Honesty

[forgetmenot]

Hey Brett,

Is there an inside ‘me’ and an outside of ‘me’?

Not in my direct experience. I can't find a me, so I can't find an inside or outside either. There is sometimes a thought of "me."

Yes…lovely, there are thoughts ABOUT a ‘me’
So was anything found/seen that was actually hearing sound?

However, without thought, how is this known…that a combination of AE makes an apple?
However, is an apple actually known?

Without thought it cannot be known that a combination of AE makes an apple. An apple is not known, but colour is known and thought is known.

Nice

There is no one experiencing anything…and certainly not experiencing something called an apple. You can’t have it both ways. You either want to see the truth or you want to hold onto what you think you know and believe. You wrote that your willingness to question your beliefs were a 10, from a scale of 1 to 10 on your registration form. Is this actually true?

My willingness to question my beliefs is a ten because I am willing to question all beliefs and because I am willing to question any belief. Also, my willingness to share my beliefs so that they can be questioned is a ten.

Good to know :)

Is an apple actually known?

What is known is color, taste, etc. Thoughts are also known. The word "apple" is shorthand for a collection of experiences that include colors, tastes, etc. An apple doesn't exist, but the word describes the experiences.

Yes, the word ‘apple’ TRIES or SEEMS to describe experience. And that is a clue that it is simply a thought story. THIS/experience itself cannot be described.

Try and describe the colour brown and try and describe it as if you are describing it to someone who has never seen.
Try and describe the smell labelled as ‘rose’ or the taste labelled as ‘banana’.
Can experience ie sound, colour, smell, thought, sensation, taste be described?

If it is..by what exactly? (And please don't say by the Brettself or some deity etc)

An apple is known by the senses. Taste “tastes” an apple, smell “smells” an apple, etc.

What senses exactly? That means that there are actual objects that are being sensed by someone/something? Where is this something/someone located?

You did the headphone exercise….was a hearer found who was hearing sound? Was there an inside and an outside of a ‘me’? If not, then how is there a taste that tastes, a smell that smells etc?

The knowing of what IS, doesn't come through the senses. 'Sensory' experience is the knowing. There is no division between knowing and known. Just as there's no division between taste and sweet. There is an implication in your answer that 'taste' and 'sweet' are known separately through a sense called 'taste' that can distinguish tastes like sweet and apple for example. 'Taste/sweet' IS experience and it's not known through anything or by anyone. Taste/sweet are one and the same thing. Don't get caught up in this. It will become clearer as we move through this exploration.

-For Brett, there is the experience of thought coupled with the experience of the senses. neither of those exist for anyone else. Therefore, the unique and exclusive awareness of those thoughts and sense experiences = Brett.

-Yep, okay, if you are so sure and adamant about that, then what are you doing at LU?

I am not sure and adamant. I have doubts that this is the way things actually are. That is why I am at LU. My approach is to share my beliefs so that they can be questioned.

Great! If there is no ‘you’ as a separate self…then why would there be others who have separate selves?

Let's look at how beliefs work.

Notice a sound in the distance. It could be anything - crickets, the wind, a dog barking, a train. Let's say it's a dog barking.

So it seems like a person is listening to a dog...

Here is a partial list of the beliefs involved

1) there is a dog
2) the dog is some distance away from you
3) you (a person) is listening to the sound
3) using a pair of ears...
4) ...and a brain...
5) ...inside your head.

But notice that all that is *actually* present is the sound.

Everything else is just story - the dog, the distance, the person, the ears, the brain, the listening, and the head.

There's just a sound appearing in the dream. (and a fancy story to go along with it)

Try that with other sounds and see how you get on.

Kay

[1Unknown9]

So was anything found/seen that was actually hearing sound?

No, there is nothing/no one that is actually hearing sound. What there is, is sound, and then the thought that “I am hearing sound,” or the thought that there is someone who is hearing sound.

Try and describe the colour brown and try and describe it as if you are describing it to someone who has never seen.

I wouldn’t even know where to begin. I’d have to start with the idea that things are seen, and that a quality of seeing is color, and that color has variety. It would fall way short of the actual experience.

Try and describe the smell labelled as ‘rose’ or the taste labelled as ‘banana’.

