Would be grateful for a guide

[placebo8]

But... what if there is no separate "I" at all that does any of this and thus it also can not be removed as it doesn't exist in the first place?

You are pointing to something that thought can't reach, yet I keep trying to use thought to understand it. Sometimes I think the only solution is for someone to hit me over the head with something...

Now... look again at all these stages of experiencing, recognition and meaning making. Do any of these require a separate self/I to happen? Or is this I/self simply an imaginary entity that is referred to in thought...?
Does this "I" notice anything or is there simply seeing happening, a thought happening stating one or the other and more thought stating that "I am seeing..."... Take you time and note what you find.

There is a stream of thoughts and when a thought is noticed, the noticing is recognised as yet another thought, and this recognition too is yet noticed as another thought but I'm stuck in the loop of a thinker noticing the thoughts (including the thought of a thinker) as opposed to just seeing thoughts happening to no one.

Do you have to keep on thinking about how to ride a bike even when you don't ride one so you don't forget?

I see your point. Actually thought about it while driving to work today, thinking how "I" claim to be doing the driving while in fact all the actions are automatic. At that point it was easy to see how this applies to other things I supposedly do.

A change like that might even occur unnoticed if it unfolds slowly over time

Having expected a sharp contrast of one moment not getting it and the next moment getting it, I actually haven't thought of that as a possibility, though it's hard for me to tell the degree to which it is occurring in my case. If in my case the path is a very slow and gradual discovery, how practical would it be to continue this correspondence for such an extended period? Don't get me wrong, I would happily continue as long as needed, but feel that in this case it might be a tough nut to crack and don't want to waste your time.

[Alexw]

There is a stream of thoughts and when a thought is noticed, the noticing is recognised as yet another thought, and this recognition too is yet noticed as another thought but I'm stuck in the loop of a thinker noticing the thoughts (including the thought of a thinker) as opposed to just seeing thoughts happening to no one.

Yes, there is just this stream of thoughts...

"To see a thought is to think a thought - and as there is no separate thinker there is only thought pretending to be a thinker..." do you you agree? do you see that?

How would you talk/think about a thought by not using another thought? What would be able to refer to the previous thought and say "There was a thought! It happened to no one!"

I am not saying that there is no thought without another thought referring to it - but there is no thought that can be remembered without this happening...
Its a bit like sitting down to read a book. You open the book, you hear the noise of a TV next door, you start reading and the noise is gone. You stop reading an hour later and suddenly the noise is back... Was there no noise at all or was there simply no thought about the noise?

I see your point. Actually thought about it while driving to work today, thinking how "I" claim to be doing the driving while in fact all the actions are automatic. At that point it was easy to see how this applies to other things I supposedly do.

Yes, great! Keep this conscious awareness going and look at how things happen... observe and stay alert.

If in my case the path is a very slow and gradual discovery, how practical would it be to continue this correspondence for such an extended period? Don't get me wrong, I would happily continue as long as needed, but feel that in this case it might be a tough nut to crack and don't want to waste your time.

It doesn't matter how long it takes - as long as you are happy to continue I will try to help. We can also reduce the posting frequency and only post once or twice a week if this is better for you... let me know what you think.

[placebo8]

"To see a thought is to think a thought - and as there is no separate thinker there is only thought pretending to be a thinker..." do you you agree? do you see that?

Do I agree? Absolutely. Every time I catch myself trying to think my way out of an "I" it is quickly realised that anything I notice and try to conceptualise is itself another thought. This realisation is not enough though, as I'm stuck in a loop of a thoughts, each time realising that the previous thought was just a thought but no matter how quickly after the thought this noticing occurs,it is too late because I'm already in this thought believing there's this thinker

How would you talk/think about a thought by not using another thought?

There is no way to do this. Any attempt to talk or conceptualise is yet another thought.

What would be able to refer to the previous thought and say "There was a thought! It happened to no one!"

I really don't know. Any conceptualisation of the event of a previous thought is just a new thought. Really seeing there's no thinker would perhaps somehow make possible a thought-less understanding that it is all happening to no one, but I'm not there - I'm just imagining (using thought) how it might work.

Its a bit like sitting down to read a book. You open the book, you hear the noise of a TV next door, you start reading and the noise is gone. You stop reading an hour later and suddenly the noise is back... Was there no noise at all or was there simply no thought about the noise?

