Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby forgetmenot » Thu May 23, 2019 5:26 am

Hello Glenn,

I want you to go back to the beginning of our thread and reread everything that we have done so far and redo ALL exercises we have done.

Then you can read the rest of this post and answer questions.

What is there underneath all thinking? Not conceptual, not an image?
Experiencing. Other than experiencing, nothing. Space.
Where in colour, sound, smell, sensation, sound and thought can space be found?
What is here right now? Move attention from mind images and thoughts to actuality, this very moment, what are you noticing? What is your direct/actual experience (AE) in each moment? LOOK! :)
Sound, colour, light, darkness, touch, taste, heat, breathing, movement. Nothing else.
What is the AE of ‘heat’?
What is the AE of ‘breathing’?
What is the AE of ‘movement’?

What is the AE of ‘typing’….break it down into AE and let me know what you find. Close your eyes and IGNORE all thoughts and mental images and just focus on actual experience (sound, sensation, smell, taste and colour). Then open your eyes and focus on actual experience with eyes open. (Go back to the apple exercise if you struggle with this).
Touch, sound, movement, thought.
I want you to close your eyes and IGNORE all thoughts and mental images….then wave your hand about. Is movement known? Or is it AE of sensation?
On opening the eyes: add seeing, reading
What is it exactly that is seeing and reading?
What is the AE of what thought labels as ‘typewritten words’?

Thinking that thought knows anything would be like saying that colour knows something, and that smell knows something! Thoughts are simply phenomena that arise and subside like sound, smell, taste etc.
Understood. I should have taken more care over my original sentence. I didn’t really mean ‘Thought…knows itself'. I understand that thought is knowing and thus cannot 'know'. What I meant was, 'thoughts refer to each other'. But I used a shorthand for that which, in this context, was incorrect and misleading.
Thought is not knowing. What does thought actually know? How does thought know itself? Thought is NOT an entity…so how can thought know itself or be knowing?

Thought is known…not because it is thought, but is experience seemingly appearing as thought. It is experience itself that is self-aware. Thought is not self-aware and never will be. It's the same as saying that smell is aware!

A thought is much like a piece of graffiti scribbled on a wall. Graffiti doesn't know the wall exists. It doesn't know it is appearing on the wall. It doesn't know whether its words are true or not. It doesn't know that it is saying anything. It doesn't know anything *whatsoever*. Similarly, a thought is just a bit of decoration appearing in THIS/experience. It appears. You are aware of it. But it knows nothing whatsoever about reality. And that is all there is to thought
Can ‘memory actually be found IN a thought. In other words, in the thought MEMORY where are the memories themselves found?
Memories are not found in the thought ‘Memory’. ‘Memory’ is a thought / label. I got confused about this last time because of the semantics.
The word/label memory is a thought that points to ‘Memory’, which is a conceptual / imaginary receptacle where, typically, it is imagined that memories are stored; and to ‘memory’ (singular) and ‘memories’ (plural), which are thought stories assembled from actual experience.
The word/label memory does NOT point to memory…it points to AE of thought. Where in AE can ‘memory’ be found?
What is the AE of memory / memories?
The AE of memory / memories is AE of thought.
Yes…it is AE of thought…not AE of memory.
What is it exactly that has ‘memories’…and no, it’s not a thought. Thoughts know nothing.
Nothing 'has' memories. Memories are not tangible and can't be 'had'. They 'are', there is no ownership. And, as has been established, there is no "I", so no possible owner either.
??? You have just been saying that memories are AE of thought. Now you are saying that they simply are? There is no such thing as ‘memories’. This whole post was about you seeing that memories are simply thoughts that are appearing in this moment. Memories are just a label given to a bunch of thoughts…no different than the label ‘fruit’ that is given to a bunch of thoughts. Thought is thought. There is no hierarchy of thought.
Where in AE can you find 'memory/memories'? I want you to answer from actual experience. We are learning about actual experience (AE). Please reread it and answer the question from actual experience. What is the ACTUAL EXPERIENCE (AE) of ‘memory/memories’? DOES IT POINT TO THOUGHT, SMELL, TASTE, COLOUR, SENSATION OR SOUND?
It points to thought.

On reflection this seems a simple question. So why did it take me ages to answer it! (Ans: Because it’s new thinking. Sometimes getting past habitual thinking patterns feels like pulling a nail out of a plank with bare fingers.)
Yes…but you aren’t looking. It’s simple to look. Does ‘memory’ point to AE or does it point to thought about thoughts? Does the word ‘memory’ point to sound, thought, smell, taste, colour or sensation? It’s that easy to look.
So what is known…what is actually here/appearing is label + colour + sensation + thoughts. However, is a cup actually known?
No. There is knowing, but nothing can be known, because in the absence of ‘I’ there is no knower.
What?? How did you jump to this conclusion? Are you not aware of everything that appears? I DO not exist and I DOES not exist are two vastly different things. If it is not you that is aware of these words…than what is it? The “I” that you think you are does not exist…but you (not Glenn) certainly do exist. If not…then how could you be aware of anything?

