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: 5613
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Postby forgetmenot » Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:59 am

Good afternoon Glenn,

A warmer day here today with no wind, and not such a chilly start to the day either.
Good to be with you again, and I’m sorry for the gap between posts. I meant to reply yesterday but I got stuck waiting for delayed trains for hours and got home late and weary.
No worries as I see that you are LOOKING at times like these :)
I’ll keep my answers short and to the point this time, but I hope you’ll tolerate a very brief preamble: Reading over my last post is remarkable. I feel almost embarrassed and a bit bewildered at how regressive in tone and content much of it seems to be, after the revelation of last week. Way too much efforting went into it and, on reflection, it was as though a wave of defiance swelled up over several days. A protective shell of ‘thinking’—a very ‘selfish’ thing--the surrounding structure of the self thought, ramming me backwards into the old assumptions. It was like walking through mental treacle for several days, but it’s faded away now. I sincerely apologise for wasting your time with waffle.
Nice observation of thought waffling (laughing) As you have noticed since having your revelation...that it's all very simple and doesn't need screeds of waffle to give a response. :)
What humans exactly? Do people think? Are people aware? Since there is no ‘you’ that is the thinker of thought, then why would there be others who are thinkers of thought?
No humans. ‘Human’ is a label, a concept. Thought interprets raw experience into ‘a human’, which is a construct, just like ‘an apple’, from our first exercise, is a construct.
Yep. Never just believe what thought says…always check it with AE.

A great tool to use to see whether thought is adding “virtual layers” via stories about experience, is to replace the thought itself with “blahblahblah” to see if what thought is referring to remains. The more complex the idea, the more “virtual layers” have been added. So the layers of the story, which are pure fantasy need to be stripped away, until all that remains is the bare bones.

A simple example is if thought appears saying “I am confused”. Does the thought “I am confused” contain any actual confusion? Replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains. Let me know how you go.
People don’t think. No ‘one’ thinks; there are no thinkers, just thought. People can’t ‘have’ awareness. Awareness is thought observing itself. There are no others who are thinkers of thought.
Can thought observe itself? Does thought have the capacity, the attributes to observe itself?

In other words, thought IS an appearance, and an "appearance" is just another word for THIS (or 'experience') exactly as it is. Thought is experience and experience is always here! It is just thought that says thought is something other than experience! Thought seems to know a subject (the knower) and an object (the known) but Knowing knows only Knowing. We are that Knowing, and thus we know our Self alone.
Is there anyone controlling what thoughts appear and when?
No.
And can where thought arises from and subsides to, be found?
What is it that suggests “human thought will interpret a picture of something as in some way being the actual object that it represents…(etc)
Past experience thought stories. ‘Knowledge’. Which are, as previously described, inherently fictitious and routinely misleading.
When a thought or mental image appears and seems to be referring to past experience…when is that thought actually appearing?
Without thought, how is it known that “the illusion / impression of ‘experiencing depth’ is powerful and, apparently, necessary for orientation”?
It isn’t. Without thought, there can be no knowledge.
Lovely! YES!
How is the movement controlled?
It isn’t. It’s clearly independent of any deliberate process or controlling thought. It’s just doing it.
Lovely LOOKING, Glenn :)
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
No, definitely not. Interesting to note that familiar ‘looking for a controller who’s not there’ feeling arising though, but it now seems like a faint echo of an old habit rather than a loud, nagging imperative. A bit like getting a cigarette craving after you’ve quit.
Oh I like how you said that….” A bit like getting a cigarette craving after you’ve quit”! That is a perfect way of explaining it.
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
Thoughts can’t make decisions—they’re neutral, and for them to have a decision-making capacity would require them to have agency, which they don’t. There was no decision made. I read your instruction then the hand started turning over. That seems like cause and effect, not the product of any decision. Like a cloud ‘telling’ a raindrop to make a flower grow, for instance. The raindrop doesn’t decide to land on the flower. It just falls from the cloud to the earth and the flower grows.
Now…see, this kind of expressiveness is beautiful. This is lovely “waffling” ;) :)
I’ve seen that spatial and temporal awareness, as conventionally understood, are illusory thought-phenomena. In (my) everyday existence though, their ‘reality’ continues to pervade.
Oh and so there is an idea here that they should disappear?
No, that’s not what I meant. I’ve got to be more careful writing things down here. I really didn’t mean that. I just meant to gently underline the facts of the situation, not to imply that I expected the observable universe to shrink to the size of a pea before my very eyes  I should have added the qualifying “…though, obviously, their ‘reality’ continues to pervade”. But I didn’t. Sorry for not making that clearer.
LOL! Funny….especially the bit “, not to imply that I expected the observable universe to shrink to the size of a pea before my very eyes” (still laughing)
Can I please have a simple short response to the question. Is there really a 3D dimension or only 2D?
There is only 2D. Yesterday I went to the cinema, and the 2D-ness of the ‘3D’ world up there on the screen was easily apparent. Colour/shade created the illusion of 3D, as they do in the world outside the cinema too.
Nice! What did you go see?

The following exercise will also help with this.

Have a look at the following picture. Thought says that the door is open and that there is space between the edge of the door that is seen and the wall behind the door. But is there?

Image

Now, go open your front door like it is in this picture and have a look. Is the open door actually taking up ‘space’ and is there ‘space’ between door and the wall behind the door?

Is dark different to light? Is black different to white?
No. They are labels / concepts that both point to AE of colour.
Lovely! And the label ‘colour’ points to THIS, exactly as it is.
What you think you are ie Glennself, is a thought. It's a thought that points (suggest) to colour, sound, sensation and so on and labels it a ‘me’. However, what you are is not a thought. And a thought is not a thought. It is thought that divides this into those 6 categories and then labels them as thought, sound, colour etc. So THIS is not actually appearing as a thought. It is simply appearing as itself..which then thought labels as being thought! Do you say to yourself when a thought appears….”oh look there I am appearing as a thought?” No! All there is, is THIS appearing exactly as it IS…no divisions…no labels, no descriptions.
THIS is above and beyond thought and language, because it’s just THIS. I understand what you’ve written but I won’t write more because I’d like to let it percolate unhurriedly overnight.
Yep…let it percolate.

