Would be grateful for a guide

[placebo8]

Well.. the dictionary definition of entity is something like "something that has separate and distinct existence". Whereas a process is more of a "series of actions that produce something or that lead to a particular result".

I think the difference between the two definitions is only due to the depth of understanding of what they are. I don't expect the dictionary to help much with a deep inquiry into their nature. The dictionary would also define matter and energy as two different things when physicists understand they are essentially the same.

As far as I'm concerned, an entity is a product of thought. It can be anything that can be detected and distinguished by the mind as having some common attributes, and it is always distinguished by noticing some sort of repetition/pattern which contrasts it with what it is not. This can be a "concrete thing" such as a chair or a tree, it can be a process, such as falling or growing, or it can be an abstract thought construct, such as an arithmetic series or scientific theory.

With this interpretation of the term "entity", it might be understandable why I take any "self", including my own to be an entity. The tricky part however, is to see that this "self" entity is no different than the "chair" entity or any other entity as they are all thought constructs perceived by and arising from the same awareness.

It is definitely a different understanding to realise that the I is simply a process that happens depending on the situation at hand - that it is a verb and not a noun - or to see it as an inherently existing entity that is in charge of these processes that seem to govern daily life.

Perhaps for some it helps to make this differentiation. I find neither of these abstractions make it clear that I'm not the entity (whether this entity is a verb/process with certain consistent attributes or a noun), since I'll end up clinging to whatever abstraction that will be noticed (i.e the "recognising" of the self entity will end up identifying with what is recognised). A constant "neti neti" practice in the background could perhaps eventually help drop this habit.

If there are only processes/happenings that don't belong to anyone - no separate self owning them - then obviously there will also be no self that can get rid of them, right?

The logic is sound - can't argue with it. In practice though, this process is self referential, and recognising itself creates a belief that equates the recogniser with the process.

You will have to look at how these processes are being experienced, who knows them? Unfortunately you can't find an objective knower... There is simply knowing happening which is the same as the process happening... Agree so far?

Yes, the knowing and the happening are essentially the same.

So use the process as a signal for looking to happen, but not as a tool to change the situation - don't use it to push or pull at experience - use it only in a passive way.

Ok, sounds like good advice :-) Will continue to look.

Try to find a real-life statement that is sure to generate anger/aversion and usually provokes a certain reaction. Maybe something that makes you angry enough to burst out with some kind of defensive or angry statement. See what you find and lets proceed from there.

It would take quite a lot to get me angry enough to burst out when interacting with people (perhaps because I know to set my expectations accordingly). Most anger and frustration usually come from expectations I set for myself which are not met. In these situations, the logical knowledge that it couldn't be otherwise isn't very pacifying.

[Alexw]

I find neither of these abstractions make it clear that I'm not the entity (whether this entity is a verb/process with certain consistent attributes or a noun), since I'll end up clinging to whatever abstraction that will be noticed

Yes, when you look at things in a superficial way this might be true, but when you start zooming in on a process (or an entity) then you might find that even you might have expected to find something substantial "inside" of this process, that there really is nothing to be found that even deserves to be named "selfing", "fearing", "suffering" or even "falling" or "growing"...
The not-finding of something might not be a proof that is logical, it might even be unacceptable for "you", for the way we have learned to think. You will say: "Just because I can not find something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!" - this is one of our mottos that we have accepted and believe to be true... Agree?
But awareness doesn't work like that. Not finding something even you are looking with all your might is exactly what is required for awareness to "get it". It doesn't work with statements like "I only believe it when I see it (objectively)!" - it sees and it opens up when seeing reveals the emptiness of something that was thought to have a certain substance to it.
This is why looking is the only remedy - but not a looking with an intended outcome. When you look for something, the I, or an aversion or desire, then you will have to really look - as if you are looking for the keys out of a room that slowly fills with water. If you look like that then there is no room for stories - you look as if your life depends on it. Not finding anything will lead to a state of despair as there is simply no way out until this (illusory) key has been found. You will have to remain in this state of tension, of looking, until something gives. The looking will eventually dissolve the idea that there really is something to find. You will open up and a weight drops...
Does this make it a little clearer why we look and how looking should be applied?

