Self be gone

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

So yes, the actual experience of the body is thought. Thought points to sensation and colour, and labels it a ‘body’, but can a body be found as actual experience or only thoughts about a body?

Body is a very persistant label.

.

Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

The connection is mental and the feeling and the sight are very different when my mind is calm enough.

While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

When my mind is quiet there is no connection.

.

Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

I get glimpses of no connection when thoughts cease.

Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

With much effort, I can not think about the image being a/my body.

Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

I can faintly see that legs are not a given when not thinking about them.

Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

There are sensations alone when thoughts cease.

Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

As before, a thoughtless state leaves me with no "body" and no "walking".

Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Labels like "room" are not constant or mandatory.

You told me to see clearly the answer to each question before moving to the next. I may have succeeded with my fleeting realizations, but I am definitely not living in that more relaxed, simple state and am not certain of the practical benefit of what I did see.

Glen

[poppyseed]

Hi Glen
Good looking!

Body is a very persistant label.

Yes and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand that it is just a label 🙂

You keep saying “when the mind is quiet”, you see clearly, like:

When my mind is quiet there is no connection.

or

With much effort, I can not think about the image being a/my body.

But have a proper look… First of all, what is “mind” in DE? And second… Are you in control of thoughts (i.e. efforting the thinking / not thinking)? You said that thinking is clearly seen to be happening on its own. Sometimes it reflects DE (the new story) and sometimes there are the old stories. The more looking, the more thoughts are about DE. Simple! 🙂

When you have two opposing views (i.e. view of reality) you have to keep checking their validity. What we are used to doing is to check if a new idea fits with the rest of our beliefs and disregard it if it doesn’t (confirmation bias). This method saves energy so it was used for a really long time. Now we’ve added a second method for dealing with opposing concepts – to check with our senses which one truly describes what is happening. The “stubbornness” comes from that confirmation bias as you have not just one thought but a system of thoughts forming your view/belief system of reality. It’s obvious that there will be resistance to that. So to “reduce the resistance’ you need to keep looking in order for thoughts to self-organise and form a new core of beliefs. And I underlie self-organise as this is not in your control, it just happens. I’ve basically introduced a virus thought (LOOK!) that causes all thoughts to be reorganised around the experience :)

You told me to see clearly the answer to each question before moving to the next. I may have succeeded with my fleeting realizations, but I am definitely not living in that more relaxed, simple state and am not certain of the practical benefit of what I did see.

Well, the self is not a thing on its own that we see that it doesn’t exist (i.e. an object). It’s a combination of beliefs that are built on each other - like a house of cards. So what we are doing right now is knocking down the base. There is no owner of the body not just because the body operates on its own, but also because there is no body that operates. There are just sensations, colours, tastes (if you lick the skin), and smells :). The more looking into what really is there, the more the illusion of a self is seen in all aspects. Hopefully you agree?!

Provided that you are really clear about thinking and no thinker let’s move to the elephant in the house - the witness

I found thoughts and actions happening and someone witnessing that and remembering it.

Ok... let’s address this by inquiring into one of the senses - seeing for example.

Look at the display before you. When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, seer, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, could you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses

Here is another exercise to inquire:
The usual belief that there is a witness hiding in the body' and doing the seeing. Close your eyes. With eyes closed, you will now experience 'blackness'. There may be other things you can find going on, sure. If you are looking at a bright light, there may be a red glow. There may be sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics.
Just to make things simple, whatever you can see with eyes closed, I'm going to refer to it as 'black' or 'blackness' just for simplicity.
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Glen, a person, or anything else be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er or a witness, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
Love
Rali

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

But have a proper look… First of all, what is “mind” in DE? And second… Are you in control of thoughts (i.e. efforting the thinking / not thinking)?

In the beautiful realm of DE there is no mind. I am not in control of thoughts.

Look at the display before you. When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, seer, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, could you find the boundary between the three?

The seer is the idea/visualization that I'm a body with eyes that see. Between thoughts there is no noticed separation between seeing, seer and seen.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness' as I mentioned?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing/witnessing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me'/Glen, a person, or anything else be found that is witnessing the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?
Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the see-er or a witness, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

1) Yes
2) Not that I can experience.
3) No
4) No witness; just blackness.
No Inherent see-er; just the idea/visualization of a body that sees.

