hide and seek

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien

Is it totally clear that there is no such thing a chooser?

It is clear.

Is it totally clear that there is no such thing as choice or free will?

Yes.

If not, please write some examples when it seems to be otherwise.

It seems to be otherwise when thoughts appear that say choosing is happening. Those thoughts are not true.

Eyes Closed Experiment. Can it be known how tall the body is?

No

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No specific volume. Pressure is felt against chair. Thought brings up image of sitting on chair and weight. The sensation is just a sensation without an image, not even of a body part.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

No. There’s a sense of pulsation, radiation.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

No. Skin senses something. There is a slight difference between the sensation of clothing and air. Doesn’t feel like a boundary, but an interaction.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No. There is skin sensation and pressure sensation, thought imagines a boundary, it is not felt as an boundary, but a continuation.

Is there an inside or an outside?

No. Thought labels and locates interior and exterior. There is no actual sense of either, but physical sensation is located here, thought describes other locations that are here and there, like sound. It is experienced here, but thought describes it as there..

If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?

There are thoughts about inside, and thoughts about outside, but a line between the two isn’t experienced.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

Here and now.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

There is vision from a particular position in space.
There are sensations that are felt.
Sounds and odors are sensed.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

It seems to be otherwise when thoughts appear that say choosing is happening. Those thoughts are not true.

And does it matter if thoughts appearing and saying that there is a chooser and choosing it happening? Does the presence of this thought make it so?

No specific volume. Pressure is felt against chair. Thought brings up image of sitting on chair and weight. The sensation is just a sensation without an image, not even of a body part.

“Pressure is felt against chair” – does the pure sensation suggest in any way that ‘pressure is felt against chair’?
Can a chair be felt?

There’s a sense of pulsation, radiation.

How a pulsation is experienced?
And what about radiation?
Is there such thing as the experience of pulsation and radiation?

Skin senses something. There is a slight difference between the sensation of clothing and air. Doesn’t feel like a boundary, but an interaction.

“Skin senses something.” – How does skin sensing something is actually experienced?
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is a skin that is sensing something?

“there is a slight difference between the sensation of clothing and air” – can this difference be actually known when both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored?

Is there a sensation for clothing? How so?
Can anything else be felt other than a sensation?
If not, then how is it known that clothing is felt?

“Doesn’t feel like a boundary, but an interaction” – Are you saying that there is an experience of a skin + the experience of air, and there is also the experience the interaction between skin and air?

What is the AE of skin?
What is the AE of air?
What is the AE of interaction?

No. There is skin sensation and pressure sensation, thought imagines a boundary, it is not felt as an boundary, but a continuation.

Is there such thing as the experience of continuation?
What is the AE of continuation? Is a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?

What is the AE of pressure?
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that it’s a pressure? Or only thoughts suggest so?

Pay attention to the sensation where the body meets the chair.
How many sensations are there?
Is there a sensation for skin + another sensation for the chair?

There is no actual sense of either, but physical sensation is located here, thought describes other locations that are here and there, like sound. It is experienced here, but thought describes it as there..

What is the AE of here? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?
What is the AE of sensations being located here?

Does a sensation have an ACTUAL location? Are you sure about this?

There are thoughts about inside, and thoughts about outside, but a line between the two isn’t experienced.

But is there an ACTUAL inside, and an ACTUAL outside?
Not just inferred ones by thoughts, but ACTUAL ONES?

V: What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

N: Here and now.

This is not coming from looking.

Can here and now be experienced?
If yes, how so? – please don’t tell stories, but describe the experience only

Is there such thing as here and now other than concepts/ideas?

V: What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

F: There is vision from a particular position in space.
There are sensations that are felt.
Sounds and odors are sensed.

There is NO AE of ‘vision being from a particular position of space’. – this is just a thought speculation, but not experience. We will look at this later.