[placebo8]

When you look for something, the I, or an aversion or desire, then you will have to really look - as if you are looking for the keys out of a room that slowly fills with water. If you look like that then there is no room for stories - you look as if your life depends on it. Not finding anything will lead to a state of despair as there is simply no way out until this (illusory) key has been found. You will have to remain in this state of tension, of looking, until something gives. The looking will eventually dissolve the idea that there really is something to find. You will open up and a weight drops...

The analogy is understood, but I disagree that not finding the key will lead to an understanding. Though it might for a few lucky individuals, with most it will just lead to an escalating panic, unbearable and unimaginable suffering which lasts for a subjective eternity, and then nothingness from which eventually materialises another individual in a room filling up with water. When you view life like this, it tends to appear as an elaborate prank devised by the ultimate sadist. Of course, this view is yet another false belief, but the false believer doesn't have much say in the matter.

You wanted a statement that would make me angry enough to burst out. Well, that's as close as you're going to get :-)

[Alexw]

I do understand your frustration, but again, this is not a bad position to be in. Look at this frustrating situation and use it.

How does it feel to be so stuck? Without any way out? With this sadistic prankster having a good laugh while you suffer?
Look at the physical sensations and emotions that arise when you are in this situation... how does it feel? What thoughts arise? Are there any thoughts like "This should not be as it is. I should be getting this!"

After looking at this for a little while also be aware of the reactions that thought proposes that should be taken... should you maybe yell in anger? smash a glass? What would you like to do? What does thought propose that would make you feel better?

Look at these possible reactions but don't do anything - stay in this gap between the uncomfortable sensations and these potential reactions... Remain in the eye of the hurricane... Look for this frustration, for the suffering... Try to find anything that is solid - is there a real reason for these reactions of anger and aversion at all..? Is there anything there at all that is responsible for this suffering..? What is this suffering? What is it made of? Is it real?

[placebo8]

Look at these possible reactions but don't do anything - stay in this gap between the uncomfortable sensations and these potential reactions...

Could you please clarify a bit more on the "don't do anything" part?

I usually think of something as ultimately true if it applies to all situations with no exception, therefore the same understanding should apply whether there's a sense of suffering that arises whether I'm angry at some perceived injustice or if I've accidentally placed my finger in boiling water. Given this, there are different ways I could interpret "do nothing":

The first is physically not to do anything, which means resisting the mind or body's natural urge to react to the situation and leveraging the discomfort to look into it and see that it does not apply to what I really am. I assume this will not pan out well in the boiling water scenario, and will only increase the belief in a "self" that has failed the test - probably not what you meant...

The second is to let both the physical and emotional reactions happen, but to somehow not get "involved in the drama" so to speak, to just be in the place of a witnessing of their unfolding. In this case, someone else watching might thing that there is a suffering person in front of them, but in fact there would only be a witnessing by no one. This would explain witness accounts of apparent great suffering before death of some famous sages, which I used to think indicated an incomplete realisation when comparing them to sages who would remain confident and calm in the face of all suffering until the end. The latter descriptions is what I (this self-belief) used to admire and turned into a measuring stick to judge whether any progress is being made in my path (which was of course doomed to fail)

I think I'm wiser than that now, in the sense that if realisation is ever going to take place, I understand it's not going to happen by an intellectual understanding of the things I'm struggling with or be like anything I can think of or imagine at all, since anything thought or imagined are just more of the mind's selfing doing it's self thing, So far, the mind insists on knowing the answers, and the self on selfing, but there's a general feeling of "I'm on to you, your days are numbered" - hope it doesn't turn out to be another illusion.

[Alexw]

Could you please clarify a bit more on the "don't do anything" part?

Yes sure.

The first is physically not to do anything

You are right, this is not what I meant.

The second is to let both the physical and emotional reactions happen, but to somehow not get "involved in the drama" so to speak

This gets closers to what I mean, yes.

So far, the mind insists on knowing the answers, and the self on selfing, but there's a general feeling of "I'm on to you, your days are numbered" - hope it doesn't turn out to be another illusion.

Thats a good sign :-)

Look, there is a certain progress that is made purely on the cognitive, logical side of things. You will have to be fairly convinced that there is not even a logical reason that a separate self - this permanent entity - is required for anything to happen, for decisions to be made or for life to be controlled. That simply processes of "selfing" are happening that have been established over time which create the mirage of a permanent self. And if this is the case that they can also be dissolved - what has once been built can always be torn down. When you look at how selfing has come into existence then you might find that it had to come from pure, self-less observing as a small child and has been adopted by mimicking and reacting to parents, teachers and friends. Unfortunately after a while this pure observing got veiled by these layers of conditioned processes so that a certain stimulus is not leading to a natural response but it is redirected to an "un-natural" reaction.