And when you are ready to add more coffee grinds to the percolator - try this…

…If you look at a table, and for the sake of this experiment, let’s say it is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’ and you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what are you left with?


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

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

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

Postby SterlingM » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:51 pm

Hi Kay

Thanks for your lovely and, as ever, thought-provoking reply. I've got obligations tonight and tomorrow, so this is just to say I've read through your post, I'm ticking over on it now and I'll reply in full on Thursday.

For now, the movie I saw the other day was Francis Coppola's 1974 classic The Conversation. What. a. film. If you haven't seen it, I can't recommend it enough. Gene Hackman's best performance, and that's saying something.

More soon

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Postby forgetmenot » Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:20 am

Thank you for letting me know, Glenn. I look forward to your next post.

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

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

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

Postby SterlingM » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:02 pm

Hi Kay

Very quick update to apologise once more for the delay. You'll have noticed a few gaps in recent weeks--it's just my new job taking up a lot of time. If I get home late and tired it's not always possible or advisable to write to you; it's important to be clear-headed. But fear not, you'll get my reply tonight, and sorry it wasn't with you yesterday as I'd initially said.

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:05 am

That's okay Glenn...life happens. I know you are committed to this exploration and that you will respond :)

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

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

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

Postby SterlingM » Sat Jul 20, 2019 3:54 am

Hi Kay

Thank you for your patience and understanding. I'm not entirely at ease with my replies this time, because 'tired'. It gets a bit wooly and places. But here they are. I'll keep looking and mulling until I hear from you again.
A great tool to use to see whether thought is adding “virtual layers” via stories about experience, is to replace the thought itself with “blahblahblah” to see if what thought is referring to remains. The more complex the idea, the more “virtual layers” have been added. So the layers of the story, which are pure fantasy need to be stripped away, until all that remains is the bare bones. 

A simple example is if thought appears saying “I am confused”. Does the thought “I am confused” contain any actual confusion? Replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains. Let me know how you go.

No, the thought ‘I am confused’ contains no actual confusion; it just contains the words ‘I am confused’, which on examination don’t mean what they seem to: first, there’s no ‘I’ to be confused. Looking further, ‘I am confused’ seems to mean that no ‘past experience thought stories’ are arising that bear enough similarity to raw experience as it’s happening now, in the moment (and I realise that everything, including thoughts of ‘the past’, is happening now, in the moment). ‘I am confused’ then, really means that thoughts are reaching for other thoughts that aren’t there.

The last week or so, predictable feelings have arisen in response to certain stimuli. Example: I was walking up the stairs at the train station and a burly eastern European came barrelling downstairs toward me holding his bicycle, shouting angrily at me to get out of the way before I could even register him properly. He was gone in an instant and I was rattled:

‘I’m angry’; ‘I feel stupid’; ‘I was a bit scared’; ‘I’m ashamed of feeling a bit scared’.

Of course it’s typical to feel belittled and put out in a situation like that. What was different about this was that questions automatically arose straight after the event: “What are these feelings?’ ‘Who is having these feelings?’ ‘What is there to feel upset about?’ ‘Who is it that is feeling upset?’ etc. The self thought was still present in thought, but was almost immediately understood as thought, and not as ‘Glennself’. The disturbed thoughts I had were just past experience thought stories kicking in. They weren't real and nor was the 'I' who was having them.
Can thought observe itself? Does thought have the capacity, the attributes to observe itself?
No, it can’t. I was writing from habit again there. Sorry. There is no thinker / observer, whether that might be defined as a human being or as a thought. Thoughts are neutral.

There is observation, but no observer—or, so it seems. The concept of observation requires separation for it to exist, but in fact observation and that-which-is-observed are one and the same, which is to say: they are everything / THIS, and THIS is a singularity, albeit one that appears superficially to divide itself. So, in the everyday world, things appear to be what they, apparently, are. Which takes us to your next comment:
In other words, thought IS an appearance, and an "appearance" is just another word for THIS (or 'experience') exactly as it is. Thought is experience and experience is always here! It is just thought that says thought is something other than experience! Thought seems to know a subject (the knower) and an object (the known) but Knowing knows only Knowing. We are that Knowing, and thus we know our Self alone.


Is there anyone controlling what thoughts appear and when?
No.
And can where thought arises from and subsides to, be found?
No. Locations are illusory. By extension, any impression that a thought is arriving at one location somewhere (in the brain) and then leaving from another is illusory also.
When a thought or mental image appears and seems to be referring to past experience…when is that thought actually appearing?
It’s appearing right now. Thoughts of future experience are appearing right now as well. Conventionally, these thoughts give rise to a usually-unquestioned impression that they are in some way in or of the past or future rather than just being stories about past or future events. That in turn gives rise to the feeling of being in an expanse, or ‘stream’ of time, that we could, theoretically, move backwards and forwards in. But we aren’t. There is only ever the present moment, and neither past or future bookends it. Past or future events don’t exist, except as the contents of thought. Everything—i.e. experience—is happening right now.




Have a look at the following picture. Thought says that the door is open and that there is space between the edge of the door that is seen and the wall behind the door. But is there?
No. It’s an illusion. It’s actually a flat 2D plane, but thought says it’s 3D.






