The Gate

Thanks for sharing your story about the discussion you had with your mate, that was helpful.

The point Im making is, this isnt a self help process, we're not trying to make a better "you", we're not trying improve who you are, we are simply trying to experience the truth of your experience as honestly as possible via a method of not accepting assumption you have no evidence for, and this particular place says there is no evidence for a self, and it is possible to see this.

awesome. And Im still on board, im just feeling like I'm bumping into alot of baggage that I wasnt even aware of along the way as I try and honestly answer your questions and the issues that arise. Im excited that have found a bunch of suspected unquestioned crap that I can have the opportunity to examine and/or release.

specifically around a strong faith in self .. this evening, i had a long discussion with a good friend about this unexpected belief you've helped me see .. that I seem to have some sort of dual standard around what I'm willing to believe based on direct evidence and what im willing to believe based on faith. And why its ok one way and not the other.. and for different types of beliefs. is that inconsistency valid? normal? to be questioned?

it seemed to boil down to this -- growing up catholic, we learned the story of the "doubting thomas", who would not believe until he could directly experience for himself. What I took away from this story was "poor thomas, he had no faith and could not believe in the truth w/o direct experience. Don't be like thomas, simply have faith and believe in what will eventually be show to be true. It's virtuous, easier and a shortcut to believe w/o proof". I'm recognizing the same seeds of this belief here about self .. "be virtuous, believe in the 'self' without the direct experience, have faith that it exists, but you'll eventually be able to have a direct experience of self, even tho you cant find one now".

rather than rely that whole two hour long conversation / exploration, let me just say that i might have to do some unexpected work here as I grapple with the idea on why I have these beliefs and what purpose they serve .. and maybe they've outlived their original purpose, etc. But i want to be careful not to completely over-react and toss out everything.

But the process will not work if the person does not want to truly truly challenge that assumption

Im definitely interested in the process of having a direct experience, but i think i need to sort out some conflict and/or mis-applied beliefs.

i'll rely on your experience on what approach to take here. I can imagine we can proceed along some other line of questioning while i process direct-experience vs faith, or maybe it'd be better to dig in and dig thru this here before moving on. Or some other approach. I'll follow your lead here.

The entire purpose of this conversation and LU and all other practices that are similar is to ask what is actually true and real in your honest experience, i.e. challenge the assumption of the existence of things you have no evidence of. Thats what inquiry is, finding out what is real and what is true. Thats why honesty is so important because dishonesty basically allows you to accept stuff without question, its dishonest in that you know it mightnt be true, but you are willing to go with it anyway.

Id been afraid of letting that door of "only direct experience" swing too wide. its seems there's a common sense line I can apply to what sort of thing I dont have to question at their base assumptions.

There's obviously tons of stuff that's real that I havent had direct experience of, but that I could have a direct experience of, should i put myself into a situation where that can happen. eg: ive never had a direct experience of the great barrier reef, or seen a strand of DNA or a microbe, but i have no doubt that if i travelled there, or had access to the right instruments, that id be able to have that direct experience.

But you're right, the idea of "self" isnt one of those to be left unquestioned. And you're right, there's tons of stuff published about "neuroscience +self+illusion" turns up all sorts of great articles, videos, books and scholarly works.

and i guess you're pointing out that unlike finding someone who's been to the great barrier reef or seen a micro thru an instrument, no one's been able to have a direct experience of self.

sorry about the sidebar.

should I got back to fishing out "?" questions from your earlier posts?

Hi tak, sorry just off the computer for the last while, posting this from the phone, but will reply as soon as I get back tomorrow.

random post.

i was reading again in this forum and noticed Ilona's labeling exercise at

http://markedeternal.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... s.html?m=1

i sat down with that last night, and right now I'm (aside from here) toying with that experiment. When Im unable to stop my mental narration, the not-labeling-me seems to help. And it does make it feel less like there's a decider or controller when stated that way.

