Life's curious path has led me here (on the way to where?)

[davjak]

This looks mostly good. It seems to be starting to gel intellectually, but developing or honing the intellect is not the goal. It may seem to open a door, but that is more like the beginning, so to speak. Some of what you say above borders on concluding and explaining.

In this light, let's have a look at thoughts and knowing, and we can add feelings as well. If we see rationally that they are not what they seem to be, and they cannot be relied on, that most certainly doesn't necessarily break the spell. Is there still in the gut, the feeling of separation and vulnerability? How are things from an 'energetic' perspective? (You don't need to answer these just yet.)

But please answer these:
Who has thoughts and feelings, and are they known?
Where are they appearing?
What is agency?
What is the body, and is it known?
What is the knower?
How is the spell of belief in thought broken?

[Cabs]

This looks mostly good. It seems to be starting to gel intellectually, but developing or honing the intellect is not the goal. It may seem to open a door, but that is more like the beginning, so to speak. Some of what you say above borders on concluding and explaining.

Yes, you're view is accurate as usual. There is an intellectual refinement happening, and it seems unavoidable. The concluding/explaining reflects this, although also arising unavoidably at this stage - particularly as the language is still morphing.

If we see rationally that they are not what they seem to be, and they cannot be relied on, that most certainly doesn't necessarily break the spell.

That is the current experience - spell still flowing within the experience.

Who has thoughts and feelings, and are they known?

No one has thoughts or feelings. Firstly, they cannot be 'had' as they are not permanent in anyway, but constantly emerging, appearing, leaving - never fixed or permanent. Secondly, thought and feeling, along with the other sensations are conditions that create an illusion of a separate self - as caused by the sense that there is someone that they are happening to. They are not 'known' because that implies retention - it would require something permanent and fixed for the known to be stored. The sense of 'knowing' is in itself a thought and feeling.

Where are they appearing?

They appear nowhere in particular - neither inside or outside of the vantage point central to experience.

What is agency?

Agency is the illusion of control - the illusion that things can be chosen, determined, achieved, overcome, changed, etc. It is an illusion arising from thought that is appearing to rationalise and explain the random flow of events.

What is the body, and is it known?

The body is a convergence of thought and sensory conditions - thoughts in the form of stories, memories, social and cultural conditioning, etc. and sensory conditions such as physical sensations and sight. The hand, for example, is experienced as physical sensation (vibration, temperature, etc.) as well as the visual appearance of what conditioning and labelling has classified as 'hand'. It can't be known for the same reason thoughts can't be known - it is not permanent or fixed, and there is no knower to retain any fixed knowledge.

What is the knower?

An illusion. Thought. A story. Thought appearing as knowledge, and thought appearing as the knower of that knowledge.

How is the spell of belief in thought broken?

It breaks itself when thoughts are experienced only as thoughts. When thoughts of belief, right/wrong, good/bad, etc. are experienced exclusively as thoughts just flowing, there is no permanence to ground a belief upon.

[davjak]

That is the current experience - spell still flowing within the experience.

Why doesn't 'learning how' work?

No one has thoughts or feelings. Firstly, they cannot be 'had' as they are not permanent in anyway, but constantly emerging, appearing, leaving - never fixed or permanent. Secondly, thought and feeling, along with the other sensations are conditions that create an illusion of a separate self - as caused by the sense that there is someone that they are happening to. They are not 'known' because that implies retention - it would require something permanent and fixed for the known to be stored. The sense of 'knowing' is in itself a thought and feeling.

Yes. A thought doesn't 'know' other thoughts or experience. So, what feels like knowing or a knower, this is just the next thought, the next sensation. The knower is just thoughts of something beyond thought that knows thought. In other words, it's just the next thought.

They appear nowhere in particular - neither inside or outside of the vantage point central to experience.

If thoughts appear nowhere in particular, is there a vantage point central to experience? How could the central point be identified as central and by whom? Appearances may seem to be in a certain way, but where is the support or verification to conclude or assert?

Agency is the illusion of control - the illusion that things can be chosen, determined, achieved, overcome, changed, etc. It is an illusion arising from thought that is appearing to rationalise and explain the random flow of events.

Yes, but it goes far deeper and lives energetically, throughout the system, thought alone doesn't begin to capture it.

It breaks itself when thoughts are experienced only as thoughts. When thoughts of belief, right/wrong, good/bad, etc. are experienced exclusively as thoughts just flowing, there is no permanence to ground a belief upon.