If I am describing it to someone who has smelled or tasted before, I could describe it via comparison, possibly, for example, “a banana is sweet like some other fruits but the texture is a little more starchy,” or something like that. But without comparison, it would be just as difficult as the previous example.

Can experience ie sound, colour, smell, thought, sensation, taste be described?

Not without certain common points of reference like other sounds, colors, etc. Even then, it is impossible to know if we are describing the same thing, since your “red” could be my “blue” and so on.

What senses exactly? That means that there are actual objects that are being sensed by someone/something? Where is this something/someone located?

Sensing happens “here.” Right now, in this location, here, there are sights, sounds, etc. that cannot be heard by you, there. That makes them seem special, exclusive, and that there is a me “here.” Don’t misunderstand me please, since I already said I can’t find anything or anyone here, but I am just describing how I think the mind is creating illusions: thoughts create or imply the idea of a self and one of the ways this is done is by saying that there is an “I” that hears, smells, etc. in this location, and that is as opposed to and separate from others who are not hearing, smelling, etc. what is being heard and smelled here, now.

You did the headphone exercise….was a hearer found who was hearing sound? Was there an inside and an outside of a ‘me’? If not, then how is there a taste that tastes, a smell that smells etc?

There was no hearer found. There was not an inside and outside. I guess there is only taste, smell and not a “taste that tastes.” When it comes to the senses, I can see how the experience is without anything more being added on, like the idea of an experiencer, in order for it to be experienced.

Try that with other sounds and see how you get on.

Hearing a car horn honk outside and a plane fly overhead, there is no division between the experience and its apprehension. It is experienced, like the sound of a car driving by just now, immediately and without there being anyone to hear it. There is also no “hearing” that is hearing it, there is just the hearing of it. There is no self hearing when hearing occurs, just hearing, without any "hearing by...X."

[forgetmenot]

Hello Brett,

So was anything found/seen that was actually hearing sound?

No, there is nothing/no one that is actually hearing sound. What there is, is sound, and then the thought that “I am hearing sound,” or the thought that there is someone who is hearing sound.

Yes, so there are only thoughts ABOUT a ‘me’ who is hearing sound. Big difference to an actual someone who is hearing sound.

Try and describe the colour brown and try and describe it as if you are describing it to someone who has never seen.

I wouldn’t even know where to begin. I’d have to start with the idea that things are seen, and that a quality of seeing is color, and that color has variety. It would fall way short of the actual experience.

How would a person know that you were describing colour, let alone the colour ‘brown’! So is colour actually describable?

Try and describe the smell labelled as ‘rose’ or the taste labelled as ‘banana’.

If I am describing it to someone who has smelled or tasted before, I could describe it via comparison, possibly, for example, “a banana is sweet like some other fruits but the texture is a little more starchy,” or something like that. But without comparison, it would be just as difficult as the previous example.

As you can see you can't actually describe the smell ‘rose’ or the taste ‘banana. Just like you can’t describe the colour brown. You'll only end up using words like ‘sweet’ and ‘starchy’ - which would mean absolutely nothing if you were describing it as if to a person with no taste or smell. You can only describe the components that make up banana but not the taste itself.

Can experience ie sound, colour, smell, thought, sensation, taste be described?

Not without certain common points of reference like other sounds, colors, etc. Even then, it is impossible to know if we are describing the same thing, since your “red” could be my “blue” and so on.

So the simple answer is...no…experience itself cannot be described.

What senses exactly? That means that there are actual objects that are being sensed by someone/something? Where is this something/someone located?

Sensing happens “here.” Right now, in this location, here, there are sights, sounds, etc. that cannot be heard by you, there. That makes them seem special, exclusive, and that there is a me “here.”

If there is no ‘you’ who is a separate self and who is experiencing experience…then there certainly isn’t a me ‘here’ who is having my own experiences. Where in actual experience now, do you find a Kay?

Don’t misunderstand me please, since I already said I can’t find anything or anyone here, but I am just describing how I think the mind is creating illusions: thoughts create or imply the idea of a self and one of the ways this is done is by saying that there is an “I” that hears, smells, etc. in this location, and that is as opposed to and separate from others who are not hearing, smelling, etc. what is being heard and smelled here, now.

Great. So do those thoughts that you wrote above point to colour, smell, taste, sensation, sound? Or do they point to thoughts about further thoughts and is just a thought story?