There was obviously no thought about the noise, in the same way that while in deep sleep there is no thought about things happening. What actually is "out there" when there is no awareness of it however is beyond the scope of thought so I don't know and can't answer that beyond noting that there would also be no "out there" anymore so the question becomes meaningless. Needless to say, this is only an intellectual conclusion.

We can also reduce the posting frequency and only post once or twice a week if this is better for you... let me know what you think.

I'm happy with anything you feel would be more effective and is fine by you.

[Alexw]

I really don't know. Any conceptualisation of the event of a previous thought is just a new thought. Really seeing there's no thinker would perhaps somehow make possible a thought-less understanding that it is all happening to no one, but I'm not there - I'm just imagining (using thought) how it might work.

What if there is no "thoughtless understanding" in the way you are imagining it to be?
Maybe thoughtless and understanding are mutually exclusive?
Either you think about something and believe you understand it or you don't think about it and then there is no need to understand it anyway... does life need your understanding to keep on going? What difference does it make if a thought comes up saying "I understand" or if this thought does not arise..?

What if what you call "thoughtless understanding" simply points to this moment, this presence? This moment can also include thought - thought does not have to be the bad guy - it can simply be in tune with what is appearing right now - it doesn't have to go into story land about a fictitious past or future.
Natural presence includes thought in a way that when you look at a tree a thought appears “What a magnificent tree!” rather than “These poor trees. They are being cut down and turned into paper, chipboard and who knows what. I hate these people that chop down trees! They should be fined and if they do it again they should be put into jail! What about the planet? If all the trees go, then what? What will we be breathing when there is no oxygen left? I hate how people completely ignore climate change! And these politicians are the worst…”
Do you see how thought can be a simple expression of this moment or how it can turn into a story that includes desires, preferences, fear, I/self, others...? This does not mean that thought stories will never happen anymore - they will - but are they still defining "you"?

If I would ask you to hold on to the feeling, or clear understanding, of "I am", of your existence - where do you find this feeling? Do you find it when you are lost in thought-based story land or when you are consciously present in this moment?

[placebo8]

thought does not have to be the bad guy - it can simply be in tune with what is appearing right now - it doesn't have to go into story land about a fictitious past or future.

But the future isn't always fictitious in the sense that using thought it is possible to predict the things that are indeed going to happen. I have to constantly remind myself that it's an "I" thought that takes ownership of the success of these thoughts and thinks it is doing the predicting. I know this is always the case, though it's not something that is always obvious to me.

Natural presence includes thought in a way that when you look at a tree a thought appears “What a magnificent tree!” rather than “These poor trees. They are being cut down and turned into paper, chipboard and who knows what.

This is probably a good example of where I'm stuck (at least on my less coherent moments...). See, my first reaction to this was that the thought "What a magnificent tree!", while true and perfect in itself when not bringing in the context of some predicted future would be similar in a way to watching a hungry lion running towards me and thinking “What a magnificent lion!”. The only difference is in the time frame of the consequences.
The "I" wishes for something eternal and unassailable, something that can never be threatened by bulldozers or hungry lions, and it can't find that in the moment, because for the "I" there is always the thought of "yes, this moment is fine, but it's the next one I'm worried about". For example, if I'm just enjoying a beautiful piece of music without thinking about anything, the next moment there could be a power failure, stopping the music and then a "sufferer" would appear, angry that the enjoyment was cut short. This reasoning is probably why I have trouble grasping the point of "The Tiger and the Strawberry" type Zen stories.

This does not mean that thought stories will never happen anymore - they will - but are they still defining "you"?

Only to the degree that I'll believe them. Still working on how to dispel that belief.

If I would ask you to hold on to the feeling, or clear understanding, of "I am", of your existence - where do you find this feeling? Do you find it when you are lost in thought-based story land or when you are consciously present in this moment?

At the risk of sounding like a spiritual retard, it's hard for me to separate "I am" from the thought about it. How would I know I am without a recognition that I am, and how can any recognition take place without recogniser?
As you've probably sensed, this is not one of my brighter days ...

[Alexw]

The "I" wishes for something eternal and unassailable, something that can never be threatened by bulldozers or hungry lions, and it can't find that in the moment, because for the "I" there is always the thought of "yes, this moment is fine, but it's the next one I'm worried about".