.

rather than rely that whole two hour long conversation / exploration, let me just say that i might have to do some unexpected work here as I grapple with the idea on why I have these beliefs and what purpose they serve .. and maybe they've outlived their original purpose, etc. But i want to be careful not to completely over-react and toss out everything.

Hi Mark, sorry for the delay, i was away for the weekend.
Ok, this paragraph stood out to me, this is where honesty is needed, to do this there must be a willingness to challenge your beliefs, most specifically the belief of you.
There was never a self, there never will be, there certainly isnt right now as this is being read, and to see this true burning honesty is needed. Honesty can be developed, its not a special gift only some people have, everyone can do it.
Honesty is the ability to realize "is what Im saying , thinking, assuming right now actually true??"
What I did to see this was absolutely and constantly checked this regarding a self. Dont get me wrong, i didnt go challenging all my other beliefs, Id little interest at the time. As a matter of fact I would say attempting to do that at the time may have contributed to some sort of attempt at "self improvement" which would have been totally dishonest given that I was trying to see no self.

It doesnt take intelligence, cleverness, special abilities or anything unique to see this,just a real good dose of perseverance and honesty. You need to look all the time to see if there is a you. Even as you type in this thread you need to be checking.

I wrote all that cause I really need to know where you're at with trying to see this. This stuff about "doubting thomas" is just BS fed to you as a child ,there is no need to hang on to that frame of thought,but if you still are I need to know so we can see where you're at.

The mind will do everything not to see this, really, everything. Every time you are about to type a reason you are not looking, or a reason you cant see it, or an intellectual explanation of how your belief is playing out, it is the mind resisting simply facing this head on, looking in your very direct reality.
I know , Ive done that too. Everything will come up, all types of reasons not to look...
"what will it be like?" - not looking
"but I made huge decisions in my life" - not looking
"it really feels like I just controlled that" - not looking
"im suffering because of my belief in self" - not looking
"is this a whole load of bullshit" - doesnt matter , you're not looking, and you can only answer that by looking
"will I go crazy?" - not looking

So whats looking
- direct attempt with your eyes/ears/nose/etc to see what is exactly real about your experience vs what you are assuming is real with no direct experience
-after every single thought, truly asking, not thinking about asking, or not pretending to ask , but actually checking "where was the self that just thought that thought?"
-after you say something to someone , truly checking if those words came out or was there control by a self of those words
- experiencing the sensations of your body and trying your hardest to see where this "self" is? Usually youll assume its in the brain, so where? route around, where you could pinpoint this supposed self if it was in the brain.

This is the kind of honesty needed.

I wrote all that cause I really need to know where you're at with trying to see this.

Thank you for the reply.

I guess first of all I'd like to say that I dont want to give up on this process.

Secondly, I don't believe I've ever really applied that style of honesty to myself or my beliefs. I would like to. But I dont think i have ever had to question, look and backup/discard very many of my beliefs. Im feeling a large amount of fear, sidetracking and resistance there tho (as you described), and I'm hoping to get some help maintaining focus and looking. Your last few paragraphs in "So what is looking" were helpful in laying out what that means to you, and i'd like to do my best to integrate that approach into my direct experience.

-after every single thought, truly asking, not thinking about asking, or not pretending to ask , but actually checking "where was the self that just thought that thought?"

Thanks, I think you just highlighted a deficiency in how i've been approaching looking. I dont think im "actually checking" ; I pose the question, give the answer from my mind, and therefor have no direct checking or experience. just a question posed and an answer provided.

This stuff about "doubting thomas" is just BS fed to you as a child ,there is no need to hang on to that frame of thought,but if you still are I need to know so we can see where you're at.

Exactly. If it helps, i thought i was providing that story as background to provide some understanding (to myself and you) about why I think i might be holding on to unquestioned beliefs. To me, that whole thing felt like a positive realization, because now that I feel like i know how the belief got hooked into place, Im hoping Im going to have a better shot at letting go of that belief.

i guess this is all just more distraction from looking... how frustrating.

ok, help..

what should I be doing and/or communicating to you about to facilitate the looking instead of engaging in intellectual brain puzzles or self-improvement exercises?

