The Gate

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
I am not the same person I was 10 years ago nor will I be the same person 10 years from now. I am not even the same person today as I was yesterday nor will I be the same tomorrow. There appears to be no concrete self although it sure feels like there is. I am a continuum of consciousness perhaps but no real solid self.

What are you looking for at LU?
I would like to experience the truth that underlies the illusion of self. I intuitively feel and intellectually think many things to be true, however, I lack direct experience of said truths. I'm looking to add the dimension of experience to my intellectual (and fairly impotent) spirituality so to speak.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
I don't expect anything other than that a conversation will take place. I look to get feedback that will help expedite my self inquiry. I look forward to having someone help me focus my efforts with appropriate Q & A. At present I find myself overwhelmed by the amount of information and techniques that I have been introduced too. I feel it would be best to discontinue learning more and often conflicting intellectual knowledge in favor of a personal search for experience.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Started with a personal surrender to something greater than myself. Prior to this I was a staunch atheist / materialist. A personal problem led to an almost instantaneous change of heart. Since then I have read, prayed, and meditated according to just about anyone's ideas and always with an open mind. It's been a long and winding journey along may paths which all seem to indicate that finding the truth is an inside job.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?: 10

Hello, Starr!
Welcome to LU. :)

Thanks for sharing your personal information, and I feel this is a good
place for an open-minded person like you.

Our single focus here is on seeing through the illusion
of a concrete, separate entity called self (or "I," "me" etc.).

I feel that focus and honesty are the two keys to
open the door, so please read the questions carefully,
and be 100% honest when answering the questions.

When you are ready, let me know.
We can start from the first question. :)

Looking forward to your reply.

Bananafish

I am ready and waiting. I appreciate the reply and greatly look forward to working with you.

I am ready and waiting. I appreciate the reply and greatly look forward to working with you.

Great!

Here's the first question ...

When you say "I am ready and waiting."

What does the "I" in the sentence refer to?
Where, when, and in what kind of form does this "I" exist?

Regards,

Bananafiah

The I refers to this brain, body, and feelings. This brain was waiting. The waiting is a feeling of anticipation which was accompanied by thoughts involving the memory that a question would soon be posted.

Language seems to make using words like I, me, and myself very difficult to avoid or at least must more convent to employ regardless of the implications.

The obvious first. "I" appears in thoughts in the form of thoughts. The more subtle. "I" seems to rear its head when a decision is made, when 2 or more thoughts must be compared, using other thoughts of course, but only one idea can actually happen. Like waking up to an alarm and 1 thought says get out of bed and another thought says screw it sleep in. "I" wants to claim ownership of making the decision. Of course the decision, or choice, is merely another thought declaring which option wins out. So decision itself is just another thought.

Another time that "I" seems to surface is in regard to personal preferences. If onions are tasted they are not liked. Thought says onions are not liked. Memory says onions were never liked. This life long aversion to onions is something that can feel as though it defines an "I". Taste in food is not a thought, it is not a feeling, it is a direct and repeatable experience that seems to indicate that "I" do not like onions, for real, not just as a thought or feeling. Perhaps it could be said that these taste buds do not like onions. But Do taste buds actually have preferences or do they just rely taste information to the brain? Then it could be said that this brain does not like the sensation associated with the taste of onions.

After signing up I read a lot of gate less gate crashes as well as some of the posts on this forum. I did not just read. I looked to find out the answers to the questions asked of others in the book. Looking will continue. Point the way.

The I refers to this brain, body, and feelings. This brain was waiting.

Did the brain type that sentence? What about the body? Do feelings type?
What is the "I" that types?

The obvious first. "I" appears in thoughts in the form of thoughts.
The more subtle. "I" seems to rear its head when a decision is made, when 2 or more thoughts must be compared, using other thoughts of course, but only one idea can actually happen. Like waking up to an alarm and 1 thought says get out of bed and another thought says screw it sleep in. "I" wants to claim ownership of making the decision. Of course the decision, or choice, is merely another thought declaring which option wins out. So decision itself is just another thought.

That's a very nice observation. You saw it clearly. :)
Yes, two thoughts can't appear simultaneously,
and decision is another thought after one thought.