Put aside EVERYTHING you think you know….please and simply LOOK at what is being pointed at.
‘A cup’ is only AE of thought about ‘a cup’. ‘A cup’ and the other labels you mentioned were assembled by thought from a conflation of past experiences. When similar experiences are encountered in the present it gives rise to ‘recognition’, literally ‘thinking again’, which is really memory (intangible thought stories) superimposed on actual experience (real). The only part of that equation that’s real is actual experience: touch, colour, etc.
The paradox being that there really are no past experiences. When do the thoughts about the past actually appear? Where is the actual evidence that they appeared in something called the past?
This makes straightforward sense, but resistant thinking persists along the lines of: ‘OK, you can deconstruct a cup but if you then put those attributes back together, you’re still left with a physical object, whether you label it or not.’
What physical object? Please go back and do the apple exercise and let me know what you find.

It’s important to say that I do accept that there is only actual experience and subsequent interpretation of it by thought, but there’s a big concrete boulder on the path towards that notion really sinking in. Old thought patterns are so deeply ingrained.
Are these beliefs truly held by you, or are they simply known to you as thoughts ABOUT beliefs? Are they truly deeply ingrained, or is it just a thought making that claim?

As you will have noticed, I’m only half-baked on this line of thinking at present and I realise it needs more application. So please don’t take this paragraph as my concluding word on the subject. I’m Just sharing the thought process, however intermediate it might be, so you’ve got a proper picture of where I am.
You are not seeing your beliefs, instead your beliefs are telling you what to see. This is the simple difference between confusion and clarity.

Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can, for the next 2-3 days. Label daily activities, objects and emotions simply colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

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

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

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go, giving some examples please.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Thu May 23, 2019 10:06 pm

Hi Kay

I’m a bit taken aback that I could be so off-target. I think perhaps I was again efforting too much, but I’ll do better. Thanks for putting me right. As per your advice I’ll return to the previous exercises and go in fresh. I’ll post again once as soon as I’ve worked through the questions you’ve set.

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby forgetmenot » Thu May 23, 2019 11:53 pm

Hey Glenn,

Please take your time. Read your thread thoroughly and carefully, and redo the exercises first...especially the apple exercise. Really look at AE without all the descriptors. Then answer the questions in my last post. You are not sooo off-target...it could be semantics...however, if you aren't clear about AE, and it is my job to make sure you are, then the rest of the guiding will be continuously challenging for you...and that will make it frustrating and unpleasurable for both of us.

Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Mon May 27, 2019 10:53 pm

Hi Kay

It's been a Bank Holiday weekend here, and it was good to have time to do the gardening and let thoughts of AE settle of their own accord without needlessly overthinking them into incoherence. I think it's done the trick, more or less. You'll tell me! :-) Reading back over my last post, I'm quite sheepish about how entangled and off-beam some of my answers were.

I went back to the apple experiment as you advised, and worked forward from there. I've included the (newly readdressed) apple experiment again just for clarity's sake, followed by replies to the questions in your most recent post. Overall things look and feel much simpler now and I think I'm getting the hang of it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Apple experiment:
The label ‘apple’ is known
Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known

However, is an apple actually known?
No. There's no such thing as 'an apple' other than as a label / concept /thought. To refer, for instance, to 'the taste of an apple', would imply that 'an apple' has / owns the actual experience of taste. But it can't and it doesn't do that, because 'an apple' is only a thought, a concept which has arisen out of actual experience. As such it can't have / own anything.

What is there underneath all thinking? Not conceptual, not an image?
Actual experience. Actual experience underpins all thinking, whether it be actual experience of taste colour, sensation, etc, or actual experience of thought.
Where in colour, sound, smell, sensation, sound and thought can space be found?
In thought. Space is a concept.
What is the AE of ‘heat’?
Sensation labelled 'heat'.
What is the AE of ‘breathing’?
Sensation labelled 'breathing'.
What is the AE of ‘movement’?
Sensation labelled 'movement'.
I want you to close your eyes and IGNORE all thoughts and mental images….then wave your hand about. Is movement known? Or is it AE of sensation?
It's AE of sensation.

What is it exactly that is seeing and reading?

