Tell me, what is this separate "I"?

My deepest wish is to able to see this, and then help others see the same, but as the saying goes, "Do you want to make God laugh? Just tell him your plans..."

[Alexw]

it seems to me that honorable goals are better - not in some holier-than-thou moralistic sense, but simply because they are better aligned with existence. Being "bad" is simply being ignorant of what is real.

Reality doesn't know about good or bad... the distinction is purely based on your acquired value system.
Is a climbing vine that suffocates a tree good out bad? Is a female spider killing the male spider after the act good out bad? Is a virus killing a newborn baby good or bad? All are nature doing its thing and we might decide that these are bad things that happen, but "reality" doesn't care...
Maybe we could define "bad" as acting in an unnatural way... Acting in a way that is not based on your true nature...
But do we know what a humans true nature really is? Do we know that humans act in an unnatural way when cutting down trees and polluting the planet? We pretend we do know, but do we? Who can make this decision?

How can life playing out be stupid?

"Stupid" based on your concept of "stupid". When you get angry and you smash a glass on the floor, this could be considered stupid, but it might happen anyway... So as we conventionally understand it you could say this was stupid, but its still life playing out...

not sure what the "You" refers to here. If there's no "I" then how can it have a headache?

Yes, exactly :-)

the identification is not with the headache, but with the complex mind/body process that the headache is a part of - in fact this "I" is completely defined by this process - so why is this process any less real than the headache it senses?

Yes, the I is defined by an ever changing set of sensations labelled as mind/body which are believed to be this I/self.
The headache shows up, it is part of this complex, but somehow its not you... You have it... A set of sensations *having* another set of sensations..? Strange idea isn't it?
Do you see that "I" is always only a specific (random?) extract of the current experience (that includes thought)? When a headache shows up you don't say "I am the headache", but you say "I have a headache"...
Wouldn't it be more precise to say "There are sensations happing that can be described as *headache*." No entity, no you, having a headache, but simply a set of sensations happing...
We always say "I have ..." or "I am ...", but is this really ever correct?
Can a subset of sensations - this mind/body complex - really have or own anything? Can it have a headache?

"Do you want to make God laugh? Just tell him your plans..."

I like that! Thats very funny!

[placebo8]

Is a climbing vine that suffocates a tree good out bad? Is a female spider killing the male spider after the act good or bad?

This is my theoretical understanding of the situation: The way I see it, these examples belong to the "rope and snake" analogy. Entities that have not developed a sense of an "I" do not mistake the rope for a snake because in the darkness they can't even see the rope. They have no illusion of a personal will and can't suffer but they can't be vehicles for compassion either. The analogy continues that realised people also don't mistake the rope for the snake but the reason here is that in the clear light, they can see that it is a rope and not a snake. They too have no illusion of a personal will but in this case it is due to being a clear vessel for the expression of life, and while they do not divide things into good or bad, from a dualistic perspective it seems that they are incapable of doing anything "bad". In the twilight between the two extremes are those that believe in the illusion of free will, with all the baggage of ego and suffering. Paradoxically, exercising this personal free will is what eventually enables some of them to embark on a journey that ends in discovering that it never existed (and neither did they).
So my answer is that a spider killing a spider is good for spiders, as this is what spiders do, in the same way that an enlightened person not killing another person is good, as that is what enlightened people do. In the range between these extremes are various egos with their moral dilemmas and suffering.

The headache shows up, it is part of this complex, but somehow its not you... You have it... A set of sensations *having* another set of sensations..? Strange idea isn't it?

Yes, it does sound kind of silly when you put it like that, so what is it that makes this belief so convincing?

Do you see that "I" is always only a specific (random?) extract of the current experience (that includes thought)?

