The Gate

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
I understand very little and trying to explain what I know only seems to obscure my ignorance.
I seem to exist- but this person seems to happen regardless of my opinions. Thoughts , feelings, etc. Arranged into a cloud formation that is labelled 'Me' . By whom is it labelled? I can pull a bucket of water from a lake and not diminish the lake.

What are you looking for at LU?
I want to flip the switch and finally give up on this charade. To stop hiding. To stop looking.
But mostly I want to know who would even benefit from this. Who is observing the observer? What is even happening, if I am not here to be seeing it? I want clarity... But also I want satisfaction in this life.
I want to know what wanting even is.
I want to stop looking more than anything. I want to know who wants that. What is the potential of life , unconditioned? This question is burning in me and despite the bizarre circumstances of our life right now, or maybe because of them, I see answering it as more important than ever.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
I hope a guide can help me by piercing through what I think I know, and showing me the depth of my ignorance. I want to work with someone who can ask me the questions that need to be asked so that I can really see and understand this thing. I need help putting down the 'I know' . I mean, simply, I expect a guided conversation to help me directly understand no-self, like it says on the tin. I read gateless gatecrashers and I feel absolutely lit up about it. I keep catching myself trying to be clever, but that's it , really. What more could I want?

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Lots of different stuff. I was deep into psychedelics as a teenager and got interested in spirituality that way. I met an amazing mentor when I was 18 and she introduced me to Tibetan Buddhism and her teacher, a sand mandala maker. Around this time I started attending sweat lodges with some native friends. I took part in vision quests. I discovered vipassana meditation when I was about 20 and spent most of three years doing retreats. I got into diamond way Buddhism and until I met lama ole I was loving it. Ive had the opportunity to sit in peyote meetings and ayahuasca ceremonies. I basically had a failed career as a jack Kerouac impersonator. I have unlimited access to a float tank so I use that lots. I have been working with a mentor for the past few years who has helped immensely and recommended that I sign up here.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
11

Hi Hawthorne,

My name is Bella, and I’m happy to assist in exploring no-self with you.

You and I will simply have a conversation, but this process is essentially an extension of your own inquiry. It is 'guided' so that specific areas may be examined.

I am not a teacher. This is YOUR inquiry. I will not be giving you new ideas and beliefs; only assisting you in examining and questioning the ones that you already have.

Before we begin, here are links to information I would like you to read please. 
Disclaimer:-
http://liberationunleashed.com/disclaimer-2/

Terms & Conditions:
https://www.liberationunleashed.com/register/terms/

“Liberation Unleashed is not …” in the FAQ’s of LU. 
http://liberationunleashed.com/about/faq/#faq-1041 

A few ground rules:
1. Post at least once a day, if you cannot post, or need more time, please let me know.
2. Be 100% honest in your answers and inquiry.
3. This exploration is based on Actual (or Direct) Experience (AE or DE) - smell, taste, sound, sensation, color and thoughts - only. Long-winded analytical and philosophical answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress. This is not a self-improvement process. There is no ‘self’ to improve.
4. Put aside all other teachings, philosophies and such for the remainder of this investigation. Really put all your effort and attention in to seeing this reality, as it is. If you have a daily and essential meditation practice, it is fine to continue that.
5. Understand that I will be guiding you, rather than teaching you, and the more you put into this process the more you will get out of it.

A few technical support:

- You can reply to this thread by pushing the 'Post Reply" button at the left bottom of this page.
- You can learn to use the quote function, instructions are located in the link below this line:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=660

Technology is not perfect and sometimes there is a glitch which can wipe out your responses. It is advisable that you copy and paste questions asked into Word, answer them there and then copy and paste them to your thread. Always save a copy of what you have done, it will save time in the long run.


If you are happy to agree to the above and have me your guide, we can start the process. 

To begin with, so that we both become aware of what your expectations are about this exploration (for example, what life will look and feel like and what you want/hope will change or not change). Could you please answer the following questions:

How will Life change?
How will you change?
What will be different?
What is missing?