Seeing: AE of image / colour labelled 'object'; in this particular case, labelled 'letters' or 'words'
Reading: AE of thought about 'words' or 'language'

What is the AE of what thought labels as ‘typewritten words’?

AE of image / colour labelled 'typewritten words'
AE of thought about words / language

The word/label memory does NOT point to memory…it points to AE of thought. Where in AE can ‘memory’ be found?
Memory can't be found in AE--except in AE of thought. Memories are thoughts about past events but, because past events don't exist in AE any more than future events do, memories are / can be nothing other than thoughts.
Are these beliefs truly held by you, or are they simply known to you as thoughts ABOUT beliefs? Are they truly deeply ingrained, or is it just a thought making that claim?
It was just a thought making that claim! I noticed a mental tug-of-war going on at time of writing, but it's since resolved. It turned out I needed a few days to do other non-related things (gardening, actually) while thoughts turned over and settled.
You are not seeing your beliefs, instead your beliefs are telling you what to see.
I see that now.
Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can, for the next 2-3 days. Label daily activities, objects and emotions simply colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.
Holding mobile phone = sensation
Reading phone contacts list = image / colour
Listening to my sister talking over the phone = sound

Cutting the grass with the lawnmower = image / colour + sensation + sound
Figuring out why the lawnmower kept cutting out = thought
Mending the lawnmower = image / colour + sensation

Getting sunburned = sensation
Wanting a cold Diet Coke = thought
Tasting a Diet Coke = taste

Smelling toast cooking = smell
Spreading marmalade on the toast = sensation
Eating the toast = taste

Those are just a few examples, but that's an enjoyable exercise (and really good at bedding things in) and I'll keep doing it in the interim.

Love and thanks

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby forgetmenot » Tue May 28, 2019 12:43 am

Hi Glenn,

Lovely to see you back and refreshed. You have cleared up quite a lot of the confusion...nicely done!
What is the AE of ‘heat’?
Sensation labelled 'heat'.
The AE of heat = thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it heat.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is heat, or that it knows anything about heat or what it is?

Thought SUGGESTS/POINTS/INFERS that the sensation is heat. Without thought how could this be known?

A label/thought is always AE of thought. How could anything be named or described etc without thought? Even the label 'sensation' is AE of thought.
What is the AE of ‘breathing’?
Sensation labelled 'breathing'.
The AE of 'breathing' = thought
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is breathing, or that it knows anything about breathing or what it is?

Thought SUGGESTS/POINTS/INFERS that the sensation is breathing. Without thought how could this be known?
What is the AE of ‘movement’?
Sensation labelled 'movement'.
The AE of 'movement' = thought.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is movement, or that it know anything about movement of what it is?

Thought SUGGESTS/POINTS/INFERS that the sensation is movement. Without thought how could this be known?



Thank you for the lovely examples of AE. Just be mindful that you 'see' the whole picture of AE, so to speak
Spreading marmalade on the toast = sensation
Spreading marmalade on toast = sound as well
Eating the toast = taste
Eating toast = sensation and sound as well.

Image

What is a rose? Perhaps a nice red and green flower with a pleasant smell and some sharp thorns?

But LOOK again - all that is actually present are colours which thought labels as ‘red’ and ‘green’, a nice smell, which thought labels as ‘rose’, and maybe an 'ouch' sensation that thought labels as ‘thorn prick’. The rose itself is only a story.

Beyond the story, can a rose be found to at all?

Notice that all things that seem to exist are just like the rose. Just fictional stories about experience.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Wed May 29, 2019 11:06 pm

Hi Kay

Thank you as always for your reply. I'm really happy to have grasped the principles of AE—it feels good to get there. In fact, just a few days after my noggin had to wrestle with it, it now seems so utterly simple and straightforward that it's a wonder I had to wrestle with it at all. It's so interesting to witness how strongly old habituated beliefs can assert themselves when confronted with new and contradictory information.

Having said that, I let out a big 'DOH!' when I read your notes that followed my incorrect statements that the AE of ‘breathing’, 'heat' and 'movement' were AE of sensation and not AE of thought. It's easy for me to say it after you've corrected me, but even at time of writing I was on board with the understanding that they were AE of thought and not AE of sensation. Honest! :-) I just left out that crucial last stage of deconstruction from my thinking. I wrote the incorrect answers, I think, because of unfamiliarity with thinking and writing about things in this this way coupled with the subtle pull of old, habituated thinking. I think I'm clearer about things now.
The AE of heat = thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it heat. Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is heat, or that it knows anything about heat or what it is?
No. Sensation itself (not the label ‘sensation’) is sensation, pure and simple, with no defining qualities beyond itself.