If the experiences were random, then there would be no belief in an "I". It seems that the "I" derives it's strength from perceiving pattens and laws enabled by utilising memory. This creates a "proof" of a consistent reality "out there": I pick up a stone and let it go - it drops down. I do it again - it drops again. I do it with other things and they also fall down. I do it in other places - same thing. "Hey there's a pattern out there, it doesn't have anything to do with me - I'm the one noticing it". Same thing goes with the face I see in the mirror, the friends and family who recognise me and endless other patterns that reassert the existence of this "I". So this "I" is a logical derivation from connecting the dots, and from there it's a short way to being attached to this logical entity.

[Alexw]

They too have no illusion of a personal will but in this case it is due to being a clear vessel for the expression of life, and while they do not divide things into good or bad, from a dualistic perspective it seems that they are incapable of doing anything "bad"

I would rather say that there is no drive to do anything - bad or good - that would only benefit the illusory ego.
Compassion works in a similar fashion - you might consider a sage to be compassionate because he acts without considering his personal benefit. But this might not always result in compassionate action the way we define compassion. Compassion simply is natural action - it is only real if it comes from a place that is not tied up with a personal achievement or benefit, otherwise it is just another action to support the ego.
Thus, compassion cannot be practiced or learned, it has to come from a place that is natural and not based on self referential thought.

So my answer is that a spider killing a spider is good for spiders, as this is what spiders do, in the same way that an enlightened person not killing another person is good, as that is what enlightened people do. In the range between these extremes are various egos with their moral dilemmas and suffering.

You don't have to be enlightened to understand that killing is bad. But some killing is unavoidable - how many lives do you take just by walking in the forest? How many bugs and ants did you kill on your last walk? Are they worth less than a human? Sure, you don't mean to kill them, but you still do...
The only difference to the realised being is that there is no drive to do anything (including killing) to raise yourself above others, to support you personal ego. This does not mean that a sage would sit still and let an attacker approach and kill him. He would defend himself and if necessary to the end...

I pick up a stone and let it go - it drops down. I do it again - it drops again. I do it with other things and they also fall down. I do it in other places - same thing. "Hey there's a pattern out there, it doesn't have anything to do with me - I'm the one noticing it"

Yes! Well seen. There are similar things happening, a pattern forms - or you experience the same thing again and again (your face in the mirror) and you think "This is me!". A patter has formed - a belief is established.
BUT: As you said, the only thing that really is consistent is the the noticing itself, the being aware, right? Its not the face in the mirror that is always the same, but the noticing of it.
Yes, even gravity seems to be the same all the time (like your face), but you don't think that you are gravity, do you?
You only notice it...
Then thoughts show up, thoughts about a me. Are you these thoughts or do you only notice them? Are you the me/self that thoughts talk about or do you again only notice it?
Is "noticing", being aware, something you can touch? Is it a separate thing? Is it "you"? Or is it simple here/now in and as all experience?

[Alexw]

Hi,
Just wanted to let you know that I will be travelling for 10 days. Back on the 22nd April.
All the best,
Alex

[placebo8]

Thank you Alex, have a good trip. I'll be here, still searching for the well hidden obviousness... :-)
I'll respond to your last reply before you return

Best,
Amnon

[placebo8]

For the past few weeks I've given even more time to noticing the thoughts and sensations. In fact, I'm trying to notice anything that isn't a thought, though without much success as whatever it is that is happening is noticed through thought. It seems inescapable since noticing this is yet again recognised as another thought. Trying to notice what it is that does the noticing just draws up a blank.

Thus, compassion cannot be practiced or learned, it has to come from a place that is natural and not based on self referential thought.

I assume you'll agree though that you don't need to be enlightened to be compassionate. People still do selfless actions when the right circumstances appear (and I'm not referring to actions which appear compassionate but contain a hidden self interest, whether consciously or not). I think it's a question of degree - of how often real compassion can expressed to which the reply is "very seldom" in someone with a total investment in the self to "always" in a one who is realised. Maybe like the belief in the self can slowly be unlearned, so compassion can be learned.

You don't have to be enlightened to understand that killing is bad. But some killing is unavoidable - how many lives do you take just by walking in the forest? How many bugs and ants did you kill on your last walk?