Thank you for the reply.

I guess first of all I'd like to say that I dont want to give up on this process.

Ok, cool, lets get real focused here so!! :)

-after every single thought, truly asking, not thinking about asking, or not pretending to ask , but actually checking "where was the self that just thought that thought?"

Thanks, I think you just highlighted a deficiency in how i've been approaching looking. I dont think im "actually checking" ; I pose the question, give the answer from my mind, and therefor have no direct checking or experience. just a question posed and an answer provided.

Yep, this is a big one, its the fundamental difference between looking and thinking you are looking.
Its very easy ask the question with words in your head "so where is this self?" , "so what made that decision", but its just words, you're not actually asking or checking, checking doesnt even need words, its bypasses words and dives in.
I like to use this analogy:
Imagine standing beside an unopened box with your friend, the two of you could spend the whole day discussing whats in the box based on its weight, its size, etc, but until you actually shut up and open the box, you will never know what you are saying or what you think is in it is actually true.
[/quote]

ok, help..

what should I be doing and/or communicating to you about to facilitate the looking instead of engaging in intellectual brain puzzles or self-improvement exercises?

Very good question, im glad you asked.

Ok, basically as Ive said already, this thread is only a background thing ,something to keep you engaged , a place to help keep the focus, but not BE the focus itself. So we dont have to be actually saying that much, I know that may sound silly, but its true. We can keep a clean daily relatively short conversation that is only focused on trying to get you to see no self.

But to answer your question...ONLY STUFF TO DO WITH SEEING NO SELF. I know we have gotten off track at times, and yes it probably helped that you exposed some stuff, and like I said , if something is truly niggling you dont not type it just to keep the thread neat, but just make sure its to do with seeing no self.

Thats the only thing we should be caring about here. So when typing, it will obviously be an account of where you're struggling right now with seeing it,etc but before you type, ask has this to do with actually trying to see no self? Or is it the mind taking slightly different directions again?

We used to post on a site called Ruthless Truth, we had a different policy, it was a crap policy because it scared more people than liberated, we pretty much shouted down at someone if they were in any way waffling in a different direction from no self. The threads looked angry and messy, But , for the people who hung around , it worked real well because any attempt at the person going off focus and they were hit with a stick to stay on focus.


The site is gone , which is a pity , id like to be able to show you my thread as an example, it doesnt really have that much in it, just a few lines where Im venting frustration, or trying to explain where I feel theres a self, but know there isnt the reason being, I knew that LOOKING was more important than the thread itself. Everything I just wrote there applies to you all day if you can, not just in this conversation. Always always always try and actually check and look, not just think about it.

Again, I know this is frustrating stuff.

I like to use this analogy:
Imagine standing beside an unopened box with your friend, the two of you could spend the whole day discussing whats in the box based on its weight, its size, etc, but until you actually shut up and open the box, you will never know what you are saying or what you think is in it is actually true.

that's awesome! I used that tonight to avoid another pointless round of discussion on no-self

i took an opportunity tonight to talk very openly about (most) of this with two friends who were willing to listen. I think via trying to speak some of these things aloud helped me back to the edge where i have my friendly "fear" emotion, which im using as a guidepost to let me know im in the right place. So rather than just stand around at the fear and discuss it, i tried to dig right in and ask some no-self questions.

it started off well...

I feel the stick coming on, but really, this came up trying to LOOK for the root of thought and the root of action. We LOOKED and, actually, got right to the "well, crap, we cant find the self that thought" or "we can't find the self that acted".

But immediately they jumped to that being ok, cause, "science must allow for known unknowns (we dont know how x works) and unknown unknowns to exist (there's stuff we havent even discovered yet)". So they , unsurprisingly, also felt this belief that SOMETHING must be there, we just can't see it.