Now, go open your front door like it is in this picture and have a look. Is the open door actually taking up ‘space’ and is there ‘space’ between door and the wall behind the door?
No. The door is the door; the notion that it is in some way ‘taking up’ space, or displacing space with its physical presence doesn’t add up. It’s not as though a door-shaped chunk of space has moved out of the way and gone somewhere else in order to accommodate the opening of the door. The tableau is really another 2D picture, like the actual picture.
What you think you are ie Glennself, is a thought. It's a thought that points (suggest) to colour, sound, sensation and so on and labels it a ‘me’. However, what you are is not a thought. And a thought is not a thought. It is thought that divides this into those 6 categories and then labels them as thought, sound, colour etc. So THIS is not actually appearing as a thought. It is simply appearing as itself..which then thought labels as being thought! Do you say to yourself when a thought appears….”oh look there I am appearing as a thought?” No! All there is, is THIS appearing exactly as it IS…no divisions…no labels, no descriptions.
I can’t add anything to what you wrote, because it was so complete. I’ll just reiterate that, yes, I understand what you’ve said and I'll continue to think on it.

quote]If you look at a table, and for the sake of this experiment, let’s say it is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’ and you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what are you left with?[/quote]

Something quite ‘trippy’, actually. I did this exercise with tables, walls and other objects, and it was strange and fascinating. With the labels removed the various objects seemed to take on an abstract quality. Without the colour label, colour itself became indistinct and kind-of ambiguous. At times the surface of the objects appeared energetic and almost alive. There was a sense of looking at something completely new or, at least, really looking at the objects for the first time. I’ll be doing this more across the weekend.

Love and thanks

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:45 am

Hello Glenn,

Perhaps it’s best that you don’t respond when you are tired, because I can’t understand what you are writing.
A great tool to use to see whether thought is adding “virtual layers” via stories about experience, is to replace the thought itself with “blahblahblah” to see if what thought is referring to remains. The more complex the idea, the more “virtual layers” have been added. So the layers of the story, which are pure fantasy need to be stripped away, until all that remains is the bare bones. 

A simple example is if thought appears saying “I am confused”. Does the thought “I am confused” contain any actual confusion? Replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains. Let me know how you go.

Looking further, ‘I am confused’ seems to mean that no ‘past experience thought stories’ are arising that bear enough similarity to raw experience as it’s happening now, in the moment (and I realise that everything, including thoughts of ‘the past’, is happening now, in the moment). ‘I am confused’ then, really means that thoughts are reaching for other thoughts that aren’t there.
I have no idea what you are writing above and what you are trying to point to with this. It seems you are confused about the exercise!

When confusion seemingly appears, it is only due to a thought appearing which says “I am confused” and with that there can be a ‘body’ sensation labelled as ‘confusion”. If you replace the thought “I am confused” with “blahblahblah” all that is left is either the ‘body’ sensation if one arose…or there is nothing. I don’t see how you got references to a past or anything else. The exercise was about getting to the bare bones of what IS!

I suggest you redo the exercise and let me know what you find.
Of course it’s typical to feel belittled and put out in a situation like that. What was different about this was that questions automatically arose straight after the event: “What are these feelings?’ ‘Who is having these feelings?’ ‘What is there to feel upset about?’ ‘Who is it that is feeling upset?’ etc. The self thought was still present in thought, but was almost immediately understood as thought, and not as ‘Glennself’. The disturbed thoughts I had were just past experience thought stories kicking in. They weren't real and nor was the 'I' who was having them.
How is it known that “the disturbed thought I had were just past experience thought stories kicking in?” You have been writing throughout this post that you know there is no past experience…and yet here you are referring to past experience thoughts kicking in. How is it known without thought, that you have ever had the same thought twice or more?


Asking “who is it that is feeling upset”, is not the right question. It is LOOKING, not asking questions that does the finding that there is no thing/no body/no one to find.
There is observation, but no observer—or, so it seems. The concept of observation requires separation for it to exist, but in fact observation and that-which-is-observed are one and the same, which is to say: they are everything / THIS, and THIS is a singularity, albeit one that appears superficially to divide itself. So, in the everyday world, things appear to be what they, apparently, are. Which takes us to your next comment:
Let’s have a good look at the idea of the observer.

Sit quietly somewhere where you won't be disturbed. Take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and then close your eyes.

When closing the eyes, notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
What do you find?

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeingcolour? In other words is there a boundary between what is known ie colour and the knowing of it? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line, no boundary?

Can a 'see-er' be found at all in 'what is being seen' ie AE colour?
Can a space be found between seeing and seen?

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?


Okay….then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open, or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?

Is the ‘see-er’ actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience ie see-erseen/seeingcolour?

Now, go open your front door like it is in this picture and have a look. Is the open door actually taking up ‘space’ and is there ‘space’ between door and the wall behind the door?
No. The door is the door; the notion that it is in some way ‘taking up’ space, or displacing space with its physical presence doesn’t add up. It’s not as though a door-shaped chunk of space has moved out of the way and gone somewhere else in order to accommodate the opening of the door. The tableau is really another 2D picture, like the actual picture.
Is the door a door? Does the door actually have a physical presence?
If you look at a table, and for the sake of this experiment, let’s say it is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’ and you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what are you left with?
Something quite ‘trippy’, actually. I did this exercise with tables, walls and other objects, and it was strange and fascinating. With the labels removed the various objects seemed to take on an abstract quality. Without the colour label, colour itself became indistinct and kind-of ambiguous. At times the surface of the objects appeared energetic and almost alive. There was a sense of looking at something completely new or, at least, really looking at the objects for the first time. I’ll be doing this more across the weekend.
Yes, it is quite trippy and profound!

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

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

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

Postby SterlingM » Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:55 am

Hi Kay

You’re absolutely right, some of my replies were muddled and way off target. I’m very keen to maintain the momentum of the work but, as demonstrated, doing so when I’m overtired makes it a struggle to keep a clear head, and that’s counterproductive.

For the last couple of weeks my day job has been quite demanding. I’m putting in long days doing exacting screen-based work that often leaves me feeling pretty worn out and dull-edged at close of play, and it’s affected my sleep as well.