Well, you have to be something to understand killing is bad, and this something has to start somewhere. My guess is that it starts with self-referential thoughts and an "I" belief that eventually end up generating the deep philosophical/ethical questions and dilemmas and it ends with liberation, where what is expressed is intrinsically ethical (even though it might not always seem that way)

Are they worth less than a human?

All life is precious, but just as an enlightened person could kill another person if the situation called for it, then when weighing a human life vs. say billions of bacteria that are endagering his life then I'd say yes, as a rule, is a situation where they are worth less than a human life and should be killed. The ethical dilemmas of and struggling to answer when the line is crossed is an example of the prison of duality, but I still think this prison is preferrable (to who?) to being in total darkness.

Is "noticing", being aware, something you can touch? Is it a separate thing? Is it "you"? Or is it simple here/now in and as all experience?

There's nothing that can be touched, and even if it could, that would just be another happening being noticed. Basically, there's just an endless stream of events that can be noticed. What the stream of events actually is or the nature of the "noticer" (which appears to be yet another happening) requires more inquiry.

[Alexw]

Hi Amnon,

I am back from my vacation.

For the past few weeks I've given even more time to noticing the thoughts and sensations. In fact, I'm trying to notice anything that isn't a thought, though without much success as whatever it is that is happening is noticed through thought. It seems inescapable since noticing this is yet again recognised as another thought.

Is thought really noticing anything or is thought being noticed?
I am not asking you to find the "noticer of thought"... simply look at how thought works...
When a sound arises, does thought notice the sound in a way that the sound would not be there without the thought? Or does the sound simply arise and vanish no matter if there is a thought labelling it as such and such?

Noticing, being aware, are not the same as conceptualising, as thinking about something. Does it matter if you label a sound as "car" or "bird"? Noticing happens anyway and if the sound is "important" enough, a thought might pop up and state "I hear a car. Better stop and see where it is coming from.". This is a response to the sound that is being noticed, but not the noticing itself, right?

Well, you have to be something to understand killing is bad, and this something has to start somewhere.

Yes, sure. You have to believe and work according to a certain value system. The system defines all categories of good, bad and everything in between.

...and it ends with liberation, where what is expressed is intrinsically ethical

This sounds nice but the question of ethics is not really relevant when there is no separate self to be ethical. Ethics is again dependant on the value system that you have adopted and this has nothing to do with liberation. Its the society we live in that defines it and if you live in this society you will have to act based on certain ethical values - its not a problem, but it has nothing to do with liberation.

The ethical dilemmas of and struggling to answer when the line is crossed is an example of the prison of duality, but I still think this prison is preferrable (to who?) to being in total darkness.

Its not about abolishing all ethical behaviour and living in utter "conceptual ignorance" in a dark cave, but about seeing that this value system has nothing to do with real life. Its an artificial labyrinth that is placed over the simple and pure beauty that life is.
Still, if you want to interact with other players in this game then you follow certain rules of conduct even it might at times feel like you are in the wrong movie...

There's nothing that can be touched, and even if it could, that would just be another happening being noticed. Basically, there's just an endless stream of events that can be noticed. What the stream of events actually is or the nature of the "noticer" (which appears to be yet another happening) requires more inquiry.

For a little while, try to overcome this idea that there has to be a noticer of events. Inquire into this experience. Look, hear, feel... No separate entity there being aware of events, is there? If you think there is, please describe it in some detail.
Sure, thought states that there is, but what is thought? Is it really much more than a small voice talking to itself? If there would be no constant references to this conceptual entity called "I/me/self", then would it be more important than the radio in the background? Can the voice in the radio define "you"? Or do you only notice it?
If the voice in your head stops for a while (or is at least ignored), what is left? Any more than pure noticing?

Alex

[placebo8]

Hi Alex,

Seems like I'm having a problem with this thoughtless noticing thing, which keeps me devolving back to duality...

When a sound arises, does thought notice the sound in a way that the sound would not be there without the thought? Or does the sound simply arise and vanish no matter if there is a thought labelling it as such and such?

