Is it possible to see this?

[xyzzy]

Please answer them after reading my post again. I asked the questions because you said a lot of things that CONTRADICTED your statement not being the thinker of thoughts.

For example you said that you make decisions, and you believe things - AFTER saying that you are not the thinker of thoughts or believer of beliefs. So, yes, please just read my post carefully and answer all of the questions as best you can.

I'm not sure that I was saying I make decisions or believe things. It would be awkward to try to talk without using the words I or me, so I'm using those words. I'll answer the questions you asked, but I don't feel like I understand what you're saying overall.

I'm not sure how it would be possible to function without it, as actions are based to a great extent on beliefs.

Whose beliefs??

There are thoughts, and beliefs but you've just said, at the start of this post, that you are not the thinker of thoughts or believer of beliefs.

When you said that you were stating it FROM DIRECT EXPERIENTIAL EVIDENCE.

So when you said that, you were speaking about REALITY as DIRECTLY as you could ever hope to be able to assess it!!

So whose beliefs?

yes, there are thoughts showing up, and there are beliefs showing up, and there is doing showing up, but has there ever been an "I" involved in any of it - EXCEPT as an idea generated by THOUGHT?

They're the beliefs that are being experienced here. They're still here regardless of whether or not there is an I. I can't control them.

It would require the decision to live based on the idea that thoughts were not true.

No it would not. You would have to be a thinker of thoughts to make a decision to live a certain way. Whatever thoughts pop up will pop up a they always have. They will continue to speak about an "I" that needs to do things, and doing will continue to be done.

Are you the thinker of those thoughts, or the decider of decisions, or the doer of that doing?

No, but I seem to be the experiencer of those things. I don't know whether or not that is actually true.

What "I" is there to function? What is this "I" that you speak about? The thinker of thoughts? The doer of doing?

There seems to be an I, but I'm not sure whether or not there is one. If there isn't, there is still functioning, or the lack of it. There's the desire to be functional, and not to be living on a park bench because I can't support myself. There's the belief that the belief in an elsewhere is necessary to be functional.

If you're not the thinker of thoughts, where is the "I" that believes things?

I don't believe things, but there seems to be an I which experiences having beliefs. This I can't be found anywhere, and if it exists, must be outside experience somewhere.

[Empty Mirror]

I'm not sure how it would be possible to function without it, as actions are based to a great extent on beliefs.

Whose beliefs??

There are thoughts, and beliefs but you've just said, at the start of this post, that you are not the thinker of thoughts or believer of beliefs.

When you said that you were stating it FROM DIRECT EXPERIENTIAL EVIDENCE.

So when you said that, you were speaking about REALITY as DIRECTLY as you could ever hope to be able to assess it!!

So whose beliefs?

Yes, there are thoughts showing up, and there are beliefs showing up, and there is doing showing up, but has there ever been an "I" involved in any of it - EXCEPT as an idea generated by THOUGHT?

They're the beliefs that are being experienced here. They're still here regardless of whether or not there is an I. I can't control them.

Yes, quite correct. That's MUCH clearer. So there are beliefs that show up 'here', but they are not your beliefs because, as you've said, you're not the thinker of thoughts or believer of beliefs.

And, just like thoughts, you have no control over them. So if these beliefs are not your beliefs, do these beliefs affect YOU? We know that beliefs affect thoughts, but since you're neither the believer of beliefs nor the thinker of thoughts, do they have any effect on YOU?

It would require the decision to live based on the idea that thoughts were not true.

No it would not. You would have to be a thinker of thoughts to make a decision to live a certain way. Whatever thoughts pop up will pop up a they always have. They will continue to speak about an "I" that needs to do things, and doing will continue to be done.

Are you the thinker of those thoughts, or the decider of decisions, or the doer of that doing?

No, but I seem to be the experiencer of those things. I don't know whether or not that is actually true.

What is this "experiencer"? Is there ANY difference at all between the experience and the experiencer? If so what is it? Remember to stay true to direct experiential evidence in your answer.

What "I" is there to function? What is this "I" that you speak about? The thinker of thoughts? The doer of doing?