You did the headphone exercise….was a hearer found who was hearing sound? Was there an inside and an outside of a ‘me’? If not, then how is there a taste that tastes, a smell that smells etc?

There was no hearer found. There was not an inside and outside. I guess there is only taste, smell and not a “taste that tastes.” When it comes to the senses, I can see how the experience is without anything more being added on, like the idea of an experiencer, in order for it to be experienced.

I don’t want you guessing…I really want you to LOOK and really find the answers for yourself. That is the only way you are going to see what IS and have the realisation that there is no separate self in any shape or form.

LOOK and see if colour can smell, or if thought can taste, or sound can feel, and so on, and let me know what you find.

Try that with other sounds and see how you get on.

Hearing a car horn honk outside and a plane fly overhead, there is no division between the experience and its apprehension. It is experienced, like the sound of a car driving by just now, immediately and without there being anyone to hear it. There is also no “hearing” that is hearing it, there is just the hearing of it. There is no self hearing when hearing occurs, just hearing, without any "hearing by...X."

Lovely, yes. There is not hearing OF it. There is simply hearing AS it. No dividing line between hearing and sound, there is simply hearingsound = one and the same thing.

Okay to make sure that actual experience and thoughts about actual experience are clear…here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities, objects and emotions simply colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

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

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

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

Love, Kay

[1Unknown9]

How would a person know that you were describing colour, let alone the colour ‘brown’! So is colour actually describable?

The actual experience of color is itself indescribable.

Great. So do those thoughts that you wrote above point to colour, smell, taste, sensation, sound? Or do they point to thoughts about further thoughts and is just a thought story?

It is just a thought story where one thought imagines a self, which is itself another thought, and imagines that that other thought of a self is what’s experiencing sound, touch, etc. Everything that seemingly divides these experiences “here” from those experiences “there” happens in thought. In reality, there is only experience here with nothing else, including no self that is experiencing them here.

LOOK and see if colour can smell, or if thought can taste, or sound can feel, and so on, and let me know what you find.

Of course color cannot taste and thought cannot smell, etc. So because there are only the experiences (and thoughts about the experiences) and the experiences themselves don’t have independent identity (there is no “smell that is looking,” no “sight that is touching”) then all of the senses and experiences are just that without anything more dramatic happening (like a self that is thinking).

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

In the morning, the first thing I questioned was whether taste exists. To me, it seemed like taste was just touch (via the tongue) + smell. The way I experienced taste seemed to be a kind of touch plus smell, not an independent sense. Then I was kissing my girlfriend on her head and realized that there was a thought story about how she likes to be kissed that way; but really there was only kissing (touch). There was also walking on the floor = touch, thought just being thought, and body sensations (which I would have previously identified as emotions) = feeling.

[forgetmenot]

Hi Brett,

I will wait until you have given me a few examples from the AE exercise before I respond.

Love, Kay

[forgetmenot]

Hey Brett,

Sorry, for some reason it didn’t register that you had supplied examples of AE from your daily activities. Just keep on breaking down activities, objects and emotions into AE for several more days, throughout your day, so that it becomes like second nature and AE becomes crystal clear.

How would a person know that you were describing colour, let alone the colour ‘brown’! So is colour actually describable?

The actual experience of color is itself indescribable.

Yup.

Great. So do those thoughts that you wrote above point to colour, smell, taste, sensation, sound? Or do they point to thoughts about further thoughts and is just a thought story?

It is just a thought story where one thought imagines a self, which is itself another thought, and imagines that that other thought of a self is what’s experiencing sound, touch, etc. Everything that seemingly divides these experiences “here” from those experiences “there” happens in thought. In reality, there is only experience here with nothing else, including no self that is experiencing them here.

Yep. So the understanding is clear. So now, each time the idea of a ‘self’ appears…LOOK to see if you can actually find one.

Looking is a nice simple thing - there is no need to over-complicate it.

Just look now...a thought can be found, but can a thinker of thought be found?
Can an “I” be found in thought itself?

Sound can be found, but can a hearer of sounds be found?
Can an “I” be found in sound itself?

Colour can be found, but can a see-er of colour be found?
Can an “I” be found in colour itself?

Sensation can be found, but can a feeler of sensation be found?
Can an “I” be found in sensation itself?

Smell can be found, but can a smeller of smell be found?
Can an “I” be found in smell itself?

Taste can be found, but can a taster of taste be found?
Can an “I” be found in taste itself?

Experience can be found, but can an experiencer of experience be found?
It's as simple as that. Just look and see what is actually present - and what is only imaginary.

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

In the morning, the first thing I questioned was whether taste exists. To me, it seemed like taste was just touch (via the tongue) + smell. The way I experienced taste seemed to be a kind of touch plus smell, not an independent sense. Then I was kissing my girlfriend on her head and realized that there was a thought story about how she likes to be kissed that way; but really there was only kissing (touch). There was also walking on the floor = touch, thought just being thought, and body sensations (which I would have previously identified as emotions) = feeling.

Lovely.

Okay…so now you know what AE is and how to LOOK to see if what AE is and how to LOOK ‘with’ AE.

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.

Can a thinker of thought be found between the gaps?

With love,
Kay

[1Unknown9]

Experience can be found, but can an experiencer of experience be found?

No, no experiencer can be found. I did find that experience is present: experience of thoughts. But no “experiencer.”

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.

I noticed that when I notice a thought it breaks my belief in it. When I don’t realize I am thinking, I can be “glued to the screen” of thoughts, thinking they are something real. When I remember that I am thinking and stop daydreaming, the thought loses its power to be convincing. If there is a thought that is hard to let go of, even when I realize I am thinking, I can just “wait it out”…fortunately, in this case, it seems like my mind cannot stay on one subject for long, no matter what it is. So I just wait until it goes to a subject that is easier for me to lose interest in (but I still have to realize I am thinking in that case, too).

Can a thinker of thought be found between the gaps?

No, a thinker of thought cannot be found between the gaps. There is only blank space.

[forgetmenot]

Hi Brett,

Experience can be found, but can an experiencer of experience be found?

No, no experiencer can be found. I did find that experience is present: experience of thoughts. But no “experiencer.”

Lovely! However, thought is experience - experience isn’t thought. It is thought that points to itself and labels itself as a thought. Drop the label ‘thought’ and all there is, is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.

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.

I noticed that when I notice a thought it breaks my belief in it. When I don’t realize I am thinking, I can be “glued to the screen” of thoughts, thinking they are something real. When I remember that I am thinking and stop daydreaming, the thought loses its power to be convincing. If there is a thought that is hard to let go of, even when I realize I am thinking, I can just “wait it out”…fortunately, in this case, it seems like my mind cannot stay on one subject for long, no matter what it is. So I just wait until it goes to a subject that is easier for me to lose interest in (but I still have to realize I am thinking in that case, too).

Terrific observations! Yes…it seems that a thought is need to realise that you have ‘lost yourself in thought’. However, does thought come in after the fact and own that it noticed that there was a singular awareness of experience called ‘thought’ only?

Can a thinker of thought be found between the gaps?

No, a thinker of thought cannot be found between the gaps. There is only blank space.

Great! So no thinker of thought can be found. So are you the thinker of thought?

It is important to see the difference between actual experience (AE) and content of thought. Thoughts either point to AE or they point to thoughts about thought. Thought, in and of itself, does not contain any experience, otherwise you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’ and feel the word ‘hot’ and hear thunder when the word ‘thunder’ appeared!

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Kay

[1Unknown9]

Terrific observations! Yes…it seems that a thought is need to realise that you have ‘lost yourself in thought’. However, does thought come in after the fact and own that it noticed that there was a singular awareness of experience called ‘thought’ only?

Yes, thought comes in after the fact and creates a thought about the fact that there was an awareness of an experience: in this case thought. I think awareness, attention, or presence are all words that describe what is noticing thoughts. Thought itself cannot notice thought, because that would be just another thought. But when there is a noticing of thought, a thought about the noticing sometimes follows.

Great! So no thinker of thought can be found. So are you the thinker of thought?

No, I am not the thinker of thought. I do not know where the thoughts are coming from. What has been noticed is that the thoughts that appear are arbitrary, random, but if they are not noticed they are somehow received as logical and “my” thoughts. But by noticing a thought, and then seeing what thought comes next, it becomes apparent that there is no method to the madness that can be found. One thought that seems “natural” could actually have been easily replaced by a totally distinct thought or even the opposite thought/idea!

