Confusion to Clarity

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Thank you for letting me know.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

Thanks for the instructions.

There's quite a bit of brain fog with these exercises- quite a bit of resistance and expectation.

Could you please tell me a bit more about this?
What is the resistance is about?
What is the expectation?

I found I was avoiding doing the exercises and when I sat down to do them I
must have read and re read your questions 50 times. I just found it hard to stay on point with the questions. Perhaps I’m trying to intellectualise too much.

I guess resistance came initially in the form of a lack of concentration. I read (and re-read!) your questions and while I understood what they were pointing to on one level, there was a sense of confusion- rather like when you try to find the words to express yourself but can’t quite manage it, or when you’re trying to remember someones name and it just won’t come.

The expectation comes in the form of thoughts- “I’m gonna finally get there”, “not long to go now” which are linked to an image/thought of what realisation of ‘no-self’ will be like- a falling away, a moment, “aha”.

When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?

Yes and no- if I look at a tree and close my eyes a 'see' a tree, an image, I don't actually see the tree- the image of the tree is 'contained' in a thought. But what about an arising thought like “I’m lazy”?- there is an arising thought, the ‘container’, and there is the content which may be real or unreal.

Certain sensations can be felt in the body that is labelled such and such emotion, like ‘cheerful’. However, ‘cheerful’ is just a mental label on the felt sensation. So the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea. Can you see this?

Yes

If there is such thing as awareness, then it can be experienced directly without any object of experience. 
Nothing else, just pure knowing, pure aware-ing. No sound, no thought, no sensation, no sight, nothing, just knowing.
What is left of awareness if all the objects (sight, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought) are removed?

I don’t know since knowing awareness with all objects removed would mean awareness itself was an object.

It's definitely SEEMS LIKE AS IF there were a ‘thing’ as attention. 
But try to find this attention. So it seems like there are 2 strange, subtle entities here now. 
1. Awareness
2. Attention

It seems that both of them could perform certain activities, like attention can be aware and know things.
And attention has the ability to focus on certain things that awareness already knows, so to speak.
It SEEMS LIKE that. But is this really the case? 

When you put it like that then no but I’m still struggling with this one. Experience certainly SEEMS LIKE this is the case but when I try to explore this I get tied in knots. I focus on a sound, for example- sights, sensations, thoughts etc SEEM to recede into the background of attention/awareness- of course they haven't disappeared, they still exist- but the focus of attention/awareness SEEMS to temporarily land on that sound.

FWIW I've found this response, like the last, quite difficult- its like I’m trying to get the ‘right’ answer and I’m just not quite getting it. Just thought you should know what's (apparently!!) happening!

Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

I guess resistance came initially in the form of a lack of concentration. I read (and re-read!) your questions and while I understood what they were pointing to on one level, there was a sense of confusion- rather like when you try to find the words to express yourself but can’t quite manage it, or when you’re trying to remember someones name and it just won’t come.

Thank you for sharing this. I think we should address this resistance first before continuing the investigation, because it’s obvious in way of looking.

Resistance usually comes for two main reasons.

- Either there is a belief held about something, so strongly that everything that tries to question or even just to suggests that that it might not be the case, is resisted immediately. Of course, all beliefs are about the self. So if there is a strong belief of something, that belief is MINE, it’s about ME, I’am the one who knows and convinced that the belief is true. In terms of our investigation, if this is the case, for example, there could be some already ‘prepackaged’ belief about awareness. I’m mentioning awareness as a possibility, since this resistance came up while investigating awareness. But it could be something else too.

- There could also be a story (hidden or not so hidden) about pain or negative consequences to seeing the illusion of the self or the whole investigation. Under resistance, often there is some fear or concern. But it’s is nothing more than a protective mechanism, and it does its job well. And the resistance (and/or fear or concern) tries to protect you from these supposed negative consequences.

Please consider both possibilities. See, if there is a dearly held belief about the self or awareness, that needs to be protected. Also try to look behind the resistance, and see if there is a story about negative consequences to this investigation. So let’s find out what this story is about and see if they are real threats or not.

So examine this resistance closely. Feel it. Don’t try to fix it or solve it, just sit with it.
Ask the resistance as if it were a some kind of entity:

What do you want to protect me from?
What is the ‘negative’ story, what would happen if the illusion of the self is seen through?

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

Can you find any beliefs or assumption about the self, awareness or anything else, that needs protection?

The expectation comes in the form of thoughts- “I’m gonna finally get there”, “not long to go now” which are linked to an image/thought of what realisation of ‘no-self’ will be like- a falling away, a moment, “aha”.

So how do you imagine what the realization of ‘no-self’ will be like?

It’s important to see what we expect to happen. It’s important, because every expectation is in a way of seeing what is here, right now. Every expectation is a ‘hindrance’ in realizing what IS. Expectations are about the future. But seeing no self cannot be found in the future.

FWIW I've found this response, like the last, quite difficult- its like I’m trying to get the ‘right’ answer and I’m just not quite getting it. Just thought you should know what's (apparently!!) happening!

Thank you for your honesty. I appreciate that.

We will come back to the investigation of mental labels after we dealt with resistance. And regarding awareness, probably it’s best if we put this topic aside for some time, and investigate other important aspects of seeing first. We can come back to look at awareness more closely later.

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

Resistance usually comes for two main reasons.

- Either there is a belief held about something, so strongly that everything that tries to question or even just to suggests that that it might not be the case, is resisted immediately. Of course, all beliefs are about the self. So if there is a strong belief of something, that belief is MINE, it’s about ME, I’am the one who knows and convinced that the belief is true. In terms of our investigation, if this is the case, for example, there could be some already ‘prepackaged’ belief about awareness. I’m mentioning awareness as a possibility, since this resistance came up while investigating awareness. But it could be something else too.

- There could also be a story (hidden or not so hidden) about pain or negative consequences to seeing the illusion of the self or the whole investigation. Under resistance, often there is some fear or concern. But it’s is nothing more than a protective mechanism, and it does its job well. And the resistance (and/or fear or concern) tries to protect you from these supposed negative consequences.

I think what I labelled as resistance is more in line with the first reason you outlined in your post- that the collection of sensations, thoughts etc that I label 'me' is a belief that suggests a self and that that belief is being challenged, which is after all the reason I’m dialoguing in the first place. I don't feel as if this belief needs to be protected or that there is a fear about seeing through the illusion of the self- the most I could say is there are expectation/anticipation thoughts about what it might be like.

So examine this resistance closely. Feel it. Don’t try to fix it or solve it, just sit with it.
Ask the resistance as if it were a some kind of entity:

What do you want to protect me from?

What come up is the 'unknown', 'control', 'letting go'. They are the same things that came up when I took Ayahuasca. For the first hour I found it quite hard to 'let go' (as if I had a choice!!).

What is the ‘negative’ story, what would happen if the illusion of the self is seen through?

That my life would, in ways that I might consider negative from my current point of view, change utterly. That 'I' would change in a negative way as the person my wife and kids know me as currently and that my relationships might be damaged as a result.

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

There is a nothingness on one hand but also a subtle sensation in the chest. I'll resist labelling it- lets just say it's there.

Can you find any beliefs or assumption about the self, awareness or anything else, that needs protection?

The expectation comes in the form of thoughts- “I’m gonna finally get there”, “not long to go now” which are linked to an image/thought of what realisation of ‘no-self’ will be like- a falling away, a moment, “aha”.

So how do you imagine what the realization of ‘no-self’ will be like?

I imagine a range of possibilities from the 'negative' as outlined above to 'positive' outcomes to everything in-between. I have imagined at different times realization being either banal or majestic.

It’s important to see what we expect to happen. It’s important, because every expectation is in a way of seeing what is here, right now. Every expectation is a ‘hindrance’ in realizing what IS. Expectations are about the future. But seeing no self cannot be found in the future.

I see this but........expectations still arise!

Thanks Vivien,
Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Thank you for your honesty and openness.

I think what I labelled as resistance is more in line with the first reason you outlined in your post- that the collection of sensations, thoughts etc that I label 'me' is a belief that suggests a self and that that belief is being challenged, which is after all the reason I’m dialoguing in the first place.

It’s totally normal to react with resistance to seeing the self for what it is. Almost everybody experiences this in one way or another. This belief has been taken for reality from early childhood, and this is the foundation of many other beliefs what we will investigate later.

For the first hour I found it quite hard to 'let go' (as if I had a choice!!).

“ as if I had a choice” - Do you see this experientially, or is it rather an intellectual understanding?

V: What is the ‘negative’ story, what would happen if the illusion of the self is seen through?

G: That my life would, in ways that I might consider negative from my current point of view, change utterly. That 'I' would change in a negative way as the person my wife and kids know me as currently and that my relationships might be damaged as a result.

OK. Probably this is the basis of the resistance. If this belief is taken seriously, then it can cause resistance and prevent looking.

There is a very high chance that your life wouldn’t change utterly by seeing no self. And the reason for this is because seeing no self is just the first step of awakening, it’s just the beginning. I don’t know if your familiar with the Buddhist term of stages of awakening. They describe the process of awakening in four stages. Awakening starts with ‘stream entry’. This is the first step in awakening. It’s about seeing through the illusion of the self. This might bring some or lots of relief, and lessening of suffering, but the sense of self after stream entry still can arise (and arises in most cases). But there is a difference between the ‘sense of self’ and believing in the inherent existence of a self. Seeing that the self is just an illusion cannot be taken away. But moments of ‘delusion’ still happen, but after further looking it’s easy to see that there is no self to cling to.

So with seeing through the fabrication of the self, the personality stays almost completely unchanged. Sometimes others might not even notice any change. Or if they do, they usually regard them as ‘more pleasant people’, since they are less likely to be triggered and therefore less reactions come from their wounded, neurotic selves. And although the personality doesn’t change much, these wounds and triggers usually can be worked with much easily after seeing no self.

I imagine a range of possibilities from the 'negative' as outlined above to 'positive' outcomes to everything in-between. I have imagined at different times realization being either banal or majestic.

Every expectation is in the way of seeing what is here, right now. Every single expectation is a ‘hindrance’ in realizing what IS. Expectations are about the future. But awakening cannot be found in the future.

An expectation is nothing more than a mental concept. In order to compare it with the current experience, the current experience needs to be conceptualized. As a result, there ‘are’ two mentally fabricated constructs that can be matched up, with a ‘result’ of putting a label of either “this is awakening” or “this is not” onto the experience.

I see this but........expectations still arise!

You don’t have to do anything with these expectations, it’s enough to see them as they arise. Don’t try to push them away, change them, manipulate them. Don’t do anything with them, don’t touch them, just observe them. These are nothing more than the content of arising thoughts, here and now. That’s all, nothing more, nothing serious, nothing ‘real’.

Please let me know how you feel continuing the investigation after reading my above comments.

Last time you wrote:

V: When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?

G: Yes and no- if I look at a tree and close my eyes a 'see' a tree, an image, I don't actually see the tree- the image of the tree is 'contained' in a thought. But what about an arising thought like “I’m lazy”?- there is an arising thought, the ‘container’, and there is the content which may be real or unreal.

The thought “I am lazy” – is not different from the mental image of a tree. The word ‘lazy’ doesn’t point to anything in actual experience.

Most of the thoughts don’t point to anything real.

Let’s look at the word ‘university’. What does the word ‘university’ points to?
Is the building itself the university, or the building just building?
Are the teachers the university, or are those just people?
Are the students the university, or are they just people too?
Is the curriculum the university, or that’s just the curriculum?
Are the tables and desks and boards the university, or are those just furniture?
Is the certificate of degree is the university, or is it just a piece of paper?

Where is the university exactly?
Does the word ‘university’ point to something real?
Or is it just a notion?

So what is the actual experience of ‘lazy’?
What does the word ‘point’ to in actual experience?

And what is the actual experience of ‘me’?

And even in my above example of searching for the university based on false assumptions.
Even the words ‘people, curriculum, desks, furniture, paper’ are just ‘mental inventions’ so to speak. They all mental fabrications. But we can look at this later. For now, let’s treat them as if they were pointing to independently exiting things.

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

For the first hour I found it quite hard to 'let go' (as if I had a choice!!).