One could go on to state that the nervous system responds to AE of sensation and signals the brain which in turn generates thoughts / labels that serve to define that AE of sensation. But that statement is only a cluster of thoughts; a fictional story about AE of thought about AE of sensation. It is not AE of sensation, nor are the thoughts / labels it alludes to. AE of sensation is neutral, it can't and doesn't know about heat or anything else, and is discrete from thought.
Thought SUGGESTS/POINTS/INFERS that the sensation is heat. Without thought how could this be known?
It couldn’t be. Without the interpretive properties of thought there is no means to ascribe any quality, whether heat or something else, to any actual experience.
But LOOK again - all that is actually present are colours which thought labels as ‘red’ and ‘green’, a nice smell, which thought labels as ‘rose’, and maybe an 'ouch' sensation that thought labels as ‘thorn prick’. The rose itself is only a story.Beyond the story, can a rose be found to exist at all?
It can't. And I'm laughing to myself because there's that little habituated thought tugging away in the shadows and saying 'buh...but...it has to exist!' Perhaps it will fade as the new way of seeing beds in. Regardless of the persistence of this thought, everything I've learned so far in terms of the nature of AE and of thought is credible and makes sense and I accept and believe it. Just the same, I thought I should let you know that the old way of thinking is still hanging around at the moment.
Notice that all things that seem to exist are just like the rose. Just fictional stories about experience.


Over the last day or two I've found myself starting to look at things through the prism of this new understanding in a natural, unforced way. By 'natural' I mean that I'm doing so out of a playful curiosity that's arisen naturally and not an assumed sense of obligation to 'get things right' which I must admit, had been dogging me somewhat (and no doubt making things more difficult than they might otherwise have been). It's a step :-) There's just a very pleasant and unhurried inclination to look—whether at the things on the breakfast table or at clouds or perspectives on a walk through the park. It's really subtle and a bit 'out of the corner of my eye' though.

Love and thanks

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby forgetmenot » Thu May 30, 2019 2:42 am

Hey Glenn,
Thank you as always for your reply. I'm really happy to have grasped the principles of AE—it feels good to get there. In fact, just a few days after my noggin had to wrestle with it, it now seems so utterly simple and straightforward that it's a wonder I had to wrestle with it at all. It's so interesting to witness how strongly old habituated beliefs can assert themselves when confronted with new and contradictory information.
Yes, it is so very simple when you see it! :) You can see how it seems to be hidden because of how thought overlays raw experience with labels and stories. It will take a little time for you to just automatically start to break activities, objects and emotions into AE…so it is best to keep that practice up on a daily basis until it is crystal clear.
Having said that, I let out a big 'DOH!' when I read your notes that followed my incorrect statements that the AE of ‘breathing’, 'heat' and 'movement' were AE of sensation and not AE of thought. It's easy for me to say it after you've corrected me, but even at time of writing I was on board with the understanding that they were AE of thought and not AE of sensation. Honest! :-) I just left out that crucial last stage of deconstruction from my thinking. I wrote the incorrect answers, I think, because of unfamiliarity with thinking and writing about things in this this way coupled with the subtle pull of old, habituated thinking. I think I'm clearer about things now.
Lol…old habits to die hard! My job is to keep pointing to keep you on the straight and narrow. I certainly am not judging…just wanting you to be clear.
The AE of heat = thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it heat. Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is heat, or that it knows anything about heat or what it is?
No. Sensation itself (not the label ‘sensation’) is sensation, pure and simple, with no defining qualities beyond itself.
Lovely, yes! :)
One could go on to state that the nervous system responds to AE of sensation and signals the brain which in turn generates thoughts / labels that serve to define that AE of sensation. But that statement is only a cluster of thoughts; a fictional story about AE of thought about AE of sensation. It is not AE of sensation, nor are the thoughts / labels it alludes to. AE of sensation is neutral, it can't and doesn't know about heat or anything else, and is discrete from thought.
Yes! Exactly!

Have a look and query…what is the AE of nervous system and what is the AE of brain? Do they point to sound, smell, taste, colour, sensation or thought? That is a very simple litmus test. :)

Let’s examine the solidity of the head and this will also help with the idea of the brain.

Please IGNORE all thoughts and images of ‘head’ and ‘fingers’ and just answer from actual experience. Close your eyes and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and keeping your eyes closed...

Press a finger down onto the top of the ‘head’.
Notice what is actually present.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?

Do the same with a finger on each side of the head.
Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them

Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
Without thought, does it have a location?