There seems to be an I, but I'm not sure whether or not there is one. If there isn't, there is still functioning, or the lack of it.

Agreed, there is still functioning, and it's always been going on, but where was the "I" in any of it, except for in thought?

Thought takes care of itself, and functioning takes care of itself, but where is the thinker and doer aside from in thought?

There's the desire to be functional, and not to be living on a park bench because I can't support myself. There's the belief that the belief in an elsewhere is necessary to be functional.

And they are nothing but thoughts and beliefs. You once also believed there was a thinker of thoughts.

Direct experiential evidence gives you no reason to think that those beliefs are real either. If there has never been an elsewhere, and you were never the thinker of thoughts, or the believer of beliefs, then obviously functioning has been going on just fine without any of that - regardless of the belief.

Yes, there are thoughts, and beliefs, and functioning, but where is the "I" in any of that? That stuff has been happening all along, but (excluding thoughts that can not be verified through direct experiential evidence) has there EVER been an "I" in there?

There's the belief that the belief in an elsewhere is necessary to be functional.

Yes it's a thought constructed belief that you are not the believer of. You know of beliefs that thought says are necessary, but thought also says that there is a thinker of thoughts. You've discovered that's not true.

If you're not the thinker of thoughts, where is the "I" that believes things?

I don't believe things, but there seems to be an I which experiences having beliefs.

Ok, let's look at this "I" that is not the thinker or believer of anything but "seems" to be there.

The conundrum is that there is a sense that all of this is known "by something", and yet no "I" can be found that is doing this knowing. So what is doing this knowing if not an "I"? I'm going to try to put into words what can't really be put into words. Try to follow this, but don't worry if you can't. If you keep staying true to direct evidence you'll see this for yourself.

This 'knowing', that seems to know stuff, is what we refer to as awareness. Thought says that there is a separation between this awareness (knowing) and the stuff that it is aware of (known), but you've discovered that there is no such separation in direct experience. A thought, emotion, sensation, or perception, can not in ANY WAY be separated from the awareness/knowing of it.

So the 'knowing-known' are absolutely and completely inseparable. They arise as ONE("this"). The knowing, and known are indivisibly "this" (a universe of thought, sensation, emotion, people, and planets) that is known. And the knowing-known' knows that it is known.

Are you in any way different or separate from this 'knowing-known'?

Like I say, if the above confused you, just forget it. It will do its own 'work'.

This I can't be found anywhere, and if it exists, must be outside experience somewhere.

Ok, so excluding thoughts that can't be confirmed through direct experiential evidence, you can find no "I" and no "elsewhere".

So if thought is making stuff up, like a thinker of thoughts, and an idea of an elsewhere, and there really is no "I" or no "elsewhere", what is it that knows of this?

[xyzzy]

Yes, quite correct. That's MUCH clearer. So there are beliefs that show up 'here', but they are not your beliefs because, as you've said, you're not the thinker of thoughts or believer of beliefs.

And, just like thoughts, you have no control over them. So if these beliefs are not your beliefs, do these beliefs affect YOU? We know that beliefs affect thoughts, but since you're neither the believer of beliefs nor the thinker of thoughts, do they have any effect on YOU?

Well, they have an effect on most aspects of this experience, as beliefs affect thoughts, actions, and emotions. So they would seem to affect me.

What is this "experiencer"? Is there ANY difference at all between the experience and the experiencer? If so what is it? Remember to stay true to direct experiential evidence in your answer.

Based on experiential evidence, there is no experiencer here, just experience. (Note the word "here")

Agreed, there is still functioning, and it's always been going on, but where was the "I" in any of it, except for in thought?

There's no I in experience, other than in thought.

There's the desire to be functional, and not to be living on a park bench because I can't support myself. There's the belief that the belief in an elsewhere is necessary to be functional.

And they are nothing but thoughts and beliefs. You once also believed there was a thinker of thoughts.

Direct experiential evidence gives you no reason to think that those beliefs are real either. If there has never been an elsewhere, and you were never the thinker of thoughts, or the believer of beliefs, then obviously functioning has been going on just fine without any of that - regardless of the belief.