You seem to measure your progress on your involvement, the reactivity you display when certain situations happens. Thats fine, why not. When certain situations happen and you mostly react in a negative way then this really seems to indicate that not much has been realised... Would you agree that this calls for some investigation? If you agree then lets investigate these reactions - lets leave this separate self on the sidelines for a while and look at these processes, the negative reactivity...

This is where not-doing comes into play... Not doing is simply a not reacting. It is pure observing while maintaining perfect responsiveness, but without the conditioned processes that leads to reactivity (a response is a natural answer to the situation at hand, whereas a reaction is an answer based on wrong belief / ignorance).
There is no way to control this via thought processes, it has to be a natural understanding that dissolves these reactive patterns and then simply leads to natural responsiveness - something that you have but that has been overruled. To get back to these natural responsiveness you have to look at why and how these reactivity happens. Simple seeing and recognising what is really happening is good enough. No thought based effort is required - it is a practice of not doing, of looking only. With this I also come back to what I have written before, that "not finding the key will lead to an understanding" - you might not believe that this is the case, but dissolving established reactivity does not work by thinking yourself out of reactivity - it works "sub-consciously" by not finding any reason for it...

As mentioned before the first step would be to create lab-like conditions in which you can experiment. To create these conditions you will have to find an issue that seems to be a real-life problem and that leads to fairly strong reactivity. This can be a recurring issue at work, with your partner or any other issue that bothers you... A good way of looking at this is the question "If a fairy would show up asking you which problem you would like to get rid of right now... What would be your answer?"

Once we have a problem that we can work on, we can open the lab and start dissecting the issue - there are some techniques that will make you see and thus dissolve the reactivity. But first you will have to find a real issue that we can work on...

Alex

[placebo8]

A good way of looking at this is the question "If a fairy would show up asking you which problem you would like to get rid of right now... What would be your answer?"

Not sure that's the best question because my answer would be as unrealistic as the question: I'd like to abolish any notion of suffering and never feel threatened or intimidated by any possible situation, no matter how gruesome or unbearable it might appear while remaining sensitive and loving to life and the living. While we're at it, I'd like this wish granted also to everyone else who wishes it.

OK, where do I need to sign?

Seriously though, at least for the moment, I'm lucky enough not to be have "down to earth" things really bothering me in day to day life. That might change though, and I suppose the accompanied anxiety of perhaps not being to handle what might happen (in terms of enhanced reactivity and accompanied suffering) should things turn south is something that bothers me. I feel like the banal day to day irritations/issues are just too silly to bring to the lab.

[Alexw]

Great, you are very lucky that there are no real problems present in your life (besides not being enlightened :-)

Try something completely different:
Go to the bathtub (if you don't have one then get a bucket) and fill some cold water into it.
Now take your shoes and socks off and step into it. Feel the cold/wet sensation.
Is it water you are feeling? Or is it only cold/wet? I know cold/wet is also only a label but there simply is a sensation present, right? So lets just call it cold/wet...
Think about how it will be to get out of the tub... there will be wet footprints everywhere, right? You might not be too happy about that, still its only a small problem. But, you will have to do something - you will have to clean it up... and who is making this mess? Who is responsible? The water! Right! If there would be no water there would be nothing to clean up...
Now look for this water - not visually, but only try to feel it... Can you find this "water"?
Well, obviously not... all you feel is still only wet/cold - and there might also still be the thoughts about the reactions that will happen once you get out...
Now look for the I that is experiencing wet/cold. Where is it?

Now step out - there might be thoughts like "The water made my feet wet!" - But have you ever experienced "water"? Have you experienced a self? Or is all that you have ever experienced cold/wet and some thoughts about these proposed entities called "water" and "I"...

See if you find any parallels with emotions like anger, guilt, desire, aversion...
When you are angry, is there something like anger at all? Is there an I that is angry?