Now, can the thought"I" decide anything?
Can the thought "I" do anything?

This life long aversion to onions is something that can feel as though it defines an "I". Taste in food is not a thought, it is not a feeling, it is a direct and repeatable experience that seems to indicate that "I" do not like onions, for real, not just as a thought or feeling.

Does it really indicate that?

Eat an onion (actually do it!) and see if "I" do not like onions, or it is just
that there's just the feeling of aversion towards onions, without a subject to
dislike them.

it could be said that this brain does not like the sensation associated with the taste of onions.

Is the brain "I"?
If so, which part of the brain is "I"?
Can you actually experience the "I" as a brain?

Isn't it strange to say that the brain walks or types
this sentence?

After signing up I read a lot of gate less gate crashes as well as some of the posts on this forum. I did not just read. I looked to find out the answers to the questions asked of others in the book. Looking will continue. Point the way.

Great, but forget about anything you've read so far (even the LU ones) and
focus on our conversation here and now.

You're doing great, Starr. :)
Please answer all the questions I wrote above.

Bananafish

Did the brain type that sentence? What about the body? Do feelings type?
What is the "I" that types?

Ok. The body types, or more specifically, the fingers type. But why? At who's direction? Again the "I" wants to butt in. However, on closer examination it seems thought alone is directing the fingers to type. There is the thought to type "xyz". xyz. And there it is, on the screen. No "I" is needed. Just thought and fingers. As this is written much contemplation takes place. It can seem that contemplation is a different or special kind of directed thought. Random, often nonsensical thoughts drone on endlessly day in and day out. But contemplation? Directed, seemingly logical thought? The "I" would once again like to declare ownership of such focused thought. Of course the idea of a special kind of directed thought is, well, just another thought.

What about the obvious difference between the effortless quality of the daydreaming style of thoughts as opposed to the intensity and focus of problem solving thoughts? One feels without direction while the other feels highly directed. But who is then directing? If no one is directing then how to account for strong contrast in feelings between the two. Feelings exsist and need no director, or do they? Often it seems thoughts induce or at least proceed feelings. Feelings often follow thought and thought needs no director, it just happens. So then the difference in feeling between daydreaming and problem solving is just that. A difference in feeling. Thought can feel very directed. But that is just a feeling. Not evidence of a director. Whew! That about shorted a fuse! What Is being missed?

This may be repititious but what of attention? Someone says "hey, wake up, pay attention to this". Immediately the thought stream quiets and attention is is focused. Here again "I" wants to claim ownership. "I" wants to say that "it" is what snapped "us" out of daydreaming and directed "our" attention to focus. Hmm.... Again with this directing. If there is no director then why did attention become directed when asked by an outside source? I suppose it once again stems from thought. The request was introduced to "wake up and pay attention", there was a feeling of anxiety and urgency, and a thought that says focus attention now! It seems to come back to feelings. Focused attention has a much different feel than causal thought. But is that all it is? A difference in feeling? What Is being missed?

Now, can the thought"I" decide anything?
Can the thought "I" do anything?

This is sticky. The thought "I" can not decide anything. However, the thought ""I" must not sleep in, "I" must get up" is a decision. Then again so is the thought "no sleeping in, time to get up". Both thoughts are equal in their results so it appears that "I" is completely functionless in this example.

"I" can do nothing other than append itself to an already complete and fully functioning thought.

Does it really indicate that?

Eat an onion (actually do it!) and see if "I" do not like onions, or it is just
that there's just the feeling of aversion towards onions, without a subject to
dislike them.

Oh lord. Actually eat an onion? Ugh. Ok. An onion is tasted. Imediatley there is a strong physical reaction. Face muscles contort. Stomach contracts. Nose runs. There is an alarming feeling as if poison may have been ingested. Thought says "told you not to eat it!" There is no "I" present in any of this. The sense of "I" seems to want to attach to the life long series of this exact experience playing out many many times over the years. So if it is not "I" who so clearly hates onions then who is it that hates them? From where does this aversion stem? How can taste be either good or bad without something deciding it so? The aversion to onions is not a thought, it is a physical reaction. The aversion to onions may result in negative feelings but is not a feeling itself. The aversion to onions is a physical reaction. So what then is a physical reaction? Physical reactions certainly affects thought and results in feelings but seems to be something other than thought or feelings. What Is being missed?