Yes, there are thoughts, and beliefs, and functioning, but where is the "I" in any of that? That stuff has been happening all along, but (excluding thoughts that can not be verified through direct experiential evidence) has there EVER been an "I" in there?

There's no I in this experience, and no elsewhere in this experience. It may be, though, that the belief in an I or the belief in an elsewhere is necessary for functioning. I don't think that the first is true, but the second might be.

Ok, so excluding thoughts that can't be confirmed through direct experiential evidence, you can find no "I" and no "elsewhere".

So if thought is making stuff up, like a thinker of thoughts, and an idea of an elsewhere, and there really is no "I" or no "elsewhere", what is it that knows of this?

I don't understand what you're asking here, with "what is it that knows of this?"

Hmm, to sum this up: There's this experience, where no I is to be found. Thoughts say that there is an I, which would have to be somewhere outside of this experience. Thoughts also say that there is something outside of this experience.

Even according to thoughts, there is no evidence for this I, and no reason to believe it exists, as it does nothing and is having no effect on anything. However, there doesn't seem to be any proof that it doesn't exist.

Thoughts say that thoughts are mostly true, but the only evidence for this is other thoughts.

I'm not sure what all this leads to, though.

[Empty Mirror]

Yes, quite correct. That's MUCH clearer. So there are beliefs that show up 'here', but they are not your beliefs because, as you've said, you're not the thinker of thoughts or believer of beliefs.

And, just like thoughts, you have no control over them. So if these beliefs are not your beliefs, do these beliefs affect YOU? We know that beliefs affect thoughts, but since you're neither the believer of beliefs nor the thinker of thoughts, do they have any effect on YOU?

Well, they have an effect on most aspects of this experience, as beliefs affect thoughts, actions, and emotions. So they would seem to affect me.

What is this "me" that you're talking about? And in what way do thoughts, actions and emotions affect it? Please answer in detail, and ensure that your answer can be confirmed by direct experiential evidence.

Thoughts, action, and emotions arise 'here' but do they affect the 'here'?

What is this "experiencer"? Is there ANY difference at all between the experience and the experiencer? If so what is it? Remember to stay true to direct experiential evidence in your answer.

Based on experiential evidence, there is no experiencer here, just experience. (Note the word "here")

Well of course it's 'here'. There is nowhere else.

Notice that in your previous reply you said: "but "I" seem to be the experiencer of them". So if there is no experiencer and there is just pure experience then how could there be an "I" to experience anything?

If there is no "I" experiencing anything how can there be an "I" that suffers anything (except in thoughts that are not yours)?

In your very first opening post you said: "I believe that there is no self, and I am quite convinced intellectually that there is no self, but this hasn't changed the way I feel in any way. Is there some seeing which is different from intellectual understanding?"

Haven't you just answered the question yourself? Quite clearly there is a direct knowing, from direct experiential evidence, that there is no "experiencer". So your direct knowing is that there is experiencing but no experiencer, there is "feeling" but no "feeler", so quite clearly there was never a "feeler", there were only ideas that there was a "feeler" of feelings.

So when you say "this hasn't changed the way I feel in any way" you are saying that it hasn't changed the way nothing feels in any way. How could it change the way "I" feel if there was never an "I" in the first place?

If feelings change they change. If emotions change they change. As you've discovered, they are experiences with no experiencer.

In a way they have already changed though because you've discovered that there is no "I" feeling them. There is just experiencing of feelings.

Agreed, there is still functioning, and it's always been going on, but where was the "I" in any of it, except for in thought?

There's no I in experience, other than in thought.

So does it make any sense to say "I am suffering"? Is there anything that can ever suffer? If so what is it?

There's the desire to be functional, and not to be living on a park bench because I can't support myself. There's the belief that the belief in an elsewhere is necessary to be functional.

And they are nothing but thoughts and beliefs. You once also believed there was a thinker of thoughts.

Direct experiential evidence gives you no reason to think that those beliefs are real either. If there has never been an elsewhere, and you were never the thinker of thoughts, or the believer of beliefs, then obviously functioning has been going on just fine without any of that - regardless of the belief.

Yes, there are thoughts, and beliefs, and functioning, but where is the "I" in any of that? That stuff has been happening all along, but (excluding thoughts that can not be verified through direct experiential evidence) has there EVER been an "I" in there?