We even busted out the wikipedia and examined "evidence of absence" vs "absence of evidence"

it sounded like the whole crux of the ability to make a convince argument for something to not exist requires a strong belief that you've exhaustively examined the space and feel confident there's no where else to look. They had this example about "there is no milk in my refrigerator". we feel confident we can determine there is no milk by taking everything out and looking at each thing to see if it's milk as well as feeling confident there's nothing else hiding in the fridge and we understand where to look (you have to also look in the freezer). Yet if we wrap all the objects in the fridge in some sort of tuperware we can't open, the fact we cant directly experience the milk doesnt lend us enough confidence to say we have no milk. Or we don't know about the freezer, we cant check there, nor even know to check there. We have known unknowns (unopenable containers) and unknown unknowns (we dont know about the freezer)

So .. they asked ... How can I tell if I've emptied the fridge and there's no milk, vs if I've emptied the fridge, but one of those things is milk insider a tuperware container that I cant open. eg: I've looked for the self and it's not there, vs if I've looked for the self and I cant open or can't see the place where it resides. Which is where the question about "why is direct experience defined so narrowly" came into play... only believing direct experience seems to allow the conclusion we're trying to experience: that there is no self.

So i think we ran smack into a question that echo'd my own -- why "direct experience" is important. I couldn't address why the definition of "real" was so "narrow" as to exclude things we don't understand or dont have the tech/background to experience . eg: We used to believe outer space was empty, but now we're hearing about dark-matter and other 'stuff' that fills the void which we can finally detect thru some odd indirect method. Couldn't the search for a "self" eventually yield to the same inevitable discovery .. and until then, the conclusion that we have no-self is at risk of being incorrect? Or am i drawing some sort of faulty parallel here?

hurm, i think i just answered my own question! I wish Id thought of it earlier.. it sounds like it boils down to direct experience is the best we have, and until something better comes along, we cant, in good practice, base beliefs on anything else.

eg: We *did* believe space was empty, cause it fit the best evidence we had at the time. People still felt free to question that assumption and some did so until some evidence was found to challenge the idea that "nothing is there". Maybe that's where we are with self. Right now the best evidence gathered by the combined effort of thousands of years of seekers is that there is no evidence of a self. So this should be considered true until evidence arises to the contrary.

NOT LOOKING -- Or maybe you saying that this immediate "dodge" at not being able to find a self at the root of thought or the root of action is just one more example of standing around talking and not opening the box?

ok, So what would the next step of "looking" consist of from here?

trying to answer my own question: maybe look at this belief w/o evidence .. and therefor you're either :

a) choosing to be ok with accepting a belief that, despite the best evidence to date, self exists .. belief w/o evidence (faith?)
b) you accept that the self doesnt exist .. but are open to hearing new evidence if it should appear?

I dont like the "escape hatch" on (b) about "open to new evidence"...

maybe it's ok tho .. going back to santa -- santa doesn't exist and has never existed and I can't unsee that, but as a rational person, i'd have to allow for the possibility that if someone presented new evidence that explained santa Id have to reconsider? but until then i'm all in?

so intellectual..

f*ck, i keep coming back to (misguided?) faith getting in the way of my direct experience of no-self.

Ok man , this is getting ridiculous, now its time for the stick.

You seem to have done the complete opposite of what I asked in the last few posts.

I feel the stick coming on

Yet you kept typing stuff that you knew was not going to be about your direct looking at this, now you're just being fully dishonest with yourself..

but really, this came up trying to LOOK for the root of thought and the root of action. We LOOKED and, actually, got right to the "well, crap, we cant find the self that thought" or "we can't find the self that acted".

But immediately they jumped to that being ok

,.....

How can I tell if I've emptied the fridge and there's no milk, vs if I've emptied the fridge, but one of those things is milk insider a tuperware container that I cant open. eg: I've looked for the self and it's not there, vs if I've looked for the self and I cant open or can't see the place where it resides. ....