“ as if I had a choice” - Do you see this experientially, or is it rather an intellectual understanding?

It's more of an intellectual understanding.

An expectation is nothing more than a mental concept. In order to compare it with the current experience, the current experience needs to be conceptualized. As a result, there ‘are’ two mentally fabricated constructs that can be matched up, with a ‘result’ of putting a label of either “this is awakening” or “this is not” onto the experience.

Yes- I experience this quite alot- the comparing of a current concept of what is to an expectation. I tried to put this into words in my last post but couldn't quite explain it as you have.

I would also add that all my seeking has been driven, to a lesser or greater degree, by the search for direction or clarity around direction- the belief that 'answers' around direction are somehow contained 'within' me and that once 'no self' is realised, these 'answers' will flow out of me somehow- that the 'constrained potential' I wrote about in the registration questions would be 'released'. I see that this too is a mental concept and that it is a hindrance to seeing 'no-self' but, it is there, lurking in the background- a kind of 'hope'.

Please let me know how you feel continuing the investigation after reading my above comments.

I understand everything you have said and I'm ready to examine everything that needs to be examined. At the beginning of this dialogue I had an idea of myself as being 'the good student'- 'getting it' right away and in some way not being a burden to my guide. I've found it challenging to expose these beliefs or even express them in writing- a sort of protection mechanism I guess- a feeling of vulnerability. I feel quite humbled, and a little bit emotional, that for all I thought I knew or understood about 'non- duality' or 'no self' I'm starting from scratch in a way.

Let’s look at the word ‘university’. What does the word ‘university’ points to?
Is the building itself the university, or the building just building?
Are the teachers the university, or are those just people?
Are the students the university, or are they just people too?
Is the curriculum the university, or that’s just the curriculum?
Are the tables and desks and boards the university, or are those just furniture?
Is the certificate of degree is the university, or is it just a piece of paper?

Where is the university exactly?

It exists as a thought, a concept

Does the word ‘university’ point to something real?

No, its just a label, a concept

So what is the actual experience of ‘lazy’?
What does the word ‘point’ to in actual experience?

The word 'lazy' is just a concept, a label 'contained' in a thought. It doesn't point to a smell, taste, sensation, sound or sight or anything in AE.

And what is the actual experience of ‘me’?

Smells, tastes, sounds, sights, sensations.

Best,
Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Thank you for your honesty, I really appreciate it.

It's more of an intellectual understanding.

I’d like to ask you to write only what is true in your experience. If no self is just an intellectual understanding in the moment, then let me know, or totally avoid using language that would infer otherwise. It’s important, because I give the next sets of questions according your comments, and if you comment as if you’ve seen no-self but you have only intellectual understanding, then my questions will be inappropriate and not useful.

the belief that 'answers' around direction are somehow contained 'within' me and that once 'no self' is realised, these 'answers' will flow out of me somehow- that the 'constrained potential' I wrote about in the registration questions would be 'released'.I see that this too is a mental concept and that it is a hindrance to seeing 'no-self' but, it is there, lurking in the background- a kind of 'hope'.

It’s good that you can see this. You don’t have to do anything with this expectation, just be aware of when it appears.

At the beginning of this dialogue I had an idea of myself as being 'the good student'- 'getting it' right away and in some way not being a burden to my guide.

Whether you get it right away or not, you’re not a burden. I’m here to help you. There are only two things I ask you. What I wrote above about not giving answers from intellectual understanding, and to do the exercises the best you can, looking into your actual experience. But if you cannot see something right away, that’s not problem. We will do this as long as it takes. The only way to fail at this, is to stop it prematurely.

I've found it challenging to expose these beliefs or even express them in writing- a sort of protection mechanism I guess- a feeling of vulnerability. I feel quite humbled, and a little bit emotional, that for all I thought I knew or understood about 'non- duality' or 'no self' I'm starting from scratch in a way.

Thank you for your openness, I really appreciate it. Of course you have to ‘start from scratch’, since this cannot be understood intellectually. It is beyond, or rather say, before thoughts and concepts. We try to use words to describe actual experience, but ultimately words fail in this.

V: And what is the actual experience of ‘me’?

G: Smells, tastes, sounds, sights, sensations.