I can't relate to sound as anything beyond being a certain quality of experience. This experience requires thought (otherwise we could speak of an experience of "sound" existing before any living creatures existed, something which I find difficult to accept)

Noticing, being aware, are not the same as conceptualising, as thinking about something. Does it matter if you label a sound as "car" or "bird"? Noticing happens anyway and if the sound is "important" enough, a thought might pop up and state "I hear a car. Better stop and see where it is coming from.". This is a response to the sound that is being noticed, but not the noticing itself, right?

Unfortunately I can't recall any situation of awareness or noticing without some recognition of it via thought. Even though I know thought is a filter and process of conceptualisation of what is noticed, any sort of existence prior to it seems inaccessible and thus irrelevant. It's the same as discussing the nature of awareness in deep sleep. There's no way I can relate to it, so how can it be relevant to anything? Of course all this might become clearer if by some miracle the "I" attachment is dropped, but this is a very tricky prison to break out of.

This sounds nice but the question of ethics is not really relevant when there is no separate self to be ethical. Ethics is again dependant on the value system that you have adopted and this has nothing to do with liberation.

While I understand and even accept that the question of ethics is not relevant from a non-dual understanding, it would be difficult to convince me that ethics is dependant on a value system, just as it would be difficult to convince me gravity is dependant on a measuring system. Yes, being ethical will not make anyone liberated, but could you give me an example of a liberated person who I would not consider ethical?

For a little while, try to overcome this idea that there has to be a noticer of events. Inquire into this experience. Look, hear, feel... No separate entity there being aware of events, is there? If you think there is, please describe it in some detail.

A belief in a separate entity stems from an acknowledgment of there being something to be noticed and the limitation on what it is that can be perceived, i.e signals processed by a specific local body.

If the voice in your head stops for a while (or is at least ignored), what is left? Any more than pure noticing?

Again, deep sleep comes to mind. The voice in my head stops and there is no noticing because there is no one to notice anything. To say "something is happening!" without noticing that something is happening is an idea I can't wrap my mind around, (and trying to wrap my mind around it is of course the reason I'm stuck, though this knowledge doesn't help change this fact)

[Alexw]

I can't relate to sound as anything beyond being a certain quality of experience.

Yes, sure, the "quality" of an experience is a thought about an experience. Even calling it "a sound" is already a labelling and thus a thought. But it does not require thought for experiencing to happen, does it? You might not be able to talk about it, but something is happening...
When you are reading a book and you are fully immersed in book-world and suddenly a loud sound happens, did you first have to think to notice it? Or does noticing happen automatically? Yes, sure a second later you will think "There is a siren going off!", but this is an afterthought, not the experience of sound, right?

There is the belief that reality can be accurately described in words, in conceptual thought structures, and so we keep on looking for the perfect description - we are not happy and content as long as there is a discrepancy between our thought based model and reality itself... Can you ever reach this ultimate goal? How could you even be sure that you have reached it? This is where beliefs come in. You learn that this colour over there is the colour blue. But blue is not more than a word, the reality behind "blue" can not be conceptually grasped, can it?

Unfortunately I can't recall any situation of awareness or noticing without some recognition of it via thought.

Maybe its the other way round... maybe there is no thought required at any time to notice something... maybe thought (about an experience) is always just an afterthought...
Please sit down and look at your computer, now turn your head to one side. Some new scenery comes into view... what comes first? Thoughts about certain objects being there or the seeing itself? Does thought have to be there for seeing to happen?

Even though I know thought is a filter and process of conceptualisation of what is noticed, any sort of existence prior to it seems inaccessible and thus irrelevant.

Its maybe irrelevant for thought and its established value system, but this does not mean that nothing exists if you don't think about it.

It's the same as discussing the nature of awareness in deep sleep. There's no way I can relate to it, so how can it be relevant to anything?