All that this "I" really wants is to continue, no matter what. It doesn't want to die. This is achieved by introducing a "self" that is constantly pushing and pulling at this experience and is thus turning it into something that it is not, something that is not right, that could be better, that should be as it was etc etc...
The key is to see that this self, that seems to be acting, is still only a thought, which is essentially powerless. It can not really change anything, can it? It just pretends that it can.

By believing in the power of this I-thought, you award it a power that it doesn't really have - to take the power away you simply have to watch these thoughts. This process reveals that there really is no one there that could have any power at all. Its all fake! Sure, you have to again use thought to watch thought, there is no other way to watch thought... it still works ;-)

Sit down and close your eyes and simply think about a number between 1 and 10. A number pops up "4"! How did that happen? Did "you" choose to think "4" or did it simply arise out of "nowhere"?
There might be a thought "OK, now I decide to think 5!" and then you think "5"... so did you choose the 5? Or did the first thought again just arise without anyone controlling it?
Are there any situations in your daily routine that "you" control? Is there anything that thought can control at all?

You mentioned that you can "predict the things that are indeed going to happen"... Well, yes, if you believe that when going to bed the thought "I will wake up again tomorrow morning!" is an accurate prediction of the future and thus a proof that thought has the power to predict the future... but maybe its just a thought that pops up like any other thought that is based on the conditioning that you have accumulated over the years... a bit like "I like ice cream and I will like it for the rest of my life!". Is this a prediction of the future or simply a statement that works now, based on the current situation, but doesn't really hold any certainty if this is still the case in another five years..?

Is thought in any way more powerful than lets say a sound or a smell? Can a sound or a smell control anything? Maybe in a way... you hear the roaring of a lion and you start running... this is a natural reaction to sound, but not sound controlling anything itself, right?
Where is the difference to thought? Is there any if you don't believe in the thought "I decided that!"

Only to the degree that I'll believe them. Still working on how to dispel that belief.

How do you dispel a belief? By seeing that it is only a belief and by dragging the workings of this belief into the spotlight. When it arises look at it, analyse it. See who owns this belief, who is doing the believing... anyone?

At the risk of sounding like a spiritual retard, it's hard for me to separate "I am" from the thought about it. How would I know I am without a recognition that I am, and how can any recognition take place without recogniser?

Haha... thats a good one..
The funny thing is that you are perfectly right - you can not separate the "I am" from thought - it is only a thought :-)
How would you ever know that there is an "I" that exists without even using the concept of "existence". Sure, you don't have to think to exist, but yo have to think to know that you do...

[placebo8]

I sense most of my recent replies are arriving from the logic of a "self" and not from a place that is more in touch with what is. At first I considered waiting with a response until the next time I wisen up, but for the sake of equal opportunity for ignorants, I'll let the ignorant rant...

Sure, you have to again use thought to watch thought, there is no other way to watch thought... it still works ;-)

How do you dispel a belief? By seeing that it is only a belief and by dragging the workings of this belief into the spotlight. When it arises look at it, analyse it. See who owns this belief, who is doing the believing... anyone?

Sounds deceptively simple, but it seemed you are asking me to put the projector that creates the spotlight under the spotlight, and I had no idea how to go about doing that. However if you say using thought to watch thought does the job regardless of the paradox, then I'll just stick to that.

Are there any situations in your daily routine that "you" control? Is there anything that thought can control at all?

No, thought doesn't control anything, My first reaction was to say that knowing this doesn't help to take the sting away from still wanting to control things, but I guess if wanting to control things is also seen as just another thought to which I give power (which in turn intensifies the sense of a suffering "I") then it might be able to "remove the sting" so to speak..

Where is the difference to thought? Is there any if you don't believe in the thought "I decided that!"

I think a more challenging situation to dispel the idea of a "deciding I" is not when it's easy to decide something, but when it is difficult, for example when facing difficult dilemmas. At such a point one feels torn between two options, and there's a sense of a helpless "I" that has to make a difficult choice. I imagine that in this case a "no I" just lets the choice make itself instead of thinking that "it is up to me".

a bit like "I like ice cream and I will like it for the rest of my life!". Is this a prediction of the future or simply a statement that works now, based on the current situation, but doesn't really hold any certainty if this is still the case in another five years..?