Either way it seems clear that "I" is not involved but something other than thought and feeling seems to be. If not "I" then what? Is aversion to flavor part of body? Where does this inherinet and somewhat unique aversion reside? The nature or substance of involuntary reaction still seems unclear. What is being missed?

Is the brain "I"?
If so, which part of the brain is "I"?
Can you actually experience the "I" as a brain?

Isn't it strange to say that the brain walks or types
this sentence?

Ok, the brain is not "I". The brain is the brain. Communication seems to almost require the use of "I". In that sense "I" refers to the mind and body that presently sits in front of this computer screen. "I" can only be experienced in thoughts which are related to the brain but are not actually the physical brain.

The brain does not walk or type. Thoughts arise in the brain and thoughts direct the body to walk or type.

Great, but forget about anything you've read so far (even the LU ones) and
focus on our conversation here and now.

[/quote]

Done and done.

Thanks for the prompt reply and probing questions.

Starr

Hi Starr,

Glad that you've been sincere in
working on the questions.

One reply would be the maximum
for my workdays. I will take a
closer look at your post and send a reply
tonight after work (in Japan).

Bananafish

Understood. I live on the east coast of US. Honestly one session per day is very draining. One back and forth a day is plenty! Thank you again for your time and effort.

Ok. The body types, or more specifically, the fingers type. But why? At who's direction?

Does movement need someone's direction?

Look at the clouds in the sky.
Are they moving according to anyone's direction?
How is the movement of fingers different from the movement of clouds?

Observe the movement of your fingers while typing your reply post.

What about the obvious difference between the effortless quality of the daydreaming style of thoughts as opposed to the intensity and focus of problem solving thoughts? One feels without direction while the other feels highly directed. But who is then directing? If no one is directing then how to account for strong contrast in feelings between the two. Feelings exsist and need no director, or do they? Often it seems thoughts induce or at least proceed feelings. Feelings often follow thought and thought needs no director, it just happens. So then the difference in feeling between daydreaming and problem solving is just that. A difference in feeling. Thought can feel very directed. But that is just a feeling. Not evidence of a director. Whew! That about shorted a fuse! What Is being missed?

Fabulous! That is a really clear observation.
How does it feel to see that?

Focused attention has a much different feel than causal thought. But is that all it is? A difference in feeling? What Is being missed?

Try to see the gap between two thoughts.
When there is the gap, you're attentive to everything,
without "you" even trying to be attentive.

Please write what you felt when doing it.

"I" can do nothing other than append itself to an already complete and fully functioning thought.

Now, is the "I" a concrete entity?
Try grasping the "I." Could you do it?
Can you grasp, touch, smell, taste, etc. the "I?"

Either way it seems clear that "I" is not involved but something other than thought and feeling seems to be. If not "I" then what? Is aversion to flavor part of body? Where does this inherinet and somewhat unique aversion reside? The nature or substance of involuntary reaction still seems unclear. What is being missed?

Even "thought" and "feeling" are labels for what is happening here and now.
When there is only something that is happening here and now, why need to contemplate
on anything further? Sit on a chair and listen to the sounds around.




Sounds.




Is there anything hidden to that?
Isn't is very simple and clear?


What about when there is aversion?

Thoughts arise in the brain and thoughts direct the body to walk or type.

Is that so? In which part of the brain?
How can you know it?

When thoughts arise, can you point at the location
of the head in which thoughts appear?
Try it.

Does movement need someone's direction?

Look at the clouds in the sky.
Are they moving according to anyone's direction?
How is the movement of fingers different from the movement of clouds?

Observe the movement of your fingers while typing your reply post.