Color and shape is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of color only.
The visual thought labelled ‘body’ is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of a thought only.
Sensations are NOT the AE of body, but the AE of sensations only.
The appearance of movement is NOT the AE of body, but the AE of colors and sensations only.

There is ZERO AE of body.
Body as such cannot be experienced.
Body is just a mental construct, nothing else.
The body is just a conceptual overlay on the AE of colors, sensations and thoughts. Can you see this?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien

And does it matter if thoughts appearing and saying that there is a chooser and choosing it happening? Does the presence of this thought make it so?

No, it doesn’t matter, and the presence of the thought does not make it true.

“Pressure is felt against chair” – does the pure sensation suggest in any way that ‘pressure is felt against chair’?
Can a chair be felt?

No, a chair is only a thought. Pressure is only a thought, against is only a thought, sensation is, and it varies, but what it is is not nameable.

How a pulsation is experienced?

It is more intense and then less intense.

And what about radiation?

A thought about expansion rather than contraction.

Is there such thing as the experience of pulsation and radiation?

There is such a thing as sensations, words cannot describe that experience.

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is a skin that is sensing something?

No.

“there is a slight difference between the sensation of clothing and air” – can this difference be actually known when both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored?

No, I have learned names for where particular sensations occur and what they might mean. The sensation itself doesn’t reveal anything about its location or quality, but just as with color, there is a variation in the experience, but any particular meaning is a speculation of thought.

Is there a sensation for clothing? How so?

No, but there are varieties in sensation that I have learned names for.
I try to remember as a baby how it must have been to only have sensations without any location or names for them. Now sensation is accompanied by mental images and explanations of qualities and locations. So clothing touch is a name I have learned for a variety of sensation.

Can anything else be felt other than a sensation?

Only sensation is felt. The meaning of sensation is given by thought.

If not, then how is it known that clothing is felt?

There is variety in sensation and I have learned names for some of the
varieties. Thought ‘says’ that clothing is felt.

“Doesn’t feel like a boundary, but an interaction” – Are you saying that there is an experience of a skin + the experience of air, and there is also the experience the interaction between skin and air?

Well, saying that skin is sensing air, or having any kind of interaction is saying that there is a boundary where skin meets air. But in the actual experience no boundary is sensed, it is only named by thought.

What is the AE of skin?
What is the AE of air?

No AE of skin, air, only images and thoughts about what it is and what it does. Sensation is felt, but the location is a learned, imaged, thought process.

What is the AE of interaction?

There is no AE of interaction, just thought about what does what to and with what.

What is the AE of pressure?
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that it’s a pressure? Or only thoughts suggest so?

No AE of pressure, just sensation with a thought name accompanying.

How many sensations are there?
Is there a sensation for skin + another sensation for the chair?

There is just sensation, skin, body, and chair are all thought contents.

What is the AE of here? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?

Here is thought content. Experience just is. ‘Here’ is a comparison between here and there. I’ve been stuck a long time on thinking the only thing that separates me from the rest is location.

What is the AE of sensations being located here?

No AE of sensations being located here. It’s thought that says I experience sensation here and you experience sensation there. I and you is more thought.

Does a sensation have an ACTUAL location? Are you sure about this?

Cant find location except in thought contents.

But is there an ACTUAL inside, and an ACTUAL outside?
Not just inferred ones by thoughts, but ACTUAL ONES?

No. Actual inside and outside cannot be found. Words about images.

V: What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
N: Here and now.
This is not coming from looking.

No, it comes from thinking, but this is a core belief for me. Without this location and time I am no-thing. Body is very mysterious. It is a location I have learned to define, with qualities I have learned to define, referred to by thought all the waking hours. The body is thought content describing an apparatus that moves within a space and time. Thought makes a location for sensation and calls that location the body.

Can here and now be experienced?
If yes, how so? – please don’t tell stories, but describe the experience only. Is there such thing as here and now other than concepts/ideas?

Here and now is a thought formation, not an actual experience. Here an now are words that are one step removed from actual experience.