If it’s agreeable to you, I think it might be helpful if I take a short break from our work—just for a week or two—while I start back at the gym, re-energise, get some early nights and pay off my sleep debt. Then when I return to the inquiry refreshed, perhaps we can set my rate of reply at every other day rather than every day, so that I don’t feel like I have to forcing or rush things like I did yesterday.

I'm absolutely committed to this work, and that’s why I think it would be helpful to step back from it for a minute. I’ll let you know in advance when I’m ready to pick it up, and I’ll be keeping it very much in mind between now and then. I’ll readdress the points I flubbed in the last post and we can pick up right where we left off. Please let me know if this will be OK.

Love and thanks

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:17 pm

Hi Glenn,

That is a good idea. I know you are committed, so when you come back, if you want to respond every third day or whatever...that is fine, because I know that in the mean time you are still LOOKING. It's important that you continue to do so. If you have a pull to do something towards this...then read a few pages, starting from the beginning of the thread. Just do it if the moment takes you to do it...don't force yourself.

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

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

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

Postby SterlingM » Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:43 pm

Bless you Kay. Received and understood, and I'll look forward to moving forward with you again in a couple of weeks. Until then, take care,

Glenn

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

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

Postby SterlingM » Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:33 pm

Hi Kay

It's good to be with you again. Sorry this is a little later than advertised; I got back from my long weekend later than anticipated. Be assured that this inquiry was rarely far from my mind in the time I was away. Even so, it was a bit slow going as I re-entered the work after my short hiatus. I'm looking forward to regaining momentum and getting back into the groove of it with you. The 'seer' exercise was so intriguing and revealing.

Whatever else you may derive from the following, it should at least make more literal sense than the last post did!
A great tool to use to see whether thought is adding “virtual layers” via stories about experience, is to replace the thought itself with “blahblahblah” to see if what thought is referring to remains. The more complex the idea, the more “virtual layers” have been added. So the layers of the story, which are pure fantasy need to be stripped away, until all that remains is the bare bones.

A simple example is if thought appears saying “I am confused”. Does the thought “I am confused” contain any actual confusion? Replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains. Let me know how you go.
No, there’s no confusion or any other quality inherent in “I am confused”. It’s just a thought containing words. Ditto for “blahblahblah”. They are intrinsically meaningless.

It’s quite plain to see how thought adds virtual layers / concepts to them though.

To “I am confused” it adds :
• “I” (ego-self)
• “am” (performing an action taking place at a specific time, i.e. ‘the present’, the existence of which implies the existence of ‘the past’ and ‘the future’ too)
• “confused” (‘past experiences’ of mental weakness, disarray or distress).

To “blahblahblah”, it layers lots of associated concepts: confusion, nonsense, noise, denial… But it is nonetheless just a thought that has no inherent quality or meaning beyond itself, as are the concepts that are layered upon it.
Can thought observe itself? Does thought have the capacity, the attributes to observe itself?
No. I was clumsy with language again there. The illusion of a separate observer inheres in thought, but in fact thought and observation are one and the same: THIS.
Thought seems to know a subject (the knower) and an object (the known) but Knowing knows only Knowing. We are that Knowing, and thus we know our Self alone.
“Our Self alone”?

I interpret that to mean what could be called ‘collective consciousness’; by that I mean not just Knowing but the inclusion of all (apparently separate but actually singular) Known phenomena.
And can where thought arises from and subsides to, be found?
No. Locations are illusory. They are just concepts inherent in thought, so it’s impossible to find anywhere that thought arises or subsides to. Thought sometimes seems to notice thoughts ‘popping up’ in the brain and ‘dying away’ in another part of it, but that apparent ‘noticing’ is just thought story.
When a thought or mental image appears and seems to be referring to past experience…when is that thought actually appearing?
It’s appearing now. Such thoughts are, conventionally, taken to be in some way the actual thing that they represent, rather than solely a mental representation. But they’re not really ‘events happening in the past’; they are Experience (of thought), happening Now. The same applies to thoughts that refer to the future. Just as there are no locations in ‘space’, neither are there locations in ‘time’. THIS is Here and Now.
Have a look at the following picture (PICTURE OF OPEN DOOR). Thought says that the door is open and that there is space between the edge of the door that is seen and the wall behind the door. But is there? Now, go open your front door like it is in this picture and have a look. Is the open door actually taking up ‘space’ and is there ‘space’ between door and the wall behind the door?
No. It’s no less a flat plane than any other apparent 3D tableau. In my particular circumstances, that observation is emphasised by the presence of a mirror on the facing wall, that reflects the whole scene reversed, in a very obviously 2D-appearing tableau. The ‘real’ image and the mirror image are the same image—they just appear to be different.

In terms of ‘space’—if space can be said to exist in the conventional sense, then the door isn’t ‘taking up’ space; it is *of* space. It’s not like some Archimedean thing where the volume of the door displaces an equivalent amount of space when the door moves, and all the space runs out into the street or something. Door and space are of a piece, they are one and the same. Both ‘space’ and ‘door’ are in fact experience: colourseeingthoughtlabel—THIS.
What you think you are i.e. Glennself, is a thought. It's a thought that points (suggest) to colour, sound, sensation and so on and labels it a ‘me’.
Understood.
However, what you are is not a thought.
‘You’, in this context meaning a ‘me’ that isn’t the Glennself thought?
And a thought is not a thought.
‘A thought’ is a concept that describes and compartmentalises knowing. Knowing is fluid, intangible and boundless, but it *appears* to be a linear, segmented sequence of individual thoughts in the mind of an (assumed) individual being.
It is thought that divides this into those 6 categories and then labels them as thought, sound, colour etc.
Understood.
So THIS is not actually appearing as a thought. It is simply appearing as itself…which then thought labels as being thought!
Because while the descriptive / illusory qualities of THIS are illusory they are nonetheless THIS. So, conceptually, “THIS / thought” is a kind-of ouroboros.
Let’s have a good look at the idea of the observer.

Sit quietly somewhere where you won't be disturbed. Take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and then close your eyes.