Ok man, I couldnt give a crap about what your mates think in terms of mathematical unknowns, I couldnt give a crap about wikipidea explanations of evidence vs absense, I dont care about any of that stuff, and the very fact that you wrote "I feel the stick coming on" is really really telling. It is direct proof that you are not taking responsibility for this, that you are not looking, that you know when you are about to wander off into other intellectual thoughts about this stuff, yet you still do anyway.
All I care about is an account of what you know in your direct experience is true vs what you are assuming to be true.

So i think we ran smack into a question that echo'd my own -- why "direct experience" is important. I couldn't address why the definition of "real" was so "narrow" as to exclude things we don't understand or dont have the tech/background to experience . eg: We used to believe outer space was empty, but now we're hearing about dark-matter and other 'stuff' that fills the void which we can finally detect thru some odd indirect method. Couldn't the search for a "self" eventually yield to the same inevitable discovery .. and until then, the conclusion that we have no-self is at risk of being incorrect? Or am i drawing some sort of faulty parallel here?

No your not, but this place is different to regular science,this place uses direct experience and senses as your honest form of finding truth and makes you realize that you are not even living by your direct experience, you are making assumptions about what your senses are experiencing, you are assuming your senses are experiencing a self, yet there is no other evidence for it than the words me, I, self, Mark, himself, herself, you, etc. Your senses here are your scientific tools, because thats all you got.

hurm, i think i just answered my own question! I wish Id thought of it earlier.. it sounds like it boils down to direct experience is the best we have, and until something better comes along, we cant, in good practice, base beliefs on anything else.

If thats the case you dont need to write all that stuff.

NOT LOOKING -- Or maybe you saying that this immediate "dodge" at not being able to find a self at the root of thought or the root of action is just one more example of standing around talking and not opening the box?

ok, So what would the next step of "looking" consist of from here?

trying to answer my own question: maybe look at this belief w/o evidence .. and therefor you're either :

a) choosing to be ok with accepting a belief that, despite the best evidence to date, self exists .. belief w/o evidence (faith?)
b) you accept that the self doesnt exist .. but are open to hearing new evidence if it should appear?

I dont like the "escape hatch" on (b) about "open to new evidence"...

maybe it's ok tho .. going back to santa -- santa doesn't exist and has never existed and I can't unsee that, but as a rational person, i'd have to allow for the possibility that if someone presented new evidence that explained santa Id have to reconsider? but until then i'm all in?

so intellectual..

f*ck, i keep coming back to (misguided?) faith getting in the way of my direct experience of no-self.

Look , it seems you want a justification for looking, you want someone else to tell you its ok, you want your mates or wikipedia to give you the go ahead.

This place may use a similar scientific approach as to what you are talking about, but it seems you wont even do that. You wont take responsibility for this, you are more interested in justifying why there may or may not be a self over actually looking on your own.
Have a read of this thread and you'll see what I mean, he may have written alot , but very little of it was intellectual pondering, he was constantly trying to see what he already knows it the case...http://liberationunleashed.com/nation/v ... 3&start=15
Im not saying he was completely 100% focused and perfect in his engagement but he pushed for it.

Im sorry if Im coming across like a dick, but really , its about getting your shit together and taking responsibility for looking right now.
And if you really really cant accept that the idea of "if there is no evidence for a self then there is none" right now, and you wish to hold onto your faith, then maybe you've come to the wrong place.

If you really wanted to go scientific about it, well then, prove to me there is a self!!! Itll take you a while though.

I obviously want to keep engaging, you're very enthusiastic and seem like a great guy, but thats not worth shit if your main interest is in avoiding what is actually happening in your experience.

thanks for the reply.

I guess i knew i was off track. im considering your statement about me being dishonest.

maybe its time for a reset.

my summary of this site's missions is that you're saying it is possible to have a direct experience of no-self.

I havent had that experience yet and would like to.

how? thru looking, perhaps guided by a series of questions / conversation

i seem to have a problem staying focused on prying an answer out of myself, and hide in my brain.