I would say that is more the consequence, when thoughts are no longer the reality of 'me', but how this comes about is not known.

Are any questions or concerns coming up? Does anything feel confusing or conflicting?

[Cabs]

Why doesn't 'learning how' work?

Because learning how just puts it all into concepts, which are just thoughts. This is true to my current situation as it seems. I experience 'efforting' and 'trying' throughout my experiences that are thoughts appearing to be working on thoughts through a conceptual lens. While there appears to be understanding, and moments where the experience is experienced 'as it is', thoughts about the conceptual version of this predominate. This might include thoughts assessing how the experience is being experienced (or not), thoughts appearing to direct the intention towards the conceptual 'right view', thoughts questioning how to apply the concept, etc. Very much the indicators that would be experienced when 'applying learned ideas' in the common-sense.

A thought doesn't 'know' other thoughts or experience. So, what feels like knowing or a knower, this is just the next thought, the next sensation. The knower is just thoughts of something beyond thought that knows thought. In other words, it's just the next thought.

I sense the truth in this, and it comprises a portion of my experience recently, but is not the majority of experience. It may begin as experiencing a sense of knowing, which then shifts to experiencing a 'knower', further shifting to an 'observer of a knower', finally shifting to the observer and the knower both being seen and felt as just thought in space. It seems that for this chain of events to occur, there is an initial spark of awareness required, and while that is out of my control, it appears along with the appearance of intention.

If thoughts appear nowhere in particular, is there a vantage point central to experience? How could the central point be identified as central and by whom? Appearances may seem to be in a certain way, but where is the support or verification to conclude or assert?

Good question, and another example of language limitation, although probably pointing at more than just my inability to verbalise it.

I was trying to find language to represent the experience of there being some kind of point of 'instance'... not necessarily existing within time and space, just an un-fixed point where the

moment

of experience exists - it is not locatable because it's not fixed ever, and has no metric to place it along. Central implies 'central TO something, so not useful - expect for central to infinity perhaps, which is anywhere and everywhere? But there is no support or verification if this - it is a concept only. And as for who identifies the centrality, well, I wasn't really suggesting anyone/thing other than the experience itself, but that would suggest thought acting upon itself.

ME: Agency is the illusion of control - the illusion that things can be chosen, determined, achieved, overcome, changed, etc. It is an illusion arising from thought that is appearing to rationalise and explain the random flow of events.

YOU: Yes, but it goes far deeper and lives energetically, throughout the system, thought alone doesn't begin to capture it.

This feels true, but not yet experienced clearly. So much of this appears in thought-based experience, to the degree that energetic experience is not seeming to be present. The experiences where energetics are seemingly balanced amongst thoughts are typically when emotions are being felt, or during somatic meditations, or sexual experiences. I do not experience significant emotional shifts in either direction, with the exception of experiencing anger (less so recently) or fear/stress (also less recently). Somatic meditations are very enjoyable experiences, but there is a sense of illusion/hypnosis during, and sexual experiences are the rawest and biggest energetic experiences, but they are not all that frequent.

When considering your comment in relation to agency, it is clear that the thoughts related to agency are accompanied by systemic energy, I agree. All of the thought-based illusions of agency have different levels of energetic sensation associated/appearing/dissolving along with the thought itself. This energy is experienced more via the physical representation, such as a frown, clenched stomach, hunched shoulders, butterflies in the stomach, etc. but energetics seem to be like the 'wordless thoughts' the body is experiencing, which is in-turn being sensed as part of the experience.

Energetics really seem behind it all - I mean, every sensory experience seems to be an interface converting energy into experience (vibrations into sound, sight, kinetics, etc) but this then seems as though there is an 'out there' where energy comes from. Although, the energy and the sensation are one - sensation is not separate from it, and experiencing that sensation IS the sensation itself, so experiencing IS the energy/vibration - just categorised and labeled by thought, giving rise to a sense of separation between all the energetics, and subsequently a sense of separation of everything.

But thought is not an independent actor with the capacity to assess, categorise, organise, etc. Thought itself must be part of the energetic experience - created instantly, but after, the initial energetic experience to rationalise it.

Sorry to ramble - writing thoughts as they unfold... I will stop... this is at risk of becoming too conceptual.

ME: It breaks itself when thoughts are experienced only as thoughts. When thoughts of belief, right/wrong, good/bad, etc. are experienced exclusively as thoughts just flowing, there is no permanence to ground a belief upon.

