If we view ‘our’ lives as a movie projected onto the screen, which could be watched from the cinema seat with some kind of distance between the happenings of the story of ‘my life’ and ‘me’, then there is an implication of an object (‘my life’ being projected onto the screen) and a subject (‘me’ as an observer). Now, there is another layer of story of ‘me’, the actor with another play, who is observing the happenings of the movements of ‘my’ life. In this way, the ‘I’, which is believed into ‘existence’, stays intact.
To dissolve this confusion, Nathan Gill suggested a bit different movie analogy.
“…it is a multi-dimensional movie, being viewed from within the movie, not being viewed by a viewer from outside.”
“There is nothing outside of the movie. There is only the movie and the present registering of it from ‘within’ the movie.”
In this three-dimensional movie, when the thoughts are seen for what they are and not being lost in their contents, the identification with the character is noticed ‘within’ the movie. All the problems and happenings can be watched, but they are no longer ‘my’ problems. They just appear and disappear as the part of the flow of life. There is no ‘I’ to stick to. Even if the thoughts of ‘my’ problems appear, sooner or later noticing happens, and the ‘me’ disappears from the nothingness where it came from.
There is no ‘me’ at all, not even as an observer, who could step out of the story and watch it from the outside. Watching just happens. And nobody does it.