I was referring more to prediction based on "objective" criteria derived from recurring patterns that thought recognises, generalises and then states as scientific theories which have an impressive predictive power.

Sure, you don't have to think to exist, but yo have to think to know that you do...

but this thought of "knowing that I exist" seems to be exactly the same "I" that is afraid of forever ceasing to exist (whether by brain damage, death etc.). I can try to imagine how a recognition of existence without an "I" to recognise it might work, for example if there is a complete dis-identification from thoughts and then somehow there would be recognition taking place as another event in reality, without it belonging to any particular recogniser (I don't know if this description points in the correct direction). Still, this image is just an educated guess and probably not helping me to see what is.

Feeling a bit stuck... I wanted to put more time into meditating on these things but work and everyday stuff keep getting in the way. I keep thinking that I should try harder, while at the same time wondering whether the thought that it could somehow happen any differently than how it does is just an part of the "I" illusion...

[Alexw]

No, thought doesn't control anything

Yes, great!

So thought doesn't control anything and on closer inspection no other entity can be found that would be able to control anything either, right?
If there is no separate entity to be found, what do you find? You see, hear, taste, sense and you think...
But there is no separate seer, hearer, taster or thinker, is there?
Sure, thought says that "I am seeing!" but the "I" can not be found - what can be found is seeing happening.
Thought also says that "I am thinking and deciding!" but the thinker can not be found - what can be found is thinking happening.
Do you agree so far? Does that match your direct experience?

If there would be no suffering then there would be no problem with all of that, right?
But the issue is that there is a certain friction between what thought says about life and how life really is...

The biggest problem is that thought seems to be able to artificially create a subject that seems to have its own free will, responsibilities and has to make decisions. You see that this illusory self is not really in a position to fill these shoes - its nothing more than a bunch of thought processes - so it is under permanent stress to achieve a goal that is impossible to reach. How should you plan a safe future if you are not abel to control anything? You can't even control what your next thought might be, still you insist on being able to shape a perfect life...

If a decision has to be made, left or right, then "make it" and leave it with that. Does an hour of thought ping pong lead to a better decision? Did "you" make a better decision if it takes longer to make it?

Can thought be used to make a decision at all? It's not controlling anything so making a decision should be impossible...
Does life ever make a decision? Or is a "decision" something that doesn't really exist outside of the concept we wrap around certain "happenings"?

but this thought of "knowing that I exist" seems to be exactly the same "I" that is afraid of forever ceasing to exist

...yes, and the funny thing is it doesn't even really exist outside of thought about it, does it?

[placebo8]

Can thought be used to make a decision at all? It's not controlling anything so making a decision should be impossible...
Does life ever make a decision? Or is a "decision" something that doesn't really exist outside of the concept we wrap around certain "happenings"?

Let's take as an example something that's happening right now. On one hand, I want to give my attention to the questions you asked and answer them today. On the other, I'm feeling very tired. So there's a seeming dilemma: Go to sleep or answer the questions (yes, it's a silly dilemma, but it's good enough to illustrate what I mean). So I use this opportunity to find the "decider". There is no decider to be found, yet there exists a sense of burden of responsibility to decide. It reminds me a bit of a line from a song: "you can feel the punishment but you can't commit the sin"...

On one hand I tell myself that regardless of what "I decide" something will occur and then I'll have the illusion that I decided, yet at the same time, in the moment, it seems that nothing will occur until I make up my mind which path to take, which creates a sense of burden and pressure.

Well, it seems like a compromise of partially answering your questions is what eventually happened :-)

I'll invest more time contemplating this and the other points and questions after a good night's sleep. Thank you for helping - it's not something I take for granted.

[placebo8]

So thought doesn't control anything and on closer inspection no other entity can be found that would be able to control anything either, right?