Breathing, blinking, and nervous ticks clearly do not need anyone's direction. They all happen independent of awareness or intention. However, the auto pilot functioning of these movements is disturbed or changed as soon as awareness steps in. Breathing is especially susceptible to this. As soon as I notice breathing (or as soon as breathing is noticed, just easier to write I) it stops flowing smoothly and effortlessly. Suddenly effort is used to either regulate breathing or effort is used to try and not regulate breathing by returning to the previous state where there was no awareness of breathing. So awareness / attention can directly effect movement. Does this movement need direction? No. Still it appears movement can be directed. When movement is directed, in this case, it appears that awareness itself is doing the directing. Awareness is not a someone so it seems no one is required to direct this type of movement. That is unless I consider myself awareness instead of Starr :)

What if movement is considered in the case of complex assembly like putting a new futon frame together. You know the kind that come in a box with instructions an engineer would have trouble following. Here attention / awareness is present from start to finish, no auto pilot movements. Successful completion of this requires the directions. This requires the directions to exist which requires that someone wrote them. But neither the author of the instructions nor the instructions themselves are actually directing the movement of the assembler. The movement of the assembler happens with full awareness of every step. So if the assembler, using the instructions, is not actually directing the assembly then it appears that awareness itself is somehow responsible for directing this type of movement. Can awareness read, comprehend, and execute complex instructions all on its own?

Clouds do not move to anyone's direction. The energy that drives the winds that move the clouds can be traced through the solar system and then universe back to a point beyond which nothing can be known. Clearly no ones directing here.

Movement of fingers on keyboard appears somewhat different. I can type fast and would say that the typing itself is almost auto pilot. However, the words do appear to exist as thought before they are typed by the fingers. So here it appears as though thought is directing the fingers. Hmm... How can thought direct? Thought presents ideas, options. Not all ideas are acted upon. Back too the two thoughts of "sleep in some more" and "time to get your butt out of bead!". Only one can be acted upon and it shows up as a thought confirming "yes time to get up". So what actually chooses which thought to go with? Is it I, me, or myself? Or is it simply awareness again? Can awareness itself choose between thoughts and thus direct movement? Ouch, my brain is starting to hurt!

Fabulous! That is a really clear observation.
How does it feel to see that?

It feels like just another feeling, a good feeling to be sure but just a feeling.

Try to see the gap between two thoughts.
When there is the gap, you're attentive to everything,
without "you" even trying to be attentive.

Please write what you felt when doing it.

Without me trying? How can I not be trying when the first step in this exercise involves me trying?

Oh, trying to see the gap not trying to be attentive. Gotcha. Yes this can be seen very clearly. When thought subsides there is always full awareness. Oh wow. I see now, for the first time ever, that thought does not create or direct attention but instead thought steals attention. Attention that needs no creating as its already there. Always present but mostly being hogged by thought. Thought seen in light of this does not appear to be the good friend I'd always assumed it was. Thought seems to effectively hide the true nature of attention.

When the space between thoughts was observed the mind was clear. Attention is fully given to the senses. Feels very intense, almost like the senses are heightened. Most closely resembles being in danger oddly enough. Like I just heard a gun shot or other threatening load noise. Feels like whole body is extra alive almost buzzing. Feels like being fully alive. No more thoughts hogging energy.

Now, is the "I" a concrete entity?
Try grasping the "I." Could you do it?
Can you grasp, touch, smell, taste, etc. the "I?"

Absolutely not. The "I" is a dynamic entity. The only thing constant about it except change.

There is nothing to grasp. The only way in which the "I" can be experienced is in thought. Never through the senses. Looking into thought for "I" all that is seen is a crude hazy caricature of physical body of Starr. Can "I" be felt? Does not appear to have any feeling. What about abstract things like faith? It can't be touched, tasted, etc... But it does appear to have a feeling. Hmm.... Is faith any more real than "I"? It feels like it is.

Even "thought" and "feeling" are labels for what is happening here and now.
When there is only something that is happening here and now, why need to contemplate
on anything further? Sit on a chair and listen to the sounds around.




Sounds.




Is there anything hidden to that?
Isn't is very simple and clear?


What about when there is aversion?

When there are sounds it is simple. It is clear. No need for any contemplation.

When there is aversion it is simple. There is aversion. No need for contemplation.

Is that so? In which part of the brain?
How can you know it?

When thoughts arise, can you point at the location
of the head in which thoughts appear?
Try it.