Throughout this exploration I would like you to answer ALL questions that I have written in blue text. Please answer questions INDIVIDUALLY, remembering to use the Quote function to highlight the question being answered.

Bella

Thank you so much for your response, Bella. It's great to be connected. Let's begin!

If you are happy to agree to the above and have me your guide, we can start the process. 

I am very happy to agree to that. Thank you so much for guiding me. I appreciate this so much. I certainly do not take this opportunity for granted, and I’ll do my best to show my appreciation through dedication to the process. I can commit to one post a day, certainly. I will be honest. I will avoid telling you what I know, and theorizing. I will stick to my experience. I will put aside all other practices, as requested.
And finally, thank you again for guiding me. I respect and understand the distinction between teacher and guide. I take full accountability for my process, including anything I don’t like.

How will Life change?

I’m not sure it will change. Perhaps I can live more fully and honestly. Maybe, without the distraction of labelling everything “me, mine”, there’s more to see? I am driven by curiosity more than hope for a particular outcome. But then, as someone pointed out to me, who would benefit from that if there’s no ‘me’ in the first place? I sincerely don’t know the answer to this.

How will you change?

I might not waste as much time on things that don’t matter... perhaps my behaviour would change to reflect the limited time I have on earth. Things that matter to “Hawthorne” might not be that important from a different perspective.
I might be more honest and simple. But maybe I’m already exactly as I am, regardless of what label I put on it.
I come back to this again and again - if there’s already no self, then why would anything change at all? I feel like I’m trying to solve this paradox. It makes me frown and concentrate, when I’m not certain there’s really anything to solve here at all. Maybe it’s just hard to accept. It seems like an invisible rubix cube.

What will be different?

I honestly do not know what will change, if anything. I suspect I will have a different and maybe more accurate perspective on reality. But again... who will have it, and if it’s no one, why bother? I keep reading that it’s just how it is already. An apparent paradox. I have absolutely no idea, it’s uncharted territory.
I just don’t know.

What is missing?

Lived, real experience, understanding, and acceptance of the reality of no-self.

Hi Hawthorne,

That’s good. No expectations. Expectations are indeed a hindrance to this investigation. Open ended curiosity is good.

First I want to explain how to get about in this inquiry.
Discovering that the “I” we experience is actually an illusion, is done by examining our direct or actual experience. This examining is done bij LOOKING.

What is looking into direct, or actual experience (DE/AE)?
DE/AE is what you can sense in the NOW. Sensing with your sense organs. Images, sounds, smells, tastes and touch/sensation. And also thought as fact of thoughts happening, not getting caught up in their content. Looking into DE means that you notice the sense experience before thought kicks in.

In that way you can observe what is there BEFORE interpretation happens. And then you can also observe HOW interpretation happens, the labelling and storytelling, the thoughts ABOUT the raw experience. 

The key to this exploration is the careful LOOKING. Why? Because it’s the act of actually LOOKING and not finding an “I” that brings about the realisation of there being no separate self and that there has never been a separate self.

Another key component of this exploration is being able to tell the difference between your direct sense experience and the interpretation by thought of it.

Here's an exercise that will help you to see what we mean exactly by direct experience. I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities simply colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:

Seeing a cup, simply = visual sight
Smelling coffee, simply = smell 
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation 
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought 

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all actual/direct experience) and let me how you go.

Bella

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all actual/direct experience) and let me how you go.

I read this exercise this morning, and I have been trying to practice it throughout the day.

The first thing I noticed is how hard it is to remember to do this!

Nonetheless, I had some success in labelling thoughts, sensations, and so on as they arose.

I noticed that doing this brought about an incredibly simple state of mind. Thoughts did not tend to elaborate- what is there to say regarding 'warm.' or 'sound.' ?
A few times, thoughts which were 'self-referential' arose; it was very interesting to label these as 'thought'. The thoughts which were very 'me-some' were placed in the same category as the sound of a passing car. Very cool exercise. I will continue with this tomorrow.