V: What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
F: There is vision from a particular position in space.
There are sensations that are felt.
Sounds and odors are sensed.
There is ZERO AE of body.
Body as such cannot be experienced.
Body is just a mental construct, nothing else
The body is just a conceptual overlay on the AE of colors, sensations and thoughts. Can you see this?

Yes.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

You did an excellent looking!

No, I have learned names for where particular sensations occur and what they might mean. The sensation itself doesn’t reveal anything about its location or quality, but just as with color, there is a variation in the experience, but any particular meaning is a speculation of thought.

Let’s look at this a bit closer. It’s a tricky one.

When all thoughts are ignored, are there even ‘variations in sensations’?
Without thoughts, can it be known that there is a variation or difference in colors?

So clothing touch is a name I have learned for a variety of sensation.

Are there REALLY a variety of sensations? Or only thoughts suggest so?

In order to say that there is variety, comparison is needed.
And comparison can happen only in thoughts.

So the current sensation needs to be conceptualized in order to compare it with another concept about the memory of another previous sensation.

Without this conceptualization, without thoughts, can two sensations be compared in experience?
If yes, how so?

And is there an AE of comparing two colors?
Is there an AE of variance in color or sensation?

V: What is the AE of here? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?

F: Here is thought content. Experience just is. ‘Here’ is a comparison between here and there. I’ve been stuck a long time on thinking the only thing that separates me from the rest is location.

Are you able to see that there is NO AE of comparison?
If yes, then is there such thing as here and there?

What would compare the hear with there?
How and where this comparison happens?

And if here and there cannot be experienced, since these are just the contents of thoughts, then how could signify that “everything here is me” and “everything else there is not-me”?

Body is very mysterious.

Close your eyes, and scan through the body. Look for every sensation that is present right now. You will find, that as you scan the body, a visual thought ‘shows’ the location of attention, so to speak.

If you look very carefully, you’ll find that there are some parts where the sensations are really strong, but there are other areas where there is hardly any sensation going on, or even nothing. So even the sensations what are labelled as ‘body’ cannot be experienced as a whole. I mean you cannot feel all ‘parts’ of the body at the same time. There is only a constructed a visual thought and with the label ‘body’, and the belief that the body is a whole unit, always present, always available. But this cannot be further from the truth. Body as such exists only as a construct.
Can you see this?

No, it comes from thinking, but this is a core belief for me. Without this location and time I am no-thing.

It’s not just about that without location and time “I am no-thing”. Since this statement is based on the FALSE ASSUMPTION that “I AM”. And I just have to figure out what I am. Can you see the falsity of the statement “I am”?

But there is NO “I” whatsoever, that could be here or there, or be no-thing.

The “I AM” itself is ILLUSION.
There is no ‘I’ that could be.
Can you see this?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien

When all thoughts are ignored, are there even ‘variations in sensations’?
Without thoughts, can it be known that there is a variation or difference in colors?

Yep. Variations in sensation and color are thought comparisons too. Thought content can be very subtle, I see.
So no, without thoughts variations cannot be known.

Are there REALLY a variety of sensations? Or only thoughts suggest so?

Thoughts say there is variety. Before thought there is nothing to compare with

Without this conceptualization, without thoughts, can two sensations be compared in experience?

No, that conceptualization was easy to miss. It was very quiet.

If yes, how so?
And is there an AE of comparing two colors?

No AE for comparison.

Is there an AE of variance in color or sensation?

There is no AE of variance. Variance is in thought.

Are you able to see that there is NO AE of comparison?
If yes, then is there such thing as here and there?

There is no AE of comparison, just thought content. Here and there come from comparison.

What would compare the here with there?

Thought content compares.

How and where this comparison happens?

It happens in thought.

And if here and there cannot be experienced, since these are just the contents of thoughts, then how could signify that “everything here is me” and “everything else there is not-me”?

Only in thought can me be conjectured and placed.

Body as such exists only as a construct.
Can you see this?