Thought SUGGESTS/POINTS/INFERS that the sensation is heat. Without thought how could this be known?
It couldn’t be. Without the interpretive properties of thought there is no means to ascribe any quality, whether heat or something else, to any actual experience.
Yes! Yes! Yes! :) The ascribing and interpretations are the content of thought. So the label/thought is ‘heat’ and the ascribing, description and interpretation is the content of that thought. And the content of thought is all fantasy.
But LOOK again - all that is actually present are colours which thought labels as ‘red’ and ‘green’, a nice smell, which thought labels as ‘rose’, and maybe an 'ouch' sensation that thought labels as ‘thorn prick’. The rose itself is only a story.Beyond the story, can a rose be found to exist at all?
It can't. And I'm laughing to myself because there's that little habituated thought tugging away in the shadows and saying 'buh...but...it has to exist!' Perhaps it will fade as the new way of seeing beds in. Regardless of the persistence of this thought, everything I've learned so far in terms of the nature of AE and of thought is credible and makes sense and I accept and believe it. Just the same, I thought I should let you know that the old way of thinking is still hanging around at the moment.
That old way of thinking won’t go away. There has never been a separate self…ever…not even now and those thoughts have always appeared. So when a rose is seen it will automatically be labelled as ‘rose’ and with it all that it is described and ascribed as. This just happens. It just becomes a knowing that what is actually there, is THIS/experience, that seems to be appearing as a rose. But I am sooooo pleased that you saw the 'buh...but...it has to exist! And saw through it. This you will have to do over and over and over…that is why LOOKING is very important and that LOOKING is done consistently and diligently day in and day out. If you do that…LOOKING will start to happen automatically.
Notice that all things that seem to exist are just like the rose. Just fictional stories about experience.
Over the last day or two I've found myself starting to look at things through the prism of this new understanding in a natural, unforced way. By 'natural' I mean that I'm doing so out of a playful curiosity that's arisen naturally and not an assumed sense of obligation to 'get things right' which I must admit, had been dogging me somewhat (and no doubt making things more difficult than they might otherwise have been). It's a step :-) There's just a very pleasant and unhurried inclination to look—whether at the things on the breakfast table or at clouds or perspectives on a walk through the park. It's really subtle and a bit 'out of the corner of my eye' though.
Oh….how wonderful! Nice, Glenn…this is really nice to read…keep it up :)

With love,
Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Fri May 31, 2019 5:59 pm

Hi Kay

Just a quick note to let you know I received your reply. I've had some relatives over for a visit and I haven't had the opportunity to write a response to it yet, but you'll get one from me tomorrow.

Glenn

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:55 am

Hi Kay

Sorry it’s taken a little while to get back to you this time. My lovely cousin was over from Canada so I’ve been tied up playing mein host for a few days.
Have a look and query…what is the AE of nervous system and what is the AE of brain? Do they point to sound, smell, taste, colour, sensation or thought? That is a very simple litmus test. :)
The labels ‘nervous system’ and ‘brain’ point to thoughts both verbal and pictorial: ‘nervous system’ gives rise to thought pictures of a web of interwoven threads and channels in the general shape of a human body; ‘brain’ gives rise to a thought picture of a pinkish-grey loaf-sized object in and around which courses a flurry of electrical impulses.

Other thoughts about ‘brain’ come up as well: it's a place where everything meets and interacts; it's the ‘home’ of thought; there's sensation arising in the prefrontal cortex when I think about the nature of my brain (a dull ache at the brow and temples).

Many of these words and images exert a strong pull as they make their case for being objective truth about reality, but in fact they are just AE of thought. They can’t be anything other than that. So, in short, ‘nervous system’ and ‘brain’ point to thought.

(Side note: I’d been thinking that the brain is out of range of seeing, hearing, smelling and sensation. Then I thought, well, no, because with a little bit of application [and maybe a bit of prior experience with body-scan meditation] sensation in the organ of the brain can be located. As I was thinking that, awareness spontaneously shifted to the process of looking and I became strongly aware of sensation moving from the very front to the very back of the brain. I had no previous knowledge about which part of the brain the optic nerve connects to, so on a hunch I Googled it. Sure enough—right down at the back.

I wrote the preceding paragraph using the old, conventional terminology—referring to ‘the brain’ and ‘optic nerve’ as concrete physical objects, etc. I did so purely for ease of communication, so don’t worry about me taking a big step backwards, because I haven't. I’m very much on track, and fully aware that writing about locations in the brain et al is contradictory to the direction we're travelling in. It was just to put some thoughts into words. Breaking it down into AE, my observation and conclusion about sensation in the brain amount to: AE of thought about AE of sensation labelled ‘neurological stimulation’.)
Let’s examine the solidity of the head and this will also help with the idea of the brain. Please IGNORE all thoughts and images of ‘head’ and ‘fingers’ and just answer from actual experience. Close your eyes and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and keeping your eyes closed...