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

The thought “here is a cup” simply points to the experience of thought and thought only. The thought “here is a cup” is a thoughts pointing to thoughts about the thought/idea of a cup. They do not point to any actual experience like color, taste, smell, sensation, or sound.

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

Yes, I can see that the contents of thought can never be anything other than the experience of thought, as a mental/abstract concept. Thoughts can never be anything real. They can never “exist” other than as thoughts.

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

What I have noticed is the content of an arising thought or mental image is just pure imagination. What is really happening can never be described because 1) experience cannot be directly conveyed, only indirectly described, and 2) experience has many aspects to it (sound, sight, touch, thought, feeling, etc.) so that describing them all as they are simultaneously happening is impossible. The best thought can do is latch on to an extremely limited part of an experience and create a story about it, free associating, to generate more thoughts. Thought is almost always a story about the past or future. Thought is also just pure imagination because it is highly subjective and so not even reliable as a story, even as a story based partly on some thought about an actual experience.

With appreciation,
Brett

[forgetmenot]

Hey Brett,

Terrific observations! Yes…it seems that a thought is need to realise that you have ‘lost yourself in thought’. However, does thought come in after the fact and own that it noticed that there was a singular awareness of experience called ‘thought’ only?

Yes, thought comes in after the fact and creates a thought about the fact that there was an awareness of an experience: in this case thought. I think awareness, attention, or presence are all words that describe what is noticing thoughts. Thought itself cannot notice thought, because that would be just another thought. But when there is a noticing of thought, a thought about the noticing sometimes follows.

Yes! So, now we can take a look at this on a different level, so to speak.

Experience/Presence/Knowing/THIS (or whatever you call it) is whole, seamless and complete. It is only thought that divides experience by labelling experience as sound and thought and colour and smell and taste and sensation. So there is nothing that is aware of thought…because without thought, how would what is appearing be known as thought? However, yes there is knowing of what is labelled as ‘thought’ because knowing (experience) knows itself.
Can you see this?

Great! So no thinker of thought can be found. So are you the thinker of thought?

No, I am not the thinker of thought. I do not know where the thoughts are coming from. What has been noticed is that the thoughts that appear are arbitrary, random, but if they are not noticed they are somehow received as logical and “my” thoughts. But by noticing a thought, and then seeing what thought comes next, it becomes apparent that there is no method to the madness that can be found. One thought that seems “natural” could actually have been easily replaced by a totally distinct thought or even the opposite thought/idea!

Bingo! Spot on!

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

The thought “here is a cup” simply points to the experience of thought and thought only. The thought “here is a cup” is a thoughts pointing to thoughts about the thought/idea of a cup. They do not point to any actual experience like color, taste, smell, sensation, or sound.

Yup!

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

Yes, I can see that the contents of thought can never be anything other than the experience of thought, as a mental/abstract concept. Thoughts can never be anything real. They can never “exist” other than as thoughts.

Brilliant!

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

What I have noticed is the content of an arising thought or mental image is just pure imagination. What is really happening can never be described because 1) experience cannot be directly conveyed, only indirectly described, and 2) experience has many aspects to it (sound, sight, touch, thought, feeling, etc.) so that describing them all as they are simultaneously happening is impossible. The best thought can do is latch on to an extremely limited part of an experience and create a story about it, free associating, to generate more thoughts. Thought is almost always a story about the past or future. Thought is also just pure imagination because it is highly subjective and so not even reliable as a story, even as a story based partly on some thought about an actual experience.

Lovely, however thought can only be subjective if thought was actually as what thought says it was and if there were 7 billion individual separate selves :) Let's see if the following exercise helps with this.

Although you have a good idea on how the nature of though works, I will still give you the following exercise so we don’t miss anything. Seeing what thought is, is one of the key components to realising there is no separate self.

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

Where are they coming from and going to?

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

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?
Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

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"?

With love,
Kay

[1Unknown9]

Experience/Presence/Knowing/THIS (or whatever you call it) is whole, seamless and complete. It is only thought that divides experience by labelling experience as sound and thought and colour and smell and taste and sensation. So there is nothing that is aware of thought…because without thought, how would what is appearing be known as thought? However, yes there is knowing of what is labelled as ‘thought’ because knowing (experience) knows itself.
Can you see this?

Yes, I can see that, without thought, what we are call thought is just a pure, unlabeled experience. Without thought, there is no separate experience called “thought” (as opposed to “not thought”) to be aware of. This is what I think is meant by “It is only thought that divides experience…so there is nothing that is aware of thought” because thought is just a label given to it by thought itself. Without/before thinking, thought is simply undifferentiated experience. There is no inherent quality to thought that could differentiate it from all/experience. But thought comes in and seemingly labels/divides experience into certain categories, one of which it labels as “thought.”

Yes, there is a knowing of what is labeled as thought. That knowing happens without thought. Awareness does not need thought in order for awareness to be present. Presence/Experience/Knowing/Awareness/THIS doesn’t need thought. It is aware of all experience prior to thought. So yes, experience knows itself. Presence/etc. does not need thought to be aware of experience.

Where are they coming from and going to?

They appear out of I DON’T KNOW WHERE and disappear into I DON’T KNOW WHERE.

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

CERTAINLY NOT. They are unpredictable to me and I can see no reason why one thought appears and not a different or opposite thought. I am not in control of what thoughts are appearing.

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

I don’t see a “me” that can do anything, let alone a me that is making different thoughts appear (to be seen by another me?).

Can you predict your next thought?

Nope. No way.

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

No. I have never seen a range of thoughts presented to me like a menu I could order off of.

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

No. If I could I might not be in LU ;)

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

Never. I can't see them coming!

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

Nope. It would have to appear in awareness first in order for a new thought to arise that then said "let's prevent this thought from appearing." But by that time it would already be too late…the thought would have already appeared.

Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

There is no “middle, beginning, or end” of a thought. There might be a thought that says “this thought is part of a larger story of other thoughts,” but a thought does not have pieces/parts/starts/finishes just like there is no beginning and end to hearing a sound or seeing a color.

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

There is no organization to thoughts. Amazingly, even non-sequitur transitions and tangents are often not identified as being as chaotic as they are; when it comes to thought, there is often an unfounded and unjustifiable sense that “everything is going along as normal and in an orderly fashion,” even when a thought about a car outside is followed by a thought about something that happened many years ago, followed by a thought about what’s for lunch tomorrow. There is no logical sequence to thought but this can go unseen/felt/unthought about and not realized for what it is (random, chaotic).

[forgetmenot]

Hey Brett....the flow of the day went in a different direction today...and I won't have the time to respond to your post until tomorrow.

Love, Kay

[forgetmenot]

Hi Brett,

I found some time after dinner to respond to your thread. It was hiding under the table!!! (Sorry...yeah cheesy humour I know LOL)

You have a good grasp and are very clear on the nature of thought, which makes LOOKING much easier and to see through thought stories easier. Terrific post to read...thank you!

Experience/Presence/Knowing/THIS (or whatever you call it) is whole, seamless and complete. It is only thought that divides experience by labelling experience as sound and thought and colour and smell and taste and sensation. So there is nothing that is aware of thought…because without thought, how would what is appearing be known as thought? However, yes there is knowing of what is labelled as ‘thought’ because knowing (experience) knows itself.
Can you see this?

Yes, I can see that, without thought, what we are call thought is just a pure, unlabeled experience. Without thought, there is no separate experience called “thought” (as opposed to “not thought”) to be aware of. This is what I think is meant by “It is only thought that divides experience…so there is nothing that is aware of thought” because thought is just a label given to it by thought itself. Without/before thinking, thought is simply undifferentiated experience. There is no inherent quality to thought that could differentiate it from all/experience. But thought comes in and seemingly labels/divides experience into certain categories, one of which it labels as “thought.”

You expressed that so clearly! Yes, you’re onto it! :)

Where are they coming from and going to?

They appear out of I DON’T KNOW WHERE and disappear into I DON’T KNOW WHERE.

Yep exactly…because thoughts are not ‘things’ :) They neither arise/appear or subside/disappear, they always ARE.

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

No. I have never seen a range of thoughts presented to me like a menu I could order off of.

Haha….I like that…I might have to pinch that one off you! :)

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

No. If I could I might not be in LU ;)

Haha true that! Who in their right mind…if they had a mind that is ;) would choose to have negative, painful or fearful thoughts...right!

Please let me know when emotions/feelings arise so we can look at them together. Sometimes it is hard to see them for what they really are, as the belief that they are actually happening, and are happening to a me is quite a deep ingrained belief.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

Nope. It would have to appear in awareness first in order for a new thought to arise that then said "let's prevent this thought from appearing." But by that time it would already be too late…the thought would have already appeared.

Yup! Exactly! How can a thought be rejected/stopped if there is no knowing of what the thought is!

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

There is no organization to thoughts. Amazingly, even non-sequitur transitions and tangents are often not identified as being as chaotic as they are; when it comes to thought, there is often an unfounded and unjustifiable sense that “everything is going along as normal and in an orderly fashion,” even when a thought about a car outside is followed by a thought about something that happened many years ago, followed by a thought about what’s for lunch tomorrow. There is no logical sequence to thought but this can go unseen/felt/unthought about and not realized for what it is (random, chaotic).

Yes, it can go unseen…until you observe thought and become aware of how random it is.

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

This exercise is to help you see that narrator of the game is no different to the narrator labelled as ‘my thoughts’, and that the game played is no different to life unfolding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love, Kay

[1Unknown9]

I re-watched an emotional basketball game from my childhood because I thought it would be more likely to trigger feelings.
Here are the results:

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

When the sound is on I feel more tension in my body, more anxiety, more investment in the game. When the sound is off my shoulders drop and I feel more relaxed. I feel less personally involved in the outcome.
When I turn the sound on and off, and without thought, there are just images happening, unfolding without any story.

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

Of course not. And just like you said, the announcers talk as if they know what will happen, as if they know the meaning of what will happen, and indeed as if it all had meaning. Instead, it is just playing happening. Without the sound, there is a lot more acceptance. No criticism of how things should have been. It can all be seen more dispassionately.

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

No, the play of life can go on without the inner narration. I think the idea that the inner narration is an accurate and faithful commentator on life is one of the biggest causes of suffering, in my experience. Life would not necessarily be "better" in any external sense because like the game the happenings would be the same, but the inner commentary that judges and labels and de/values life experience would be disbelieved in as it should be. And there is just playing. That is already how it is, since it is not the commentary but the belief in the commentary that creates the appearance of separation and labeling.

[forgetmenot]

Hi Brett,

Another lovely post to read….thank you.

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

When the sound is on I feel more tension in my body, more anxiety, more investment in the game. When the sound is off my shoulders drop and I feel more relaxed. I feel less personally involved in the outcome.
When I turn the sound on and off, and without thought, there are just images happening, unfolding without any story.

Yes…exactly. When the sound is on (narrator is on) there seems to be more of an investment is in what is happening on the field. When no sound…there is a neutrality to what is happening as there is nothing to evoke/provoke any reactions.

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

Of course not. And just like you said, the announcers talk as if they know what will happen, as if they know the meaning of what will happen, and indeed as if it all had meaning. Instead, it is just playing happening. Without the sound, there is a lot more acceptance. No criticism of how things should have been. It can all be seen more dispassionately.

Yep…without sound, there is no meaning to what is happening, everything is just unfolding without needing anything to be different.

When sound is on ie when thought is happening, thought not only commentates on what is happening, but also labels what the thoughts are ie judgemental thoughts, critical thoughts, negative thoughts and so on. Without thought labelling thought, none of this would be known and thoughts would be seen as meaningless.

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

No, the play of life can go on without the inner narration. I think the idea that the inner narration is an accurate and faithful commentator on life is one of the biggest causes of suffering, in my experience. Life would not necessarily be "better" in any external sense because like the game the happenings would be the same, but the inner commentary that judges and labels and de/values life experience would be disbelieved in as it should be. And there is just playing. That is already how it is, since it is not the commentary but the belief in the commentary that creates the appearance of separation and labeling.

And yet “the belief in the commentary” is only a thought as well. When you LOOK, do you find anyone/anything that is believing in the commentary? The thought “I am believing commentary”, or “I am believing my thoughts” are also just arising thoughts.

Let’s have a look at the idea of something being affected by something else. This idea not only points to separation but also points to time. That a thought came first, followed by a reaction or vice versa.

There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. It is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Love, Kay