Yes. Body is thought and memory.

Can you see the falsity of the statement “I am”?

Yes. It points to a me, a character, a body, all passing thought form.

The “I AM” itself is ILLUSION.
There is no ‘I’ that could be.
Can you see this?

‘I am’ is a thought label on top of experience.
Like a conjurer the label puts attention away from the real action.

Thank you for your patience, hammering this in for so long.
Your dedication is appreciated.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Thank you for your patience, hammering this in for so long.
Your dedication is appreciated.

You are very welcome :)

V: Can you see the falsity of the statement “I am”?

F: Yes. It points to a me, a character, a body, all passing thought form.

Actually, the statement ‘I am’ doesn’t point to anything.
Since there is entity or agency behind the words ‘I’ or ‘me’. Can you see this?

Here is a little exercise. With eyes closed, put one of the hands on a desk or a table. Pay attention only to the pure sensation.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only the sensation?
When both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all, or is there only the pure sensation?

What is FEELING the sensation?
Where is the FEELER of sensations?
Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?

Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea and/or a mislabelled sensation?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien, thanks for all

Actually, the statement ‘I am’ doesn’t point to anything.
Since there is entity or agency behind the words ‘I’ or ‘me’. Can you see this?

‘I am’ is a thought concept about an imagined individual being, not a real entity.

Exercise of hand on table: Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?

No.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only the sensation?

Only the sensation.

When both verbal and visual thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all,or is there only the pure sensation?

Only the sensation.

What is FEELING the sensation?

There is no language for it.

Where is the FEELER of sensations?

Where is a concept of thought content. There is no ‘feeler’, only feeling.
And even feeling is a word label that is removed from the actual experience.

Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?

No

Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea and/or a mislabelled sensation?

No, it would not be other than that.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Let’s see if there is a connection between a visual image and sensations.

Here is an exercise that helps to see how the illusion of the body is ‘created’, so to speak. Normally we believe that sensation is coming from sight (colour), meaning the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’ (colour labelled as ‘hand’).


1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensations ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Normally we believe that the sensation is coming from the sight, the ‘object’ seen (hand).

But if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the sight? In other words, is the sensation ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

So you can repeat this with all of the body parts below, one-by-one.
- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

What do you find?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien,

Hand/Body/Sight experiment:
But if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the sight? In other words, is the sensation ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

Only thoughts and mental constructs link them.

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Yes

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

The link is only in thought.

What do you find?

The only way to locate something in space is with mental comparison. “Sensation is in the hand”=thought that it is there and not other locations. Locations themselves are thoughts. So the sight is labeled by a thought of location, and the sensation is labeled by a thought of location and they are labeled as in the same location, so the seen hand is thought to be the thing feeling, but this is all thought. AE is simultaneous vision and sensation. Sensation, and vision are simultaneous and without location. They are combined or separated, labeled, located and interpreted by thought.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

The only way to locate something in space is with mental comparison. “Sensation is in the hand”=thought that it is there and not other locations. Locations themselves are thoughts. So the sight is labeled by a thought of location, and the sensation is labeled by a thought of location and they are labeled as in the same location, so the seen hand is thought to be the thing feeling, but this is all thought. AE is simultaneous vision and sensation. Sensation, and vision are simultaneous and without location. They are combined or separated, labeled, located and interpreted by thought.

Yes, nice description.

Find somewhere quiet to sit. Rest for a moment and listen to the sounds in the room where you are, or sounds from outside. Whatever it is, I'll just refer to it as 'what can be heard'.

In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard'?
Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard'?
An 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? A pair of ears?
Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just 'what can be heard'?
What do you find?

Can an INHERENT HEARER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

HI Vivien,

In 'hearing' can anything be found other than 'what can be heard’?

No, only that.

Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only 'what can be heard’?

Only ‘what can be heard.’

Am 'I'? a 'body'? a 'person'? a brain? A pair of ears?