There's no I in this experience, and no elsewhere in this experience. It may be, though, that the belief in an I or the belief in an elsewhere is necessary for functioning. I don't think that the first is true, but the second might be.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the thing that you don't think the stuff that is verified by direct experience is true but you do think that stuff that thought has made up might be true??

Hmm, to sum this up: There's this experience, where no I is to be found. Thoughts say that there is an I, which would have to be somewhere outside of this experience. Thoughts also say that there is something outside of this experience.

Even according to thoughts, there is no evidence for this I, and no reason to believe it exists, as it does nothing and is having no effect on anything. However, there doesn't seem to be any proof that it doesn't exist.

What better proof could you get than your own direct experiential evidence?

Thoughts say that thoughts are mostly true, but the only evidence for this is other thoughts.

I'm not sure what all this leads to, though.

Well once it's clear that the universe-according-to-thought is not a true reflection of reality, and that there is no thinker of thoughts, nor any "I" anywhere, my question to you is: "What feelings need to change, and for who/what?" Remember to stay true to direct experiential evidence when you answer this.

[xyzzy]

Well, they have an effect on most aspects of this experience, as beliefs affect thoughts, actions, and emotions. So they would seem to affect me.

What is this "me" that you're talking about? And in what way do thoughts, actions and emotions affect it? Please answer in detail, and ensure that your answer can be confirmed by direct experiential evidence.

Thoughts, action, and emotions arise 'here' but do they affect the 'here'?

Based on direct experience, there isn't a me being affected, just this experience is being affected. I don't see that there is a here separate from this experience, so anything which affects this experience affects here, I suppose.

Notice that in your previous reply you said: "but "I" seem to be the experiencer of them". So if there is no experiencer and there is just pure experience then how could there be an "I" to experience anything?

If there is no "I" experiencing anything how can there be an "I" that suffers anything (except in thoughts that are not yours)?

In your very first opening post you said: "I believe that there is no self, and I am quite convinced intellectually that there is no self, but this hasn't changed the way I feel in any way. Is there some seeing which is different from intellectual understanding?"

Haven't you just answered the question yourself? Quite clearly there is a direct knowing, from direct experiential evidence, that there is no "experiencer". So your direct knowing is that there is experiencing but no experiencer, there is "feeling" but no "feeler", so quite clearly there was never a "feeler", there were only ideas that there was a "feeler" of feelings.

So when you say "this hasn't changed the way I feel in any way" you are saying that it hasn't changed the way nothing feels in any way. How could it change the way "I" feel if there was never an "I" in the first place?

I don't see that there is no experiencer, I only see that there is no experiencer within this experience.

We seem to have reached an impasse on this, as you think that it's a simple step to go from "no experiencer within this experience" to "no experiencer", but I don't seem to be able to take that step.

So does it make any sense to say "I am suffering"? Is there anything that can ever suffer? If so what is it?

I'm unsure of this. There seems to be an I which is having this experience, which would mean that the I is experiencing suffering. I'm not sure how this is any different from just saying that suffering is being experienced, though. As the I does nothing and can't be viewed or experienced, there would be no way of knowing if it was being affected in any way.

Hmm, to sum this up: There's this experience, where no I is to be found. Thoughts say that there is an I, which would have to be somewhere outside of this experience. Thoughts also say that there is something outside of this experience.

Even according to thoughts, there is no evidence for this I, and no reason to believe it exists, as it does nothing and is having no effect on anything. However, there doesn't seem to be any proof that it doesn't exist.

What better proof could you get than your own direct experiential evidence?

My experience doesn't say that I doesn't exist, it just says it doesn't exist as part of this experience.

Well once it's clear that the universe-according-to-thought is not a true reflection of reality, and that there is no thinker of thoughts, nor any "I" anywhere, my question to you is: "What feelings need to change, and for who/what?" Remember to stay true to direct experiential evidence when you answer this.

It's not clear that there is no I anywhere. As to your question, I'm not sure I understand it. I would say that nothing needs to change, although this isn't how I feel.

