Mopping up 123

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: Mopping up 123

Postby forgetmenot » Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:19 am

Hello Amo,

There are several exercises in this post. Please take your time and do them carefully...and please....no assumptive or intellectual answers. Answer from LOOKING and diligent observing.
Does experience itself have a location?
Not necessarily. It can via thought story be linked to certain parts. So e.g. if there's an itching somewhere then it's known where it is by interpretation, means by thought story. Or a pain. The experience itself doesn't have a location but thought story immediately links it to some part.

Not necessarily or no, experience does not have a location? Which is it?
Point where others see your face.
What do you see? You are now looking inwards – turning the direction of your attention round 180˚ from the objects out there to you the subject, to the place where it seems you are looking out of. Do you see your face? Do you see anything at all there - any colour or shape, any movement?
No. With closed eyes a vague memory picture of my face pops up and disappears. Then nothing. Then again some image of memory of face in the mirror. Then again nothing. Etc.
Yes, so there are thoughts (which include ‘mental images’) about ‘your face’ but when you look, no face can be seen.

I would like you to go look in a mirror and tell me what the actual experience is.
Then again some image of memory of face in the mirror. Then again nothing. Etc.
Without thought saying so…how is it known that you have seen your face in the mirror before?

When is that so-called ‘memory’ actually appearing?
“Memory sensation” is AE of thought. It is thought naming/labelling something...in this case a sensation. Does a sensation know anything about ‘memory sensation’?
No. It's fresh every time.
Exactly. It is appearing in the moment it appears. It is only a thought that suggests you have ‘remembered’ something from the past. Memory and past are pointers to time and time does not exist.
Now when we look at this, do we find thought 27 has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone all of them? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?
No it hasn't any knowledge of these. It’s a vague awareness of the topic of the threat if at all. But no memory of any single thought in between or a series of thoughts.
And is this “vague awareness” an actual feeling or is it a thought?
When is that ‘tension’ actually appearing? Does the sensation labelled as ‘tension’ know anything about the past? Does thought know anything about the past?
The tension can appear triggered by a certain situation or thought about a situation. No, the sensation itself doesn’t know about the past. No the thought as such doesn't know but a story is there which repeats itself.
So let's investigate your assumption that "tension can appear triggered by a certain situation or thought about a situation”.

1. Put aside 10-15 minutes and sit quietly with your eyes closed.
2. Think of a story that brings up the sensation ‘anxiety’ (or any emotion) - one that you can feel in the body but not too intense that it overwhelms you.
3. Then with eyes still closed, I want you to LOOK very very carefully to see if you can find/see an actual link between the thought and the sensation. You are looking to find if there is something that links the thought/story with the sensation.
4. If the sensation starts to dissipate/weaken, then bring the story to mind again until the sensation is felt, then continue looking to see if you can see/find a link. You are looking for an actual link that connects the thought/story with the sensation.
5. If you find yourself following thought instead of looking carefully for the link, just bring your attention gently back to the sensation and continue looking.

Do this exercise at least 3-4 times throughout the next 2-3 days making sure to look very carefully.
Let me know what you find.

Are you thinking because you are aware of all of this...and 'you' as a separate self are a thought, then it is thought that knows things?
No there’s no separate self nor a thought as self. Something is known in the overall entity conventionally called body-mind which is useful in day to day life.
Where exactly is this body-mind? What is the AE of body-mind?
You are throwing out answers you think you know again without LOOKING.

There is a huge difference between I do not exist and the I does not exist. Once you have clearly seen through the nature of thought...we will start to look at this.
Where does thought park itself ready to appear when a sensation labelled ‘tension’ appears? How does that thought know when to appear? And if that thought is parked somewhere waiting for a sensation to appear to match its label and stories, then where are all the other thoughts parked waiting to do the same thing?
No need for thoughts to be parked somewhere. It just appears. This hasn’t been my assumption. Thoughts just appear possibly triggered by circumstance. And disappear again.
And there is an assumption…”possibly triggered by circumstance”. So a thought would have to be aware for it to know that something has triggered it to appear. So, I am back to asking you the same question. Where is thought hiding or parked ready for it know when it is needed to appear. As you can see, we are going round in circles. You keep replying with the same assumptions and I keep questioning your assumptions with pointers and you keep answering them with the same assumptions.

In order that we stop going round in circles…you need to become aware of thoughts.

Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts. First thing is to sit for at least 10-15 minutes quietly somewhere, several times throughout your day. Close the eyes and just notice thoughts. Don’t engage with any thought, just notice them.

Looking for the gap is a way to slow the thoughts, as the objective of this exercise is to observe each and every thought as it arises and subsides.

1. Notice the current thought that is present.
Like when you sit observing the body, a thought might arise “this is my feet” or “here is a pain” or “my breathing is too quick” or “I am bored with this exercise” or “I have better things to do” or any sorts of thoughts.

2. This thought will pass and another thought will come. So just observe this thought passing.

3. Then wait for the next thought to come.

4. When the next thought is present, just notice it, and see how it passes.

5. Then wait for the next thought to come.

6. Repeat #4 and #5 many-many times.

Between the 2 thoughts there is a gap. It can be very short or subtle, just a second or a few seconds before the next thought come in.

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

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


Could a thinker of thought be found between the gaps?

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

User avatar
Amo
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 1:53 am

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby Amo » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:18 pm

Hi Kay,
Not necessarily or no, experience does not have a location? Which is it?
Only thought suggests the location. Eg while tasting something sweet a thought locates it in the mouth. Without thinking there is no location.
I would like you to go look in a mirror and tell me what the actual experience is.
Colour. A familiar pattern of colour and shape. Thought story starting about something, e.g. how do I like my hair cut? Back to seeing, visual experience, etc.
Without thought saying so…how is it known that you have seen your face in the mirror before?
It’s not known without thought.
When is that so-called ‘memory’ actually appearing?
When recognition takes place and a thought story starts.
And is this “vague awareness” an actual feeling or is it a thought?
It’s a thought, a slight memory about something.
Do this exercise at least 3-4 times throughout the next 2-3 days making sure to look very carefully.
Let me know what you find
I did it a couple of times over the last days. Thinking about a difficult and unpleasant situation the bodily tension builds up. It’s contraction in the chest, can even become a slight cramping. No link to be seen between the thought story and the contraction. But it works somehow nevertheless. So by thinking about it tension arises. But no perceivable connection.
Where exactly is this body-mind? What is the AE of body-mind?
AE of body is sensations or experience of pleasure or pain, smell, taste, sound, seeing. That’s to say there is not body as direct AE but only the sensations etc. Thought story makes the body from these.
AE of mind is thought but similarly, the direct AE is only thought. Thinking story labels it mind.
Please do the following exercise:
Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.
Let me know how you go.
While sitting with eyes close and just observing thoughts coming and going, gap, then awareness moves to other experiences when there is no thought. Noticing of sound happens often. Or sensations somewhere. Then another thought appears, hmm, disappears. A gap is there but gets quickly filled with other experience. Then thought again, about the bodily sensation, or another topic. And so on. Sometimes thought are ephemeral and not easy to grasp, or more a background mumbling. Then they tend to merge one into the next without real gap. With a narrative thought it’s easier to see it passing and observing a gap before the next one popping up.
During the day, by noticing “thinking takes place” the thought is interrupted. Often thought stories are about drafting emails. Interrupting this shifts awareness on what else is going on at this moment. So the gap can be briefly quiet or focus on the moment’s activity or other experience.
Could a thinker of thought be found between the gaps?
No thinker of thought found.

Amo

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

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby forgetmenot » Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:47 am

Hello Amo,
Not necessarily or no, experience does not have a location? Which is it?
Only thought suggests the location. Eg while tasting something sweet a thought locates it in the mouth. Without thinking there is no location.
Yes, without thought, there is no location.
I would like you to go look in a mirror and tell me what the actual experience is.
Colour. A familiar pattern of colour and shape. Thought story starting about something, e.g. how do I like my hair cut? Back to seeing, visual experience, etc.
How is it known that it is a “familiar pattern of colour and shape”?
Without thought saying so…how is it known that you have seen your face in the mirror before?
It’s not known without thought.
Exactly. It is a thought story.
When is that so-called ‘memory’ actually appearing?
When recognition takes place and a thought story starts.
What is it exactly that is "recognising" something?

If thought appears saying you ate an ice-cream yesterday….where is ‘yesterday’ in actual experience. When is that thought and images of eating an ice-cream actually appearing?

And is this “vague awareness” an actual feeling or is it a thought?
It’s a thought, a slight memory about something.
Where is this “I” that you keep stating has a memory? Where is this memory exactly? What is the AE of memory? Where is this memory appearing?
Do this exercise at least 3-4 times throughout the next 2-3 days making sure to look very carefully.
Let me know what you find
I did it a couple of times over the last days. Thinking about a difficult and unpleasant situation the bodily tension builds up. It’s contraction in the chest, can even become a slight cramping. No link to be seen between the thought story and the contraction. But it works somehow nevertheless. So by thinking about it tension arises. But no perceivable connection.
Yes, exactly....no perceivable connection.
No link to be seen between the thought story and the contraction. But it works somehow nevertheless.
What works nevertheless?
That is an assumption because you looked and saw that there is no perceivable connection, so how can a thought create a sensation when there is no perceivable connection?


So how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self’? You wrote that on a scale of 1 to 10 that you are at a 10 and yet you aren’t really willing to question them at all. You keep harking back to thought stories you think you know.
Where exactly is this body-mind? What is the AE of body-mind?
AE of body is sensations or experience of pleasure or pain, smell, taste, sound, seeing. That’s to say there is not body as direct AE but only the sensations etc. Thought story makes the body from these.
The actual experience of a body is thought as thought points to colour, sensation, smell, sound etc and calls it a body.

So does colour, thought, smell, taste, sensation or sound know anything about pleasure or pain? What is the AE of pleasure and pain?
Please do the following exercise:
Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.
Let me know how you go.
While sitting with eyes close and just observing thoughts coming and going, gap, then awareness moves to other experiences when there is no thought. Noticing of sound happens often. Or sensations somewhere. Then another thought appears, hmm, disappears. A gap is there but gets quickly filled with other experience. Then thought again, about the bodily sensation, or another topic. And so on. Sometimes thought are ephemeral and not easy to grasp, or more a background mumbling. Then they tend to merge one into the next without real gap. With a narrative thought it’s easier to see it passing and observing a gap before the next one popping up.
During the day, by noticing “thinking takes place” the thought is interrupted. Often thought stories are about drafting emails. Interrupting this shifts awareness on what else is going on at this moment. So the gap can be briefly quiet or focus on the moment’s activity or other experience.
So the point of this exercise was to just simply see thoughts arising and subsiding without anything needed to be done for them to do so. Did you notice this?

Where are they coming from and going to?
Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear? Or they just appeared?

Could a thinker of thought be found between the gaps?
No thinker of thought found.
Great!

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

User avatar
Amo
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 1:53 am

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby Amo » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:48 pm

Hello Kay,
How is it known that it is a “familiar pattern of colour and shape”?
Difficult question. It’s just known.
What is it exactly that is "recognising" something?
Difficult to say, it happens too quick for thought. When recognition takes place it’s faster than thought. Thought then confirms what awareness already knows. When a colour thing is seen it’s immediately recognised as rose or butterfly. Even before thought is putting the label. When black dots on the white screen are seen then immediately a word is read. So the recognition comes on top of the seen, heard, or sensed etc. Not possible to say what it is, it just happens.
If thought appears saying you ate an ice-cream yesterday….where is ‘yesterday’ in actual experience. When is that thought and images of eating an ice-cream actually appearing?
‘Yesterday’ in AE is a thought story. The thought and mental image is appearing now.
Where is this “I” that you keep stating has a memory? Where is this memory exactly? What is the AE of memory? Where is this memory appearing?
There’s no ‘I’ with memory. Memory is a thought story appearing as thought in awareness. The AE is thought. It’s appearing in thought story.
What works nevertheless?
That is an assumption because you looked and saw that there is no perceivable connection, so how can a thought create a sensation when there is no perceivable connection?
It’s just observation that one comes after the other. Even you said in the instruction “Think of a story that brings up the sensation ‘anxiety’ (or any emotion) - one that you can feel in the body”. This is what happens, in that sense it works even though there is no perceivable connection.
So how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self’? You wrote that on a scale of 1 to 10 that you are at a 10 and yet you aren’t really willing to question them at all. You keep harking back to thought stories you think you know.
Not sure what you mean by “aren’t really willing to question them at all”?
No idea how or if a thought story brings up a sensation in the body. Only the observation that something happens one after the other but at the same time there’s no obvious connection. So, is an observation the same as an assumption? But surely an observation is known only by a thought story.
So does colour, thought, smell, taste, sensation or sound know anything about pleasure or pain? What is the AE of pleasure and pain?
No they don’t know about pleasure and pain. The AE is sensation. Pleasure or pain come secondary, as interpretation of the quality of sensation. And this too is so quickly that it’s hard to see that pain in the first place is sensation.
So the point of this exercise was to just simply see thoughts arising and subsiding without anything needed to be done for them to do so. Did you notice this?
Yes certainly.
Where are they coming from and going to?
Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear? Or they just appeared?
No idea where they come from. They just appear and disappear without any need to make them appear or disappear.

Amo

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

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:52 am

Hi Amo,
How is it known that it is a “familiar pattern of colour and shape”?
Difficult question. It’s just known.
Without thought, how is it known that it is a “familiar pattern of colour and shape”? Actual experience is colour, sound, sensation, thought, smell and taste. Do any of those suggest that they are “familiar patterns of colour and shape” or that they know anything about “familiar patterns of colour and shape”?
If thought appears saying you ate an ice-cream yesterday….where is ‘yesterday’ in actual experience. When is that thought and images of eating an ice-cream actually appearing?
‘Yesterday’ in AE is a thought story. The thought and mental image is appearing now.
Yes, exactly. There is no ‘memory’….the thought story is appearing when it appears ie now, so where is the experiential evidence that an ice cream was eaten yesterday? There is none.
Where is this “I” that you keep stating has a memory? Where is this memory exactly? What is the AE of memory? Where is this memory appearing?
There’s no ‘I’ with memory. Memory is a thought story appearing as thought in awareness. The AE is thought. It’s appearing in thought story.
Is experience, (ie thought in this example) and the awareness of the thought two things? Is there experience AND awareness, or is experience self-aware without a separate thing which is aware?

A thought is known, yes…as is colour, smell, taste etc. Where does thought (known) end, and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between the knowing of thought and the thought itself? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line?

What works nevertheless?
That is an assumption because you looked and saw that there is no perceivable connection, so how can a thought create a sensation when there is no perceivable connection?
It’s just observation that one comes after the other. Even you said in the instruction “Think of a story that brings up the sensation ‘anxiety’ (or any emotion) - one that you can feel in the body”. This is what happens, in that sense it works even though there is no perceivable connection.
If thought is causing sensations - they must be separate and other than experience/THIS.
So how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self’? You wrote that on a scale of 1 to 10 that you are at a 10 and yet you aren’t really willing to question them at all. You keep harking back to thought stories you think you know.
Not sure what you mean by “aren’t really willing to question them at all”?
No idea how or if a thought story brings up a sensation in the body. Only the observation that something happens one after the other but at the same time there’s no obvious connection. So, is an observation the same as an assumption? But surely an observation is known only by a thought story.
Great…thanks for clarifying. Yes, it may SEEM as if something happens one after the other, and we will look at this when we look at the idea of time.

Without thought, how would it be known that something is following something else?

How would it be known that it was a "different time" or "location" without thought saying that it was? Without thought the concept of time would simply not exist, therefore, time only exists as thought. Thought assembles experience and other thoughts into a storyline (and isn't that wonderful), but without the thought of time there is only experience ie THIS.
Thought 'says' a sunset is immediate and is therefore experienced as vivid. Thought 'says' it remembers a sunset from "yesterday" and is experienced as fuzzy. Both sunsets are simply THIS, NOW, but experienced through 2 different conceptual filters. No one has any control over those conceptual filters, no one can make them stop filtering the way they seem to, they are as they are. No less THIS/experience than anything else showing up in this. There are many different flavours of "sunset" all taking place in the infinite THIS/experience itself.
So does colour, thought, smell, taste, sensation or sound know anything about pleasure or pain? What is the AE of pleasure and pain?
No they don’t know about pleasure and pain. The AE is sensation. Pleasure or pain come secondary, as interpretation of the quality of sensation. And this too is so quickly that it’s hard to see that pain in the first place is sensation.
Yes…exactly. That is why it is important to be diligent and to LOOK to see what is actually appearing as opposed to just going with what thought says is appearing/happening. That is why LOOKING is very important.
So the point of this exercise was to just simply see thoughts arising and subsiding without anything needed to be done for them to do so. Did you notice this?
Yes certainly.
Terrific
Where are they coming from and going to?
Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear? Or they just appeared?
No idea where they come from. They just appear and disappear without any need to make them appear or disappear.
Great! You can’t find where a thought comes from for one simple reason it’s not a thing. A thought isn't known because of its appearance or its content...it is known because it is THIS/experience. Just as colour isn’t known because it is a colour, or that it is an appearance...it is known because it is THIS. See thoughts as what they are, not as what they say they are.

So are you the thinker of thought?

Think of a 2-digit number. Why did you choose that number? Why not the previous number, or the next one? Do you know? If not, why don’t you know? If you are the thinker of thoughts then you must know how you create them. Repeat the experiment as necessary.

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"?

Is there an actual sequence of thoughts, or is it more like a stream of thought? Where is the beginning, middle and end of thought?


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

User avatar
Amo
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 1:53 am

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby Amo » Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:49 pm

Hi Kay,
Without thought, how is it known that it is a “familiar pattern of colour and shape”? Actual experience is colour, sound, sensation, thought, smell and taste. Do any of those suggest that they are “familiar patterns of colour and shape” or that they know anything about “familiar patterns of colour and shape”?
No, it needs thought to know it’s familiar.
Is experience, (ie thought in this example) and the awareness of the thought two things? Is there experience AND awareness, or is experience self-aware without a separate thing which is aware?
It’s simultaneous experience and awareness without any separate thing. It’s the same.
Without thought, how would it be known that something is following something else?
Without thought it would not be known.
So are you the thinker of thought?
No. There's no thinker of thought.
Think of a 2-digit number. Why did you choose that number? Why not the previous number, or the next one? Do you know? If not, why don’t you know? If you are the thinker of thoughts then you must know how you create them. Repeat the experiment as necessary.
No idea. 23 popped up but then also 98 and 52. It could be any. No assumption that there’s a thinker of thought.
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"?
It’s not a logical sequence. It’s not even a thought suggesting that it has any order. Some thoughts may get kicked off by previous thought but it’s very arbitrarily. Also there are jumps from here to there which would contradict any logical order.
Is there an actual sequence of thoughts, or is it more like a stream of thought? Where is the beginning, middle and end of thought?
There’s no sequence, it‘s randomly pooping up and disappearing. It’s not ordered into beginning, middle and end. It's a stream indeed.

Amo

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

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:56 pm

Hello Amo,

You did not answer this question….could you please answer it.

A thought is known, yes…as is colour, smell, taste etc. Where does thought (known) end, and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between the knowing of thought and the thought itself? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line?
There’s no ‘I’ with memory. Memory is a thought story appearing as thought in awareness. The AE is thought. It’s appearing in thought story.
Is experience, (ie thought in this example) and the awareness of the thought two things? Is there experience AND awareness, or is experience self-aware without a separate thing which is aware?
It’s simultaneous experience and awareness without any separate thing. It’s the same.
So let’s look at this further....this idea of there being an awareness of experience. Or of there being something that is aware.

This exercise is only using the 'sense of seeing'
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/awaring 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' – AE colour?

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 any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen? Are these three separate?

If yes, can you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses?

Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?


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

User avatar
Amo
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 1:53 am

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby Amo » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:22 pm

Hello Kay,
A thought is known, yes…as is colour, smell, taste etc. Where does thought (known) end, and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between the knowing of thought and the thought itself? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line?
No there is no dividing line. A thought is known automatically. Knowingknown puts it nicely.
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
Yes. Quickly other experiences like sound or thought pop up in awareness. But regarding seeing it’s AE of blackness.
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
No not in seeing.
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
No, only seeing is found.
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
What do you find?
No, only seeing black is perceived.
Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?
No, it’s just black.
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?
There’s no dividing line, just seeing colour, it’s instant seeing and knowing of colour.
Can a 'see-er' be found at all in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?
No seer to be found in the AE of colour.
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?
Exactly, it cannot be perceived. It’s concept or thought story or habit which all more or less the same.
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?
It’s easier with eyes closed but yes, it’s just the same with eyes open. All is appearance of colour.
Is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen? Are these three separate?
Between the seer and the seeing there is no difference. The seen is trickier. But if looked closely there’s no boundary either.
If yes, can you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses?
It's habitual to perceive the conceptual boundary of the object out there. But if looked closely then this is obviously just a concept. A thought story of how the world looks. But in AE it can’t be perceived as separate. It’s ultimately just one.
Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?
No-thing or no-one which is aware. Just awareness.

Amo

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

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:40 am

My apologies as I am unable to respond for several days to your post as the internet in my area is down.

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

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

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby forgetmenot » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:31 am

Hello Amo
A thought is known, yes…as is colour, smell, taste etc. Where does thought (known) end, and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between the knowing of thought and the thought itself? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line?
No there is no dividing line. A thought is known automatically. Knowingknown puts it nicely.
Yes, a thought is known…not because it is a thought or because of its content (which is simply more thought). A thought is known because it is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is and THIS is self-aware.
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
No, only seeing is found.
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
What do you find?
No, only seeing black is perceived.
What is seeing black? Can you find anything that is actually seeing black or is seeingcolour (no dividing line) one and the same?
Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?
No, it’s just black.
Yes, exactly, it is just 'colour' (aka experience) labelled 'black'.
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?
There’s no dividing line, just seeing colour, it’s instant seeing and knowing of colour.
Yes, lovely…. seeing and knowing are one and the same. Seeing of colour and seeing of seeing are one and the same = colour
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?
It’s easier with eyes closed but yes, it’s just the same with eyes open. All is appearance of colour.
Yes! :)
Is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen? Are these three separate?
Between the seer and the seeing there is no difference. The seen is trickier. But if looked closely there’s no boundary either.
Great…but just to make sure this is clear…look at the display before you.
When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, can you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses?

Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?
No-thing or no-one which is aware. Just awareness.
What is the difference between being aware and awareness? They are exactly the same thing. So what is it exactly that is aware of something and awareness? Where in the exercise above did you find ‘awareness’? Being aware points to separation…that something is aware of something else.

So is there anything that is witnessing/awaring anything?


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

User avatar
Amo
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 1:53 am

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby Amo » Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:30 pm

Hi Kay,
What is seeing black? Can you find anything that is actually seeing black or is seeingcolour (no dividing line) one and the same?
Seeing colour is seeing colour. No need for a “what”, it’s just seeing.
When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, can you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses?
This is not as straight forward. The display is so familiar as an object, as the seen which is other. But looking closely, this is a conceptual boundary. So here too, there is no actual separation between the seeing and the seen.
Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?
No-thing or no-one which is aware. Just awareness.
What is the difference between being aware and awareness? They are exactly the same thing. So what is it exactly that is aware of something and awareness? Where in the exercise above did you find ‘awareness’? Being aware points to separation…that something is aware of something else.
There is no difference. It’s just awareness. In the exercise it’s awareness of colour. The senses don’t perceive anything else than awareness of what is. Colour awareness, sensation of holding the display, sensation of moving fingers. Of course display and fingers are concepts.
So is there anything that is witnessing/awaring anything?
No there isn't. Nothing to be found which is awaring anything, awareness is just happening.

Amo

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

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby forgetmenot » Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:24 am

Hey Amo,

I would like for you to really read and sit with this post before you answer. You are not LOOKING, you are answering from knowledge you have garnered. How do I know this? Because of your answers. How many posts have we done on 'awareness' and you are still answering in the same vein. You are not seeing what I am pointing to as you are still pointing to the idea of there being something that is aware of something else…which is separation. So please read my responses carefully and do the exercises several times before responding to them and LOOK.

What will happen here, is one of two things. You will actually start to LOOK or you will stop responding to my posts, because you want to hold onto concepts and the idea that you have already had the realisation andyou know it all now. You have a choice in which one it is going to be. If it is the former, then I suggest you put aside what you think you know and actually start to LOOK..because when you have the realisation of there being no separate self...there is nothing like it. So choose carefully which one it is to be.
What is seeing black? Can you find anything that is actually seeing black or is seeingcolour (no dividing line) one and the same?
Seeing colour is seeing colour. No need for a “what”, it’s just seeing.
What is seeing colour, Amo? You are just regurgitating information that you have heard. "it's just seeing". For "seeing" to be happening means that there is something seeing! "Seeing" is an idea, a concept....so what exactly is it that is "seeing"? Where is this someone/something that is seeing. Your intellectual knowledge is not doing you any favours.

For there to be ‘seeing’ means that there is a see-er or an awarer or an experiencer. Where can this see-er/awarer/experiencer be found? Describe this see-er/awarer/experiencer to me in precise details please.

There is no “seeing colour”. It may appear that way, only if you think you reside in a body that is seeing. We have looked at this in several different ways…but you still are referring to something that is seeing or that is aware of something. That is subject/object split.

Okay, so let’s have a look at the body.
Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?


Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.
When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, can you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses?
This is not as straight forward. The display is so familiar as an object, as the seen which is other. But looking closely, this is a conceptual boundary. So here too, there is no actual separation between the seeing and the seen.
Yes…so how can there be anything that is seeing anything? Seeing and knowing are one and the same. Seeing of colour and seeing of seeing are one and the same = colour = knowing = experience/THIS.
Is there anything that is witnessing/awaring colour?
No-thing or no-one which is aware. Just awareness.
Is this awareness you talk about something separate from all the rest?
Noticing happens - how do you know awareness is what notices?
Does awareness have a shape, a location, a weight? Can you point to this awareness?

What is the difference between being aware and awareness? They are exactly the same thing. So what is it exactly that is aware of something and awareness? Where in the exercise above did you find ‘awareness’? Being aware points to separation…that something is aware of something else.
There is no difference. It’s just awareness. In the exercise it’s awareness of colour. The senses don’t perceive anything else than awareness of what is. Colour awareness, sensation of holding the display, sensation of moving fingers. Of course display and fingers are concepts.
Awareness means the knowledge or perception of a situation. For there to be awareness means that something is aware of something else.
What is it exactly that is perceiving?
So is there anything that is witnessing/awaring anything?
No there isn't. Nothing to be found which is awaring anything, awareness is just happening.
Awareness is just happening by what exactly? For awareness to just be happening…then it must be happening to a someone to something. You are still using the idea of awareness as something being aware of something else. This is still separation, even if you leave off the idea that there is nothing that is aware…but awareness is just happening. They are just words. I want you to LOOK and see if you can find anyone or anything that this awareness is happening to.