No, ‘I’ am the content of a thought.

Can these be found doing the hearing? Or is there just 'what can be heard’?

Thoughts about a body hearing and ‘I’ hearing, appear, but body is a thought image, and ‘I’ am a thought story. Hearing goes on simultaneously with thought.

What do you find?

Hearing is like seeing and feeling. No fictional ‘i’ or ‘me’ is required for it to be.

Can an INHERENT HEARER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the hearer, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought

?
No, It would only be thought content.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

Thoughts about a body hearing and ‘I’ hearing, appear, but body is a thought image, and ‘I’ am a thought story. Hearing goes on simultaneously with thought.

What is the AE of hearing?
Can hearing as such be experienced at all, or only a sound can be experienced?

Hearing is like seeing and feeling. No fictional ‘i’ or ‘me’ is required for it to be.

Hearing, seeing, feeling are verbs. All verbs are about an act of doing something.

So what is the ACT of hearing?
How does the act of hearing is performed/done?

And what is the ACT of ‘feeling’?
What is actually done when the act of feeling is performed?

And what is the ACT of seeing?
How is seeing done?

Please look very carefully with the above questions.

I often use capital letters or sometimes bolds or even colors to emphasise the importance of certain sentences or words. I’m not doing this to yell at you or show that I am frustrated with you. :) It’s not personal. It’s just my way of emphasise the importance of certain things. I put certain words in caps to guide your attention to a certain direction. I might ask: “How does the ‘I’ is FELT?” – the word ‘felt’ is in caps to point your attention to the sensations itself that are labelled as ‘I’ (and not to other aspects of the self).

I’m just telling this to you, because there’s been a client of mine who interpreted it as yelling, and felt offended. So I decided to explain this to all my clients to avoid misunderstandings.

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Hi Vivien

What is the AE of hearing?

The actual experience of hearing is that there is sound. But even to say that there is sound is calling on thought because sound is a name in thought for the experience called sound. The actual experience does not really have a name.

Can hearing as such be experienced at all, or only a sound can be experienced?

Okay, since hearing is a doing then doing requires something to do the doing and that something must be a self of some sort, so hearing is a thought content put upon the experience called sound that claims it is experiencing the thing called sound. It’s more mental conceptualizing.

So what is the ACT of hearing?

The act of hearing is when a thought claims that it is doing something. Sound, sight and feeling just are. Thought overlays the experience with a claim to be the one experiencing them. Sound simply is. There is nothing to be done about it.

How does the act of hearing is performed/done?

It can’t really be performed or done. Performance is only a thought content. There is no one to to it.

And what is the ACT of ‘feeling’?

Feeling is when thought has content about being the acting agent in witnessing or having sensation. Since thoughts are not real they can’t do anything so feeling is a thought story about sensation.

What is actually done when the act of feeling is performed?

Nothing is done. There is no one to do it.

And what is the ACT of seeing?

Seeing is when thought has content about sight. Thought claims to be seeing something, but since there is no one there in thought to see something it is just a thought story built on light.

How is seeing done?

Seeing can’t be done by imaginary thought seers. It already is and is done by no one.

[Vivien]

Hi Forestfriend,

The actual experience of hearing is that there is sound. But even to say that there is sound is calling on thought because sound is a name in thought for the experience called sound. The actual experience does not really have a name.

Yes. We are using these labels only for the sake of communication.

Okay, since hearing is a doing then doing requires something to do the doing and that something must be a self of some sort, so hearing is a thought content put upon the experience called sound that claims it is experiencing the thing called sound. It’s more mental conceptualizing.

Yes, exaclty.

The act of hearing is when a thought claims that it is doing something. Sound, sight and feeling just are. Thought overlays the experience with a claim to be the one experiencing them. Sound simply is. There is nothing to be done about it.

Yes. There is only the AE of sensation which is labelled as ‘ears’, and the AE of sound which is labelled as ‘heard’. But there is NO experience of hearing happening. Can you see this clearly?