I'll read that other forum/post as you suggested and to see what focus looks like.

thanks for sticking with me.

reading over the other thread.

ill try not to use this forum as a stream-of-consciousness journal, more for a place to report results and ask questions.

Hi again.

my experience seems to be here, from Mintie's thread:
http://liberationunleashed.com/nation/v ... t=15#p7619

sitting here trying to figure out what to type, how to re-engage, feeling very disappointed, not good enough, scolded, called out on being dishonest, feeling defensive -- "i didnt mean to be dishonest". Yet, some of your questions ringing in my thoughts.. *what* is feeling/thinking this way?

answer -- i liked Michael's "virtual personalities" idea for how he described self. I call them "masks" .. i have a variety as well, that can be put on as needed: boyfriend, friend, co-worker, brother. there is an assumption that underneath the mask was something unworthy. Honestly it'd be a relief if there was nothing under the masks. I strong belief that believing "nothing" or "life" in control is a cop-out .."let go and let god".. "i must take responsibility, i must be true to the self". Yet, what is that? ... just another belief, another thought. My mental imagry when describing these things to others has always been of masks, shells and hollowness. its interesting to wonder if these descriptions have been more accurate than unhealthy. but again, just more thoughts about no-self.

so the thing that felt scolded .. a collection of beliefs. a non-real collection of beliefs and parts (university analogy) felt scolded. amazing that emotions can arise from a fiction like that. conducted an experiment: 'can emotions arise from a deliberate fake thought? - "my ex-gf never liked me in the first place" -- after a bit, i could feel the start of some discomfort as the mind dutifully searched for evidence. So conclusion -- just because a thought arises, and a emotion follows, doesnt seem to mean the original thought needs to have had any reality to it.

im going outside on breaks from work when my 'no-self' timer goes off. Trying to feel like things are just happening (which they are), but also feeling like im forcing it.. noticing a thought arise about what that tree bark feels like. 'Choosing' to indulge that thought on one tree. 'Choosing' to not indulge on the next tree. got stuck there for awhile. "See, a thought arose (from somewhere) wanting to experience the treebark. mind reacted to that thought, engaged the body (or not)". while engaged this way i noticed tons of things on auto pilot .. still walking, thoughts furiously bubbling, hands shading my eyes from the sun. Things feel much more complicated, ponderous and slow when mind is "trying" to over-ride the auto-pilot ( eg: touch the tree or not .. ). a tenseness , a gut anticipation / twisting.. mind can really get in the way of experience.

Again, this evening, had a very "dishonest", for lack of a better term, interaction. I felt like I should ("Who stays home friday night?") leave my house, so I "forced" action .. getting in the car, going here, going there. Looking at it now, feeling like that experience was dampened by all the mental contortions about what to do next, where to be .. all trying to control an outcome. similar to me trying to control if i touched the treebark or not. including the same unpleasant body experience of tension and tenseness.

risking "journalling" again, simply because the laptop is here. will take more of this examination offline and report back.

dang, i need an editor, looks so verbose. sorry.

Hi tak, just in case your wondering if I've been offline but will be back properly tomorrow, just reading off the phone now.

sitting here trying to figure out what to type, how to re-engage, feeling very disappointed, not good enough, scolded, called out on being dishonest, feeling defensive -- "i didnt mean to be dishonest". Yet, some of your questions ringing in my thoughts.. *what* is feeling/thinking this way?

yup, all this stuff will arise, so its really a matter of answering that last question you asked, not with words in your head, but through your experience.

answer -- i liked Michael's "virtual personalities" idea for how he described self. I call them "masks" .. i have a variety as well, that can be put on as needed: boyfriend, friend, co-worker, brother. there is an assumption that underneath the mask was something unworthy. Honestly it'd be a relief if there was nothing under the masks. I strong belief that believing "nothing" or "life" in control is a cop-out .."let go and let god".. "i must take responsibility, i must be true to the self". Yet, what is that? ... just another belief, another thought. My mental imagry when describing these things to others has always been of masks, shells and hollowness. its interesting to wonder if these descriptions have been more accurate than unhealthy. but again, just more thoughts about no-self.

