Help Me Please!!

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

are you defining the "AE" and "an experience" as something different? If that is the case, that is where the misunderstanding is.
Please clarify definition of experience without "Actual experience".

There is no difference between the labels of ‘AE’ or ‘experience’. Sometimes it’s also called as ‘direct experience’. These are different labels on the same phenomenon.

I intentionally used the word ‘experience’ in my last post, since the label AE it’s sometimes interpreted as something special. But it’s not, we are talking about the ordinary everyday experience.

However, lots of people beliefs that an imagined thought story is real, it’s happening, and it’s experienced. And this is what we are investigating here.

So, let’s completely forget about the label ‘AE’, and just use the simple word ‘experience’, or E.

Yes there is an actual experience if we add thought contents to it or not.

This is the source of the problem, and this is what we are going to focus on now.

I didn't realize that a thought story was still an experience,

No, the thought content is not experienced.

Let’s say there is a thought: “it’s sweet”.

Can the content of this thought sweetness be experienced? Meaning, can the sweetness of this thought be tasted?

The content NEVER experienced, since it if were experienced, then the thought ‘hot’ could be felt.
Can you feel hot when there is the thought “hot”?

Can you taste saltness, when the thought/word: ‘salt’ is present?

But, when there is a thought “it’s sweet”, this thought is experienced as a thought, as words, isn’t it?

It cannot be denied that there is the presence of the thought “it’s sweet”, right?

So the thought is present. The PRESENCE of the thought “it’s sweet” is EXPERIENCED AS A THOUGHT. Can you see this?

But what the thought is ABOUT, the ‘content’ = sweetness is NOT EXPERIENCED, since the word ‘sweet’ cannot be tasted. Can you see this?

So ‘sweetness’ ( = content) is NOT experienced.
But the PRESENSE of the thought “it’s sweet” IS EXPERIENCED as an APPEARING THOUGHT.
Can you see this clearly?

I am not sure I see this. I makes sense logically, but sometimes if I am zoomed in on a thought story, I do not notice anything around me. Is it an actual experience even if you don't notice it?

When you drive your car home, and there is a thought story playing out in imagination about the conversation with the boss, aren’t you aware of the road, the lights, the car you are driving?
Isn’t there the experience of seeing?

Is it an actual experience even if you don't notice it?

No. If something is not noticed, then it’s not there. Since a sensation and the knowing of it cannot be separated. They are not two phenomena, but one.
We will get into this topic later. For now, I don’t want to overcomplicate things.

I am NOT saying you need a thought to see an AE. I am asking if you do not notice the AE do you still call it an AE?

No. That’s the whole point. We can label something as experienced ONLY when it is experienced.
Otherwise it’s just a fantasy, a thought story, the content of a thought.

Just as the word ‘sweetness’ is not experienced, since it’s not tasted.
But the word ‘sweetness’ is present as a thought.
And as an appearing thought it’s experienced.
But not what the thought is ABOUT.
Can you see this?

The clarity I need is if I am not aware of it happening, what do you call that?

You cannot call it anything. Nothing is nothing.

If you think of a unicorn, is there an experience of a unicorn?
And when you think of a unicorn, is there an experience of a visual thought?

I see that the knowing of a thought is part of the AE, and the contents of the thought are considered the experience?

No. Only the knowing of the presence of the thought is experienced, but the content ( = what the thought is about) is never experienced.

When you imagine a monster under the bed...is there a real monster?
Is this monster experienced?

Or is it just thoughts ABOUT a monster?
Are the THOUGHTS THEMSELVES (about the monster) experienced or not?

Vivien

[Brenda]

Hi Vivian,
I don't know how we got out of sync. I believe we are saying the same thing.

Can the content of this thought sweetness be experienced? Meaning, can the sweetness of this thought be tasted?

no the content of the thought cannot be experienced. no the sweetness cannot be tasted.

The content NEVER experienced, since it if were experienced, then the thought ‘hot’ could be felt.
Can you feel hot when there is the thought “hot”?

No

Can you taste saltness, when the thought/word: ‘salt’ is present?

no

But, when there is a thought “it’s sweet”, this thought is experienced as a thought, as words, isn’t it?

Correct. The knowing of a thought is experienced, not the content.

It cannot be denied that there is the presence of the thought “it’s sweet”, right?

I see this.