This simplicity appeals to me as much as it frustrates me. It's just 'that'. There's a thought about how "I" "am". Thought. There's the taste of an egg. Taste. There's music playing. Sound. And so on. So maybe all my 'selfing' is like that... just transient sensations with a sticker on them. But how do I stay in that?

I'm trying not to get too wordy or conceptual here because that's my habit. Let me know if you'd like more detail. Thank you, and I look forward to your next reply.

Hi Hawthorne,

. It's just 'that'. There's a thought about how "I" "am". Thought. There's the taste of an egg. Taste. There's music playing. Sound. And so on. So maybe all my 'selfing' is like that... just transient sensations with a sticker on them.

Very good.

Let’s have a deeper look on thoughts. Sit for about 15 minutes and investigate these questions:

Where do thoughts come from?
Where are they going?
Can ‘you’ stop a thought in the middle?
Can ‘you’ predict what will be the next thought?
Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

Please go through these questions and answer and quote them one-by-one. Try to answer them only from direct experience, and leave aside all intellectual interpretation or understanding. Please, DON’T THINK about the answers, rather LOOK at what is before thoughts. Take your time.

Bella

Where do thoughts come from?

They seem to be emerging from the previous thought, or at least the impression that thought has left in 'the mind'.

Where are they going?

They seem to turn into another thought or at least a 'feeling-tone'. Sometimes there seem to be no thoughts, but it's a very fragile state and it may be more that there are thoughts below perception. I don't know if they stop or become difficult to notice.

Can ‘you’ stop a thought in the middle?

It seems yes. I can think "thought." and whatever thought I was having just stops and dissipates. But it also seems to lay the groundwork for the next thought or similar mental process. However, doing this consistently does seem to reduce the proliferation of thoughts in general.

Can ‘you’ predict what will be the next thought?

Only as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sometimes it seems I've made a decision to think about something in particular- for instance these questions. I can start a chain of thoughts, and it seems they will be associated with the topic at hand, so I guess that's a kind of prediction. But in general, they surprise and do not seem to be under control or subject to anticipation.

Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

Kind of. I can choose to distract myself from them when they arise, interrupt them, or fill my mind with a different kind of thought. But in the long run, I will lose focus and thoughts 'I' Don't want will come back in.

Hi Hawthorne,

From your answers I can see you’re looking is not yet clear. You use the word ‘seem’ a lot. With looking, what you see is clear. It is there or it is not there. So I want you to do another excersise for that.
In this inquiry it is absolutely necessary that you know the difference between looking at your experience and thinking about it.

For this exercise we need an apple. If you have a ‘real’ apple, you can use it for this exercise. Take it in your hands and sit with it for a short while, taking it in.

When looking at the apple, a visual image with colour is there. Perhaps also a thought saying ‘apple’ pops up and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something...because that is only just more thought. Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’? Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?
While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.
This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?

Please let me know if you are clear about this or if you would like any further clarification.

I will now comment on your reply's and ask questions with the purpose to help you learn the difference between looking and interpreting.

They seem to be emerging from the previous thought, or at least the impression that thought has left in 'the mind'.

Using the word "seem" points to an interpretation, not to an actual seeing. Can you see this?
How does an 'impression in the mind' look like?

They seem to turn into another thought or at least a 'feeling-tone'.

How does the turning into look like? Can it actually be seen?

I can think "thought." and whatever thought I was having just stops and dissipates.

Was the thought that stops only half formed? Or do you mean you had a thought and were repeating it as talking inside the head and you stopped the repeating halfway? Or did the other half of the thought indeed not get formed? Please repeat this exercise: can you stop a thought in the middle?

I can start a chain of thoughts

Who is starting a chain of thoughts? Can a starter be found?

I can choose to distract myself from them when they arise

When you distract yourself, you can only do this after that painful/negative thought has already appeared. Can you see this?

Bella

From your answers I can see you’re looking is not yet clear. You use the word ‘seem’ a lot. With looking, what you see is clear. It is there or it is not there. So I want you to do another excersise for that.
In this inquiry it is absolutely necessary that you know the difference between looking at your experience and thinking about it.

