So you might say, "Well, what is the self that is perceiving the thoughts?" and I would agree with you that there is no self. But I don't really know what that means.
do you need to know what it means? "what it means" is in the realm of thought.
Are you looking for consequences of not having that belief any more , as in "what would it mean if I didnt believe in a self?"
Is the question here whether perceptions need to have perceivers? Do thoughts need thinkers? Maybe not to create them but to experience them?
If you are just the experiencer, and not the doer, then in what way does this "self" have any effect on anything? How does this self DO anything?
When you do the exercise with listening to sounds that I suggested a few posts back, do you find 3 things, the sound, the experience of the sound, and the experiencer of the sound?
Can the sound be separated from the awareness of the sound?
What are the consequences of recognising that all thoughts are illusionary? How do they manifest themselves in living? This is what I am not seeing. Because I can look at my lunchbox and think, "Well, I didn't decide that this was a lunchbox. It might just as easily be a coin box or a screw box." But this seems to be far removed in its mundaneness from what you are pointing me towards. I can look at it and see a regularly shaped transparent shape made of plastic with a tight fitting lid
This is it exactly. The (close to) direct experience of the box is "a regularly shaped transparent shape made of plastic with a tight fitting lid", then there are all the thoughts and concepts about it. Thats my lunch box, I bought it from ASDA, I put that sticker on it, I can still smell the orange from yesterdays lunch.
Look, thoughts are useful. If I want to go buy food, I can think of my nearest supermarket, and the way to get there. BUT, those thoughts are not the supermarket, and are not the journey I actually would take, with all the sense perceptions that would go along with that journey.
At work, if an irate employee comes into my office and starts shouting at me and crying, what is to be gained from me seeing a person and hearing loud noises?
Because that is the base truth of the situation. That is what is actually happening( although even that involves, concepts,stories). Then, on top of that comes the "oh no, theyve gone crazy again, what did I do", "He is really starting to annoy me now", "I wish he would shut up and go away", when all that is really happening is some loud noises, and some thoughts about the loud noises. Its not about whats to be gained, or what is useful. Its about noticing what is real.
Isn't it more useful to see someone who seems to be upset about something and trying to help them by listening and showing empathy? Doesn't my empathy require me to understand what she is experiencing? Can I do this if all I do is notice what is happening?
Imagine if all you saw was a person making loud noises. You had no vested interest in making them shut up, you didnt feel angry, because you didnt believe they were annoying you. You didnt recoil from them, or reject them. You simply saw what was there, a person making loud noises. Would you be better equipped to deal with that situation, right in that moment? without all your concepts and beliefs? Yes, your reaction might be empathy, and kindness. Or it might not.
But we are getting distracted here. This is all just mind chatter, confusion.
Its like you have had a first glimpse of how empty and deconstructed things are , as in your post from yesterday, and your mind is jumping in going "but but but" and trying to make sense of it all, of how it fits into your current knowledge and world view.
The mind does what it does. But you say you have seen that you are not doing your thoughts. So, if the thoughts arent yours, why are they any more important than, say, the buzzing of the refrigerator?
We really need to focus a bit , I dont think its useful for me to try and answer your questions. Take a day, or two, keep looking, keep noticing, and report back tomorrow