I can't pin point a location. I know that brain damage inhibits the ability for complex thoughts where as damage to any other body part can not affect thoughts. So it's clear the brain and thought are tied together somehow. However just because the brain is involved in thought somehow does not mean the brain generates thoughts or that thoughts arise in it.

This continues to be an intense and draining experience and "I" wouldn't have it any other way! Thank you as always for your time. The questions you ask are very effective. Please ask more.

Starr

When movement is directed, in this case, it appears that awareness itself is doing the directing. Awareness is not a someone so it seems no one is required to direct this type of movement. That is unless I consider myself awareness instead of Starr :)

Is awareness something special apart from what is moving, happening, appearing and
disappearing here, now? Can there be awareness without the objects to be aware?
Are object, subject, awareness, things, movements ... separate?

Go for a walk and examine the above.

(It would be helpful to to do this after taking a little time for
resting in the gap between thoughts.)

Can awareness read, comprehend, and execute complex instructions all on its own?

Can awareness itself choose between thoughts and thus direct movement?

You have to LOOK directly into the nature of what you call
awareness, and find it out yourself.

There is nothing to grasp. The only way in which the "I" can be experienced is in thought. Never through the senses. Looking into thought for "I" all that is seen is a crude hazy caricature of physical body of Starr. Can "I" be felt? Does not appear to have any feeling. What about abstract things like faith? It can't be touched, tasted, etc... But it does appear to have a feeling. Hmm.... Is faith any more real than "I"? It feels like it is.

Great! The "I" is an abstraction ...
Is your understanding of the "I" different from that of when you
started this dialogue?

However just because the brain is involved in thought somehow does not mean the brain generates thoughts or that thoughts arise in it.

Do thoughts have a location?

Is awareness something special apart from what is moving, happening, appearing and
disappearing here, now? Can there be awareness without the objects to be aware?
Are object, subject, awareness, things, movements ... separate?

Go for a walk and examine the above.

(It would be helpful to to do this after taking a little time for
resting in the gap between thoughts.)

Things move or stay still, things happen or don't happen, things appear and disappear, but awareness always is. Awareness feels like the constant backdrop upon which all other things do whatever they do.

A car drives by, a bird chirps, the wind blows, etc... These certainly seem like separate happenings. A car is seen then it is gone around the next curve. A bird is heard then stops chirping. The wind gusts but then grows still. Awareness, however, does not come and go. It is not here then gone. It does not stop. Awareness seems too always be. This feels right yet somehow seems wrong.

What are objects? All physical things as well as thoughts? If so then it would seem with nothing to sense and no thought occurring, as in the case of a coma, that there are 2 possibilities.

1. No object = No awareness
2. Somehow awareness can be aware of nothing or itself

It seems that without anything to be aware of that awareness could not possibly exist. So then awareness, although seemingly special and separate from the objects of awareness is in fact dependent on said objects.

Further clarity still seems needed.

Can awareness read, comprehend, and execute complex instructions all on its own?

Can awareness itself choose between thoughts and thus direct movement?

You have to LOOK directly into the nature of what you call
awareness, and find it out yourself.

OK. It seems clear that nothing needs to read, that nothing needs to direct, but it feels like understanding complex topics is still somehow special. Why can one person understand calculus while another struggles with basic algebra? There is a difference here between these two. There is some quality that one has more of or the other lacks. Call it intelligence. So then the answer would be no. Awareness does not read, comprehend, and execute complex instructions but rather a persons level of intelligence determines if, using awareness, those complex problems can be solved.

When it comes to making choices it seems clear that awareness is not in charge. Awareness of thought presents choices but does not make them or carry them out. It does not seem that choices are made randomly so what then is the driving force of choice? It seems choices are "decided" by the current aversions and desires. Aversions and desires are always changing and are certainly not being controlled by "me". They appear to be the shaped by external events. So if this is true, which it seems to be, then it would imply that there is nothing, no force, or intelligence (let alone an "I" or a "me") that is in charge of making choices. That is kind of scary.

Great! The "I" is an abstraction ...
Is your understanding of the "I" different from that of when you
started this dialogue?