[placebo8]

Great, you are very lucky that there are no real problems present in your life (besides not being enlightened :-)

The role luck plays in happiness is exactly the thing I'm trying to break free from. There have been times in my life where I felt anything but lucky and on the other hand while today is fine, who knows what tomorrow will bring? Even if I remain lucky for the rest of my life, the knowledge that there will always be someone else who is unlucky translates to the thought that something in reality isn't working right (while knowing intellectually that this entire perception is based on a huge fallacy that there's anyone to be lucky or unlucky)

Try something completely different

I did. While concentrating on the feeling of "cold" and "wet" it could be seen for a while that it is all sensations happening and it happens before a thought labels it as water or even "this is cold". Now the thing is that at this point thought (the usual party pooper) popped up saying "so what? you think that proves anything? Now take a cold shower and see if you can still see it as just sensation of just cold happening." I complied with this thought and the result was that the raw shock very quickly bought the egoic self to front stage in what felt like very real and escalating suffering, followed by a lot of self criticism and feeling trapped.

My interpretation of what's going on here (based on other patterns noticed) is that this illusion of a separate self is so horrified of the thought of disappearing that it's trying anything and everything to protect itself, including ridiculous attempts to "hijack" enlightenment in order to become invincible - to try and transcend suffering while still being a separate self. That this endeavour is impossible is obvious to my logic, yet somehow I'm still suck in this loop where the possibility of suffering that can't be contained hides behind every corner making this separate self even more desperate to find a solution that will finally bring it eternal peace.

I figure there will be some more ups and downs. Will be interesting to see how the path unfolds...

[Alexw]

Hahaha... Having a cold shower to see if suffering shows up... that sounds very funny :-)

Now take a cold shower and see if you can still see it as just sensation of just cold happening." I complied with this thought and the result was that the raw shock very quickly bought the egoic self to front stage in what felt like very real and escalating suffering, followed by a lot of self criticism and feeling trapped.

Great experiment - maybe wrong interpretation...
Please repeat the same experiment another 10 times...

Ok.. no.. I am just joking. No more cold showers :-)

What has really happened... Lets rewind to turning on the cold shower...
Cold water hit your body and the immediate response was..???? Jump out of the shower or at least turn off the water! Get a towel and dry off! Get a hot tea! Something like that...
Now, why would this natural response be "un-enlightened"? Why resist the urge? Maybe because the natural response was somehow blocked and a reaction took its place...

What was happening: You were feeling these sensations - you entered the gap with sensations on one side and reactions waiting on the other side. You immediately reacted, by thinking about enduring this uncomfortable situation. You thought about how this cold water makes you suffer, how un-enlightened it is to give in to these thoughts. That the small self is winning again if you leave this uncomfortable situation... At the end you lost as you turned off the cold water. The reaction did not start when turning off the water, but with the first thought of "I have to endure or else...!"

Tell me, why would you have to endure suffering? Is this a sign for liberation?
Does liberation mean that whatever shows up can be ignored at will?

If you want, repeat this exercise and when the cold water hits you then jump out immediately! See how good that feels! You responded naturally! Very enlightened indeed!

Now, I am sure you will come back and say: Yes, but! But what if? But what if there are very strong painful sensations? What if they generate suffering? I know liberation doesn't end pain, but liberation means the end of suffering! As long as I can suffer I am not liberated!
The simple answer: The end of suffering is (normally) not achieved by simply seeing through the belief of a separate self. Just like anger, aversion, desire or the sense of "I am" is not wiped out in one great smack - yes, maybe for 1 in 100 million it works like that, but mostly it doesn't. Seeing through the belief of this I is a stepping stone - a very important one, but there are a few more to be overcome (including specific inquiry) for all selfing to stop. While it is a great goal - no more suffering - maybe revise your expectations for now to simply see through this belief. But not by thinking, but by looking.
See it like that: There are many things that seem to require a self to exist. Seeing! Seeing shouldn't be possible without a self seeing. Anger! Being angry should require a self to be angry. Suffering! I should not be able to suffer if I is not.
Still... Anger happens, seeing happens and suffering might happen even there is no I in the first place - thus, even the belief has been seen through, there will still be anger, seeing and suffering... No I being angry, but anger seems to appear no matter what! No I seeing anything, still you are not blind...