So the thought is present. The PRESENCE of the thought “it’s sweet” is EXPERIENCED AS A THOUGHT. Can you see this?

Yes I see this.

But what the thought is ABOUT, the ‘content’ = sweetness is NOT EXPERIENCED, since the word ‘sweet’ cannot be tasted. Can you see this?

yes

So ‘sweetness’ ( = content) is NOT experienced.
But the PRESENSE of the thought “it’s sweet” IS EXPERIENCED as an APPEARING THOUGHT.
Can you see this clearly?

I see this very clearly.

I am not sure I see this. I makes sense logically, but sometimes if I am zoomed in on a thought story, I do not notice anything around me. Is it an actual experience even if you don't notice it?

When you drive your car home, and there is a thought story playing out in imagination about the conversation with the boss, aren’t you aware of the road, the lights, the car you are driving?

This is where the question is. If I am driving on "autopilot" meaning there is a thought story playing out, I am not always consciously aware of my surroundings. Then you get to your destination and wonder how you got there.
That is the question, because I do not remember the surroundings, I do not remember the road, the lights, etc, is it still an experience? As I look I see that it is not.

Isn’t there the experience of seeing?

There was seeing, but as I don't remember the ride, is it an experience?

[quote

]Is it an actual experience even if you don't notice it?

No. If something is not noticed, then it’s not there. Since a sensation and the knowing of it cannot be separated. They are not two phenomena, but one.[/quote]
Thank you for this answer. This is what I was trying to ask the last few days. This is clear now, and this is how I see it.

We will get into this topic later. For now, I don’t want to overcomplicate things.

[quote

]I am NOT saying you need a thought to see an AE. I am asking if you do not notice the AE do you still call it an AE?

No. That’s the whole point. We can label something as experienced ONLY when it is experienced.
Otherwise it’s just a fantasy, a thought story, the content of a thought.[/quote]

Exactly, this is what I was trying to say. Thank you for the clarity.

Just as the word ‘sweetness’ is not experienced, since it’s not tasted.
But the word ‘sweetness’ is present as a thought.
And as an appearing thought it’s experienced.
But not what the thought is ABOUT.
Can you see this?

Yes

The clarity I need is if I am not aware of it happening, what do you call that?

You cannot call it anything. Nothing is nothing.

Exactly.

If you think of a unicorn, is there an experience of a unicorn?
And when you think of a unicorn, is there an experience of a visual thought?
I see that the knowing of a thought is part of the AE, and the contents of the thought are considered the experience?

No. Only the knowing of the presence of the thought is experienced, but the content ( = what the thought is about) is never experienced.

Perfect. This is how I see it too. I think maybe I just was not clear in the last post.

When you imagine a monster under the bed...is there a real monster?
Is this monster experienced?

No

Or is it just thoughts ABOUT a monster?
Are the THOUGHTS THEMSELVES (about the monster) experienced or not?

they are just thoughts. no experience.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

V: When you imagine a monster under the bed...is there a real monster?
Is this monster experienced?

B: No

V: Or is it just thoughts ABOUT a monster?
Are the THOUGHTS THEMSELVES (about the monster) experienced or not?

B: they are just thoughts. no experience.

You say that you can see that thoughts as phenomena are experienced, but in your above reply it seems that you can’t see it.

So yes, there is no experience of a monster.
But when I ask: “Are the THOUGHTS THEMSELVES (about the monster) experienced or not?” – you said no.

So either you are not seeing clearly what I am pointing at, or you are not reading my comments carefully. I don’t know what else could be.

You said that ‘they are just thoughts, no experience’ – But the thoughts ARE EXPERIENCED AS THOUGHTS. The monster is NOT experienced, but the THOUGHTS THEMSELVES (about the monster) ARE EXPERIENCED.
Can you see this clearly?

Please write me an example about the difference.

This is where the question is. If I am driving on "autopilot" meaning there is a thought story playing out, I am not always consciously aware of my surroundings. Then you get to your destination and wonder how you got there.
That is the question, because I do not remember the surroundings, I do not remember the road, the lights, etc, is it still an experience? As I look I see that it is not.

The problem seems to be that you equate experience with being able to REMEMBER of the experience.

But being able to remember of the experience has nothing to do with whether at the moment when it happened it was experienced or not.