When closing the eyes, notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
Yes.
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
Thought. Thought is labelling / objectifying ‘black’. With no distinct object on which the physical eyes can focus, the ‘mind’s eye’ is doing all the ‘seeing’ (excluding the visual artefacts you mentioned above). The process of ‘seeing’ is taking place as thought. Mental images occasionally emerge arbitrarily out of the blackness and overlay it: (FWIW, some cartoon elephants and a van, among other things. So it’s never truly just ‘black’—thought images are ‘seen’ too.
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ be found?
‘Thought’, ‘seeing’ and ‘black’ are indivisible here; the same thing. There is no seer.
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?


No. There’s no seer, just seeing: ‘Black’ just is – AE of colour + AE of thought. If the capacity for abstract reasoning was completely removed—and with it, the capacity to conceive of a seer—seeing would continue.
What do you find?
Formless, limitless black. No—let me qualify that: the impression / illusion persists that, while it is indeed vast and nebulous as I’ve described, this formless black is not *quite* so formless; it seems to extend forward from the eyes, in front of the head, as though it were an object being ‘looked at’ in the conventional sense, with the eyes open. Obviously, that is not what is actually taking place. Nonetheless there is a conditioned pull toward the concept of spatial awareness and the convention of seeing with the eyes.
Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?
It just is.
Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeingcolour? In other words is there a boundary between what is known i.e. colour and the knowing of it? Or is there simply knowingknown – i.e. no dividing line, no boundary?
Just seeingcolour and knowingknown.
Can a 'see-er' be found at all in 'what is being seen' ie AE colour?
No.
Can a space be found between seeing and seen?
No. Seeing and seen are as one; an indivisible phenomenon. As mentioned above, a thought impression of space arose during this exercise: that the eyes were looking into space at an object in front of them. But that was obviously illusory and easy to brush aside. Fascinating, all the same.
If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?
No.
Okay…then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open, or are they both simply the appearance of colour?
They’re both the appearance of colour.
Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?
No. There’s just seeingcolour
Is the ‘see-er’ actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience ie see-erseen/seeingcolour?
It’s a singular, simultaneous experience – a conceptual continuum. See-er, seen, colour: these are all thought formations and artificial divisions.
Is the door a door? Does the door actually have a physical presence?
‘The door’ is a concept; coloursensationsmellsoundthoughtlabel. So no, ‘the door’ is not a door and it has no physical presence.

Which prompts the far-out-sounding question: ‘What, if anything, does have physical presence?’

Love and thanks

Glenn

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

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

Postby SterlingM » Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:55 pm

I just want to expand on the description of 'seeing black' a little further. I wrote:

"...it seems to extend forward from the eyes, in front of the head, as though it were an object being ‘looked at’ in the conventional sense, with the eyes open."

To which I'd add:

Actually, the 'act of seeing' and the 'seen' (black) seemed more closely intertwined than my description made clear. It's a bit tricky to describe clearly, but I'll have a crack at it. Picture a drawing of Superman using his X-Ray vision. Think of the way the artist draws his eye beams as triangles emitting from the eyes. That's what it was like 'seeing black' - the blackness was within these imagined triangles as though it were being emitted from the eyes as seeing, and it also surrounded everything. It seemed to be both within and without the (imagined) eyes; both produced by and received by 'sight'.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Postby forgetmenot » Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:56 am

Hey Glenn,

Welcome back :)
A great tool to use to see whether thought is adding “virtual layers” via stories about experience, is to replace the thought itself with “blahblahblah” to see if what thought is referring to remains. The more complex the idea, the more “virtual layers” have been added. So the layers of the story, which are pure fantasy need to be stripped away, until all that remains is the bare bones.
A simple example is if thought appears saying “I am confused”. Does the thought “I am confused” contain any actual confusion? Replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains. Let me know how you go.
No, there’s no confusion or any other quality inherent in “I am confused”. It’s just a thought containing words. Ditto for “blahblahblah”. They are intrinsically meaningless.

It’s quite plain to see how thought adds virtual layers / concepts to them though.

To “blahblahblah”, it layers lots of associated concepts: confusion, nonsense, noise, denial… But it is nonetheless just a thought that has no inherent quality or meaning beyond itself, as are the concepts that are layered upon it.
So, when ‘confusion’ appears and you replace the thought “I am confused” with “blahblahblah” what remains?

If ‘confusion’ is no longer the main element, do this exercise with “I am tired”, ore “I am hungry” or “I am scared”…and let me know how you go.

Can thought observe itself? Does thought have the capacity, the attributes to observe itself?
No. I was clumsy with language again there. The illusion of a separate observer inheres in thought, but in fact thought and observation are one and the same: THIS.
Lovely! :) The show is showing up as the idea of an “observer/observation” in that moment.
Thought seems to know a subject (the knower) and an object (the known) but Knowing knows only Knowing. We are that Knowing, and thus we know our Self alone.
“Our Self alone”?