Press a finger down onto the top of the ‘head’. Notice what is actually present. Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?
It’s sensation and thoughts about a head. Actually, for a moment there it wasn’t even that. I was able to ignore thoughts about heads and fingers and experience just sensation labelled pressure.
Do the same with a finger on each side of the head.
Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
Just sensations. Two points of sensation labelled pressure. Although, interestingly, a visual thought of the outline of the shape of a head arises at times. It was possible to ignore it, although it took a few moments to clear the mind of the image.
And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them
As stated above, there were thoughts about something between the pressure points. Well, not between them as in ‘a line through the head’. Rather, they were connected around the head by an encircling vertical line. This ‘shape of the head’ thought asserted itself, filling in the notional missing space between the two points of sensation.
Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought there can be no head size because there’s no AE of thought about ‘my head’ or its attributes at all. ‘My head’ is conceptual, size is conceptual, location is conceptual, space is conceptual. Physical dimensions and spatial awareness are just AE of thought.
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?


Without thought there’s no inside or outside of the head or anything else. ‘Inside’ and ‘outside’ are concepts—AE of thought.
Without thought, does it have a location?
No. Without thought, there can be no concept of ‘location’ thus there can be no location, full stop.
…that is why LOOKING is very important and that LOOKING is done consistently and diligently day in and day out. If you do that…LOOKING will start to happen automatically.
I’m looking. It hasn’t started to happen automatically yet, but absolutely I’m keeping mindful of all the elements of AE regardless of what I’m doing or where I am, almost all of the time. And I’ll continue to do so until it becomes reflex. Or, as us guitarists like to say, ‘until I’ve got it under me fingers’ :-)

In closing: the other day I found myself thinking about ‘there are no past experiences’, and the real meaning of it started to hit me for the first time. The things that we are working through now are without doubt very novel and interesting on a superficial level. But when their actual meaning begins to filter through, it becomes apparent how profound this all is. I don’t want to say any more about it right now because the initial realisation I had was only sustained for a few minutes. It was absolutely thrilling though; I began to understand the potential.

I’m starting to see that this information can take time to work its way from intellectual acceptance into belief, and it does so unconsciously, away from the pressure of active thought. So while I anticipate more to come, I’ll keep my powder dry for the moment. I just wanted to let you know for now that those thoughts had arisen.

Love and thanks

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby forgetmenot » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:29 am

Hi Glenn,
Have a look and query…what is the AE of nervous system and what is the AE of brain? Do they point to sound, smell, taste, colour, sensation or thought? That is a very simple litmus test. :)
Many of these words and images exert a strong pull as they make their case for being objective truth about reality, but in fact they are just AE of thought. They can’t be anything other than that. So, in short, ‘nervous system’ and ‘brain’ point to thought.
Yes, they are simply AE of thought ie thoughts about thoughts.
Press a finger down onto the top of the ‘head’. Notice what is actually present. Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?
It’s sensation and thoughts about a head. Actually, for a moment there it wasn’t even that. I was able to ignore thoughts about heads and fingers and experience just sensation labelled pressure.
Lovely! Yes! What thought labels as the ‘head’ is actually just sensation. So the label ‘head’ is AE of thought and not AE of a head. The sensation itself does not suggest in any way that it is a head. Only thought does that.
Do the same with a finger on each side of the head.
Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
Just sensations. Two points of sensation labelled pressure. Although, interestingly, a visual thought of the outline of the shape of a head arises at times. It was possible to ignore it, although it took a few moments to clear the mind of the image.
Nice observation re the mental image of the outline of the shape of the head. You will notice this with the entire body as we move through this exploration. When these mental images of the body arise….just ask yourself if the image itself is the actual experience of the body, or whatever part is being imag(in)ed.

How is it known that there are “two points of sensation”?
And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them
As stated above, there were thoughts about something between the pressure points. Well, not between them as in ‘a line through the head’. Rather, they were connected around the head by an encircling vertical line. This ‘shape of the head’ thought asserted itself, filling in the notional missing space between the two points of sensation.
You have confused the answer...is there anything between the “pressure points” or are there just thoughts about something being in between them?

Is that imprint/image “shape of the head” itself the actual experience of a head or is it a thought (mental image) about a head?

Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought there can be no head size because there’s no AE of thought about ‘my head’ or its attributes at all. ‘My head’ is conceptual, size is conceptual, location is conceptual, space is conceptual. Physical dimensions and spatial awareness are just AE of thought.
Beautiful! :)
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
Without thought there’s no inside or outside of the head or anything else. ‘Inside’ and ‘outside’ are concepts—AE of thought.
Yes…so can thoughts or mental images actually happen in a head?
Without thought, does it have a location?
No. Without thought, there can be no concept of ‘location’ thus there can be no location, full stop.
Nice :)
…that is why LOOKING is very important and that LOOKING is done consistently and diligently day in and day out. If you do that…LOOKING will start to happen automatically.
I’m looking. It hasn’t started to happen automatically yet, but absolutely I’m keeping mindful of all the elements of AE regardless of what I’m doing or where I am, almost all of the time. And I’ll continue to do so until it becomes reflex. Or, as us guitarists like to say, ‘until I’ve got it under me fingers’ :-)
Good!

Okay, here is an exercise which points out the difference between actual experience and content of thought. Thoughts either point to AE or they point to thoughts about thought. Thought, in and of itself, does not contain any experience, otherwise you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’ and feel the word ‘hot’ and hear thunder when the word ‘thunder’ appeared!

There are two types of thoughts:
#1 Thoughts with words “Here is cup”
#2 Visual mental images of a ‘cup’

So I invite you to do this exercise:
Think of a cup. Get a very clear picture in your mind. See clearly the size, shape, colour and volume of the cup. Notice whether it is decorated or plain. Notice whether it has a handle. Notice whether it is heavy or fragile. Do you have a clear picture in mind?

Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?

Is there a ‘real’ cup or just a mental image of a cup?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?


Now let’s look at the 'word' thought “here is a cup”….

Can a 'real' cup be found in the thought itself?

"Here is a cup" is the thought; the ensuing thoughts of what a cup is and does, what it is made from etc are the content of that thought. What do those thoughts point to exactly? Do they point to colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound? Or do they simply point to actual experience of thought and thought only?

So thoughts and mental images are actual experience only as arising thoughts (words and mental image), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what they are about, what they are pointing to (like the cup) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about, what it is pointing to) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.


Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Sun Jun 02, 2019 6:09 pm

Hi Kay

Thank you for the helpful reply. I went over the points you addressed in my previous post and I've included my replies to them below. I’ll sit with the cup exercise a bit longer, as you suggested, and I'll get back to you with my findings on it over the next day or two.
How is it known that there are “two points of sensation”?
Once again, it seems that old habits die hard. Having understood and stated elsewhere that ‘location’ and ‘spatial awareness’ are AE of thought, in this instance I nonetheless referred to “two points of sensation”, i.e. two locations. AE of sensation has no qualities beyond itself. Such qualities that may be overlaid on it are solely the contents of thought. As such, the label ‘two points of sensation’ actually points to AE of thought about AE of sensation labelled pressure + AE of thought about spatial awareness labelled location. ‘Points of sensation’ cannot be known in actual experience.
You have confused the answer...is there anything between the “pressure points” or are there just thoughts about something being in between them?
Apologies—yes, I see I’d misunderstood the question. OK, Take 2: There are just thoughts about something in between the ‘pressure points’: pictorial thoughts about a brain, eyes and nerves. Once again a strong habituated suggestion arises that the contents of these thoughts have concrete physical existence but, as you said, that is to be expected.
Is that imprint/image “shape of the head” itself the actual experience of a head or is it a thought (mental image) about a head?
It’s very clearly just a mental image of a head, and only a partial one at that. No facial features, no detail to distinguish it as ‘my head’; just a thought containing a picture of a transparent outline of the general shape of a human head.

More soon!

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:21 am

Hi Glenn,
You have confused the answer...is there anything between the “pressure points” or are there just thoughts about something being in between them?
Apologies—yes, I see I’d misunderstood the question. OK, Take 2: There are just thoughts about something in between the ‘pressure points’: pictorial thoughts about a brain, eyes and nerves. Once again a strong habituated suggestion arises that the contents of these thoughts have concrete physical existence but, as you said, that is to be expected.
This is why it is important to keep on breaking down whatever you see/hear/feel/smell/taste into AE. That way it becomes a habit.
Is that imprint/image “shape of the head” itself the actual experience of a head or is it a thought (mental image) about a head?
It’s very clearly just a mental image of a head, and only a partial one at that. No facial features, no detail to distinguish it as ‘my head’; just a thought containing a picture of a transparent outline of the general shape of a human head.
As I said before...being aware of this 'outline' is great, because you have noticed how this suggests that there is some body part or whole body there. This suggestion, without being investigated is what keeps the idea of the body in play, and that there is something happening to a body, therefore there is something happening to a 'me', because this 'me' resides in the body. As you can see...that is simply all story. When you look to see if you can find what is being pointed at with regards the 'self' and the body...you can query this image to see if the image is it.