[Empty Mirror]

Well, they have an effect on most aspects of this experience, as beliefs affect thoughts, actions, and emotions. So they would seem to affect me.

What is this "me" that you're talking about? And in what way do thoughts, actions and emotions affect it? Please answer in detail, and ensure that your answer can be confirmed by direct experiential evidence.

Thoughts, action, and emotions arise 'here' but do they affect the 'here'?

Based on direct experience, there isn't a me being affected, just this experience is being affected.

You say this now, and you've said many times that you can find no I, and that there is no believer or thinker, but in a few sentences time you say "There seems to be an I which is having this experience, which would mean that the I is experiencing suffering."

So it seems that no matter what you discover through direct experiential evidence you continue to choose to follow thought stories, and to identify with them.

It seems like you're expecting to simply wait until someone hands you clarity. Please explain how you can continually make contradictory statements in the same post. Does discovering that there is no thinker of thoughts, no believer of beliefs, and no feeler of feelings, not make any sort of impression on you?

Doesn't it make you think twice before saying "the I is experiencing suffering" when you've said many times that there is no "I"???

I don't see that there is a here separate from this experience, so anything which affects this experience affects here, I suppose.

Ok I'll word it differently.

When you say "here", and make a point of saying "here", you are obviously referring to "this" (awareness and the stuff that it is aware of). Does the nature of "this" change just because there is a different feeling or thought or sensation appearing in "this"? There can be awareness of happiness and there can be awareness of sadness. Is the awareness/knowing of the two different emotions any different in itself? Does a change in the movie make any difference to the screen?

Notice that in your previous reply you said: "but "I" seem to be the experiencer of them". So if there is no experiencer and there is just pure experience then how could there be an "I" to experience anything?

If there is no "I" experiencing anything how can there be an "I" that suffers anything (except in thoughts that are not yours)?

In your very first opening post you said: "I believe that there is no self, and I am quite convinced intellectually that there is no self, but this hasn't changed the way I feel in any way. Is there some seeing which is different from intellectual understanding?"

Haven't you just answered the question yourself? Quite clearly there is a direct knowing, from direct experiential evidence, that there is no "experiencer". So your direct knowing is that there is experiencing but no experiencer, there is "feeling" but no "feeler", so quite clearly there was never a "feeler", there were only ideas that there was a "feeler" of feelings.

So when you say "this hasn't changed the way I feel in any way" you are saying that it hasn't changed the way nothing feels in any way. How could it change the way "I" feel if there was never an "I" in the first place?

I don't see that there is no experiencer, I only see that there is no experiencer within this experience.

What is that supposed to mean? In your previous post you said: "Based on experiential evidence, there is no experiencer here, just experience." So if there is no experiencer "here" then where is it? Does it exist anywhere except in thought?

We seem to have reached an impasse on this, as you think that it's a simple step to go from "no experiencer within this experience" to "no experiencer", but I don't seem to be able to take that step.

No, you seem to be having a logic problem, that's all. If there is no experiencer in the experience how could there possibly be an experiencer? What would that experiencer be experiencing??

So does it make any sense to say "I am suffering"? Is there anything that can ever suffer? If so what is it?

I'm unsure of this. There seems to be an I which is having this experience, which would mean that the I is experiencing suffering.

How can you say this when you've repeatedly confirmed that you can find no "I" in direct experience?

I'm not sure how this is any different from just saying that suffering is being experienced, though. As the I does nothing and can't be viewed or experienced, there would be no way of knowing if it was being affected in any way.

If it can't be found anywhere why on earth would you worry about whether it was affected by anything?

Hmm, to sum this up: There's this experience, where no I is to be found. Thoughts say that there is an I, which would have to be somewhere outside of this experience. Thoughts also say that there is something outside of this experience.

Even according to thoughts, there is no evidence for this I, and no reason to believe it exists, as it does nothing and is having no effect on anything. However, there doesn't seem to be any proof that it doesn't exist.

What better proof could you get than your own direct experiential evidence?

My experience doesn't say that I doesn't exist, it just says it doesn't exist as part of this experience.

What's your point?

What EXCEPT FOR THOUGHT says that an "I" exists? And even if there was an "I" outside of direct experience what relevance could it possibly have? If it's not in direct experience then you will NEVER know anything about it, so who cares about some imagined "I" that doesn't show up in direct experiential evidence???

Well once it's clear that the universe-according-to-thought is not a true reflection of reality, and that there is no thinker of thoughts, nor any "I" anywhere, my question to you is: "What feelings need to change, and for who/what?" Remember to stay true to direct experiential evidence when you answer this.

It's not clear that there is no I anywhere. As to your question, I'm not sure I understand it. I would say that nothing needs to change, although this isn't how I feel.

So then you are saying that it seems that something needs to change. If there is no "I" in experiencing, what needs to change, and for who/what?

Remember that you said at the start of this post that "Based on direct experience, there isn't a me being affected, just this experience is being affected".

Nobody can spoonfeed you this stuff xyzzy, you actually have to "look", and take seriously the stuff that you discover.

In your previous post you gave me another completely contradictory answer that I questioned, and you chose to ignore the question. I'm going to pose it as I posed it in my previous reply. Please answer it this time:

There's the desire to be functional, and not to be living on a park bench because I can't support myself. There's the belief that the belief in an elsewhere is necessary to be functional.

And they are nothing but thoughts and beliefs. You once also believed there was a thinker of thoughts.

Direct experiential evidence gives you no reason to think that those beliefs are real either. If there has never been an elsewhere, and you were never the thinker of thoughts, or the believer of beliefs, then obviously functioning has been going on just fine without any of that - regardless of the belief.

Yes, there are thoughts, and beliefs, and functioning, but where is the "I" in any of that? That stuff has been happening all along, but (excluding thoughts that can not be verified through direct experiential evidence) has there EVER been an "I" in there?

There's no I in this experience, and no elsewhere in this experience. It may be, though, that the belief in an I or the belief in an elsewhere is necessary for functioning. I don't think that the first is true, but the second might be.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that you don't think the stuff that is verified by direct experience is true, but you do think that stuff that thought has made up might be true??

[cosmiK]

Hey xyzzy,

I'll be stepping in to add a little assistance.

It seems like you've done a lot of work, and you've probably even seen what you need to do see, but there seems to be some confusion here.

In simple words, tell me, what is the problem here. If you had to describe the simple issue here in a MAX of 1-2 sentences, how would you describe it?

I will give you some simple exercises after this. Look forward to working with you.

[xyzzy]

My experience doesn't say that I doesn't exist, it just says it doesn't exist as part of this experience.

What's your point?

What EXCEPT FOR THOUGHT says that an "I" exists? And even if there was an "I" outside of direct experience what relevance could it possibly have? If it's not in direct experience then you will NEVER know anything about it, so who cares about some imagined "I" that doesn't show up in direct experiential evidence???

Now that was a good point. I didn't respond to this message for the last few days, because I've been thinking about this. Why should this self matter, when it's some unobservable thing which does nothing and has no effect on anything?

Seeing this has broken something loose, but I'm confused now. There is this self which doesn't really matter, but I'm not sure whether or not it's me. And if not, then am I this experience? I don't know what it means to be an experience.

This will take me some more time.

[xyzzy]

Hey xyzzy,

I'll be stepping in to add a little assistance.

It seems like you've done a lot of work, and you've probably even seen what you need to do see, but there seems to be some confusion here.

In simple words, tell me, what is the problem here. If you had to describe the simple issue here in a MAX of 1-2 sentences, how would you describe it?

I will give you some simple exercises after this. Look forward to working with you.

Hello cosmiK. I will have to wait to answer your question until I figure out what's going on with me, unless my previous message has already answered your question.

[cosmiK]

xyzzy,

what this has told me is that you are making things complicated. If you want to Awaken, then do the work, and follow our pointing.

please answer the question I posed, as soon as you read, START TYPING, ad RESPOND.

In simple words, tell me, what is the problem here. If you had to describe the simple issue here in a MAX of 1-2 sentences, how would you describe it?

[cosmiK]

Also, may we have your first name? It often helps with the 'self'ing process. If you are not comfortable it is not necessary. If you give a fake name it won't be effective, so either you do or you don't please.