I interpret that to mean what could be called ‘collective consciousness’; by that I mean not just Knowing but the inclusion of all (apparently separate but actually singular) Known phenomena.
Yes….THIS has no shape, colour, taste, smell, location etc. It simply IS and is not divided into anything! An abstract painting can appear to have many things within the abstraction…but that doesn’t divide the painting into many different things.
And can where thought arises from and subsides to, be found?
No. Locations are illusory. They are just concepts inherent in thought, so it’s impossible to find anywhere that thought arises or subsides to. Thought sometimes seems to notice thoughts ‘popping up’ in the brain and ‘dying away’ in another part of it, but that apparent ‘noticing’ is just thought story.
So, is “I” a place where thoughts arise and subside, or is “I” a thought that arises and subsides?
Have a look at the following picture (PICTURE OF OPEN DOOR). Thought says that the door is open and that there is space between the edge of the door that is seen and the wall behind the door. But is there? Now, go open your front door like it is in this picture and have a look. Is the open door actually taking up ‘space’ and is there ‘space’ between door and the wall behind the door?
No. It’s no less a flat plane than any other apparent 3D tableau. In my particular circumstances, that observation is emphasised by the presence of a mirror on the facing wall, that reflects the whole scene reversed, in a very obviously 2D-appearing tableau. The ‘real’ image and the mirror image are the same image—they just appear to be different.
Beautiful Glenn! :)
In terms of ‘space’—if space can be said to exist in the conventional sense, then the door isn’t ‘taking up’ space; it is *of* space. It’s not like some Archimedean thing where the volume of the door displaces an equivalent amount of space when the door moves, and all the space runs out into the street or something. Door and space are of a piece, they are one and the same. Both ‘space’ and ‘door’ are in fact experience: colourseeingthoughtlabel—THIS.
Image
However, what you are is not a thought.
‘You’, in this context meaning a ‘me’ that isn’t the Glennself thought?
Exactly! Unfortunately language is very limiting. If the word ‘you’ wasn’t used…there would be no context. Reading “however, what are is not a thought”, wouldn't make much sense! (lol – oh how I love the humour in all of this!~)
So THIS is not actually appearing as a thought. It is simply appearing as itself…which then thought labels as being thought!
Because while the descriptive / illusory qualities of THIS are illusory they are nonetheless THIS. So, conceptually, “THIS / thought” is a kind-of ouroboros.
Okay…you can stop eating dictionaires for breakfast, so that I can stop having to eat them for breakfast too! (laughing). But yes…what he said LOL
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
Thought. Thought is labelling / objectifying ‘black’. With no distinct object on which the physical eyes can focus, the ‘mind’s eye’ is doing all the ‘seeing’ (excluding the visual artefacts you mentioned above). The process of ‘seeing’ is taking place as thought. Mental images occasionally emerge arbitrarily out of the blackness and overlay it: (FWIW, some cartoon elephants and a van, among other things. So it’s never truly just ‘black’—thought images are ‘seen’ too.
Hmmm Glenn, what is the difference between ‘black’ and ‘colour’? The instructions said: “When closing the eyes, notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.”

So, is there anything else in ‘seeing’ other than seeing ‘black’?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
No. There’s no seer, just seeing: ‘Black’ just is – AE of colour + AE of thought. If the capacity for abstract reasoning was completely removed—and with it, the capacity to conceive of a seer—seeing would continue.
Language is a problem here. How can there be “just seeing” if there is no see-er? All that is actually appearing is THIS, labelled as “colour” and further labelled as ‘black’, so what is “seeing” exactly? Or are you saying that the IDEA of seeing is also appearing in that moment?
What do you find?
Formless, limitless black. No—let me qualify that: the impression / illusion persists that, while it is indeed vast and nebulous as I’ve described, this formless black is not *quite* so formless; it seems to extend forward from the eyes, in front of the head, as though it were an object being ‘looked at’ in the conventional sense, with the eyes open. Obviously, that is not what is actually taking place. Nonetheless there is a conditioned pull toward the concept of spatial awareness and the convention of seeing with the eyes.
To what exactly is there a “conditioned pull” and is this “conditioned pull”? Is it a thought, smell, colour, sound, sensation or taste?

Without thought appearing saying there is a “conditioned pull toward the concept of spatial awareness and the convention of seeing with the eyes”, how would that even be known…so is it actual or a fairytale?
Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?
It just is.
Yep. Drop the label ‘black’ and it just IS :)
Can a space be found between seeing and seen?
No. Seeing and seen are as one; an indivisible phenomenon. As mentioned above, a thought impression of space arose during this exercise: that the eyes were looking into space at an object in front of them. But that was obviously illusory and easy to brush aside. Fascinating, all the same.
Yes…isn’t it just so amazing how the illusion creates itself :)
Is the ‘see-er’ actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience ie see-erseen/seeingcolour?
It’s a singular, simultaneous experience – a conceptual continuum. See-er, seen, colour: these are all thought formations and artificial divisions.
Such a pleasure to read :)
Which prompts the far-out-sounding question: ‘What, if anything, does have physical presence?’
Which prompts the answer…what is it exactly that is asking the question?

Okay....I lose momentum with breaks...which is not your fault, it just is what happens....so I will continue with looking at the idea of control, choice and decisions.

The aim of the following exercise is to discover whether the function of choice can really be found or confirmed in actual experience. The idea of making ‘choices‘ is a very clear example of a function that we wrongly identify as the basis of our identity.

You need to get any two different drinks you like for this exercise, ie coffee, tea, milk, water, juices, smoothies, beer, wine, etc. One will be drink A the other will be drink B

Sit for a few moments, take a few relaxed breaths and let the dust settle. When you feel ready:

1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
2. Count to 5.
3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

Questions:
Remember that we’re looking for some kind of function, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?


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

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

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

Postby SterlingM » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:16 am

Hi Kay

Fortunately I narrowly avoided being blown under a lorry on my bicycle this afternoon. As such I’m extra-pleased to be with you again this evening :-)
So, when ‘confusion’ appears and you replace the thought “I am confused” with “blahblahblah” what remains?
The thoughts / feelings that surrounded ‘I am confused’ are supplanted by the blunt, foreground presence of ‘blahblahblah’, which just sort-of looms like a monolith in the mind’s eye. As I wrote previously, there are thoughts that accrue to ‘blahblahblah’, but none of them have emotional force like the ones that surround ‘I am confused. So—it’s interesting to observe that when a thought is superseded by another thought, the conceptual structures surrounding it linger fleetingly but are swiftly supplanted by the structures that surround the new thought.
If ‘confusion’ is no longer the main element, do this exercise with “I am tired”, ore “I am hungry” or “I am scared”…and let me know how you go.
I did it with ‘I am tired’ – because, well, I was tired! And what I observed was that when that thought was ‘swapped out’ with ‘blahblahblah’, the concept described by the thought was forgotten; ‘feeling tired’ was no longer in the moment. The mental and emotional structure around the thought was gone. It became clear that the thought had created the reality. Also that thoughts precede emotions...I think.