I look forward to your next post

Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:04 pm

Hi Kay

Apologies for the lag. Full update tomorrow!

Glenn

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:40 pm

Hi Kay

It’s taken me a day longer than intended to reply to you, and I apologise for the delay. It’s been an unexpectedly busy week—I’m in the process of securing a new job and I had do a ton of prep for it which ate up all my time. Very happy to be back with you again now though.
There are two types of thoughts:
#1 Thoughts with words “Here is cup”
#2 Visual mental images of a ‘cup’

So I invite you to do this exercise:
Think of a cup. Get a very clear picture in your mind. See clearly the size, shape, colour and volume of the cup. Notice whether it is decorated or plain. Notice whether it has a handle. Notice whether it is heavy or fragile. Do you have a clear picture in mind?
Yes
Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
No.
Can you pour tea into it?
No.
Can you drink from it?
No.
Is there a ‘real’ cup or just a mental image of a cup?
Just a mental image.
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?
No.
Now let’s look at the 'word' thought “here is a cup”….

Can a 'real' cup be found in the thought itself?

"Here is a cup" is the thought; the ensuing thoughts of what a cup is and does, what it is made from etc are the content of that thought. What do those thoughts point to exactly? Do they point to colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound? Or do they simply point to actual experience of thought and thought only?
Thought only.
So thoughts and mental images are actual experience only as arising thoughts (words and mental image), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what they are about, what they are pointing to (like the cup) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

Yes, absolutely.
Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about, what it is pointing to) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.
I was listening to talk radio and when I closed my eyes a stream of mental images appeared representing the words that were coming over the radio like a ticker-tape display. All the letters set in perfect Times New Roman. A split-second delay between heard sound and arising of mental image was noticeable. This ticker-tape display was pure mental imaging—just thought, albeit thought derived / interpreted from AE of sound labelled words.

A few times I found myself returning to the ‘cup’ idea you suggested. I’d envision a cup, then envision raising it to my lips. It was notable that the mental image of the raising of the cup to the lips was limited. Which is to say, it was limited to what is conventionally understood to be the limit of peripheral vision in the physical world. It was impossible to get the thought image to extend beyond the point where the lips meet the cup; analogous to the eyes being unable to turn 180° and look inside the head.

Frustrated by this, I tried to mentally picture the scenario from an objective, third-party perspective, i.e. picturing my face and body as though it was being observed by a person other than myself. I found it impossible to picture my own face. Never mind the millions of times I’ve seen it in the mirror, the only mental image I could muster of it was a blurred, generic face-like smear.

When examining the thought-image of a cup and mentally asking asking the questions, ‘can it be drunk out of’, ‘can it be held’ etc, I noticed that as each question was asked, one by one the imagined features of the cup disappeared like evaporating mist. When they'd all vanished their suddenly apparent unreality gave me a start and made me laugh. Where there had been a thought pointing to awareness of other thoughts that contained the elements of the ‘cup’ (shape, colour, design, etc) now there was an ‘awareness thought’ pointing to empty globes, which I understand to be pictorial symbols representing thoughts without contents. This process became a kind-of chain reaction of individual thoughts moving ever further back in a hall-of-mirrors hierarchy of thoughts that pointed to thoughts: first there were thought globes with contents; then an empty thought globe; then a thought that the globe was empty and thus was evidence of nothingness; then another thought asserted that this apparent ‘nothingness’ was really another thought perceiving a symbol of nothingness. Then yet another thought asserted itself: that this chain of thoughts will continue to progress ad infinitum until thought itself stops. And all of this was just imagined—no part of it was real.

I’ve probably provided much more information than the question demanded, but I found all the above to be interesting and perhaps noteworthy. But the short and simple answer to the original question is: none of the content of any thoughts that arose are real.

Love and thanks

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5506
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:44 am

Hi Glenn,

Good luck with your new prospective job. Great job with looking at the cup exercise!
which I understand to be pictorial symbols representing thoughts without contents.
And without thought, how would it be known what those pictorial symbols actually represented, and how would it be known that they are ‘pictures/images’?
But the short and simple answer to the original question is: none of the content of any thoughts that arose are real.
Terrific! :) So the difference between actual experience and the content of thought is clear?

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with. Notice how the sports commentator is like the 'inner narrator' labelled 'my thoughts'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice, seems to feel as though they can influence somehow what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome, the commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

Let me know how you feel and what you notice when the sound is on and when the sound is off. Also, when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?

Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?

And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?


Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest