Just another seeker looking to find the truth

[forgetmenot]

Hi Carter,

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Whoa! Feels like you just hit the gong right there! There's nothing to choose because there is literally no choice... If awareness is all there is... and there's no choice in how it unfolds... (as per this experiment, and from the clip) then there is no choice to be made in anything at all in any area of life. It all happens prior to any aspect of supposed choosing.

Exactly! Since there is no chooser and no thinker whatsoever, then are you responsible for what is said, done, felt or thought? Can you be responsible for anything? Can a doer, feeler, thinker, sayer be found anywhere? Is there free will?

Okay, so let’s begin to 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 the 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.

Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

Sorry if this gets wordy!

Exactly! Since there is no chooser and no thinker whatsoever, then are you responsible for what is said, done, felt or thought? Can you be responsible for anything? Can a doer, feeler, thinker, sayer be found anywhere? Is there free will?

That's a liberating thought! I am cannot be responsible for what is said, done, felt or thought, because it happens by itself. By the time I am aware of it, it has happened. I can't be responsible for anything, because that is owning something. I can't own any experience. I am not the author of it. There is only doing, feeling, thought happening, speaking happening. The presumed controller cannot be found anywhere in the moment. If this is so, there cannot be a 'will' which decides. There is no free will.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

Not in sense experience - so, no.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

There is no shape or form experienced. No.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

No, there is the sensation of clothing in the moment, warmth, texture, etc, but no boundary. The sense is the experience and there is no boundary in it.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No, just weight and pressure and sensation, but no boundary.

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

There is no inside/outside going on. As I sat like that, I was aware of sensation of tingling hands, feet, clothes, skin sensations, etc, etc. But I was equally aware of birdsong left and right, boiler sounds, etc. These were equally present in experience, occupying the same space as body sensation. There is no experience of inside/outside here.

If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

Outside is the concept of outside. Outside the body which has been conceptualised as a separate container of thought, emotion, sensation and identity. But these experiments show there is no inside/outside. The concept of the container body is false.

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

The label body refers to the concept of the body as the container of identity. The identity 'me' or 'I.'
It is the thing we use to differentiate between self and the 'world.' And so it is the concept which facilitates the idea inside/outside. But it seems to be no more than an idea - just a concept because, in experience, there is no inside/outside.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Sensation, feeling, tingling in the moment, as it happens.

More 'Whoa!' this end! :)

Thanks,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hey Carter,

Exactly! Since there is no chooser and no thinker whatsoever, then are you responsible for what is said, done, felt or thought? Can you be responsible for anything? Can a doer, feeler, thinker, sayer be found anywhere? Is there free will?

That's a liberating thought! I am cannot be responsible for what is said, done, felt or thought, because it happens by itself. By the time I am aware of it, it has happened. I can't be responsible for anything, because that is owning something. I can't own any experience. I am not the author of it. There is only doing, feeling, thought happening, speaking happening. The presumed controller cannot be found anywhere in the moment. If this is so, there cannot be a 'will' which decides. There is no free will.

So clearly expressed! Nice! And yes, it is liberating. Puts paid to the idea of a guilty self!

Does the body have a weight or volume?

Not in sense experience - so, no.

You mean not in actual experience. What is it exactly that has ‘senses’?
Does the body ‘feel’?
Does the body’s eyes see?
Does the body’s nose smell?
Does the body’s mouth taste?
Does the body’s brain think?

Can a body be found in AE?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

No, there is the sensation of clothing in the moment, warmth, texture, etc, but no boundary.

Can warmth, texture etc be found as actual experience?

The sense is the experience and there is no boundary in it.
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
No, just weight and pressure and sensation, but no boundary.

I would like you to try this again. Closing the eyes and ignoring all thoughts and images of a body and chair.

What is the actual experience?
What is the AE of weight?
What is the AE of pressure?

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

There is no inside/outside going on. As I sat like that, I was aware of sensation of tingling hands, feet, clothes, skin sensations, etc, etc.

Does the sensation labelled ‘tingling’ actually come from hands, feet, clothes?

But I was equally aware of birdsong left and right, boiler sounds, etc. These were equally present in experience, occupying the same space as body sensation. There is no experience of inside/outside here.

The label ‘body’ is AE of thought and not AE of a body
The sensation labelled as ‘body sensation’ is AE of sensation and not AE of a body
The image labelled as ‘body’ is AE of colour and not AE of a body
The thoughts ABOUT a body, what it is, what it does etc are AE of thought and not AE of a body.

So label + sensation + colour + thoughts are known. Is a body actually known?

If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

Outside is the concept of outside. Outside the body which has been conceptualised as a separate container of thought, emotion, sensation and identity. But these experiments show there is no inside/outside. The concept of the container body is false.

Yes…nice :)

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

The label body refers to the concept of the body as the container of identity. The identity 'me' or 'I.' It is the thing we use to differentiate between self and the 'world.' And so it is the concept which facilitates the idea inside/outside. But it seems to be no more than an idea - just a concept because, in experience, there is no inside/outside.

The WORD/LABEL ‘body’ refers to AE of thought only. Can an actual body be found in the word/label?

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Sensation, feeling, tingling in the moment, as it happens.

What is the AE of ‘tingling’?
What is AE of ‘feeling’? What is it exactly that is ‘feeling’?

The AE of the body is thought. Thought suggests that sensation is a body…but can an actual body be found in the sensation itself?
Does the sensation in any way suggest that it is a body?

Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

sorry for my late reply. I woke a little later than usual and the kids needed entertaining!

I read this earlier and have had time to cogitate on it. I am going to do another sitting with it later as you recommend.

You mean not in actual experience. What is it exactly that has ‘senses’?

I seems to have the senses. But I is a thought. And the body as container/house/owner of experience doesn't exist. None of these have senses. The experience of sensing is there but nothing / no one has those senses. Ideas and concepts cannot sense. The idea of the body and idea of I cannot own senses. Even so the sensations are arising.

Does the body ‘feel’?

The body does not feel. I could say 'I feel' but that no longer feels appropriate, as ideas cannot feel. Sensations are there and noticed, but the body does not feel.

Does the body’s eyes see?

No. Same deal. Seeing is there, but the body doesn't own it.

Does the body’s nose smell?

No. Smells arise. They aren't owned by anyone or anything.

Does the body’s mouth taste?

same. Taste is there, and it's not, and then it is again. No one owns it, the body included.

Does the body’s brain think?

Thought happens, passes, and more thought come. It comes but I cannot say the body thinks, or that the brain thinks.

Can a body be found in AE?

Sensation is found, colour is found, seeing is found, smell is found, taste is found, sound is found. All of it passes. There is no body in experience just awareness, And that is the extent of it. No witness can be looked to, pointed to, experienced. Just the witnessing happening. Just awareness of the senses. And there is no finder to find them. As I describe these things, and it sometimes feels as if I am just saying them - but I feel they are true. There is a witnessing of things but no witness. In short, there is no body found in AE!

Can warmth, texture etc be found as actual experience?

Warmth and texture are labels. Ideas. Best efforts for communicating. There are not found in AE. A sensory experience is there and then it has passed. I felt sensations and tried to capture them with words, but they are not captured!

What is the actual experience?

Lightness, space, a sense of nothingness, and sensing happening within it. As I sat this morning I felt as if - best effort at communicating here - were vapourous, empty, spacious, with sense feelings arising within that. Words fail me!

What is the AE of weight?

No weight. Just sensations.

What is the AE of pressure?

No pressure, just sensations arising with the spacious sensing described above.

Does the sensation labelled ‘tingling’ actually come from hands, feet, clothes?

No, it is in the living - the sensing - the awareness. It is noticed by awareness.

So label + sensation + colour + thoughts are known. Is a body actually known?

A body is not known. It is a label itself, a concept for a bundle of sensations - a concept created by thought. It is not known, but often assumed. It is not actually known in AE.

The WORD/LABEL ‘body’ refers to AE of thought only. Can an actual body be found in the word/label?

No body can be found in the word/label. Word/Labels are not real. They are a product of thought and a tool for communication. No actual body is there.

What is the AE of ‘tingling’?

Okay. Stretching for this one! Lost for words as I search and find the tingling sensation. There is a description of tingling. A label. A device. But there is no tingling. It is part of all of it. Tingling happens, eyes see, tastes taste.

What is AE of ‘feeling’? What is it exactly that is ‘feeling’?