Just because you cannot recall it, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t experienced in the moment when it happened.

Memory is not proof for anything. Memory is nothing else than the content of an appearing thought.
Memory is not a test for reality. Memory doesn’t prove if something happened or not. Memory is based on the belief in time and cause and effect. We will investigate memory and time later.

And when you drive home, attention is not continuously on the story. Attention never stays on the same object continuously. It’s constantly jumping from one object to another. So it’s quickly jumping back and forth of the red light and the story, then to the car before you, then back to the story, then to the road, back to the story… so on.

Since the story was more ‘interesting’ and emotionally charged, that’s why there is a memory about it, and not about the driving. But it doesn’t mean that in the moment of driving there was no awareness of the colors labelled ‘red light’ or ‘road’.

Vivien

[Brenda]

You said that ‘they are just thoughts, no experience’ – But the thoughts ARE EXPERIENCED AS THOUGHTS. The monster is NOT experienced, but the THOUGHTS THEMSELVES (about the monster) ARE EXPERIENCED.
Can you see this clearly?

You are right. I misread it. I see this clearly.

Please write me an example about the difference.

I am drinking my tea:

Experience - sound, taste, color, smell, sensation, presence of the thought.
The content of the thought - "Tea is hot" is not experienced.

The problem seems to be that you equate experience with being able to REMEMBER of the experience.

But being able to remember of the experience has nothing to do with whether at the moment when it happened it was experienced or not.

Just because you cannot recall it, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t experienced in the moment when it happened.

I see what you are saying here. Thank you for clarifying.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

I am drinking my tea:
Experience - sound, taste, color, smell, sensation, presence of the thought.
The content of the thought - "Tea is hot" is not experienced.

And is the thought “tea is hot” experienced or not?

And is the thought "I am drinking my tea" experienced or not?

Here are some statements based on our investigation so far. Please read them careful, and see if you are clear on them. If any of them are not totally clear, please let me know.

- In experience thoughts don’t come and go from anywhere. They just there when they are there. And when they are not there anymore, then they are just simply not there.
- The supposed ‘me’ has no power over thoughts. None.
- Thoughts just appear on their own, without anyone or anything doing it.
- There is nothing that is thinking thoughts. Thinking happens, or rather say thoughts appear but without a thinker. There is no thinker of thoughts.
- Thoughts have no power whatsoever. They cannot think or do anything.
- Thoughts have no volition. There might be thoughts about intentions, but not the thoughts themselves intending or wanting it. They just ‘talk’ about wanting or intending.
- In experience there is not even a mind. There might be thoughts about a ‘mind’, but ‘mind’ as such cannot be found. ‘Mind’ is just an idea. Nothing more.

Look at each statement carefully. Is there anything in the above text that is not totally clear?

Vivien

[Brenda]

And is the thought “tea is hot” experienced or not?

The knowing of the thought is experienced but the "tea is hot" is not experienced as it is the content of the thought.

And is the thought "I am drinking my tea" experienced or not?

not experienced as it is the content of the thought.

Here are some statements based on our investigation so far. Please read them careful, and see if you are clear on them. If any of them are not totally clear, please let me know.

- In experience thoughts don’t come and go from anywhere. They just there when they are there. And when they are not there anymore, then they are just simply not there.
- The supposed ‘me’ has no power over thoughts. None.
- Thoughts just appear on their own, without anyone or anything doing it.
- There is nothing that is thinking thoughts. Thinking happens, or rather say thoughts appear but without a thinker. There is no thinker of thoughts.
- Thoughts have no power whatsoever. They cannot think or do anything.
- Thoughts have no volition. There might be thoughts about intentions, but not the thoughts themselves intending or wanting it. They just ‘talk’ about wanting or intending.
- In experience there is not even a mind. There might be thoughts about a ‘mind’, but ‘mind’ as such cannot be found. ‘Mind’ is just an idea. Nothing more.

Look at each statement carefully. Is there anything in the above text that is not totally clear?

These statements are clear. Thanks for summarizing this.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

V: And is the thought “tea is hot” experienced or not?

B: The knowing of the thought is experienced but the "tea is hot" is not experienced as it is the content of the thought.

V: And is the thought "I am drinking my tea" experienced or not?

B: not experienced as it is the content of the thought.

Please read through the above quote very carefully.