Thank you for pointing this out! I habitually write like this as I am concerned about becoming dogmatic. It doesn't seem to help that much, though. :) You are right, of course... I was thinking about thinking. I noticed resistance to this idea of 'certainty' when I read this earlier, but I can see your point now. I think I have some investment in the idea that certainty is impossible. Perhaps this is a barrier.

However, is an apple actually known?

Please let me know if you are clear about this or if you would like any further clarification.

That was a great apple.
I had a 'wow' moment when I first bit into it and stayed with the earlier exercise: Thought about apple. Thought. Feeling of apple. Feeling. Taste of apple. Taste. And so on. Something was different in that moment.
None of these things is an apple. They are sensations and formations.
Where is this "apple"? Sorry if this is off-topic, but the way I make the jump to "this is an apple" from connecting these different points of information reminds me of conspiracy theories. It is drawing lines between disconnected points of information to synthesize some fixed state of reality.

Ok, to venture into certainty, I am clear on what you're saying, even if I don't live in that understanding moment-to-moment.

"Apple" is a label affixed to the pattern of qualia bearing characteristics like 'red', 'sweet', 'firm', and so on. I could as easily apprehend a convincing virtual reality depiction of an apple (i.e. The Matrix) as a 'real' apple as the one I just ate (unsettling thought), because I can only perceive sensations and thoughts, not essential things.

Am I seeing this correctly?

For clarification: Does this imply anything about the actual existence of apples (or me, for that matter)?
And although the 'apple' does not exist as such, but only as a collection of sensations, does that diminish the 'reality' of that label?

Can you see this?
How does an 'impression in the mind' look like?

It is similar to a thought but in negative space. I experience this somewhat kinesthetically, strange as that is to describe. As in, there's no clear inner dialogue or language type thought, but there's a feeling of the shape of one, the quality of which is influenced by the thoughts which were precipitating just prior. For instance, if I had been having anxious thoughts, there's a distinctly different impression than if there had been neutral, task-related thoughts. Hard to describe, but very clearly perceived in my experience.

How does the turning into look like? Can it actually be seen?

Yes, one thought influences the next one. It happens in real-time. One morphs into another. Sometimes a thought appears without any obvious relationship to the others, though. The thoughts, if they dissipate, will usually at least leave behind an emotional impression or some kind of physical sensation that is related to them qualitatively. That's what I saw. The question of where a thought ended and the feeling began and vice-versa arose in the course of this exercise.

I can think "thought." and whatever thought I was having just stops and dissipates.

Was the thought that stops only half formed? Or do you mean you had a thought and were repeating it as talking inside the head and you stopped the repeating halfway? Or did the other half of the thought indeed not get formed? Please repeat this exercise: can you stop a thought in the middle?

WOW
I just repeated this exercise and I noticed something truly strange.
I thought 'I' was interrupting a thought , but the possibility that it was only half a thought in the first place is completely impossible to ignore. What the heck!?
Now I'm trying the experiment 'can I type a response?' but I'm not sure if it's just happening on its own or not.

Was the thought that stops only half formed?

Is it possible to truly know this? How can I tell whether it's 'me' choosing to do something or it's just happening automatically and I interpret it as my own willed behaviour retroactively?

How can I tell if I choose to blink right now or if I'm blinking autonomically? This is weird!

I can start a chain of thoughts

Who is starting a chain of thoughts? Can a starter be found?

Maybe they just happen!? No, I can't see a starter. The implications of this are really intense and I feel like I'm holding a block of uranium or something.

I can choose to distract myself from them when they arise

When you distract yourself, you can only do this after that painful/negative thought has already appeared. Can you see this?

Yes, I can see that... Wow
Ok, wow.

Thank you.

Hi Hawthorne,

Something was different in that moment. 
None of these things is an apple. They are sensations and formations. 
Where is this "apple"?

Great!