Beyond words. It is experiencing... the living experience of whatever arises to be lived. Life/Awareness/Consciousness/ is feeling and these labels are also inadequate. Life comes close. It is living...

The AE of the body is thought. Thought suggests that sensation is a body…but can an actual body be found in the sensation itself?

No body can be found in sensations. As I sat before - another attempt to describe coming - I felt more like a constellation of sensations being experienced than a body. There is no actual body found in sensation.

Does the sensation in any way suggest that it is a body?

No. It is a pure and direct feeling nothing to do with the concept of a body.

I hope all this made sense. The last couple of days it feels as if the ground has been moving - in a good way :)

Thanks,

Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hello Carter,

This is another long post...so take a couple of days to read it thoroughly and to carefully look at what is being pointed to with the questions and exercises given.

You mean not in actual experience. What is it exactly that has ‘senses’?

I seems to have the senses. But I is a thought. And the body as container/house/owner of experience doesn't exist. None of these have senses. The experience of sensing is there but nothing / no one has those senses. Ideas and concepts cannot sense. The idea of the body and idea of I cannot own senses. Even so the sensations are arising.

For there to be sensing and something to be sensed = separation. There is no separation.

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

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

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

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

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?

Can a 'see-er' ever be found 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 anything that is witnessing colour?

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

Does the body ‘feel’?

The body does not feel. I could say 'I feel' but that no longer feels appropriate, as ideas cannot feel. Sensations are there and noticed, but the body does not feel.

Where does sensation end and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between the sensation (the known) and the knowing of/as it?

Does the body’s eyes see?

No. Same deal. Seeing is there, but the body doesn't own it.

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

Does the body’s brain think?

Thought happens, passes, and more thought come. It comes but I cannot say the body thinks, or that the brain thinks.

What is the AE of the “brain”?

Can warmth, texture etc be found as actual experience?

Warmth and texture are labels. Ideas. Best efforts for communicating. There are not found in AE. A sensory experience is there and then it has passed. I felt sensations and tried to capture them with words, but they are not captured!

Nice..exactly! THIS/experience cannot be captured by words. It’s like trying to describe the taste labelled as ‘carrot’. Thought tries very hard to describe what IS, but fails. If something can be described, then it is simply an appearance that is appearing AS experience itself.

So, have another look, close the eyes and focus on what thought describes as ‘clothes touching body’:-

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing? If you ignore thoughts and images of body and clothing…what is the actual experience? Is it smell, thought, taste, colour, sound or sensation?

What is the actual experience?

Lightness, space, a sense of nothingness, and sensing happening within it. As I sat this morning I felt as if - best effort at communicating here - were vapourous, empty, spacious, with sense feelings arising within that. Words fail me!

Yes, words fail you because you are going with thought instead of LOOKING. You are trying to describe actual experience. Please LOOK again and tell me what the actual experience is.

What is the AE of weight?

No weight. Just sensations.

AE of weight = thought. How is weight a sensation?
Does any sensation suggest in any way that it is weight?
Does any sensation know anything about weight?

What is the AE of pressure?

No pressure, just sensations arising with the spacious sensing described above.

Yes, exactly it is AE of sensation which thought then describes as pressure.

The simplicity of what IS, is complicated by descriptions and stories about AE.
Try and describe the colour red to someone who has never seen before. How would you do it?

Does the sensation labelled ‘tingling’ actually come from hands, feet, clothes?

No, it is in the living - the sensing - the awareness. It is noticed by awareness.

Hmmm…no looking…just thinking happening here!

Is not ‘tingling’ a sensation which thought is labelling as ‘tingling’
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is tingling?

And where exactly is this awareness? For something to be awaring something points to separation. Is there such a thing as awareness in which things appear? Is awareness ever actually experienced, or is it just an idea, an abstraction? Does it actually exist?

So label + sensation + colour + thoughts are known. Is a body actually known?

A body is not known. It is a label itself, a concept for a bundle of sensations - a concept created by thought. It is not known, but often assumed. It is not actually known in AE.

Assumed by what exactly?

The WORD/LABEL ‘body’ refers to AE of thought only. Can an actual body be found in the word/label?

No body can be found in the word/label. Word/Labels are not real. They are a product of thought and a tool for communication. No actual body is there.