My interpretation of what's going on here (based on other patterns noticed) is that this illusion of a separate self is so horrified of the thought of disappearing that it's trying anything and everything to protect itself

No, that's not what is going on.
I know there is this idea - which has often been stated in different books - that there is a self, an ego, that tries to maintain its continuity... But being perfectly honest, how would that work? This (illusory) self is simply a collection of (unrelated) events that are then labelled as I or self.. Can this process really have a goal? Can it have a strategy? Or is this just a story?
Its simple: The process will continue until it doesn't. It will stop, not when you have reached a logical conclusion, but when it has been seen clearly that there is no self in there at all! But again, the stuff said before (about seeing, suffering, being angry) still applies.

making this separate self even more desperate to find a solution that will finally bring it eternal peace

Sounds like a nice story... but is this looking for a solution more than just again a story that is being played out (by thinking more and more thoughts)?

Alex

[placebo8]

Please repeat the same experiment another 10 times...

Ok.. no.. I am just joking. No more cold showers :-)

hahaha - I actually laughed out loud reading that :-)

Now, I am sure you will come back and say: Yes, but! But what if?

Am I that predictable? :-)

You definitely gave me food for thought (hmm, maybe contemplation would be a better word...) with the alternative explanation of what was really happening with the cold shower experiment. Just not having to have to torture myself in order to alleviate torture is already quite liberating and perhaps it's time to answer the pesky "yes, but what if" thoughts with "I don't know, not my problem..." or at least until some better solution comes up than the equivalent of trying to eliminate a headache by hitting my head against the wall...

Anyway, this is just a quick response to say that I enjoyed your reply and will take some more time to process it.

Thanks,
Amnon

[placebo8]

Now, why would this natural response be "un-enlightened"? Why resist the urge? Maybe because the natural response was somehow blocked and a reaction took its place...

Well, my natural response when I need to get up early is to stay in bed. Luckily this is blocked by a reaction of thought that can understand the long term consequences of continuing this response. The saying "do something today that your future self will thank you for" usually implies that this something to be done is not particularly appealing right now. While I see the futility of resisting the natural response in cases where no good can come out of it, for many, resisting the natural response is exactly what is needed to avoid even more suffering in the future. And yes, I'm aware of the false assumption in "your future self" being something real, but as a concept to eventually reduce suffering, it does seem to be effective.

Perhaps it would be better not to frame it in terms of "I'll suffer now so that I'll be able to reap the rewards later" but rather more as "I gladly accept whatever comes up in this path I've committed to". However, a deep sense of purpose or calling one can commit to is rare and rarer still is the acceptance that things are just playing out as they should knowing that any sense of something happening to someone is the real illusion. My story is that I don't belong to either rare categories :-)

While it is a great goal - no more suffering - maybe revise your expectations for now to simply see through this belief. But not by thinking, but by looking.

Well, if the goal of no more suffering is too far fetched, this self's reasoning would then be "Then why bother? Just stick to running away from suffering and maximising pleasure, in the end death and oblivion awaits anyway so just make the most of this illusion while it lasts"

This (illusory) self is simply a collection of (unrelated) events that are then labelled as I or self

It seems that if the events were indeed unrelated, no self could have been formed. The very essence of the self-belief stems from being able to connect the dots, to find a relation between events. If everything was just random noise, there could be nothing to distinguish order from chaos, something from nothing or "me" from "not me".

[Alexw]

Well, my natural response when I need to get up early is to stay in bed. Luckily this is blocked by a reaction of thought that can understand the long term consequences of continuing this response.

No, this is not your natural reaction - you are mixing up response and reaction. There is no problem in getting up early - the alarm rings and you get up. The thought "I am still tired! I don't want to get up!" is a reaction to the situation at hand that has its foundations in a selfing process. If its obvious and clear that a certain situation requires a specific response - alarm bell --> get up - then why react with aversion? See that the aversion is happening and ask yourself "Why?", Why am I reacting with aversion if the response is perfectly clear? Simply get up. Every reaction makes the process harder, why punish yourself?

While I see the futility of resisting the natural response in cases where no good can come out of it, for many, resisting the natural response is exactly what is needed to avoid even more suffering in the future

If you look at this in all honesty then you will find that this is not true. Maybe we have different concepts of response vs. reaction, but I have found that a natural response is never wrong. Simply because there is no need to question it. When you know without doubt that this was the right response then why bring it back up and re-think it? It is done, finished. This doesn't mean that there should be no thought processes like planning - these processes can also be a natural response as long as they are not infected with reactive selfing-patterns.

Perhaps it would be better not to frame it in terms of "I'll suffer now so that I'll be able to reap the rewards later" but rather more as "I gladly accept whatever comes up in this path I've committed to".