Relevance is something that thought defines - reality is not relevant or irrelevant... it simply is.
Maybe there is no awareness *in* deep sleep, but deep sleep is simply pure, non-objective awareness... awareness "at rest"...
We normally say that "I am asleep", but what is this I that sleeps? If you turn off the TV and thus no more signals are being processed did the TV change at all? No, the TV is still the same, but the show that is playing out in/on it is asleep...

There mighty be the belief that discussing the nature of awareness makes more sense in the waking state, but maybe this is not true...
When discussing the nature of a TV its the hardware we are looking at, not the random shows that are showing up on it, right? The problem is that all discussions about the TV are happening "in the show"... The characters in the show are trying to make sense of the device they appear on... What are the chances for the characters to accurately describe the TV? All they are is the TV, the screen, the sounds, all they know is based on what happened in their specific show, there might be stories about the TV, what it is made of and how it functions, but can the character in the show really ever know for sure? There is no way to step outside and look at the TV from a disconnected, independent vantage point, is there..? There are ideas and beliefs that this might be possible but they are not more than part of the TV show...

A belief in a separate entity stems from an acknowledgment of there being something to be noticed and the limitation on what it is that can be perceived, i.e signals processed by a specific local body.

Yes, exactly - this is the BELIEF that we all have been brought up with.
BUT: Can this belief be confirmed in direct experience or only in thought-story?

[placebo8]

But it does not require thought for experiencing to happen, does it?

I don't know anymore. Suppose as you say I was reading a book and a loud sound would start. Yes, there would be a noticing and certain physiological reactions, but if there would have been no afterthought then there would also have been no one to know about it and thus, for all practical purposes, would be as inconsequential as any other event that I have no way of ever accessing.

Its maybe irrelevant for thought and its established value system, but this does not mean that nothing exists if you don't think about it.

Obviously things exist when I don't think about them. Things also exist that I don't know or will ever know about. The question the "I" asks is "why should I care about things I can never know?" I assume the answer is "because if you realise that you are not what you think you are, then you would see you are exactly the thing that you claim you can never know". The "I" responds with, "Oh yeah? so prove it!" to which the answer would presumably be "I can't, you're in the way..." - round and round it goes...

Can you ever reach this ultimate goal? How could you even be sure that you have reached it? This is where beliefs come in. You learn that this colour over there is the colour blue. But blue is not more than a word, the reality behind "blue" can not be conceptually grasped, can it?

This goal can never be reached via thought, and even though it can be described in ever growing accuracy, understanding that description will never be the thing in itself.
I'm a bit confused on terminology - there's the word "blue" which can be communicated, which is a pointer to the qualia of "blue" which is an experience that can't be communicated but can be noticed, but even though there are no words to describe it, it is still recognised by a "noticer" isn't it? The fact that I don't know how to describe red does not imply that I'm unaware of its quality.

Please sit down and look at your computer, now turn your head to one side. Some new scenery comes into view... what comes first? Thoughts about certain objects being there or the seeing itself? Does thought have to be there for seeing to happen?

I did this exercise a few times and seeing obviously precedes thinking, but the two are so closely connected that it's hard to say what one is without the other. The speed at which thought arrives to claim reality as it's own is impressive...

We normally say that "I am asleep", but what is this I that sleeps? If you turn off the TV and thus no more signals are being processed did the TV change at all? No, the TV is still the same, but the show that is playing out in/on it is asleep...

To continue this analogy, the mind would say - what do I care about the TV? I can't be the TV, I can only be the character inside it so any talk about the TV is irrelevant.

BUT: Can this belief be confirmed in direct experience or only in thought-story?

I doubt it's possible to confirm anything other than the fact that something is happening (not even any claims as to what it is that is happening or to whom), but this would be impossible to hold on to without going insane or getting run over by a bus, so the alternative is checking what appears to be consistent and take that as an approximation to what is true. What is consistent is that things that I notice are limited to where my body is located and things that other people notice are limited to where they are. I think that since the awareness is filtered by a local process, this process then believes it is a local awareness. Undoing this is the difficult part...

[Alexw]

Yes, there would be a noticing and certain physiological reactions, but if there would have been no afterthought then there would also have been no one to know about it and thus, for all practical purposes, would be as inconsequential as any other event that I have no way of ever accessing.