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

User avatar
Amo
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 1:53 am

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby Amo » Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:40 pm

Hi Kay,

Sorry, I’m so busy and having guests over the weekend that I couldn’t reply.
Best wishes,

Amo


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

User avatar
Amo
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 1:53 am

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby Amo » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:29 pm

Hello Kay,
For there to be ‘seeing’ means that there is a see-er or an awarer or an experiencer. Where can this see-er/awarer/experiencer be found? Describe this see-er/awarer/experiencer to me in precise details please.
There is no experiencer to be found. Why should experience require an experiencer?
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
No, in actual experience no size or weight or form, this is all thought related.
Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
It cannot be perceived. It’s actually just the sensation of something I know as cloths or chair. But there is no actual boundary to feel.
Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?
Sensations feel like inside, sound feels like outside. But with eyes closed this doesn’t make sense. It’s thought referring to sensation which labels it inside or outside. It’s not a sensation inside or outside.
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
The label ‘body’ refers to this which is experiencing. Feeling, sensing, etc. Which has a shape and capacities and can be perceived also. Which interacts with other bodies.
The actual experience of the body is different. With eyes closed it’s just sensations somewhere. A sensation which is maybe labelled as contraction or heart-beat. But as actual experience it’s sensation.
Is this awareness you talk about something separate from all the rest?
Noticing happens - how do you know awareness is what notices?
Does awareness have a shape, a location, a weight? Can you point to this awareness?
No it’s not separate. Yes, noticing happens, it’s the same. Not possible to know that awareness notices. Ok, it's a concept.
Not possible to define a shape or location, not possible to point to.
Awareness means the knowledge or perception of a situation. For there to be awareness means that something is aware of something else.
What is it exactly that is perceiving?
In that sense awareness is dualistic. I meant it non-dual. But yes, awareness of the senses is a concept.
Nothing to be found which is perceiving.
Awareness is just happening by what exactly? For awareness to just be happening…then it must be happening to a someone to something. You are still using the idea of awareness as something being aware of something else. This is still separation, even if you leave off the idea that there is nothing that is aware…but awareness is just happening. They are just words. I want you to LOOK and see if you can find anyone or anything that this awareness is happening to.
Awareness is just a word for the senses active. It can be any perceiving quality. There's no one perceiving something if looked closely. Separation is coming in a soon as thought gets in and as soon as words come in place. Trying to describe this with words is separating it from the actual experience. But it’s not possible to describe the actual feeling other than with words. It’s an alternation of sensation, thought, sensation, thought, of this and that, thought remembering or planning, thinking ‘I have to’, then sensation, etc.
While feeling and looking there is no one to be found to whom something happens.

Amo

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

Re: Mopping up 123

Postby forgetmenot » Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:08 am

Hello Amo,

I have given you quite a bit to look at in this post. Please read it very carefully and do the exercises several times. Take your time..take a couple of days if needed.
For there to be ‘seeing’ means that there is a see-er or an awarer or an experiencer. Where can this see-er/awarer/experiencer be found? Describe this see-er/awarer/experiencer to me in precise details please.
There is no experiencer to be found. Why should experience require an experiencer?
You tell me why there should be an experiencer of experience. You keep pointing to an experiencer with your answers. I am the one trying to point for you to LOOK and see if you can actually find an experience of experience, if you can actually find any separation whatsoever.
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
No, in actual experience no size or weight or form, this is all thought related.
Yes, lovely
Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
It cannot be perceived. It’s actually just the sensation of something I know as cloths or chair. But there is no actual boundary to feel.
Where is this “I” that “knows of cloths or chair”? If thought appeared giving a new name like ‘zimilphat’...to the body, does that name arise from the body? Would you know what it was referring to?


There is nothing here in actual experience that is separate from experience. Just this. Always now.
Let’s test this by doing this experiment. All you need is 20 minutes, a pen and paper.

First write what you are experiencing right now using words “I” and “me”. Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just plain description of here now.

Do it for 10 minutes. Watch the body; are there any sensations of tightening or relaxing?

Like this-
I am laying in bed.
I am hearing the rain
I am typing these words
I am thinking what to write
I am hearing the traffic outside

Then for next 10 minutes write without words “I” and “me”. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs. Again watch what is happening in the body.

Like this:-
waiting for next thought
typing
breathing
blinking
hearing rain
writing

Now compare the two ways to label experience- is one truer than the other? If so, which one? What is here without labels? Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

What happened in the body when labelling with “I” happened and without the “I”?

Is there an inside or an outside?
If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?
Sensations feel like inside, sound feels like outside. But with eyes closed this doesn’t make sense. It’s thought referring to sensation which labels it inside or outside. It’s not a sensation inside or outside.
Yes, it is simply sensation...there is no 'inside or outside'

Here is another exercise that helps to see how the illusion of the body is ‘created’, so to speak. Normally we believe that sensation is coming from sight (ie colour) - the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’ (colour labelled as ‘hand’)

1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensation ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ (colour) and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
The label ‘body’ refers to this which is experiencing. Feeling, sensing, etc. Which has a shape and capacities and can be perceived also. Which interacts with other bodies.
You wrote above “why should there be an experiencer of experience” and yet here you are writing that there is something experiencing. Where exactly is this experiencer of experience? Describe it to me in precise detail and where it is located exactly.