As long as you have to actively accept "whatever comes up" you won't be able to really accept it. The "accepter" has to vanish for real acceptance to arise.

My story is that I don't belong to either rare categories :-)

Well... all that you can do is to really look for this one that seems to belong to some category. Look for the one that is suffering or accepting... Look for the one that moves your hands and feet and finally look at the looker himself.
Coming back to acceptance: At first something like "acceptance" is required. An acceptance that this I/self might really be just a label stuck on a range of different processes. This acceptance makes it possible for you to look in earnest - not just to look superficially, but in every nook and cranny until you feel exhausted and maybe even desperate. This process of honest looking and not finding will eventually lead to a true realisation that is not just a logical conclusion. But be cautious, looking with a pre-fabricated goal in mind will not work - you will have to look like you would be searching for your keys - you believe the key is somewhere in your house so you look everywhere possible. After looking everywhere and not finding it a sudden realisation might happen... there is no key! My door doesn't even have a lock! It's a gateless gate! Why would I even need a key? The whole search will suddenly be a big joke to you :-)

Well, if the goal of no more suffering is too far fetched, this self's reasoning would then be "Then why bother?

I am not saying that this goal is impossible to reach, but if you look with the idea in mind that your looking will result in a specific state (e.g. no more suffering) then you will block something that would otherwise naturally evolve. You can think and want many things, but no matter how much you think that the wind should stop it wont follow your bidding, It will stop by itself when the conditions are right. But by constantly just looking at the wind with the intention to stop it you will miss all the other things that happen in the meanwhile.

It seems that if the events were indeed unrelated, no self could have been formed

Thats right! Maybe it hasn't formed at all... Show me this self that has seemingly formed. What form does it have right now? What was its form yesterday? How will it look tomorrow?

[placebo8]

Well, my natural response when I need to get up early is to stay in bed. Luckily this is blocked by a reaction of thought that can understand the long term consequences of continuing this response.

No, this is not your natural reaction - you are mixing up response and reaction. There is no problem in getting up early - the alarm rings and you get up. The thought "I am still tired! I don't want to get up!" is a reaction to the situation at hand that has its foundations in a selfing process.

Perhaps as you mentioned, I'm not in sync regarding the definitions, in which case I'd like to better understand what you mean by response vs. reaction. My interpretation of what you meant is that a natural reaction is what would occur if no selfing process would occur and my conclusion was that this would be similar to how an animal might respond in the same situation. If the alarm bell would ring, the animal would wake up go to a less noisy place and get back to sleep. It is thought about a future self, the ability to postpone gratification due to intervening thought that prevents humans from doing this.

See that the aversion is happening and ask yourself "Why?", Why am I reacting with aversion if the response is perfectly clear? See that the aversion is happening and ask yourself "Why?", Why am I reacting with aversion if the response is perfectly clear?

Simply because many times the response isn't perfectly clear, at times this lack of clarity takes the form of a dilemma whether to postpone gratification, or in other words "Is the pleasure of my future self worth the pain endured by my current self?", other times it can be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma, and it can probably take a few other forms as well.

This doesn't mean that there should be no thought processes like planning - these processes can also be a natural response as long as they are not infected with reactive selfing-patterns.

I find this to be a contradiction, considering that planning is nothing other than trying to secure some result for a perceived future, and in most cases a perceived future self.

As long as you have to actively accept "whatever comes up" you won't be able to really accept it. The "accepter" has to vanish for real acceptance to arise.

Yes, that makes sense. I think that the "accepter" doesn't have to be the entire selfing process though, it can be a sub-process that vanishes, while the self-belief remains intact, such as the case with acceptance of various types of loss.

Coming back to acceptance: At first something like "acceptance" is required. An acceptance that this I/self might really be just a label stuck on a range of different processes. This acceptance makes it possible for you to look in earnest - not just to look superficially, but in every nook and cranny until you feel exhausted and maybe even desperate.

To me this just feels like trying to catch water or outrun my shadow, not only is it exhausting but also hopeless. I can't catch it but being unable to catch it doesn't convince me that it isn't there. The desparation does not lead to questioning its existence but rather to giving up on trying to catch it.

You can think and want many things, but no matter how much you think that the wind should stop it wont follow your bidding, It will stop by itself when the conditions are right.