So, not only is it not possible for two thoughts to occur at the same time but, in the absence of a thought, the associations that surround it die away and the ‘reality’ described by the thought can be seen to be ephemeral.
The show is showing up as the idea of an “observer/observation” in that moment.
I noted you’ve referred previously to ‘the dream’ and now ‘the show’. Needless to say I’m very interested in both those descriptions and have thought about them, but I haven’t pursued it yet as I don’t want to get ahead of things before you’re ready. So—I’ve put that behind my ear for later :-)
Yes….THIS has no shape, colour, taste, smell, location etc. It simply IS and is not divided into anything! An abstract painting can appear to have many things within the abstraction…but that doesn’t divide the painting into many different things.


This is how I'm inclined to see things now.
So, is “I” a place where thoughts arise and subside, or is “I” a thought that arises and subsides?
It’s a thought that arises and subsides. A good demonstration of that can be found in the flow state, when a person is completely engaged in a task to the point of totally singular focus. Nothing else intrudes on the task at hand and there are no 'stray' thoughts. With me that tends to happen when making music or writing, but of course it’s different for everyone. During that time, the “I” thought is simply not present; there’s only being and doing. But really there's only ever being and doing; the “I” thought is just a thought that seems real.
Hmmm Glenn, what is the difference between ‘black’ and ‘colour’? The instructions said: “When closing the eyes, notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’. So, is there anything else in ‘seeing’ other than seeing ‘black’?
Apologies. I’d misunderstood the instruction. Take 2:

‘Black’ is another label for ‘colour’, which is a label for experience, which is to say, THIS. Thought is the central component here, as it generates the illusion of space within / around this blackness, giving it dimensionality where there is none. In other words, it creates the same illusion from AE of colour when the eyes are closed as it does when they are open. It seems then that ‘seeing’ is primarily a process of thought, not of ocular vision.
How can there be “just seeing” if there is no see-er? All that is actually appearing is THIS, labelled as “colour” and further labelled as ‘black’, so what is “seeing” exactly? Or are you saying that the IDEA of seeing is also appearing in that moment?
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. There is a ‘seer’ in as much as there is seerseeingseen. So a seer is not a discrete entity but really of a piece with THIS.
To what exactly is there a “conditioned pull” and is this “conditioned pull”? Is it a thought, smell, colour, sound, sensation or taste?
It’s a thought; a ‘past experience’ thought. Typical terms for it might be ‘habit’ ‘behaviour’ or ‘impulse’, but it’s still just a spontaneously-arising thought.
Without thought appearing saying there is a “conditioned pull toward the concept of spatial awareness and the convention of seeing with the eyes”, how would that even be known…so is it actual or a fairytale?
It’s a fairytale, and with the benefit of having performed this exercise it’s easy to see it as such.
Which prompts the far-out-sounding question: ‘What, if anything, does have physical presence?’

[Which prompts the answer…what is it exactly that is asking the question?
I’m going to let that one sit a bit longer, I think.
You need to get any two different drinks you like for this exercise, i.e. coffee, tea, milk, water, juices, smoothies, beer, wine, etc. One will be drink A the other will be drink B

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?
They just popped up by themselves. Past experience stories about taste, sensation etc, arising in response to the presence of the drinks.
In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?
No, ‘I’ didn’t choose to do anything. The 'numbers' and 'preferences' thoughts kind-of slugged it out between themselves. Although it only took five seconds, the relative ‘volumes’ of the preferences thought and the numbers thought nonetheless varied over that time—sometimes one was louder than the other and vice versa. It just happened that way, spontaneously. There was no sense of it being a controlled process. But certainly a mental process took place, without any guidance from ‘me’.

It was a process of cause and effect rather than one of controlled deliberation. It makes me think of hitting the speed-dial button on a mobile phone: the phone has already been programmed to perform a specific, relatively complex process, and that programme has been derived from knowledge gathered from prior outcomes (i.e. getting someone's phone number). One button needs to be pressed to initiate the programme. Potentially anyone could press it—or a dog could even step on it by accident, or whatever—and they could be completely ignorant of what the resulting process would be, or even that there was going to be one. Regardless, the button would still be pressed and the process would still ensue.
In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?
There was evidently a preference for one drink over the other, but I can’t say why that was, really. There were a couple of descriptive thoughts about the two drinks but they couldn’t be said to definitely establish a difference in quality between them. They were both pleasant drinks; there was no reason to solidly prefer one to the other. The choice turned on a ‘feeling’…as I see you’ve mentioned in the following paragraph. So I’ll move on to that…
Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?
No, a feeling can’t choose. ‘To choose’ implies the presence of a chooser where there isn’t one, and / or of a feeling having agency, which it doesn’t.

Love and thanks

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:24 am

Hi Glenn,
Fortunately I narrowly avoided being blown under a lorry on my bicycle this afternoon. As such I’m extra-pleased to be with you again this evening :-)
That would have been rather frightening for you, to say the least! I am also happy to see that you are still here as well!
So, when ‘confusion’ appears and you replace the thought “I am confused” with “blahblahblah” what remains?
The thoughts / feelings that surrounded ‘I am confused’ are supplanted by the blunt, foreground presence of ‘blahblahblah’, which just sort-of looms like a monolith in the mind’s eye. As I wrote previously, there are thoughts that accrue to ‘blahblahblah’, but none of them have emotional force like the ones that surround ‘I am confused. So—it’s interesting to observe that when a thought is superseded by another thought, the conceptual structures surrounding it linger fleetingly but are swiftly supplanted by the structures that surround the new thought.
So to put it succinctly…are you saying that when you replace the thought with blahblahblah…that what remains, for example, if the thought is “I am fearful”, is the sensation itself? The barebones of what is actually appearing is sensation, with thoughts about the sensation being fear? Or if there was no sensation that went along with the thought…then when replacing the thought with blahblahblah, that there is no thing there. It is simply thoughts about nothing (no thing)? So the bare bones of it was simply thoughts about thoughts?
If ‘confusion’ is no longer the main element, do this exercise with “I am tired”, ore “I am hungry” or “I am scared”…and let me know how you go.
I did it with ‘I am tired’ – because, well, I was tired! And what I observed was that when that thought was ‘swapped out’ with ‘blahblahblah’, the concept described by the thought was forgotten; ‘feeling tired’ was no longer in the moment.
Is feeling “tired’ ever the moment? That is what this exercise is getting to! When you replace the thought, can tiredness be found or only thoughts about tiredness?
The mental and emotional structure around the thought was gone. It became clear that the thought had created the reality. Also that thoughts precede emotions...I think.
You are jumping to conclusions here. For something to precede something else points to time…and time is a concept. And for there to be different some ‘things’ points to separation!