It is noticed that thought doesn't control anything after the fact, but in the moment itself that isn't always so clear. It appears to boil down to a question whether there is such a thing as "will power" or it's all just a matter of the degree of motivation to achieve something (where that motivation itself is a product of conditioning, biology, genetics etc.). The motivation explanation seems more logical, but lets take some silly example - suppose I want to beat my record at how long I can stay in the plank position. Once I get close to the record, all the muscles hurt to a degree that the body screams to stop. At this point there's a very strong feeling of the ability to make a choice: give in to the pain and stop or "be strong" and not give in to it. Suppose the record isn't broken, the sense of "I'm not good enough" comes from a belief that somehow the "I" failed because the "outside" was stronger than the "inside" (the supposed "will power"). All this stems from a belief that somehow, an imaginary "I" could have done better if only it had a stronger "will power". This is another example where the "I" feels very real with it's seeming ability to choose and overcome something "outside" of it - the whole "mind over matter" which I know is nonsense, but which doesn't appear as nonsense when "in the field".

but this thought of "knowing that I exist" seems to be exactly the same "I" that is afraid of forever ceasing to exist

...yes, and the funny thing is it doesn't even really exist outside of thought about it, does it?

Well, nothing can be known to exist outside the thought about it. The second something can be known to exist, an "I" also comes into existence, and we're back to square one (or rather, I'm back to square one...) .

I'd like to reiterate my appreciation of your time and effort. The frustrating thing is that I feel the best way to repay you is just to finally "get it" but it seems I'm going round in circles. Reducing the frequency of the correspondence would serve two purposes: I'll stop feeling bad about taking more of your time and it would also enable me to give more time to the questions you ask. What do you think?

[Alexw]

Yes, sure, lets maybe post every three days if that works better for you.
Dont worry about my time - I enjoy doing this so its actually you doing me a favour by being interested in "getting this" :-)

This is another example where the "I" feels very real with it's seeming ability to choose and overcome something "outside" of it - the whole "mind over matter" which I know is nonsense, but which doesn't appear as nonsense when "in the field".

Yes, sure, its like a movie that feels pretty "real" when you are sitting in the cinema watching it in 3D. You might even get lost in the movie, get emotional, shed a few tears... But from time to time you look up and see the people next to you, the seats, the dark cinema and you remember that you are just a spectator... You can take on any role and the longer you play it the more realistic it gets, but are you this character or are you only aware of it?
Is there a fixed character at all or is this character changing from scene to scene? Are you the same when you get up in the morning, have breakfast or when you are at work or out with some friends in the evening? Or are you only playing the appropriate role that fits to the scene? Like an ever changing background of thoughts that set the mood for the play and even define the character itself...

When you observe this changing "self" what is it that changes? Does the observation process itself change or only the thoughts that define this Chameleon-like self?

[placebo8]

but are you this character or are you only aware of it?

The awareness of the character is the same awareness of everything else. From that perspective, nothing can (or need be) be controlled - it's all just things appearing in awareness. A thought just occurred to me of an imaginary argument between this "me" and awareness, where I say in defiance that awareness can't predict anything in the future making it "inferior" to an "I" that is able to do that (by noticing the order in the world). I assume awareness would answer that this future exists only for an "I" and therefore is just as fictitious as the separate world it believes it is in...

It's funny that I can sort of "feel" the answer to the questions, but it's like seeing something through a dense fog, or some distant mirage. I long for it to be clear and concrete in a way that it would be impossible to question so I can finally get some rest... :-)

Is there a fixed character at all or is this character changing from scene to scene?

When you observe this changing "self" what is it that changes? Does the observation process itself change or only the thoughts that define this Chameleon-like self?

The physical feelings, interests, thoughts and mood change with the scene. The awareness that these things are happening can be overlooked, but it is the only thing that is fixed. I'd qualify that however as it seems to be fixed as long as I'm awake. There doesn't seem to be an awareness of anything happening when in deep sleep.

[Alexw]

There doesn't seem to be an awareness of anything happening when in deep sleep.

How do you know that you are aware?
Can you know and also talk about a "you" being aware when there is no thought present?
Maybe the "you" doesn't know about awareness being present in deep sleep simply because there is no thought present..? There is no "you" present...
But: When a load noise happens during the night, do you wake up?
You wouldn't if there would be no awareness left at all, would you?

The awareness of the character is the same awareness of everything else

What exactly is this character that has a certain name, certain stories and beliefs? Is it any more than a collection of (repetitive) thoughts?

it's all just things appearing in awareness

Can you find a border between the things that appear in awareness and awareness itself?
When you look at an object, is there a border between the object and the onlooker? Or is there only seeing happening - "awareness happening"?

A thought just occurred to me of an imaginary argument between this "me" and awareness

Can there be a real argument between these two (conceptual) entities? Or would that just be more thought ping pong? Does the "me" exist outside of your belief in it? Does awareness exist as a separate entity outside of the conceptual idea that you have about it?