So the word ‘me’ might point to a sensation, for example the forehead, or behind the eyes.
But just because there is a label on the sensation of the forehead, does it mean that the sensation labelled ‘forehead’ is the ‘me’, the self?

Let’s look at thoughts even more closely. Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.


Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only peaceful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
What can a thought do?
Does a thought have volition?
Can it manipulate other thoughts or think new thoughts?

What does generate thoughts?
What do the thoughts belong to? What owns them?

It seems that thought has 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"?

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

I'm still working on the last set of questions and will post on them tomorrow.
Thanks for your patience!
Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

All right. I"m looking forward to your reply.
I'll answer them in one go.

Have a nice day,
Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

I’d like to ask you to write only what is true in your experience. If no self is just an intellectual understanding in the moment, then let me know, or totally avoid using language that would infer otherwise

I'll try my best!

V: And what is the actual experience of ‘me’?
G: Smells, tastes, sounds, sights, sensations.

So the word ‘me’ might point to a sensation, for example the forehead, or behind the eyes.
But just because there is a label on the sensation of the forehead, does it mean that the sensation labelled ‘forehead’ is the ‘me’, the self?

I should have clarified my answer further- there are sensations (such as in the head) and the mind/thought labels these sensations 'me'. The sensations are just sensations prior to thought labelling them- so no, the sensation is not 'me'.

Let’s look at thoughts even more closely. Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

No

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

No

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only peaceful thoughts?

No

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

No- it 'seems' as if this can happen but the thought "i want to think about ice cream instead of chocolate" is just another thought arising.

What can a thought do?

Does a thought have volition?

Can it manipulate other thoughts or think new thoughts?

Honestly, I'm struggling greatly with these particular questions as I find it very hard to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and my experience is clashing with my intellectual understanding (IU) of 'no self' that you suggested I highlight. My IU is that thought as a container cannot do or have any of the above but I can't separate out the contents from the 'container' in my experience. For example, while mulling the above questions a thought arose "go read what Vivien wrote about thoughts- containers/contents". I can't ignore what the thought is saying, it seems to be an actionable thought and have volition.

What does generate thoughts?

I have no idea- they just arise

What do the thoughts belong to? What owns them?

Again, my IU is 'thoughts belong to no-one, no-thing' but my experience suggests 'me' even though my IU knows that 'me' is a bundle of sensations, thoughts, labels etc.

It seems that thought has 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"?

There is certainly not a logical ordered sequence to my thoughts! . I do notice a thought that says "thoughts are not individual units but one constant stream" and "one thought follows another thought".

Best,
Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

V: What can a thought do?
Does a thought have volition?
Can it manipulate other thoughts or think new thoughts?

R: My IU is that thought as a container cannot do or have any of the above but I can't separate out the contents from the 'container' in my experience. For example, while mulling the above questions a thought arose "go read what Vivien wrote about thoughts- containers/contents". I can't ignore what the thought is saying, it seems to be an actionable thought and have volition.

Thank you for making a clear distinction what you can know only intellectually, this helps a lot. We can look at this a bit more deeply.

Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts. First thing is to sit for at least 5-10 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.


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.

This is how to look at thoughts:
Looking how they come and go, and
Observing the short gap between them.
Noticing how the current thought is passing.
And waiting for the next thought to come.

Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.

Let me know how it goes.

After practising the above exercise, let’s go back to the original questions.

When a thought arise about some intention or volition, like: “Let’s focus on the gaps between thoughts”.
The thought is ABOUT an intention or volition. So the ‘content is talking’ about doing something (focusing on the gap).
Next, let’s say, the gap between thoughts is noticed. Look carefully.

Is this noticing was done by the previous thought “Let’s focus on the gap”?
Does this thought do the focusing?
Does the thought do the noticing?
Where is the thought “let’s focus on the gap” when the gap is noticed?
Is the thought “let’s focus on the gap” present when the gap is noticed?
If not, how could the thought “let’s focus on the gap” do anything if it’s exist anymore?
Can a ‘focuser’ be found?
Can a ‘noticer’ be found?

V: What does generate thoughts?

G: I have no idea- they just arise

Is there anything that generates thought?
Or are there only thoughts appearing?