YOU: I would say that is more the consequence, when thoughts are no longer the reality of 'me', but how this comes about is not known.

Good. This ties back to the first question of why can't this be learnt? The loop of experiencing clarity becoming thought and concept followed by the thought of needing to 'initiate' the clear view and distortion between what is genuine clear view, and what is clear view through the conceptual lens is like a labyrinth. At this stage is appears to be nothing more than an exercise that simultaneously opens the door a bit by offering changing perspectives, and closes the door a bit by practicing concepts...

Are any questions or concerns coming up? Does anything feel confusing or conflicting?

Nothing I can clearly define into a question or concern. Just a general experience of disorientation and wandering perspective. Your observations of things within my responses are asking questions I didn't know I had.

[davjak]

Why doesn't 'learning how' work?

It won't work because nothing works. There is only what is happening, and there is no one to use it for a purpose. No one is helping or making what happens do what it does. There is no one to do anything that isn't already happening.

Energetics really seem behind it all - I mean, every sensory experience seems to be an interface converting energy into experience (vibrations into sound, sight, kinetics, etc) but this then seems as though there is an 'out there' where energy comes from. Although, the energy and the sensation are one - sensation is not separate from it, and experiencing that sensation IS the sensation itself, so experiencing IS the energy/vibration - just categorised and labeled by thought, giving rise to a sense of separation between all the energetics, and subsequently a sense of separation of everything

This kind of analysis will never succeed. It's like having a dream of relating to and figuring out what is already happening.

What was the body doing while it took place, sitting, standing, typing, breathing, moving, seeing, hearing etc... Is any of the mental realm helping someone achieve something? What progress will be made if there is only what is already happening? Is there anything separate to relate to it or act upon it? What feels necessary? What needs to happen?


Can anyone use thought to do anything, or does thinking just appear? Is thinking inert and without substance (even thoughts that say "It can lead to this or that or prompt a whatever"?) Is any thought ever true? Does thought have any use, purpose, goal or benefit (without someone to conceptualize about it?

[davjak]

Thinking is useless for the simple reason that no one is using it for any purpose whatsoever. No one is there with it to use it. No one ever benefitted from it.

It simply appears as it appears, and any apparent result of it is simply what happens. No one ever did anything. No one ever got anything from thought or succeeded in using it to do something. It's the illusion, to be with thought as the user of it. It's just thoughts and sensations and beliefs.

[Cabs]

Why doesn't 'learning how' work?
It won't work because nothing works. There is only what is happening, and there is no one to use it for a purpose. No one is helping or making what happens do what it does. There is no one to do anything that isn't already happening.

haha. That question seduced me into searching for an answer that explains it. A great example of how easily one can become lost in the fog when only realising this conceptually.

This kind of analysis will never succeed. It's like having a dream of relating to and figuring out what is already happening.

I often meditate some time after posting these replies. Yesterday, after posting that, the thought appeared that I have no idea at all about whether there's energy "out there" causing any of this or not. There is no way of verifying it at all. At best, it could only ever be theory or conjecture.

All I know (for lack of a better phrase) is the direct evidence/experience - any possible explanations can only ever be theories or concepts.

Again, after reading your reply late last night before bed, I experienced a sensation typically associated with thoughts of failure or lack of understanding - interestingly, it felt superficial. There were not really companion sensations and thoughts present to help those other feelings penetrate.

When I woke up this morning, I went for an early walk - it had been raining, but the air was warm and the clouds had lifted a touch so everything seemed very vibrant. It's spring here, so fresh leaves and flowers are bursting with colour, and a lot of birdlife is active. Not many cars around because it was so early. I experienced a funny sense of disenchantment with over-processing this stuff mentally. I found myself smirking, really sensing the world around me, with a repeating thought saying this moment is all there is, and another saying it really couldn't get any better than this. It felt relaxed. I actually experienced many thoughts and sensations throughout that walk suggesting that life doesn't get any better than this moment. There was a feeling of gratitude that was not associated with any thoughts of 'trying' to be grateful. It was very pleasant, and a little out of the ordinary to be honest.

Then when I came home you had written this add-on:

Thinking is useless for the simple reason that no one is using it for any purpose whatsoever. No one is there with it to use it. No one ever benefitted from it. It simply appears as it appears, and any apparent result of it is simply what happens. No one ever did anything. No one ever got anything from thought or succeeded in using it to do something. It's the illusion, to be with thought as the user of it. It's just thoughts and sensations and beliefs.