Its hard to answer this question. When we started there was already no concrete "I" detectable. If anything it seems the true nature of "I" has been reinforced. However, every afternoon when the questions of the day are reviewed and answered, things seem much different than the day before. This is certainly true of today.

Do thoughts have a location?

None that I can identify. I will say that thoughts seem to be repeated aloud in my head by a voice that sounds as if it is my own.

Ten people can look at the same picture yet all ten will have different thoughts regarding it. So the exact location of thoughts may be unknown, however, wherever that location is, it appears to be a different location for each person. If thoughts all existed in one location then why does everyone only have access to "theirs"? Or would you say thoughts have no location. Either way further clarity seems needed.

I appreciate this guidance immensely. It is hard to put into words the gratitude that exists. It is still far from clear where this is headed, however, it is strongly apparent that it is headed somewhere. I had spinning in circles with all this for several months prior to working with you and no amount information seemed to be helping. If anything clarity was becoming further obscured the more that was read. Thank you.

Things move or stay still, things happen or don't happen, things appear and disappear, but awareness always is. Awareness feels like the constant backdrop upon which all other things do whatever they do.

Are awareness and world different?

Awareness, however, does not come and go. It is not here then gone. It does not stop. Awareness seems too always be. This feels right yet somehow seems wrong.

What about during sleep?

It seems that without anything to be aware of that awareness could not possibly exist. So then awareness, although seemingly special and separate from the objects of awareness is in fact dependent on said objects.


Further clarity still seems needed.

Here I want you to clearly see if awareness and objects are two separate things.
Look at an object and examine wether there is something special called
awareness there.


Which one describes reality more precisely?

1. Object.

2. Awareness aware of the object.

Why can one person understand calculus while another struggles with basic algebra? There is a difference here between these two. There is some quality that one has more of or the other lacks. Call it intelligence. So then the answer would be no. Awareness does not read, comprehend, and execute complex instructions but rather a persons level of intelligence determines if, using awareness, those complex problems can be solved.

I'm afraid this has nothing to do with what we're trying to investigate here.
There's need for a sharper focus now.

When it comes to making choices it seems clear that awareness is not in charge. Awareness of thought presents choices but does not make them or carry them out. It does not seem that choices are made randomly so what then is the driving force of choice? It seems choices are "decided" by the current aversions and desires. Aversions and desires are always changing and are certainly not being controlled by "me". They appear to be the shaped by external events. So if this is true, which it seems to be, then it would imply that there is nothing, no force, or intelligence (let alone an "I" or a "me") that is in charge of making choices. That is kind of scary.

You have to see it directly, without speculating.

Can you feel the fear of finding out that there is no "I" to
make choices?

How do you feel?
Can you elaborate?

however, wherever that location is, it appears to be a different location for each person. If thoughts all existed in one location then why does everyone only have access to "theirs"? Or would you say thoughts have no location. Either way further clarity seems needed.

Can you directly feel other person's thought?
If so, how? How can you say that other people experience
thoughts just like you do?

Why speculate? You have to face YOUR thoughts, feeling, the facts about
yourself, not others'.

I appreciate this guidance immensely. It is hard to put into words the gratitude that exists. It is still far from clear where this is headed, however, it is strongly apparent that it is headed somewhere. I had spinning in circles with all this for several months prior to working with you and no amount information seemed to be helping. If anything clarity was becoming further obscured the more that was read. Thank you.

You're doing great, Starr. :)
It's my pleasure to be your guide.

Are awareness and world different?

It feels like the world is out there and awareness is in here. Sometimes. Right now I look at the iPad in my hands. It is seen. It is there in the world in my hands. Where is the awareness? Honestly don't know where awareness is. Thoughts saying "the iPad is there in your hands in the world" is repeated aloud in what feels like my head but that is thought not awareness. Honestly it feels like the awareness is everywhere. The world feels like it's out there. Thoughts and feelings feel like they are in here. Awareness feels like it's out there and in here.

What about during sleep?

During sleep presents a few cases...