I have continued to do the mirror exercises over the last two days and as I said, between thoughts I'm not thinking about the image of my hand being connected to me, but I never get the thought "the hand is not connected to me." By contrast, if I look at a glass bowl or a tree, the thought "that is not connected to me" shows up easily. I'm guessing you can look at your hand and have the thought "that is not connected to me" pay you a visit? I just want to know if that belief is attainable and if so what do I need to do differently to have it.

Glen

[poppyseed]

Hi Glen
Wonderful!!

I have continued to do the mirror exercises over the last two days and as I said, between thoughts I'm not thinking about the image of my hand being connected to me, but I never get the thought "the hand is not connected to me."

Now drop the expectation that a new thought needs to appear to confirm this. That’s just replacing one belief with another. That’s not what this is about.
You already reported: that no seer can be found, no witness can be found and there is just blackness (when eyes closed). That’s clear seeing.
Now apply the exact same clarity to the hand. When you look at the hand, before thought kicks in:
Is there a “connection” anywhere in direct experience?
Or is there just color + sensation?
The difference between the hand and the tree is not reality—it’s conditioning.
With the tree there is:
No sensation → easy for thought to say “not me”
With the hand:
Sensation + image → thought learned to say “me”
That’s all. So don’t try to produce the opposite thought. That would just be another layer of story. Instead, look for the actual link. Just LOOK:
Where exactly is the connection between the sensation and the image?
Can you find anything that joins them?
Or does the idea of “connection” only show up as a thought after both appear?
Stay there and just verify:
Is there ever anything more than: color + sensation + a thought about ownership?
Is the “me” only ever that thought?
Answer from what is seen, not what is expected.
Love
Rali

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

Now apply the exact same clarity to the hand. When you look at the hand, before thought kicks in:
Is there a “connection” anywhere in direct experience?
Or is there just color + sensation?

No connection in direct experience. Just color + sensation and the delight of no thought.

Where exactly is the connection between the sensation and the image?
Can you find anything that joins them?
Or does the idea of “connection” only show up as a thought after both appear?
Stay there and just verify:
Is there ever anything more than: color + sensation + a thought about ownership?
Is the “me” only ever that thought?

Without thought the "connection" and ownership don't exist. Now that thought has returned, it seems hard to believe that the secret to dropping the self is to not think, as wonderful as not thinking is.

Glen

[poppyseed]

Hi Glen

No—this is where you’re about to slip back into the trap.
Without thought the "connection" and ownership don't exist. Now that thought has returned, it seems hard to believe that the secret to dropping the self is to not think, as wonderful as not thinking is.

Good. Now look carefully.
Did anyone say “stop thinking”?
Or did you just notice that
when thought is absent → no self, no connection
when thought appears → the story of self appears
So what’s actually being seen?
It’s not “don’t think.” What’s being seen is that thought creates the illusion of connection and ownership.
Right now, don’t try to get rid of thought. Let it come. And as it comes, look at it, not from it.
A thought says: “this is my hand”. Look!.
Where is the “my” in direct experience?
Is it in the color?
Is it in the sensation?
Or is it only in the thought itself?
You don’t need a state of no-thought. If that were required, this would only work in silence, which it clearly doesn’t. Instead, see - even when thought is present, does it ever actually create a connection?
Or does it only claim one?
Check it live. A thought appears: “this is me”
Does anything in the raw experience change when that thought appears?
Does the color change?
Does the sensation change?
Or is it exactly the same… with a label added?
You’re still assuming that : “If the illusion comes back, I must not be done”
No. The illusion is the thought itself. So the question is not “How do I stop thinking?”
The question is: Can a thought—any thought—actually create a self?
Or is it just a sentence, appearing and disappearing?
Look again… Thought says “me”. Look for the “me”
Can it be found anywhere outside that thought?
Answer only from what is seen right now.
Love
Rali

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

Did anyone say “stop thinking”?
Or did you just notice that

.
I noticed that not thinking removes the "connection" between sensing my hand and seeing the hand as mine, or even labeling the hand at all.

A thought says: “this is my hand”. Look!.
Where is the “my” in direct experience?
Is it in the color?
Is it in the sensation?
Or is it only in the thought itself?

.
The ownership is a thought that if I feel something from the inside out then it is part of me.

You don’t need a state of no-thought. If that were required, this would only work in silence, which it clearly doesn’t. Instead, see - even when thought is present, does it ever actually create a connection?
Or does it only claim one?

The connection is a thought.

Check it live. A thought appears: “this is me”
Does anything in the raw experience change when that thought appears?
Does the color change?
Does the sensation change?
Or is it exactly the same… with a label added?