Inconsequential for who..? Is an event that is not followed by thought any more or less important than the one that triggers an avalanche of I-thoughts? The event happened, thats it... no matter how many thoughts follow, it wont change anymore... You might believe that only thinking about what happened, analysing and formulating a scientific opinion makes an event worthwhile - otherwise it is lost for you to use it as a learning experience... Is this really true? Do you really learn much by re-thinking old experience? Or do you only formulate more and more complicated stories about life?
If you stick your hand into the fire you will learn very fast that it is not a good idea and you wont do it anymore - no matter if you think about what happened or not. There is an inbuilt intelligence that thought seems to overlook... the only important thing seems to be to formulate a thesis, a logical conclusion... Did you learn to eat, speak, stand and walk by thinking about it?
I know you might say, but what about all of our scientific progress, what about all these great achievements? I am not saying that we should abandon all conventional and scientific knowledge, but we should use it in the way its meant to be used, not as a tool that has to explain everything. Its good for some things, like a hammer is good to drive in a nail, but its horrible at other things, just like a hammer will not do much good when changing a light bulb...

Obviously things exist when I don't think about them. Things also exist that I don't know or will ever know about

This is true if you consider the "I" to be this small, conceptual self - the I-thought.

The question the "I" asks is "why should I care about things I can never know?" I assume the answer is "because if you realise that you are not what you think you are, then you would see you are exactly the thing that you claim you can never know". The "I" responds with, "Oh yeah? so prove it!" to which the answer would presumably be "I can't, you're in the way..." - round and round it goes...

You still seem to believe that there is an "I" that asks questions, responds, thinks, knows stuff and does certain things... But all you can really find are thoughts and more thoughts, right? Does it matter what thought wants? Can a thought ever really know anything? Or is thought being known? Not by a separate self, but simply as knowing being present... Is a sound heard by this separate self, or is it again simply known? Not by a knower, but as the knowing, the sounding, itself?

I'm a bit confused on terminology - there's the word "blue" which can be communicated, which is a pointer to the qualia of "blue" which is an experience that can't be communicated but can be noticed, but even though there are no words to describe it, it is still recognised by a "noticer" isn't it? The fact that I don't know how to describe red does not imply that I'm unaware of its quality.

Yes, there is noticing of *blue* or *red* happening, no matter what label/word is being used.
When you read this: GREEN, you still experience the quaila of *red* even the label is seemingly not matching... but is this experience noticed by a separate *noticer*? Where is this entity? Or is "seeing" (=the colour) the only "thing" that is happening? No seer, only seeing happening...?

To continue this analogy, the mind would say - what do I care about the TV? I can't be the TV, I can only be the character inside it so any talk about the TV is irrelevant.

Yes, true, it is irrelevant for thought as thought cant grasp it... but are you the thought or are you the *noticer*? Are you the character or are you the TV?
Look... there is seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking happening... thought states many things about a separate entity, a thinker, a doer, a decider... But are "you" really doing, thinking and deciding or are *you* the one that is merely observing the story unfold? (not that this observer would be a separate entity, this is only a way of pointing to something that is non objective).
What is it that is always here? Do you always have thoughts? Do you always see or hear or smell? Or is the only constant *thing* the noticing, the being aware of all this happening (no matter if in an objective way or in an objectless, deep sleep like state)? If you have to identify with anything, wouldn't it be more logical to identify with the only *thing* that is always *with you* (as you)?
What is it that never changes? The body? Obviously not, its just a collection of sensual perceptions... Thought? No... Experience... No... maybe the noticing/awaring itself...

Sit down and relax - try to let thought be thought and look at it as something not really more important than the humming of the fridge. When thought is in the background, no constant running commentary happing in your head, are *you* any less aware? Are you less here/now? If there is no thought at all, are you still here? If there is nothing objective arising, in deep sleep, do *you* still exist?

But the way, I will be travelling from Mo-Wed.