I asked the same questions whether the thought is experienced or not, the only difference was the contents of those thoughts.

In your first reply you said that the thought itself was experienced, but in your next reply you said that there is no experienced of thought. How could that be?

Are you replying in a rush?

Please Brenda, pay much more close attention to what I am writing and asking. This looking is about precision.

Read my questions several times before replying, and also read your comment to those questions before posting. If you are not paying enough attention to what I am writing and asking, then we are going to go in circles and wasting our times.
Can we agree on this?

Here is an exercise.

Get a sheet of paper and draw a line that divides that sheet in half. Label one half 'self' and the other side 'other'. Sit down and start a timer for 5 minutes. Every time you have a thought make a mark on the sheet. If that thought is about the self, put a mark on the self side, if it’s about something else, write down the thought itself (not just a mark). If a thought about food occurs due to feeling hungry, mark that on the self side. Any thought that refers back to a self should go on the self side. (I'm bored, I'm tired, is the door locked (my safety) that video was funny (I was amused), my back hurts, I am frightened, I wonder what is my daughter doing in school (‘my’ daughter), etc.

Let me know how you go and what you notice. Also please share with me what was written under others.
Then investigate the thoughts what was written under others. Are those thoughts really about others?

During the day, try to observe as many thoughts as you can. Particularly try to pay attention to narrating thoughts. Thoughts that are constantly narrating and judging what’s going on from the perspective of ‘me’.
Let me know what you find.

Vivien

[Brenda]

Hey Vivian,

In your first reply you said that the thought itself was experienced, but in your next reply you said that there is no experienced of thought. How could that be?

You asked the same question twice, so I just thought it was implied. I will be clearer in the future.

Are you replying in a rush?

No, I am not.

Read my questions several times before replying, and also read your comment to those questions before posting. If you are not paying enough attention to what I am writing and asking, then we are going to go in circles and wasting our times.
Can we agree on this?

yes

Let me know how you go and what you notice. Also please share with me what was written under others.
Then investigate the thoughts what was written under others. Are those thoughts really about others?

Thoughts are related to the "I".
I am hungry, I am tired, I am cold, etc.

There are really no thoughts I had that are on the other side as they are judgments made by "I".
For example, the sky is beautiful. It is not about "I" specifically but it is a judgment of "I".
"The dog is playing" but again, it is "MY" dog and so forth.


So bottom line, thoughts are narrating life for "I". The thoughts are about how "I" feels, or what "I" thinks, or what "I" believes, etc.

During the day, try to observe as many thoughts as you can. Particularly try to pay attention to narrating thoughts. Thoughts that are constantly narrating and judging what’s going on from the perspective of ‘me’.
Let me know what you find.

I see that the contents of thoughts are about the "I". What the "I" wants, needs, feels, sees, believes, etc.
Contents of thoughts contain stories about "I".

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

I see that the contents of thoughts are about the "I". What the "I" wants, needs, feels, sees, believes, etc.
Contents of thoughts contain stories about "I".

Yes. Almost every thought, if not all, is about the self. Sometimes it might not be as obvious, but when looked at it a bit more closely, it turns out that these narrating thoughts are always about me (some way or another).

Actually, these narrating thoughts create the illusion of the self.
These thoughts describes ‘what I am’.
They describe my past, present and future.
They produce a story of my life.
They describe how I feel, and what I have to do.
They describe what things in the world and others mean to me and can give to me.
These thoughts define who I am and what is my relationship to the world.

Please read carefully the above sentences. Look if they are really true. Let me know what you find.

Here is an interesting exercise.

Go and make a cup of tea or coffee. As you do this notice whether a 'self' does it. Also notice if there are many or any moments in the whole procedure of going to the kettle, switching it on, getting the cup (etc) when 'you' control the process?

How the decision is made what to make a cup of tea or coffee?
Do ‘you’ choose putting or not putting milk into the tea (or coffee)?
Is there a moment of choice or it happens automatically?
Do ‘you’ 'make the cup of tea (or coffee) happen' or it just happens?
Can a chooser be located?

Vivien

[Brenda]

Actually, these narrating thoughts create the illusion of the self.
These thoughts describes ‘what I am’.
They describe my past, present and future.
They produce a story of my life.
They describe how I feel, and what I have to do.
They describe what things in the world and others mean to me and can give to me.
These thoughts define who I am and what is my relationship to the world.

Please read carefully the above sentences. Look if they are really true. Let me know what you find.

This is exactly what I see when I look at the thoughts. It is the narrative of the "I". When I look for the "I" it cannot be found.
My thoughts describe what I see think feel taste, what I want, need, love, hate, etc. My thoughts create the story of the "I".

Go and make a cup of tea or coffee. As you do this notice whether a 'self' does it. Also notice if there are many or any moments in the whole procedure of going to the kettle, switching it on, getting the cup (etc) when 'you' control the process?

How the decision is made what to make a cup of tea or coffee?
Do ‘you’ choose putting or not putting milk into the tea (or coffee)?
Is there a moment of choice or it happens automatically?
Do ‘you’ 'make the cup of tea (or coffee) happen' or it just happens?
Can a chooser be located?

The decision to make the tea is just a thought. There is nobody or nothing making the decision.
There is no "chooser" of how you make it, it just happens.
Making the team happens automatically. I did this a few times, and sometimes I am not even aware it is happening. It just happens.
There is no chooser, no doer, no I to be found.

What made me start down this path, was one day I woke up and realized, it didn't matter if "I" existed or not. My entire life was happening without "me". I didn't have to plan or do anything, and everything was just moving along. I didn't release the "I" with this realization, but it is very clear that the "I" is not creating this life. It is just happening.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

What made me start down this path, was one day I woke up and realized, it didn't matter if "I" existed or not. My entire life was happening without "me". I didn't have to plan or do anything, and everything was just moving along. I didn't release the "I" with this realization, but it is very clear that the "I" is not creating this life. It is just happening.

Yes, everything happens without a doer/me. So what we investigate here is whether there is a me, a center of experience at all.

You did a nice looking. We are going to explore decision, control and intention a bit more, since this needs to be seen through with 100% certainty.

1. Place both hands on a table in front of you, palms down.
2. When you have done that, rest for a moment and then raise one hand in the air but not the other.

Don't go to thoughts, examine your direct experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire:

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is doing the choosing?

What is it that is controlling the hand?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

Can anything be found that makes the hand move?

How is the decision made?
Can a decision maker be found?

Vivien

[Brenda]

1. Place both hands on a table in front of you, palms down.
2. When you have done that, rest for a moment and then raise one hand in the air but not the other.

Don't go to thoughts, examine your direct experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire:

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?

There is nothing "Choosing" anything. It just happens. I cannot find any "chooser" anywhere.

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is doing the choosing?

No. I do not see anything doing the choosing. It just happens. There is no predicting which one will raise. it just happens.

What is it that is controlling the hand?

There is nothing controlling the hand.

Can a ‘controller' of any description be located?

As I look for the controller, it cannot be found anywhere. As I look the hand just raises. There is nothing guiding or directing or choosing which hand will be raised.

Can anything be found that makes the hand move?

No. I do not see anything that is making the hand move. It just moves.

How is the decision made?

I do not see anything that is making a decision. It just moves randomly. I do not see any "decision maker".

Can a decision maker be found?

No.

As I look throughout the day, it is amazing how many things are happening by my body that is just happening, without any control from me. It is just doing things and thinking things, with out any involvement from me.

When I look, I clearly see that things are happening with out any involvement from me, however, there still appears to be some resistance that "I" does not exist, or that I am not "I". I see that this resistance is just the contents of a thought, or several thoughts that come and go.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

You did a nice looking.

As I look throughout the day, it is amazing how many things are happening by my body that is just happening, without any control from me. It is just doing things and thinking things, with out any involvement from me.

How is it known that the body is the one doing the thinking?

Can it be observed the body doing the thinking?
Is the body the thinker?
If yes, how is it known?

And WHERE is the ‘me’ that doesn’t have any involvement in what is happening?
Where is the location of this ‘me’?

When I look, I clearly see that things are happening with out any involvement from me, however, there still appears to be some resistance that "I" does not exist, or that I am not "I". I see that this resistance is just the contents of a thought, or several thoughts that come and go.

Let’s look at this resistance.

What would happen if it turned out that indeed there is no me/self/entity inside the body making decisions?

Resistance can be a hindrance of going further. But actually, resistance is nothing more than a protective mechanism, and it does its job well. There is a belief, a story somewhere about pain or negative consequences to seeing the illusion of the self. And the resistance tries to protect you from these supposed negative consequences. So let’s find out what this story is about and see if they are real threats or not.