It is the same with the label added.

The question is: Can a thought—any thought—actually create a self?
Or is it just a sentence, appearing and disappearing?
Look again… Thought says “me”. Look for the “me”
Can it be found anywhere outside that thought?
Answer only from what is seen right now.

A thought cannot create a self. It is a sentence that often comes with visualized body and strong emotion, but an ephemeral thought nonetheless. "Me" lives in a thought.

Glen

[poppyseed]

Hi Glen

The connection is a thought.

That’s very good seeing! Now let’s address the contradictions in your answer. You said:

‘Me’ lives in a thought.

Look again. Don’t settle for half truths.
When the thought “me” is not present, is there even a place where a “me” could live?
Or does the whole thing only appear with the thought?
You also said:

often comes with a visualized body and strong emotion

Good! Now look deeper…
Is the image of a body anything more than another appearance?
Does it contain a self, or is it just more color/imagery?
Does the emotion point to a “me”?
Or is it just sensation, labeled after the fact?
When the thought “me” appears, does it refer to something real… or does it create the illusion of referring?

And here comes the biggest contradiction - if “me” is only a word in a sentence in thought how can it do that:

The ownership is a thought that if I feel something from the inside out then it is part of me.

You’re now placing the “me” as the observer. Let’s check if that actually exists. We looked for “him” in the “blackness” exercise but let’s look from another angle…

There are thoughts appearing: thoughts about the hand, thoughts about ownership, thoughts about “inside” and “outside”, BUT what/who interprets the thoughts?
Watch… a thought appears. Don’t go to what it says. Just notice that it appears, it stays briefly, and it disappears. Right?
Now look carefully…
Is anything interpreting it… or is another thought simply appearing about the first one?
For example:
Thought 1: “this is my hand”
Thought 2: “I am aware of that thought”
Look closely—
Is Thought 2 an interpreter?
Or just another thought, claiming interpretation?
Keep going:...If there is an “observer,” it should be stable, present, and findable, right? So look directly between two thoughts.
Where is the observer?
Is anything there observing?
Or is there just a gap and then another thought appears saying “I was there observing”
Don’t just take the idea of an observer for granted. Find it.
Can anything be located that watches thoughts, interprets them, or stands behind them?
Or is there only thoughts appearing and sometimes thoughts ABOUT thoughts?
This is a key inquiry:
Does anything interpret thoughts… or do thoughts simply reference each other, creating the illusion of an interpreter? Is the observer/Awareness/the witness/Glen/God/the Universe (or whatever else) anything but an abstraction in thought?
Is there an entity behind experience? OR just experience + thoughts commenting on it?
Experience is here but is there an experiencer/ a witness or "experiencing" is the mere fact that "experince" (THIS! or whatever IS) is happening?
A thought says “I” but what is that “I” pointing to, in direct experience?
Love
Rali

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

When the thought “me” is not present, is there even a place where a “me” could live?
Or does the whole thing only appear with the thought?

In DE there is no place where "me" can live outside of thought.

Is the image of a body anything more than another appearance?
Does it contain a self, or is it just more color/imagery?

The image of a body is color, shape and size with no Inherent self.

Does the emotion point to a “me”?
Or is it just sensation, labeled after the fact?
When the thought “me” appears, does it refer to something real… or does it create the illusion of referring?

The sensation is neither mine nor bad if a thought doesn't label it.
The "me" thought seems to refer to the idea that I am a body with a past and likes and dislikes etc. which doesn't stick around during DE, but shows up in the "real world." Explain "Illusion of referring" - that sounds fascinating.

For example:
Thought 1: “this is my hand”
Thought 2: “I am aware of that thought”
Look closely—
Is Thought 2 an interpreter?
Or just another thought, claiming interpretation?

I have questioned the ownership of follow-up thoughts about the first thoughts which I guess are just third thoughts. Wow!

Where is the observer?
Is anything there observing?
Or is there just a gap and then another thought appears saying “I was there observing”

While immersed in sound/hearing or sight/seeing I don't notice an observer.

Can anything be located that watches thoughts, interprets them, or stands behind them?
Or is there only thoughts appearing and sometimes thoughts ABOUT thoughts?

In DE nothing can be seen that watches thoughts, but does something unseen not watch and remember them, so that we can talk about them later?

Does anything interpret thoughts… or do thoughts simply reference each other, creating the illusion of an interpreter?