V: What do the thoughts belong to? What owns them?

G: Again, my IU is 'thoughts belong to no-one, no-thing' but my experience suggests 'me' even though my IU knows that 'me' is a bundle of sensations, thoughts, labels etc.

“but my experience suggests ‘me’ [that the thoughts belong to]” – So you say that the actual experience suggests that thoughts belong to ‘me’. How exactly does the actual experience suggest this?
(Remember AE is: sensation, sight, sound, taste, smell, thought)


Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

I will post on this tomorrow. Apologies for the delay- I will be back to a normal schedule of daily posting after tomorrow.
Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

Thank you for letting me know.

Vivien

[Rufus]

Hi Vivien,

This is how to look at thoughts:
Looking how they come and go, and
Observing the short gap between them.
Noticing how the current thought is passing.
And waiting for the next thought to come.

Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.

Let me know how it goes. 

I had a mixed experience doing this exercise. In the beginning, noticing thoughts coming and going was relatively 'easy'- a thought would arise and disappear, a gap in thinking would be noticed- all good. Then I noticed that when I experienced a gap- or what I thought was a gap- the thought would arise "there's a gap"- so just another thought! I also noticed the mind/thought rushing into gaps in thought like air into a vacuum- almost like the mind couldn't resist labelling, commenting, explaining etc. There was a very subtle sense of panic that thought had to do this or that a gap in thought had to be named or labelled.

After practising the above exercise, let’s go back to the original questions.

When a thought arise about some intention or volition, like: “Let’s focus on the gaps between thoughts”.
The thought is ABOUT an intention or volition. So the ‘content is talking’ about doing something (focusing on the gap).
Next, let’s say, the gap between thoughts is noticed. Look carefully.

Is this noticing was done by the previous thought “Let’s focus on the gap”?

No

Does this thought do the focusing?

No

Does the thought do the noticing?

No

Where is the thought “let’s focus on the gap” when the gap is noticed?

Absent

Is the thought “let’s focus on the gap” present when the gap is noticed?

No

If not, how could the thought “let’s focus on the gap” do anything if it’s exist anymore?
It can't

Can a ‘focuser’ be found?
No- there is focusing and thought that labels focusing "I am the focuser", " I am focusing".

Can a ‘noticer’ be found?
No- there is noticing and thought that labels noticing "I am the noticer", I am noticing".

Is there anything that generates thought?
Or are there only thoughts appearing?

Thoughts just appear, generated by no-one, no-thing.

“but my experience suggests ‘me’ [that the thoughts belong to]” – So you say that the actual experience suggests that thoughts belong to ‘me’. How exactly does the actual experience suggest this?
(Remember AE is: sensation, sight, sound, taste, smell, thought)

Sensing is just sensing, seeing is just seeing, tasting is just tasting, thinking is just thinking. The content of thought says this sensation belongs to me, I am seeing, tasting, smelling, thinking.

Best,
Graham

[Vivien]

Hi Graham,

You did a very nice looking :)

Then I noticed that when I experienced a gap- or what I thought was a gap- the thought would arise "there's a gap"- so just another thought! I also noticed the mind/thought rushing into gaps in thought like air into a vacuum- almost like the mind couldn't resist labelling, commenting, explaining etc.

Yes, exactly. This how thoughts ‘operate’. The purpose of the exercise is not to have lots of gaps, or spend more and more time in gaps, but rather to see the arising thoughts and their ‘nature’, so to speak. So you did very well.

Sensing is just sensing, seeing is just seeing, tasting is just tasting, thinking is just thinking. The content of thought says this sensation belongs to me, I am seeing, tasting, smelling, thinking.

OK, the content of thoughts say that sensations belongs to me, I am seeing, etc. – But can this ‘me’ be found? Where is it exactly?

Find it. Look everywhere. Where is it? In Thoughts? Sensations? In hearing? Smelling? Tasting? Inside the body? In the head? Behind the eyes? Inside the eyes? In the throat? In the chest?

Make a very thorough look. Spend as much time with during the day as you can. Even if you cannot find anything, look again. Maybe the self is hiding somewhere. Look again and again.

Vivien