Sorry if this is off-topic, but the way I make the jump to "this is an apple" from connecting these different points of information reminds me of conspiracy theories. It is drawing lines between disconnected points of information to synthesize some fixed state of reality. 

This is a good example of how we delude ourselves. During the inquiry you will get to see more of this. Drawing a (imaginary) line (by thought) between disconnected points, doesn’t make them connected.

because I can only perceive sensations and thoughts, not essential things. 
Am I seeing this correctly?

Yes, this is describing your looking into direct experience.

B: How does an 'impression in the mind' look like?

H: It is similar to a thought but in negative space.

Do you mean that an impression is the same as a thought? Or different than a thought? What else is there than the sense-perceptions (colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation and thought)?
What is the actual experience of “impression on the mind”? Look only at your direct discernible sense-perceptions, like with the apple. Which sense-perceptions are there?

Yes, one thought influences the next one.

Let’s look at the SEEMING process of influencing.
It seems that thoughts have some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

The question of where a thought ended and the feeling began and vice-versa arose in the course of this exercise.

This is an excellent question. Can you answer it? How, in your direct experience, can be witnessed were a thought ends and a feeling begins? Is it possible?

B: Can you stop a thought in the middle?

H: I just repeated this exercise and I noticed something truly strange. 
I thought 'I' was interrupting a thought , but the possibility that it was only half a thought in the first place is completely impossible to ignore. What the heck!? 

Very good you’re opening up to never seen before possibilities. But I don’t really understand fully what you mean here. Is it meant as the answer to the question? Could you then rephrase it?
Can you stop a thought in the middle?

Ok, wow. 

Great!

Bella

Hi Bella,
I hope you're well this evening.

Do you mean that an impression is the same as a thought? Or different than a thought? What else is there than the sense-perceptions (colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation and thought)?
What is the actual experience of “impression on the mind”? Look only at your direct discernible sense-perceptions, like with the apple. Which sense-perceptions are there?

It is a thought, just not always 'linguistic'. In this case, I was referring to a thought that shows up as a physical sensation. I suspect this might be a kind of synesthesia? It's hard to talk about because it's a thought, but it's not a word. It's a sensation, like pressure, but in the mind. But essentially, it must be a thought. Maybe I'm overthinking this.

Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

This is a very interesting question. I think you are pointing toward the fact that I am inventing labels like "continuous" "one-changing-to-another" or "related" .
It certainly seems that they are related to one another. For instance, if thoughts of a violent nature arise, then it seems more will follow. But perhaps they just arise together without actually being related to one another in a causal way.
I will have to investigate this more.

How, in your direct experience, can be witnessed where a thought ends and a feeling begins? Is it possible?

There is a distinct difference between where a sensation is felt and the thoughts that arise to 'explain' or contextualize that sensation. At the same time, the sensation arises without any delay, and in a sense it is continuous. I'm not sure if the distinction between 'thought' and 'feeling' is meaningful when used in this context. The feeling becomes a content of mind, just as a thought does. There's the sensory input which I feel, for instance when I pinch myself, and there's the 'context' of "You are pinching yourself. That is pain. It is not a concern." and so on, which co-arise but in order. Sensation --> Interpretation
But I can't quite tell if the sensation is a 'thought' or not. What is the difference? Are thoughts a kind of sensation?

Can you stop a thought in the middle?

Excuse me, I can see how that was unclear.
The answer is 'no'. What I thought was me stopping a thought was just a label I placed on a group of thoughts that ended. This is totally weird, but also really clear to me right now. I 'think' I'm stopping thoughts in the middle, similar to how thoughts seem to create one another, but really they're just coming from somewhere and disappearing to somewhere without me having anything to do with it. I just say "I did it" retroactively.
I can't start or stop a thought, or avoid a certain type of thought, or anything. It just happens. If I've eaten well I'll probably have less irritable thoughts, for instance... But that is completely physiological and has nothing to do with 'me' either.

You're really good at asking these questions, Bella! Thanks for taking the time. This is really interesting and exciting!