I sometimes have a thought that says, "that previous thought came out of nowhere." The second thought references the first one and could be said to interpret it to some degree, but that may not be what you had in mind.

Is the observer/Awareness/the witness/Glen/God/the Universe (or whatever else) anything but an abstraction in thought?

In DE the answer is no, but when thought rolls in again I return to my point from earlier, namely, how is experience noticed and remembered just from what DE has to offer.

A thought says “I” but what is that “I” pointing to, in direct experience?

Nothing in direct experience. In indirect experience a thought that says, "I am the body because I can feel the body." When I ask if I am really a body because I can feel the body the answer I currently get Is "maybe" and that feels like big progress as low level as that is.

Glen

[poppyseed]

Hi Glen
Good. This is exactly where thought tries to rebuild something subtle and convincing. Like this:

how is experience noticed and remembered just from what DE has to offer.

Stop. Don’t try to logically conclude and figure it out. Look. Let’s look at what memory really is…
Almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened. That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought. Please don’t go to thought explanations, but just let a memory be there, and look at it. Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say - but what actually is.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
Is there a difference and how is that difference known exactly?
Here is a scenario that you can play with… A thought appears: “I remember”. Look closely!
Where is this “memory” actually?
Is there a stored past being accessed? (If yes, please describe the mechanism - how exactly is it accessed)
Or is there simply a thought appearing now, with content labeled “past”?
Take a simple example. Think of what you had for breakfast. What is present?
Is the breakfast here?
Is the past here?
Or is there just an image/thought appearing now?
So check this carefully… Does something store experience… or do thoughts simply arise, claiming continuity?
Can you access directly even "30s ago"?

Furthermore…

does something unseen not watch and remember them

Look in direct experience! Can this “something” be found?
Is it present now as anything other than a thought?
Or is it inferred? If it can’t be seen, touched, smelled, heard, or tasted, what makes it different from an abstraction? Where is the proof for its existence besides thought talking about it?

Explain "Illusion of referring" - that sounds fascinating.

Sure… A thought says “I”. It feels like it points to something real. But check:
When the word “tree” appears in thought, it refers to something perceivable.
When the word “I” appears — what does it refer to in direct experience?
You already saw:

nothing

So what’s happening? The thought behaves like a label, but there is no actual object it points to.
That’s the illusion - it seems to refer… but doesn’t.
And seems like, feels like = thought content
Nothing in DE is seems like or feels like - it's either here, clear as a day, or not.
Same with “I am aware”. Look carefully
“aware” → another concept (How is "aware" any different from the experience itself? Any dividing lines? )
“I” → no referent
So the whole sentence “I am aware” is just a thought string, with no actual entity behind it.
Now your last subtle hold:

Nothing in direct experience. In indirect experience a thought that says, "I am the body because I can feel the body." When I ask if I am really a body because I can feel the body the answer I currently get Is "maybe" and that feels like big progress as low level as that is.

Look again! There is a sensation and a thought: “this means I am the body”
Does the sensation say “I am you”? Or is that interpretation added?
What makes sensations (labeled “body”) you?
You looked already - there is no self in sensations and thoughts - but let’s do this again…
Please close your eyes for this exercise, just notice any ‘mental’ images or thoughts that appear and put them aside. Place a hand on a desk or table (flat surface). Now 'go to' the sensation which we would normally refer to as 'hand on desk' and answer from what you can FIND.

How many things do you find? Are there two things (hand and desk) or is there one thing – sensation?
Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'a sensation'?
Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘feeling’ end and sensation begin? Can a dividing line between ‘feeling’ and sensation be found? Or is there just sensation?
Can a ‘feeler’/owner ever be found in 'what is being felt' – sensation?
If that is all, and no INHERENT FEELER is found . . . would anything that is suggested as the feeler be other than a concept/idea/thought?

You can also try this with your eyes open.

So LOOK!
Is there an experience happening and separately something experiencing it? Or is there only experience with thoughts appearing about it?
Don’t rush this.
If no observer can be found…
If no rememberer can be found…
What remains of the idea that someone is living this life?
Look directly.
Love
Rali

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?

Memory is a mental sight and/or sound.
Memory is not made of anything that I can observe.
Memory appears whenever I notice it - the present moment.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

Dispite spending serious time on that question, I can only say that some wordless something knows the difference. Maybe some more sensitive person can say what that is.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Some wordless knowing/thought can distinguish a memory from a fantasy.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?
WHEN does the future thought appear?