What is the AE of “emotion”?

What is the difference between what thought labels as thought and what thought labels as sound? No intellectual answers here….please LOOK.

The show is showing up as the idea of an “observer/observation” in that moment.
I noted you’ve referred previously to ‘the dream’ and now ‘the show’. Needless to say I’m very interested in both those descriptions and have thought about them, but I haven’t pursued it yet as I don’t want to get ahead of things before you’re ready. So—I’ve put that behind my ear for later :-)
When ‘you’ have a night time dream, do you know that you are dreaming the dream? Or does thought suggest that there was a you who were sleeping, and whilst you were sleeping you were having a dream? When the dream was happening….were you actually IN the dream? Or were you aware of everything that was happening in the dream, even aware of the idea that you were in the dream itself? But were you? How is a night time dream any different to what we call life?

How is it known that when waking up in the morning from a seeming period of slumber, that this is what is happening? That it is now ‘today’ and it is now morning, which is a follow on from ‘yesterday’?

When you ‘next wake in the morning’, look at the images/colours that are appearing.
When you look around ‘your bedroom’, ‘kitchen’, ’bathroom’, ‘house’, ‘pets’, ‘kids’, ‘partner’, ‘route to work’. ‘place of work’, etc; consider whether these colours have ever appeared before.

Has the bedroom image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about waking up in the bedroom and so on?

Can you find any previous appearances of the bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, house, pets, kids, partner, work place? Where are they? If not, how can it be known that the these places, pets and people have appeared before?

Are these appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen them before?

Do this checking in the morning for the next several mornings and let me know what you find.
So, is “I” a place where thoughts arise and subside, or is “I” a thought that arises and subsides?
It’s a thought that arises and subsides. A good demonstration of that can be found in the flow state, when a person is completely engaged in a task to the point of totally singular focus. Nothing else intrudes on the task at hand and there are no 'stray' thoughts. With me that tends to happen when making music or writing, but of course it’s different for everyone. During that time, the “I” thought is simply not present; there’s only being and doing. But really there's only ever being and doing; the “I” thought is just a thought that seems real.
Seems real to who/what exactly, or is that just another thought as well?

Thoughts are no more, or less 'valuable' or ‘meaningful’ than a stone. Thoughts know nothing, and interprets no thing ...that is a story ABOUT thought and what is SEEMS to do. How can thought give meaning or interpret anything, when there are no individual things to give meaning or interpretation to, including the idea of thought itself!? Thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about thought. The label ‘sound’ is an overlay, but is pointing to actual experience/THIS exactly as it is. The content of the label 'sound' is the story. The label 'thought' is an overly but it is pointing to actual experience/THIS, exactly as it is. The content of the label 'thought' is the story.
Hmmm Glenn, what is the difference between ‘black’ and ‘colour’? The instructions said: “When closing the eyes, notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’. So, is there anything else in ‘seeing’ other than seeing ‘black’?
Apologies. I’d misunderstood the instruction. Take 2:

‘Black’ is another label for ‘colour’, which is a label for experience, which is to say, THIS. Thought is the central component here, as it generates the illusion of space within / around this blackness, giving it dimensionality where there is none. In other words, it creates the same illusion from AE of colour when the eyes are closed as it does when they are open. It seems then that ‘seeing’ is primarily a process of thought, not of ocular vision.
Lovely :)
In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?
No, ‘I’ didn’t choose to do anything. The 'numbers' and 'preferences' thoughts kind-of slugged it out between themselves. Although it only took five seconds, the relative ‘volumes’ of the preferences thought and the numbers thought nonetheless varied over that time—sometimes one was louder than the other and vice versa. It just happened that way, spontaneously. There was no sense of it being a controlled process. But certainly a mental process took place, without any guidance from ‘me’


And without thought saying so…how is it known that the mental process taking place was actually nutting it all out?

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"?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?
There was evidently a preference for one drink over the other, but I can’t say why that was, really.
Without thought, how is it known that “there was evidently a preference for one drink over the other”?
There were a couple of descriptive thoughts about the two drinks but they couldn’t be said to definitely establish a difference in quality between them. They were both pleasant drinks; there was no reason to solidly prefer one to the other. The choice turned on a ‘feeling’…as I see you’ve mentioned in the following paragraph. So I’ll move on to that…
Is the “feeling” and actual body sensation? If not, then it is simply a thought/idea.

Imagine you lost your keys and you could swear you left them in your pocket. But when you go to check, they are not there. You empty out all your pockets, still no keys. You FEEL very strongly that they must be there because that was the last place you saw them. But they are simply not there. In this case, your actual experience contradicts what it is you are FEELING. This happens all the time. The problem is that believing in your feelings and not your direct/actual experience will keep you from understanding clearly. It is important to understand that just because you feel something is true, does not mean that it is. You can simply look and see what is true and what is not. That is what the blahblahblah tool is meant to do. To take you to the bare bones of what is and notice the thoughts about it all.

Love, 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 2 guests