When there is a sound present, then there is only the AE of sound.
Sound IS, but a hearing isn’t. Hearing as such cannot be experienced, only sound can.
Is this totally clear?

Seeing is when thought has content about sight. Thought claims to be seeing something, but since there is no one there in thought to see something it is just a thought story built on light.

We are using the word ‘color’ to label the experience of color/image itself which is indescribable with words.
Just as we use the word ‘sensation’ to label the AE of the pure sensation itself.

I prefer the label ‘color’ better than the label ‘image’, since the word image implies/suggests much more than the label color, it adds meaning to it.

The label ‘sight’ implies even more added meaning the pure experience of color. The word ‘sight’ implies that it’s done by the eyes, and it sees the world out there. Can you see this?

Nothing else can be known about the color than that it IS. Can you see this?
What is the AE of light?
---
Just look now...a thought can be found, but can a thinker of thought be found?
Can an “I” be found in thought itself?

Sound can be found, but can a hearer of sounds be found?
Can an “I” be found in sound itself?

Colour can be found, but can a see-er of colour be found?
Can an “I” be found in colour itself?

Sensation can be found, but can a feeler of sensation be found?
Can an “I” be found in sensation itself?

Smell can be found, but can a smeller of smell be found?
Can an “I” be found in smell itself?

Taste can be found, but can a taster of taste be found?
Can an “I” be found in taste itself?

So can anyone/anything be found that is beleiving in thoughts?

Experience can be found, but can an experiencer of experience be found?

It's as simple as that. Just look and see what is actually present - and what is only imaginary.

Vivien

[Forestfriend]

Yes. There is only the AE of sensation which is labelled as ‘ears’, and the AE of sound which is labelled as ‘heard’. But there is NO experience of hearing happening. Can you see this clearly?

Yes. There is only the AE of sound and sensation. Not the individual action of hearing and sensing.

Is this totally clear?

Yes. Hearing is thought content about sound.
For hearing to be experienced there would need to be a ‘me’ or ‘I’ to do the action of experiencing. There is a thought content story about this, but the actual experience does not require this story to be. It is there before the story.

The label ‘sight’ implies even more added meaning the pure experience of color. The word ‘sight’ implies that it’s done by the eyes, and it sees the world out there. Can you see this?

Yes. No words are adequate. Color, OK. Color is. Sight is an action in thought content after the fact.

Nothing else can be known about the color than that it IS. Can you see this?

Yes.

What is the AE of light?

The same as color. It’s just a word.
I was referring to color as light. There is no word for the experience so I tried out ‘light’. I can use the word color. There is no perfect word for the actual experience. It will always be un-seizable by words.

Just look now...a thought can be found, but can a thinker of thought be found?

No thinker can be found without making a thought story.

Can an “I” be found in thought itself?

'I' can only be found in the content of thought, not in the thought experience.

Sound can be found, but can a hearer of sounds be found?
Can an “I” be found in sound itself?

There is no hearer to be found in sound. The hearer is only in thought content.

Colour can be found, but can a see-er of colour be found?
Can an “I” be found in colour itself?

There is no seer to be found in color. The seer is only in thought content.

Sensation can be found, but can a feeler of sensation be found?
Can an “I” be found in sensation itself?

There is no feeler of sensation to be found. The feeler of sensation is only an imaginary thought form.

Smell can be found, but can a smeller of smell be found?
Can an “I” be found in smell itself?

There is no smeller to be found. The one who smells is to be found only in the content of thought.

Taste can be found, but can a taster of taste be found?
Can an “I” be found in taste itself?

A taster cannot be found. And the taster of taste is only imaginary in thought.

So can anyone/anything be found that is beleiving in thoughts?

No. Believing is another thought content. Thought makes an ‘I’ or ‘me’ to be the one believing.

Experience can be found, but can an experiencer of experience be found?

No. Experience is, but one who experiences is imaginary in the content of thought.