It sounds like you amassed alot beliefs and ideas over time to do with a self, and have just reinforced the idea that there is something real there that you can be true to. Its alot simpler than that, have you looked at the fact that this whole thing, including trying to see this is a process that is happening by itself, there not even a you to see this or get liberated.

so the thing that felt scolded .. a collection of beliefs. a non-real collection of beliefs and parts (university analogy) felt scolded. amazing that emotions can arise from a fiction like that. conducted an experiment: 'can emotions arise from a deliberate fake thought? - "my ex-gf never liked me in the first place" -- after a bit, i could feel the start of some discomfort as the mind dutifully searched for evidence. So conclusion -- just because a thought arises, and a emotion follows, doesnt seem to mean the original thought needs to have had any reality to it.

This is stuff that will go on and on and on in your head, thoughts about thoughts, thoughts about thoughts of "you", thoughts about situations, thoughts about who "you" are. And the very fact that it can cause real physical emotion only cements the idea that theres something there.
So until now you would have made an assumption that you are referring to something real, so next time a thought like that arises, dont try and see the fact that the thought itself causes emotion, ask , "what exactly is the "me" is being referred to here".

im going outside on breaks from work when my 'no-self' timer goes off. Trying to feel like things are just happening (which they are), but also feeling like im forcing it..

ok this is good stuff, you feel you're forcing it, I remember feeling that too, so again, as mindnumbingly repetitive as it may seem , stop next time you feel that and look, whats forcing what?

noticing a thought arise about what that tree bark feels like. 'Choosing' to indulge that thought on one tree. 'Choosing' to not indulge on the next tree. got stuck there for awhile. "See, a thought arose (from somewhere) wanting to experience the treebark. mind reacted to that thought, engaged the body (or not)". while engaged this way i noticed tons of things on auto pilot .. still walking, thoughts furiously bubbling, hands shading my eyes from the sun.

for some reason its much easier to notice autopilot with physical movement etc. When I was trying to see it, one of my frustrations was "how come I can see that my legs feel like they are going automatically? Yet I still feel there is a me "trying" to see this??" The reply was simply, why should there be any difference between legs going automatically and thoughts going automatically?
I couldnt reply, but I looked hard at that question.

Things feel much more complicated, ponderous and slow when mind is "trying" to over-ride the auto-pilot ( eg: touch the tree or not .. ). a tenseness , a gut anticipation / twisting.. mind can really get in the way of experience.

mind IS experience, and what is controlling the "mind" that is trying to over ride autopilot?

Again, this evening, had a very "dishonest", for lack of a better term, interaction. I felt like I should ("Who stays home friday night?") leave my house, so I "forced" action .. getting in the car, going here, going there. Looking at it now, feeling like that experience was dampened by all the mental contortions about what to do next, where to be .. all trying to control an outcome. similar to me trying to control if i touched the treebark or not. including the same unpleasant body experience of tension and tenseness.

Remember , your life still goes, thoughts arise, "what am i doing home on a friday night?",thoughts arise "right lets get out of here", thoughts "what will I do next", "where am I going" etc etc.
And yes, tension arising as a result of confusion and struggling etc. Not dishonest for that stuff to arise, but maybe dishonest in that you allowed that stuff to make you believe there was suddenly a "you" , as oppose to looking at that stuff there and then. Do you follow?

risking "journalling" again, simply because the laptop is here. will take more of this examination offline and report back.

This is better more focused stuff about simply attempting to see there is no you, if you can keep this up,both in the thread, but moreso in real life, Im sure you'll crack it.

Also, apologies again for the delay, Ill try and give a bit of notice if Im gone for a day or 2 from now on. But either way, every single instant in your reality is an opportunity to look at this.