It felt apt.

I do not feel like I've had a shift of perspective outside of concept. It does still appear as though experiences are being run through a filter that is either on or off, determined by an illusory thought that this filter can be controlled. I do still experience the mind 'trying' to convert concepts into experience.

What is slowly changing is the sense of expectation, along with a weakening of striving. Today's relaxed experience was an enjoyable one - an example of experiencing in a relaxed state.

It's clear that I will never achieve a true non-conceptual shift via thoughts and thinking - I am reminded of a Miles Davis quote in reference to learning to improvise: he said "you have to learn everything, and then forget all of it" - theres no freedom in creative expression if you are intellectualising in the moment. It feels so true of this. The learning and exploring of concepts still appears to be an important component - helping shed light on what the delusion is - but these concepts cannot be retained (in any sense). It's not until all is dropped that a shift could ever occur. But dropping it all is difficult because intention and choice don't exist. Dropping clearly must happen on it's own, or it just won't happen.

With that in mind, it appears that exercises are important, but I'm not totally sure what exercises outside of this guided discussion are valuable - if any. Back to Miles' quote - the learning he refers to is not just intellectual learning, but muscle memory, ear-training, and a range of other instinctive 'learnings' that all eventually disengage what arises from any intellectual support. It seems somehow applicable that for the ultimate dropping away of concepts here, some kind of 'unconscious' mechanisms are required - not necessarily in the form of learning new things, but also (probably exclusively) un-learning, or shutting down of mechanisms inherently preventing a shift from occurring.

[davjak]

All I know (for lack of a better phrase) is the direct evidence/experience - any possible explanations can only ever be theories or concepts.

Yes, explanations are just stories told by a dreamt character.

When I woke up this morning, I went for an early walk - it had been raining, but the air was warm and the clouds had lifted a touch so everything seemed very vibrant. It's spring here, so fresh leaves and flowers are bursting with colour, and a lot of birdlife is active. Not many cars around because it was so early. I experienced a funny sense of disenchantment with over-processing this stuff mentally. I found myself smirking, really sensing the world around me, with a repeating thought saying this moment is all there is, and another saying it really couldn't get any better than this. It felt relaxed. I actually experienced many thoughts and sensations throughout that walk suggesting that life doesn't get any better than this moment. There was a feeling of gratitude that was not associated with any thoughts of 'trying' to be grateful. It was very pleasant, and a little out of the ordinary to be honest.

Nice.

What is slowly changing is the sense of expectation, along with a weakening of striving. Today's relaxed experience was an enjoyable one - an example of experiencing in a relaxed state.

I'm glad to hear this.

It's clear that I will never achieve a true non-conceptual shift via thoughts and thinking - I am reminded of a Miles Davis quote in reference to learning to improvise: he said "you have to learn everything, and then forget all of it" - theres no freedom in creative expression if you are intellectualising in the moment. It feels so true of this. The learning and exploring of concepts still appears to be an important component - helping shed light on what the delusion is - but these concepts cannot be retained (in any sense). It's not until all is dropped that a shift could ever occur. But dropping it all is difficult because intention and choice don't exist. Dropping clearly must happen on it's own, or it just won't happen.

With that in mind, it appears that exercises are important, but I'm not totally sure what exercises outside of this guided discussion are valuable - if any. Back to Miles' quote - the learning he refers to is not just intellectual learning, but muscle memory, ear-training, and a range of other instinctive 'learnings' that all eventually disengage what arises from any intellectual support. It seems somehow applicable that for the ultimate dropping away of concepts here, some kind of 'unconscious' mechanisms are required - not necessarily in the form of learning new things, but also (probably exclusively) un-learning, or shutting down of mechanisms inherently preventing a shift from occurring.

Again, two more paragraphs of dreaming of being the thinker who is using thoughts to advance in his mission of seeking.

What is it that is being sought in this ongoing fascination of the story of me and what I am trying to do?

What is this character trying to make happen?

Are mental appearances still being believed?

From earlier in the thread:

"I have no sense of what is looking at all. It's completely blank when I try to find it. When I try to look behind the knowledge - there's nothing there. A total void."

"How does it feel, this 'nothing there'?... Is there any need to cloud or muddy things with a concept about this?"

"It seems vast, but close. I feel a sensation like vertigo when approaching it - kind of a butterfly, fear-like nervousness in my chest and back. There is an emptiness that kind of has no feeling. But, it is very slippery."