So paradoxically, even this correspondence has nothing to do with any intent to eliminate ignorance - it just happens because it happens, and will unfold as it should regardless of whether "I" "get it" or not. As usual, there's a sense in which this is seen as obvious and true while at the same time it doesn't sit well with the emotional self yelling "yes, but what about me?"

It seems that if the events were indeed unrelated, no self could have been formed

Thats right! Maybe it hasn't formed at all... Show me this self that has seemingly formed. What form does it have right now? What was its form yesterday? How will it look tomorrow?

Its biological form right now has mostly the same pattern it had yesterday and probably the same that it will have tomorrow. It's thought patterns are similar to the ones it had yesterday and probably the ones it will have tomorrow. The same goes for its memories, character traits, sense of humour, artistic preferences etc. etc. Just like a line is made up of apparently related points, a self is made up of apparently related events. Once an apparent relation is seen, it is very hard to unsee it.

[Alexw]

I'd like to better understand what you mean by response vs. reaction.

Yes, I do agree with your definition in that a "natural response is what would occur if no selfing process would occur" - this does not mean that humans have to behave like any other animal. Thought is an essential part of us and thus has to be considered. When the alarm bell rings and this means get up and go to work or else loose a job, then it is just a natural response to get up. Its like an animals natural response to hunt food even it might be somewhat tired. The "unnatural" reaction that takes place is the arguing over the fact that I should get up. We start thinking up scenarios about what might happen in the case I stay in bed and what the benefits might be if I do get up - we create a tense situation - we react in a way that we project our imaginary self into different situations and then spin scary stories around it. All of these are reactions... A re-action is about acting something out - an actor (re)acting on an imaginary stage, whereas a response takes place in real life. At least thats how I would define it.

Simply because many times the response isn't perfectly clear

Yes, this might seem so... but there will always be an initial response, a gut feeling, a physical response... this might be overlooked or interpreted in the wrong way, but the response is always there... It just needs to be allowed to materialise.

I find this to be a contradiction, considering that planning is nothing other than trying to secure some result for a perceived future, and in most cases a perceived future self.

There is a difference between functional planning and a trying to secure some result based on desire and aversion. I can schedule my dentist appointment without having to create stories about fear and aversion, without creating a story in my head of how much I will be suffering - there can be a simple plan to see the dentist at a specific time in the future. I dont know if I will really be there, I don't anticipate what might happen at the time. But now I make the appointment and this is it, no more afterthoughts about how this me/I will be doing when the time comes...

Yes, that makes sense. I think that the "accepter" doesn't have to be the entire selfing process though, it can be a sub-process that vanishes, while the self-belief remains intact, such as the case with acceptance of various types of loss.

Yes, maybe this is true. Just like certain types of fear or aversion and desire can be overcome without having to see through the separate self first. The problem is that this kind of acceptance is a very shaky one - in most cases the acceptance only goes so far and selfing processes can easily unearth these seemingly overcome issues again and again.

Look, what we are doing here is really only one thing: We look at direct experience - in perfect honesty and without preconceived ideas - and then see if what we find really matches with our ideas of reality. You look and you look again and again and still you dont find what you thought exists - you look for this I/self and you dont find it... whats going on? Maybe your beliefs of having a separate self have been wrong? Then you look at these doubts, what are they? Hmm... I cant find anything but simply thoughts arising... So... they should belong to me, to this self, shouldn't they? But you cant find a self that owns these thoughts, can you? No controller of thought can be found either...
It is a process of eliminating everything from this experience that is not true. We can discuss conventional topics forever, we can theorise and build magnificent scientific theories, but what we do here is to simply look. We look and then we should maybe revise our ideas of what exists and doesn't exist based on this looking. If one is not ready to accept what has been found in his own direct experience to be true - to be more true than scientific theories - then it will be difficult to get anywhere. Why wouldn't you trust your own experience and why would you rather believe in the concepts that somebody else instilled in you?
I think at this point we should maybe go back a few steps and look again, agree? But it has to be a looking that is unbiased from all existing ideas of how things are, might be or could be. It is only about what can be found in looking, hearing, feeling... This should be a fair approach as everything that you know has also been derived using these sense perceptions, hasn't it? You couldn't know a tree, an apple, the taste of tea or the way the wind feels on your skin without direct perception... Why not make this brave step and throw everything you know over board and start afresh? Start fresh by looking at what is...

Alex