The future thought is made up of memory thoughts.
The future thought appears in the present moment.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?

The idea that the 'future' thought is about the future.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

A thought makes it 'future.'

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

Thought and maybe more effort to generate thoughts about the future.

Is there a difference and how is that difference known exactly?

Wordless thought says which is which and the subtilty is beyond description.

Here is a scenario that you can play with… A thought appears: “I remember”. Look closely!
Where is this “memory” actually?

I have no idea where the memory is.

Is there a stored past being accessed? (If yes, please describe the mechanism - how exactly is it accessed)
Or is there simply a thought appearing now, with content labeled “past”?

I can't prove a stored past is being accessed.

The questions I've answered thus far have worn me out, so let me finish today's post with a question for you. Does the fact that millions of people can name the virus that caused the last pandemic and no one can name the virus that will cause a future pandemic, suggest that memory thoughts are different than future thoughts?

Glen

[poppyseed]

Hi Glen
I will answer the rest of your reply once you answer the rest of the questions. Please answer all - this is not a pick and choose inquiry - we have to challenge all of your beliefs. If any fears appear when investigating this, please let me know! Don’t let resistance come in the way of the inquiry ;)

For now, I’ll give you some pointers for this:

The questions I've answered thus far have worn me out, so let me finish today's post with a question for you. Does the fact that millions of people can name the virus that caused the last pandemic and no one can name the virus that will cause a future pandemic, suggest that memory thoughts are different than future thoughts?

Good question, but look carefully at what you’re comparing. You’re asking if that means memory thoughts are fundamentally different from future thoughts, because many people can name a past virus, but no one can name a future one.
When a “memory” thought appears, is the virus itself here?
Or is there just: a thought, maybe an image, maybe a word like “COVID”, appearing now?
Same check for future… When a “future” thought appears, is the future event here? Or is there just: a thought appearing now?
So at the level we’re investigating (direct experience), both are identical in structure: a present thought with content :)
The difference you’re pointing to is not in experience, but in content and agreement.
Memory thoughts are reinforced by repetition, shared socially, and feel “solid” because many thoughts align.
Future thoughts are speculative, not reinforced yet, and feel “uncertain”
But check this carefully… Does social agreement make a thought more real in direct experience?
Or does it just make the story feel more convincing?
Right now, as you think of the past pandemic, is there anything more than: a thought, labeled “past”, appearing now?
And if you imagine a future pandemic, is there anything more than: a thought, labeled “future”, appearing now?
So the real question is: Is there any difference in the nature of thought itself, OR only in the story content and how strongly it’s believed?
Don’t answer conceptually. LOOK at what is actually here when each appears.
Love
Rali

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

So the real question is: Is there any difference in the nature of thought itself, OR only in the story content and how strongly it’s believed?

The content of thought changes, the nature of thought stays the same. Thanks for the lingo lesson.
When I said that your previous questions wore me out, that wasn't a cover for something else - I put serious effort into answering them and I couldn't bring myself to answer any more yesterday, but today is a new day and I shall return to the unanswered ones.

Or is there simply a thought appearing now, with content labeled “past”?

All thought appears in the present moment.

Take a simple example. Think of what you had for breakfast. What is present?
Is the breakfast here?
Is the past here?
Or is there just an image/thought appearing now?

A pale reflection of the real breakfast.
The breakfast is not really here.
The past is not really here.
The memory of breakfast appears here and now.

So check this carefully… Does something store experience… or do thoughts simply arise, claiming continuity?
Can you access directly even "30s ago"?

Experience itself is not stored. Thought sometimes sucks me in before I realize I'm a bit removed from reality.
I cannot access directly any past moment.

does something unseen not watch and remember them
Look in direct experience! Can this “something” be found?
Is it present now as anything other than a thought?
Or is it inferred? If it can’t be seen, touched, smelled, heard, or tasted, what makes it different from an abstraction? Where is the proof for its existence besides thought talking about it?

The "something" is a thought inferred from the thought about being able to remember things. How do you account for accurate memories?

Same with “I am aware”. Look carefully
“aware” → another concept (How is "aware" any different from the experience itself? Any dividing lines? )

"Aware" seems like the experience itself.

Look again! There is a sensation and a thought: “this means I am the body”
Does the sensation say “I am you”? Or is that interpretation added?
What makes sensations (labeled “body”) you?

The sensation does not claim to be me.
The bodily sensations get labeled "me" out of habit I suppose.