Hi Hawthorne,

It is a thought, just not always 'linguistic'. In this case, I was referring to a thought that shows up as a physical sensation. I suspect this might be a kind of synesthesia? It's hard to talk about because it's a thought, but it's not a word. It's a sensation, like pressure, but in the mind. But essentially, it must be a thought. Maybe I'm overthinking this.

Yes, you’re overthinking. For this inquiry too much thinking is a hindrance. The absence of an independent self can only be seen through looking in your direct experience and not find it. Looking in your direct experience can only happen NOW. So if I ask more questions on a certain topic, it is important you look again. Forget all interpretations and look afresh. What is there?
And yes, in our experience sense-perceptions are blended. The blended experience is taken by ‘the mind’ and interpreted. What we want now is go to the experience BEFORE the blending has happened. So in the case of an impression on the mind the actual experience we are looking for is: sensation + thoughts about the sensation.
Can you see this?

But perhaps they just arise together without actually being related to one another in a causal way. 
I will have to investigate this more.

Thoughts don’t arise simultaneously. They appear one at the time. Sometimes time feels short. Please do this exercise.

Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts. First thing is to sit for at least 10-15 minutes quietly somewhere, several times throughout your day. Close your eyes and just notice thoughts. Don’t engage with any thought, just notice them.

1. Notice the current thought that is present.
Like when you sit observing the body, a thought might arise “this is my feet” or “here is a pain” or “my breathing is too quick” or “I am bored with this exercise” or “I have better things to do” or any sorts of thoughts.

2. This thought will pass and another thought will come. So just observe this thought passing.

3. Then wait for the next thought to come.

4. When the next thought is present, just notice it, and see how it passes.

5. Then wait for the next thought to come.

6. Repeat #4 and #5 many-many times.

Between the 2 thoughts there is a gap. It can be very short or subtle, just a second or a few seconds before the next thought come in.

Let me know how you go.

There is a distinct difference between where a sensation is felt and the thoughts that arise to 'explain' or contextualize that sensation. At the same time, the sensation arises without any delay

Good!

The feeling becomes a content of mind, just as a thought does. There's the sensory input which I feel, for instance when I pinch myself, and there's the 'context' of "You are pinching yourself. That is pain. It is not a concern." and so on, which co-arise but in order. Sensation --> Interpretation 

Is co-arising actually happening? Can you see that happen in your direct experience? Or does it only SEEM to happen? As an interpretation/thought.
Let’s try this. Pinch yourself (softly please). Look in your experience. Can you notice this: There is a feeling/sensation. It is noticed/known. There are thoughts about the sensation. Those are known (both the fact of a thought appearing and it’s content). Their contents being the label “pain” and the word “auch”.

I can't start or stop a thought, or avoid a certain type of thought, or anything. It just happens. If I've eaten well I'll probably have less irritable thoughts, for instance... But that is completely physiological and has nothing to do with 'me' either. 

Good!

Bella

Yes, you’re overthinking. For this inquiry too much thinking is a hindrance. The absence of an independent self can only be seen through looking in your direct experience and not find it. Looking in your direct experience can only happen NOW. So if I ask more questions on a certain topic, it is important you look again. Forget all interpretations and look afresh. What is there?
And yes, in our experience sense-perceptions are blended. The blended experience is taken by ‘the mind’ and interpreted. What we want now is go to the experience BEFORE the blending has happened. So in the case of an impression on the mind the actual experience we are looking for is: sensation + thoughts about the sensation.
Can you see this?

Yes, I can see that now. I understand what you're saying : you don't want my interpretation, you want me to describe literally what is occurring.

An impression in the mind is a sensation, that I then label "impression in the mind", simply put.

When I close my eyes, sit and observe, I can see that the sensation and the thoughts about it are distinct, quite clearly in fact.

I am going to leave out comments, notes, and other rambling bleed-through that does not add to the inquiry at hand. They are not helpful. Thank you for your patience!

Let me know how you go.

I am going to try again tomorrow, rather than giving my report right now. I want to try again and give this better attention. Today, I didn't decide to work on this as much as I should have, and only sat once. I will do this exercise as the steps dictate and report back.