"No one has thoughts or feelings. Firstly, they cannot be 'had' as they are not permanent in anyway, but constantly emerging, appearing, leaving - never fixed or permanent. Secondly, thought and feeling, along with the other sensations are conditions that create an illusion of a separate self - as caused by the sense that there is someone that they are happening to."

[davjak]

So, a blank is found, "there's nothing there". But a sense of I is presumed to be the one finding the blankness. When that I who looks and doesn't find is found to be the same nothing, then only the nothing is left. The sense of the separate noticing presence is the same nothing.

[Cabs]

Again, two more paragraphs of dreaming of being the thinker who is using thoughts to advance in his mission of seeking.

As I was writing all that I was fully aware that this was likely going to be the response - somehow it just kept flowing out onto the post.

This is totally the case here. Habit patterns are rife. There are thoughts about 'something' to strive for - a way to 'succeed' - which even you alluded to when you said "This kind of analysis will never succeed". And there is thought masquerading as the thinker that believes there is something not only that can be attained (a perspective shift), but a way in which it can be attained.

What is it that is being sought in this ongoing fascination of the story of me and what I am trying to do?

There is a belief that seeing through the illusion of self is possible. There is a belief that the anecdotal experiences of others is true, and that it is possible for me to experience the same shift. There is a desire to experience that shift arising from a few different streams - 1. curiosity, 2. some kind of inexplicable sense that it is true, 3. some experiences that align with the anecdotes that appear as beneficial to existing, 4. some kind of weird obsession with 'getting it', 5. it's what life has thrown in front of me right now.

What is this character trying to make happen?

This seeking character is trying to end separate-self experiencing, and change into no-self experiencing.

Are mental appearances still being believed?

Yes. Mental appearances of 1. a character, 2. an objective, 3. a strategy or path, 4. an imagined and/or assumed 'way it can or will be', 5. a belief or an expectation that the experience will be better than the current illusory one.

[Cabs]

So, a blank is found, "there's nothing there". But a sense of I is presumed to be the one finding the blankness. When that I who looks and doesn't find is found to be the same nothing, then only the nothing is left. The sense of the separate noticing presence is the same nothing.

Understood.

But of course there is no way to make that happen.

No way to even know that it is even possible because it's not an experience I have encountered, which is the only experience there is.

As it stands, my experience of it is nothing more than an idea, a story, and like any other story unless it is ever experienced.

Not to be believed on story value alone.

My only experience of it is the stories of others - words conveying concepts.

It cannot be sought, because the act of seeking automatically engages in a story, and disqualifies the seeker.

[davjak]

As I was writing all that I was fully aware that this was likely going to be the response - somehow it just kept flowing out onto the post.

Yes, it just did itself, as with everything.

This is totally the case here. Habit patterns are rife. There are thoughts about 'something' to strive for - a way to 'succeed' - which even you alluded to when you said "This kind of analysis will never succeed". And there is thought masquerading as the thinker that believes there is something not only that can be attained (a perspective shift), but a way in which it can be attained.

Yes, and those are all constructs.

Is there now, an actual, fixed perspective that can be shifted away from? If there is something to attain, what is going to receive it? Is there some fixed thing that can be modified by getting other things?

In the baseless stories there are endless things to attain, and it really does make things better to get them. But it's still just a story. When the person begins to sense this, that is the source of the gnawing unease, the sense that it's all constructed on no footing whatsoever, that all the getting in the world still comes to nothing, that it's all stories, all the way down.

The person only has access to its own constructs. And it lives in stories because the alternative is complete indeterminacy, unknowing and uncertainty. The separate person has no choice but to make its own stability, because there is no other stability outside mental constructs. The world is dreamt for the person to live in, to believe in rewards and things to get. In the dreamt world, there is always the pot of gold, what others have, peace, nirvana, heaven, liberation, the grand universal prize.

The intersection of thought and what seems to happen is all made of thought. Thought never touches anything, and there is no one outside thought to get anywhere.

Whatever words say, whatever thoughts indicate about what THIS is is pure fabrication. It's a fiction, because thought is not a knower, and it has no access to what is outside itself. It's a bubble within, not a knowing intelligence at a distance from observed 'things'. This is the person's dilemma.

So, the question is what constructs are worth clinging to? When is what is spoken of, nothing but a mental construct?

[Cabs]

Before jumping into to responding to any questions, my first thought after reading this morning was - How am I even meant to respond? Is it even possible to consider the meaning of a question, let alone offer a response without thought? It seems counter-intuitive to even enter into the process.