How many things do you find? Are there two things (hand and desk) or is there one thing – sensation?
Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'a sensation'?
Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'a sensation'?

I find sensation only.

Can a ‘feeler’/owner ever be found in 'what is being felt' – sensation?

An owner cannot be found in what is being felt.

If that is all, and no INHERENT FEELER is found . . . would anything that is suggested as the feeler be other than a concept/idea/thought?

No feeler is found in sensation. As much as I enjoy direct experience, thought is part of the world I live in and since some thoughts seem to contain accurate content, I don't see how I can dismiss thought automatically. The thought at issue is of course the idea that the body feels, thinks and remembers. Given the persistence of that thought, I would love some advice on dealing with it.

Glen

[poppyseed]

Hi Glen
Good—now this is the right place to look.

As much as I enjoy direct experience, thought is part of the world I live in and since some thoughts seem to contain accurate content, I don't see how I can dismiss thought automatically. The thought at issue is of course the idea that the body feels, thinks and remembers. Given the persistence of that thought, I would love some advice on dealing with it.That already assumes someone managing them.

Thought sometimes sucks me in before I realize I'm a bit removed from reality.

Now who/what enjoys DE? Or what is sucked in? Thought? Can a thought do anything - feel, see, hear, think, … - or just IS (appears)?
Drop the whole question of “what to do about thoughts.” That already assumes someone is managing them. Instead, look at how thoughts actually happen.
One very good example of how words, language, and meaning are formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models accumulate knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? And most importantly, is there an AI as an actual thing, or is it just an algorithm (set of rules)? Can an algorithm see, hear, etc?
The self-organisation of thoughts - their formation as a language structure, as well as their meaning and sequence - very much eliminates the need of a master mind with goals and agenda. So, the more DE, the more chance for thought to self-organise around experience, instead of old habitual stories.
Let’s see this in action… Right now, wait for the next thought. Watch closely:
Do you know what the next thought will be?
Can you prevent it from appearing?
Can you make it appear faster?
When a thought shows up, did you do that? Or did it just… arrive?
Now look at a sequence:
Thought 1 appears
Then Thought 2 comments on Thought 1
It might say: “I am thinking about my thinking”, but look carefully, Is that a thinker thinking about thinking or just: Thought 1, then Thought 2 appearing on their own?
Let’s go further:
Think of a 2-digit number. Why did you choose that number? Why not the previous number, or the next one? Do you know? If not, why don’t you know? If you are the mnager of thoughts then you must know how and why they appear.
Or did it just show up—and then a thought says: “I chose that”?
See the pattern: a thought appears and another thought claims ownership. No controller needed. No observer needed. No witness to be confused and sucked in. Just a self-organising flow of thoughts triggering thoughts, associations unfolding, no center directing it.
So… How can “you” deal with thoughts?
There is a new thought: “LOOK!” that creates new associations and causes thoughts to describe DE instead of regurgitating old stories (like memes). So self-organisation happens on its own and takes time for this to happen. In some cases it could happen in a day, in some it could take days, months or years, depending on the amount and type of beliefs (conditioning). So what “you” can do is keep on looking :) The more looking, the faster it happens. (Don’t ask me how if there is no “you” how can “you” keep looking - it’s all a commentary of what is already happening - one flow of thoughts talking to another flow of thoughts)

The "something" is a thought inferred from the thought about being able to remember things. How do you account for accurate memories?

You still assume that these thoughts talking about a past event, talk about real stuff :)
There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Love
Rali

[Gary1]

Hello Rali

Do you know what the next thought will be?
Can you prevent it from appearing?
Can you make it appear faster?
When a thought shows up, did you do that? Or did it just… arrive?

I do not know what the next thought will be.
I cannot prevent it from appearing.
I cannot make it appear faster.
Thoughts just arrive.

You still assume that these thoughts talking about a past event, talk about real stuff :)

Did your past not teach you what a computer is, how to turn it on, how to use the quote function, etc? That seems like real stuff to me. I looked at all of your questions and I can see things from a perspective that may move me closer to yours while I'm answering them, but I have not noticed any carryover into the rest of my life despite taking this whole interaction very seriously. I don't want to waste your time. Maybe this process doesn't work for some people and you and someone else would be better off if you started dialoguing with them. Before you and I got together I read Gateless Gatecrashers and before that HOW TO SEE THROUGH THE SELF-ILLUSION and those also left me disappointed.

Glen