1. Normal dreams
2. Dreams where you know its a dream
3. Dreamless sleep

Both normal and lucid dreaming result in the formation of memories and both appear to have awareness present. During dreamless sleep all that can be said is that no memories are formed. Does no memories formed mean no awareness? Not sure.

If I drink to much at a party and black out, upon awakening the next morning I have no memory of walking home, eating leftovers, or undressing and getting in bed. However I was still functioning well enough to do all these things its just that no memory exists for that time. Dreamless sleep seems the same. I wake up with no memory of being asleep yet the clock on the night stand clearly shows several hours have passed and the general disarray of the covers shows I was moving around quite a bit.

So although life is still happening in both of the above cases (walking home while drunk and rolling around in bed while in dreamless sleep) there are no memories in either case. This lack of memories seems to give the feeling that there is no awareness. With no memory of something how could there have been awareness of something? But how can I walk home without awareness? Isn't awareness required to navigate the walk home and then upstairs and into bed? Surely being drunk can blot out memories of what was done but how could anything have been done at all without awareness? It feels like awareness and the formation of memory are somehow related.

Once I had minor surgery and was put under. I came out of it hours later but could not detect any passage of time. One second I'm in the OR the next I'm in recovery. Usually even in deep dreamless sleep there seems to be some awareness of time passing. When I wake up it does not feel like I went to sleep just 1 second ago as was the case with anesthesia. Under anesthesia, by any standard, awareness seems to stop. The implications of this remain unclear.

Here I want you to clearly see if awareness and objects are two separate things.
Look at an object and examine wether there is something special called
awareness there.


Which one describes reality more precisely?

1. Object.

2. Awareness aware of the object.

There is nothing special called awareness present while examining an object. There is just the object. Seems quite obvious at the moment. Still unclear on the implications of this realization.

The object is reality. Awareness of the object is limited by the capacity of the senses. I am farsighted so the object appears to be blurry. The object is not in fact blurry though, its my awareness of it that is. So then the object itself more precisely describes reality.

You have to see it directly, without speculating.

Can you feel the fear of finding out that there is no "I" to
make choices?

How do you feel?
Can you elaborate?

It is a scary concept that choice is an illusion for sure but fear of this being true does not exist. If anything it seems a sense of relief accompanies the idea that this may be true. Decisions and choices are often stressful and permeated with doubt and insecurity. The idea that choice is an illusion seems to indicate that all the uneasyness surrounding choice is not necessary and that perhaps it could be dispensed.

That choice is an illusion is easy to see for the most part. I took a long bike ride last night and noticed that everything happening (legs peddling, breathing, the course that was taken, course correction for curbs or pot holes, etc.. ) just happens. There was no need to choose which direction to go or choose to peddle the bike or choose to avoid a pot hole. All this just happens. Choice comes in after the fact with a thought saying "I choose to avoid that pot hole" but if actual contemplation and choice were required to avoid a pot hole in the dark at 15mph then I would have wrecked the bike by the time a choice was made. It can be difficult to notice because it all happens fast, however, with focus it is clear that choice comes in as a thought after the action has already occurred.

When faced with something like a change in employer, as is presently the case, the illusion of choice is still alive and well. In this situation there are several options available and much time and effort goes into comparing them all before deciding who my new employer will be. In this situation, having much time to consider all options and thinking at length about each, choice is much harder to deny. Still, even now, I realize that the job I "decide" to take is due to aversions and desires that already exist and over which I have no control. The employer that is chosen was chosen because of the circumstances that existed before the options were ever even considered. Still the feeling of choice being real persists to some extent.

Can you directly feel other person's thought?
If so, how? How can you say that other people experience
thoughts just like you do?

Why speculate? You have to face YOUR thoughts, feeling, the facts about
yourself, not others'.

The only thoughts that can be heard/felt are the ones associated with me. I can't feel /hear anyone else's thoughts. I can not even say for 100 percent sure that any thoughts, besides the ones directly experienced, even exist. I can not say where thoughts exist but it feels like their in my head. Where exactly? I have no idea. It is agreed that only the thoughts I am aware of will be of consideration from now on.

I read your questions in the morning and then try to observe the answers throughout the day. Everyday this is a challenge. A challenge that is greatly appreciated. Thank you.