[Empty Mirror]

My experience doesn't say that I doesn't exist, it just says it doesn't exist as part of this experience.

What's your point?

What EXCEPT FOR THOUGHT says that an "I" exists? And even if there was an "I" outside of direct experience what relevance could it possibly have? If it's not in direct experience then you will NEVER know anything about it, so who cares about some imagined "I" that doesn't show up in direct experiential evidence???

Now that was a good point. I didn't respond to this message for the last few days, because I've been thinking about this. Why should this self matter, when it's some unobservable thing which does nothing and has no effect on anything?

Seeing this has broken something loose, but I'm confused now. There is this self which doesn't really matter, but I'm not sure whether or not it's me. And if not, then am I this experience? I don't know what it means to be an experience.

Excellent xyzzy. Finally you realise that you are actually seeing something that you didn't see before.

Now thought has lost its self-thought-up-centre so it looks for a new centre to call "I". It looks for experience to call "I".

Experience shows up as "this" ("universe" of thought, sensation, perception, emotion, people, PCs, etc, etc). There is all of this "stuff" and the awareness of it, and NONE of the stuff is in any way separate from the awareness of it (just like a thought can't be in any way separated from the awareness of it). So there is "this" that is aware of itself.

And the ONLY awareness ANYWHERE is the awareness that is aware of this sentence.

So if you want to say "I am" something all you can say is "I am "this"" and when you say that you can only be referring to "this" (universe of thought, sensation,people, etc, etc that is aware of itself) in it's seamless entirety.

Let's not worry about what you are. "Behind the gate" there are a number of forums in which that sort of stuff is discussed. Let's concentrate on what you are not for now.

Let's look at this "self that doesn't really matter". Do you see now that it is just a thought?

Do you see that never has been an "I" except in thought?

If so what does it make you feel like to realise that there is no "I"? What seem to be the consequences?

[cosmiK]

Woops. I don't think I saw the last message!

Cool! Awaiting responses to Empty Mirror's last posted questions :)

[xyzzy]

Let's not worry about what you are. "Behind the gate" there are a number of forums in which that sort of stuff is discussed. Let's concentrate on what you are not for now.

Let's look at this "self that doesn't really matter". Do you see now that it is just a thought?

Do you see that never has been an "I" except in thought?

No. Intellectually, I might agree, but we're not interested in that. No, there seems to be an I, which I now see is not important. The I seems to have things that it believes and wants, but its beliefs don't matter and it doesn't matter if it gets what it wants.

When I look at this, it seems very clear that this self doesn't matter. It still seems to exist, though. I will look at why this self doesn't matter.

[cosmiK]

No. Intellectually, I might agree, but we're not interested in that. No, there seems to be an I, which I now see is not important. The I seems to have things that it believes and wants, but its beliefs don't matter and it doesn't matter if it gets what it wants.

'

The "I" is a THOUGHT! You believe it to be some 'self' and some-thing. Can an "I" believe? want? have? get what it wants?

READ WHAT YOU WROTE!

LETS TRY THAT AGAIN...... FROM A DIFFERENT APPROACH that you can TEST RIGHT NOW....... LOOK AT YOUR THOUGHTS MY FRIEND...... LOOK AND SEE.....

Can a THOUGHT have beliefs, have want, have things that it believes, and get what it wants?

IS IT TRUE? CHECK!

CHECK what you just wrote, and CHECK your direct Experience. There are THOUGHTS and you are believing them, and as long they are believed, you cannot Awaken. you must realize that THOUGHTS ARE THOUGHTS. THEIR CONTENT IS NOT REAL. You seem addicted to believing in these stories, then you take these STORIES and you report them here? Do you want to tell stories? Here is another example of your amazing story-telling capacity:

When I look at this, it seems very clear that this self doesn't matter. It still seems to exist, though. I will look at why this self doesn't matter.

You already know that there is NO SELF! A "self" is a THOUGHT. "it exists" is a THOUGHT. You cannot look at a "self". All you can do is look at a THOUGHT and see that it is just a THOUGHT, and that it's content is NOT REAL, but that is merely a THOUGHT.

Please SEE this and CHECK if it is TRUE.