Is co-arising actually happening? Can you see that happen in your direct experience? Or does it only SEEM to happen? As an interpretation/thought.
Let’s try this. Pinch yourself (softly please). Look in your experience. Can you notice this: There is a feeling/sensation. It is noticed/known. There are thoughts about the sensation. Those are known (both the fact of a thought appearing and it’s content). Their contents being the label “pain” and the word “auch”.

On investigation, co-arising is not actually happening. I pinched myself. A sensation of pain. Then "I" NOTICED it was pain. Before "I" noticed, it was not pain, just sensation.
So in this way I can see that the sensation and the thought do not arise together, but one after another, and the label of 'co-arising' was retroactively placed.
Is this what you are pointing to?
They do not co-arise, they happen one after another. Does the pain cause the thought or do they simply happen one after another? I.e. Is this correlation or causation?

It seems that "I" didn't really have a role to play in this process until I said, "That's pain". In a sense, I wasn't there at all...?

Pinching, pain, thought, contents of the thought. And so on. So what is this thing referred to as 'me', then?

All this stuff just happens and I commentate. But the comments arise just like the thoughts and sensations do. They don't come from 'me'. I can see that. Pinch --> sensation --> thought --> label/commentary. There's no 'Hawthorne' in that anywhere. Just a string of events, sensations and thoughts.

I can see how it doesn't matter if I'm having thoughts or not, in terms of my 'existence'. It's equally fabricated either way, right?
As in, it doesn't matter if there are comments or not any more than it matters if 'I' pinch myself or not.

Hi Hawthorne,

Yes, I can see that now. I understand what you're saying : you don't want my interpretation, you want me to describe literally what is occurring. 

Right.

I am going to try again tomorrow, rather than giving my report right now. I want to try again and give this better attention. Today, I didn't decide to work on this as much as I should have, and only sat once. I will do this exercise as the steps dictate and report back. 

Ok. I will wait for your respons.

So in this way I can see that the sensation and the thought do not arise together, but one after another, and the label of 'co-arising' was retroactively placed. 
Is this what you are pointing to? 

Yes. Well done.

There's no 'Hawthorne' in that anywhere. Just a string of events, sensations and thoughts. 

Very good! I give you a few more questions on thoughts tomorrow, after you reported about the exercise.

Bella

Hi Bella, thanks for your responses.

Let me know how you go.

I sat a couple of different times today. Each time, I did this exercise as described.

First, I noticed whatever thought is going on. I observed a challenge in allowing thoughts to exist without attempting to alter them, but then noticed that the attempt to alter the thought was, itself, a thought. So I allowed it to pass as well. There would be a break, sometimes very small, other times longer, and another thought would arrive.
Sometimes, I would lose focus and seemingly random images and thoughts would arise, as usual. When the thought about noticing this was happening arose again, the stream of thoughts seemed to stabilise, and then quiet down. Interesting to observe thoughts as if there was no one doing them. This differs from other mediations where "I" would be tasked with keeping "My" mind "focussed" on a certain kind of thought, or a certain level of internal quiet, or whatever. If it's all the same, just... well, I cant even 'let it happen' because that would imply some level of authorship.

So then those thoughts passed again, and there was a pause, and different thoughts came. Sometimes there were thoughts about settling down the thoughts. I noticed a tendency to label thoughts as 'thoughts' similar to the earlier exercise. This led to noticing that the labelling of thoughts as 'thoughts' was... a thought! It's comical somehow. Turtles all the way down.
Even the intention of labelling is a label on sensations.

Another observation was that thoughts pass 'differently' if they are being deliberately observed vs. just a 'default' flow of thoughts without conscious observation. Like my kids when I walk in on them painting each other with bingo dabbers, for example. Suddenly there's nothing going on at all, now that I'm watching.

Pretty strange, Bella!
My curiosity is certainly being well fed. This is some good stuff! I'm definitely curious to hear your thoughts on thoughts.
Have a great night!