Even that is thought. Thought, including the thought of being the thinker, is inescapable here - at least as far as I can experience.

Nonetheless, what responses come forth will come forth, and I'll at least observe the process of the response taking form, being noted, and then left.

Is there now, an actual, fixed perspective that can be shifted away from?

The word 'now' stands out here. There seems to be a perspective in every now - every instance contains experience that is experienced via perspective. But it's not fixed, although it seems that way. Perspective can't really be fixed because the perspective IS the experience. So it can't be shifted away from unless there is zero experience. It also can't be fixed, because experiences are never fixed.

If there is something to attain, what is going to receive it?

Nothing outside of the instance of that particular experience. It cannot be held or kept. Because it is gone as soon as it was experienced.

Is there some fixed thing that can be modified by getting other things?

No. Repeating instances of experience may create a sense of it. But it's not a 'fixed' thing that is modified, as opposed to the seeming modification of the flow of ever-changing experience - veering toward a different trajectory than the previous or current one. This is just appearance, but is experienced as a modification of sorts.

In the baseless stories there are endless things to attain, and it really does make things better to get them. But it's still just a story. When the person begins to sense this, that is the source of the gnawing unease, the sense that it's all constructed on no footing whatsoever, that all the getting in the world still comes to nothing, that it's all stories, all the way down.

It feels that I have been here, in this understanding, for a long time. But without any real chrysalis forming around my way of being.

The person only has access to its own constructs. And it lives in stories because the alternative is complete indeterminacy, unknowing and uncertainty. The separate person has no choice but to make its own stability, because there is no other stability outside mental constructs. The world is dreamt for the person to live in, to believe in rewards and things to get. In the dreamt world, there is always the pot of gold, what others have, peace, nirvana, heaven, liberation, the grand universal prize.

Agree.

But as we have been discussing, an alternative to this cannot also be a construct. This is the labyrinth within which my experience is (seemingly) wandering. Even to acknowledge that I am undertaking this process to end that is indicating that I am seeking an alternative - alternative what? - an alternative construct. It cannot be anything but a construct - unless it isn't.

The intersection of thought and what seems to happen is all made of thought. Thought never touches anything, and there is no one outside thought to get anywhere.

It seems more like thought not only touches things, but actually IS the thing. Like, there is no thing without the thought. Including the self that might appear outside of it.

Whatever words say, whatever thoughts indicate about what THIS is is pure fabrication. It's a fiction, because thought is not a knower, and it has no access to what is outside itself. It's a bubble within, not a knowing intelligence at a distance from observed 'things'. This is the person's dilemma.

Dilemma just doesn't cut it as a word, does it.

So, the question is what constructs are worth clinging to?

Clearly none. No construct can be trusted in any real way. Including the construct that nothing can be trusted. How convenient that truly denying all constructs has an escape clause inherently within it whereby even denying a construct itself is a construct. An impossible object.

When is what is spoken of, nothing but a mental construct?

If it's spoken of, it is a construct. If it is a thought appearing as a precursor to speech, it's a construct. If it is an experience appearing as a precursor to thought, that is in-turn a precursor to being spoken - it is a construct.

It's all constructs, baby.

[davjak]

Clearly none. No construct can be trusted in any real way. Including the construct that nothing can be trusted. How convenient that truly denying all constructs has an escape clause inherently within it whereby even denying a construct itself is a construct. An impossible object.

Therefore, free of constructs, what can deny, cling to, or do anything in relation to constructs (mental appearances)? Is there an active agent anywhere to be found, except as an unexamined construct? Even the feeling to be I, the sense of I who am present, can it be found, formed or identified without a mental representation of this 'sense'?

Is there a constant state of this mental representation of a separate self, or is it only a now and then thing? And when it seems to be there, is this not just the next thought? Was there ever a separate entity necessary for anything to happen? Does it have to become anything other than what it already seems to be?

If it's spoken of, it is a construct. If it is a thought appearing as a precursor to speech, it's a construct. If it is an experience appearing as a precursor to thought, that is in-turn a precursor to being spoken - it is a construct.

It's all constructs, baby.

Where then, is the separate individual Dan? What is separation?

[Cabs]

...

I am the constructs.

There is no separate self because without construct there is nothing.

I saw this when searching, but could never hold it because if it were held there would be nothing.

The constructs are all that exist. They cannot be stopped because that would stop existence.