What I’d like you to do is to investigate this resistance. Examine it closely. Feel it. Don’t try to fix it or solve it, just sit with it.

Ask the resistance as if it were a some kind of entity:
What do you want to protect me from?
What is the ‘negative’ story, what would happen if the illusion of the self is seen through?

Observe what visual thoughts and stories come up ‘justifying’ its right to resist.
If you ignore the stories (thoughts) and visual thoughts what is BEHIND the resistance?

Vivien

[Brenda]

How is it known that the body is the one doing the thinking?

the body is not thinking. Maybe I didn't word it correctly. What I meant by "thinking" is thoughts are appearing.
I do not see anything or anybody doing the thinking.

Can it be observed the body doing the thinking?

no it cannot.

Is the body the thinker?

No

If yes, how is it known?

It is not.

And WHERE is the ‘me’ that doesn’t have any involvement in what is happening?

I am not sure how else to word it with out using words such as "I" and "me".
I do not see any "me" anywhere.

Where is the location of this ‘me’?

I do not see the "me" anywhere.

What would happen if it turned out that indeed there is no me/self/entity inside the body making decisions?

I have been looking at "resistance" all day.
I do not see the "me" or "I" anywhere doing anything.
As I look at the contents of the thoughts talking about resistance, I see that there is a concern about what would be lost without the I. I see see the contents of the thoughts saying emotion brings excitement into life. I also see that the contents of thoughts are not real, and not accurate. And so I see that nothing would change if there was no me.

Ask the resistance as if it were a some kind of entity:
What do you want to protect me from?
What is the ‘negative’ story, what would happen if the illusion of the self is seen through?

"Resistance" does not protect me from anything as it is just the contents of a thought. I see the contents of thought talking about how it should be, but I also see that these are not real. I am clear on the illusion they create.
The negative story was discussed above. I see nothing would happen if the illusion of the self was seen through. I see that life would still happen either way. I see that "resistance" is just the contents of a thought and is not real. It is not experienced, it is an illusion.

Observe what visual thoughts and stories come up ‘justifying’ its right to resist.
If you ignore the stories (thoughts) and visual thoughts what is BEHIND the resistance?

The stories which arise justifying its right to resist is I would miss out on the fun of emotions. That I would be missing out on something.
As I see that these thoughts are just thoughts and do not "believe" the contents of the thoughts I see that resistance is just another thought. A thought that was believed. "BEHIND" the resistance is just a thought.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

And so I see that nothing would change if there was no me.

Yes, nothing really would change, since there is ALREADY no ‘me’.
So it’s not about having a ‘me’, and as the result of this investigation the ‘me’ would be lost, or annihilated.
Not at all. There is ALREADY no self. It’s never ever been there.
So the only thing that changes is the experiential REALIZATION that there is no me.
Only the belief in the self falls away.

The stories which arise justifying its right to resist is I would miss out on the fun of emotions. That I would be missing out on something.

But the emotions won’t be lost at all.
Emotions won’t go away or stop appearing just because the self is seen through.
There is already no self, and there are emotions.
So when the self is seen through, the emotions will appear just as now.

Now let’s go back to investigate the process of decision making.

Please put some chocolate (or something you think you shouldn’t eat or drink) in front of you. Look at it. Inspect it closely. Smell its delicious fragrance. And pay attention to emerging desire to eat it.
When the desire is there, pay close attention to the thought process.

See how thoughts list pros and cons why you should or shouldn’t eat the chocolate.
These opposing thoughts might even try to argue or convince each other what to decide.

What is it that is considering these options?
Is there anything that is listing the pros and cons, or only just thoughts appear about pros and cons? – look very carefully

Now, make a decision, but whatever you decide, don’t eat the chocolate (yet). Rather just pay very close attention when the decision is made. Particularly pay attention to thoughts, as the decision is made.

Let’s say a thought appear: “I decided not to eat the chocolate”
So the thought about the decision just appeared. What made that thought to appear?
Can you find the thing that made that decision, apart from the presence of the thought about the decision?
How exactly the decision is made?

Now, do according to the decision. (Either eat or don’t eat the chocolate.)
What is it that performed the chosen action?

Vivien