[placebo8]

How do you know that you are aware?

I know it by recognising and conceptualising the obvious and irrefutable, i.e that "something is happening". The conceptualisation that occurs instantly and automatically then adds at the end a "to me" statement. I think this can't be avoided as long as there's an identification with thought, but then I ask myself "who is doing the identifying?" knowing at the same time that no answer will be correct as it will just appear as another thought. Thought can't think it's way out of thought and perhaps in my case what is happening is that the thought-constructed "I" desperately wants to leave the thought-constructed world while somehow remaining intact, but at the same time realising that it is an exercise in futility.

Can you know and also talk about a "you" being aware when there is no thought present?
Maybe the "you" doesn't know about awareness being present in deep sleep simply because there is no thought present..? There is no "you" present...

The thought-less awareness in deep sleep is not something the "I" can recognise so it is discarded as nonexistent or, at best, irrelevant. The motto of the "I" is: "If there is no conceivable way for me to ever know it, then it has no relevance as far as I'm concerned". The "I" does not care whether waking up from a loud noise is enabled by a background awareness that it can never know or by some physiological processes that rebuild the "I" upon certain stimuli, so long as the illusion of a continuous separate existence can continue. For the "I" deep sleep and physical death are identical, with one major difference. Death puts an end to whatever manages to recreate the illusion and that's why the "I" fears it.

What exactly is this character that has a certain name, certain stories and beliefs? Is it any more than a collection of (repetitive) thoughts?

The character is a persistent thought which is a recognition of the consistency of developing events through time: I remember waking up. I remember getting out of bed. I remember brushing my teeth. The reason it doesn't appear as "waking up happened, getting out of bed happened, brushing my teeth happened" is that it also "happens" to a lot of other people but I'm not aware of it as I have no access to their memories or senses.

Can you find a border between the things that appear in awareness and awareness itself?
When you look at an object, is there a border between the object and the onlooker? Or is there only seeing happening - "awareness happening"?

When I really concentrate on "something" that appears in awareness, then for a little while (until I snap back into thought) there is a sensation without a sensor and in that sense there is no border. This takes quite an effort though and it would be nice if it could be as automatic as my conceptualisation is

Can there be a real argument between these two (conceptual) entities? Or would that just be more thought ping pong? Does the "me" exist outside of your belief in it?

No, of course there can be no argument between conceptual entities, and since the "me" is created by a belief, it can't exist outside that belief. The paradox is in the "me" trying to step outside the belief and there is absolutely no way for the "me" to do that without annihilating itself.

Does awareness exist as a separate entity outside of the conceptual idea that you have about it?

Well if as you suggested, awareness exists in deep sleep then the answer to that would have to be yes, since at that point it exists outside the conceptual idea I have about it, yet enables my waking up when a loud noise happens.

[Alexw]

Thought can't think it's way out of thought and perhaps in my case what is happening is that the thought-constructed "I" desperately wants to leave the thought-constructed world while somehow remaining intact, but at the same time realising that it is an exercise in futility.

You are not the only one that this is happening to... the "I-process" wants new experiences to happen and to own them. It even would like to see how it is when the "I" is not there anymore... what a funny wish... I want to end and see what is there after I am not there anymore. Do you see how this I wants to see what happens and then own and discuss and analyse its own absence? Do you see how it keeps you from simply noticing what is already the case?

Sit down, relax, and simply look, listen, feel... Let it all simply happen. Can you please describe this experience in the most basic level possible, with as little story and belief attached as language allows it.
Now compare it to thought story - there might be a story like this: "I am sitting in this chair. I am looking at a tree. I am hearing a few birds and cars. I have a bitter taste in my mouth. There is a tingling in my legs..." What is different to the description you put to paper before?

Well if as you suggested, awareness exists in deep sleep then the answer to that would have to be yes, since at that point it exists outside the conceptual idea I have about it

I was not suggesting that awareness exists IN deep sleep... I was just suggesting that there is no thing that can be separated from other things... if there would be awareness existing as an object in something, this something would again have to be aware of awareness to know that it exists, right?

Are "you" ever aware of separate objects out there? Or is this a very clever idea/story that really has no truth based on the direct, pure experience that happens all the time?