Go back and redo the exercise. How can you tell me that there is no inside or outside of a body, and that there is no boundary between clothes and a chair that it is simply sensation…to now telling me that there is something here that can feel, sense etc.

Where does sensation end and the knowing of it begin?


You did the apple exercise to find out that there really isn’t an apple. You did the beginning of this body exercise telling me there is only sensation to now telling me there is a body or something that is experiencing experience.

Please redo the exercise and then answer the following questions INDIVIDUALLY.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

The actual experience of the body is different. With eyes closed it’s just sensations somewhere. A sensation which is maybe labelled as contraction or heart-beat. But as actual experience it’s sensation.
Yes, exactly. So where is this something that is feeling, sensing? I want you to find that which is doing that and describe it to me in precise detail and where it is located. Please don’t come back with an answer of ‘why should there be an experiencer of experience’ when you believe there is. I want you to LOOK and tell me where this experiencer is and where it can be found.
Is this awareness you talk about something separate from all the rest?
Noticing happens - how do you know awareness is what notices?
Does awareness have a shape, a location, a weight? Can you point to this awareness?
No it’s not separate. Yes, noticing happens, it’s the same. Not possible to know that awareness notices. Ok, it's a concept.
Not possible to define a shape or location, not possible to point to.
Yes…it is a concept.
Awareness means the knowledge or perception of a situation. For there to be awareness means that something is aware of something else.
What is it exactly that is perceiving?
In that sense awareness is dualistic. I meant it non-dual. But yes, awareness of the senses is a concept.
Nothing to be found which is perceiving.
Exactly…because there is no experiencer of experience, there is no awarer of the awared, there is no perceiver of the perceived etc. There is NO separation. Sensation, smell, taste, thought, colour, sound are known, not because of their attributes or because of thought saying there is something aware of them. They are known because they are THIS appearing exactly as it is, as THIS is self aware. It doesn’t know itself as a something labelled as a sensation…it knows itself as itself. THIS doesn't need thought to tell it that it IS.
Awareness is just happening by what exactly? For awareness to just be happening…then it must be happening to a someone to something. You are still using the idea of awareness as something being aware of something else. This is still separation, even if you leave off the idea that there is nothing that is aware…but awareness is just happening. They are just words. I want you to LOOK and see if you can find anyone or anything that this awareness is happening to.
Awareness is just a word for the senses active. It can be any perceiving quality. There's no one perceiving something if looked closely.
Awareness doesn't come through the senses. 'Sensory' experience is the knowing (ie THIS/experience). There is no division between knowing and known (eg sensation and the knowing of it). Just as there's no division between taste and sweet. 'Taste' and 'sweet' are NOT known separately through 'awareness' or ‘senses’. 'Taste/sweet' IS experience and it's not known through anything or by anyone - it's THIS/experience appearing exactly as it is - alone as this show.

Separation is coming in a soon as thought gets in and as soon as words come in place. Trying to describe this with words is separating it from the actual experience. But it’s not possible to describe the actual feeling other than with words. It’s an alternation of sensation, thought, sensation, thought, of this and that, thought remembering or planning, thinking ‘I have to’, then sensation, etc.

Thought is not an entity that can plan anything. How is that known...that thought are plans and are sequential and ordered?

There is no such thing as separation. How can separation occur as “soon as a thought gets in”?

Have you ever looked at thought? Really looked at it? Does thought have a voice? Does thought have sound? Does thought have an image? Does thought have a sensation? Does thought have a taste? Does thought have a smell? Can you describe a thought?

See thoughts as what they are, not as what they say they are.
You can’t find where a thought comes from for one simple reason it’s not a thing. A thought isn't known because of its appearance or its content...it is known because it is THIS/experience. Just as colour isn’t known because it is colour, or that it is an appearance...it is known because it is THIS. The same goes for smell, taste, sensation and sound.

My pointing is getting you to LOOK and see this. It is only through the LOOKING that seeing what IS, is seen and it is only through LOOKING that it is seen that there is no separation and that there are no ‘things’ including a body with an entity residing in it. Me just giving you answers and you not actually LOOKING to see this for yourself is pointless...you might as well go read another book or listen to another guru. The whole purpose of me pointing and you LOOKING is that you get to see what I am pointing at and it is through you LOOKING and seeing that you get insights and aha moments. It is these insights and aha moments that are necessary for realisations to happen and for this to become a knowing instead of being intellectual knowledge.
While feeling and looking there is no one to be found to whom something happens.

Can you find thought AND smell AND colour AND taste AND sensation AND sound? Where is the dividing line between smell and sensation? Between thought and sound? Between colour and taste?


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


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Phil and 1 guest