Labels are thoughts. There is no difference between a label and a thought.

What is the AE of ‘tingling’?

Okay. Stretching for this one! Lost for words as I search and find the tingling sensation. There is a description of tingling. A label. A device. But there is no tingling. It is part of all of it. Tingling happens, eyes see, tastes taste.

You have determined that the body is not known...so how can there be eyes that see?
Can you actually see 'your' eyes? Can you actually see your head? Or is it thought and mental images that suggest that there are eyes and a head?

AE = sound, colour, smell, taste, sensation and the face value of thought. What is the AE of ‘tingling’?

What is AE of ‘feeling’? What is it exactly that is ‘feeling’?

Beyond words. It is experiencing... the living experience of whatever arises to be lived. Life/Awareness/Consciousness/ is feeling and these labels are also inadequate. Life comes close. It is living...

What exactly is it that is living? Can you find anyone/anything that is living and is experiencing anything?

The AE of the body is thought. Thought suggests that sensation is a body…but can an actual body be found in the sensation itself?

No body can be found in sensations. As I sat before - another attempt to describe coming - I felt more like a constellation of sensations being experienced than a body. There is no actual body found in sensation.

Hmmm…another story.
Does the sensation itself suggest in anyway that it is a ‘constellation of sensations” or is that thought suggesting that?

Does the sensation in any way suggest that it is a body?

No. It is a pure and direct feeling nothing to do with the concept of a body.

Where is the ‘feeler’? Where does a sensation (the known) end and the knowing of it begin. Where is the boundary between what is known and the knowing of it?

I hope all this made sense. The last couple of days it feels as if the ground has been moving - in a good way :)

Lovely to hear that the ground is shifting, however as you can see, you have slipped into telling stories instead of looking at what the actual experience is.

Love, Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

Okay, I’ll try to keep to AE in my responses.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?

Yes, I experience the colour black.

2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?

No, there is only seeing black

3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?

No, what is seeing black cannot be found.

4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?

No eyes or seer of black can be found – when I look for one I don't find one.

What do you find?

Only 'black' /seeing black.

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

I can't find anything witnesses the colour black. There is only 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 seeing/colour?

I looked for a dividing line between black and seeing and could not find one. There is just seeing/colour.
A seer can't be found in seeing. I am looking for one now. There is no seer, just seeing.

Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

No.

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?

The seer doesn’t exist as anything other than an idea. The seer doesn’t exist.

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?

No difference. What is seen is also the appearance of colour.

Is there anything that is witnessing colour?

I cannot find anything witnessing the colour.

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

There is no seer, so there is no separation. It is all a seamless singular experience.

Where does sensation end and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between the sensation (the known) and the knowing of/as it?

Senation and knowing of it are one and the same. I can find no divide between them.

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

Yes, it is like a windscreen. Seeing is not separate from what is seen, there is only what is seen. Awareness and experience are one and the same, no divide. There is just experience.

What is the AE of the “brain”?

The AE of the brain is thought, because the brain doesn’t exist in actual experience.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing? If you ignore thoughts and images of body and clothing…what is the actual experience? Is it smell, thought, taste, colour, sound or sensation?

There is no boundary. The AE of clothes touching body is sensation.

Yes, words fail you because you are going with thought instead of LOOKING. You are trying to describe actual experience. Please LOOK again and tell me what the actual experience is.

Weight is a thought. It is not sensation. Weight is a label created from an idea of pressure. It’s a thought about a thought.

Is not ‘tingling’ a sensation which thought is labelling as ‘tingling’

Yes, it is sensation labelled as tingling.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is tingling?

No. It is sensation labelled with a word which attempts to describe the experience. It is sensation.

And where exactly is this awareness? For something to be awaring something points to separation. Is there such a thing as awareness in which things appear? Is awareness ever actually experienced, or is it just an idea, an abstraction? Does it actually exist?

Awareness is nowhere to be found. I see colour, experience sensations, etc, but there is no awareness in which it happens. It is a concept, an idea, an abstraction, as you say.

You have determined that the body is not known...so how can there be eyes that see?
Can you actually see 'your' eyes? Can you actually see your head? Or is it thought and mental images that suggest that there are eyes and a head?

I cannot see my eyes. I can’t see my head. Only thought says they are there. It is a figure of speech. An idea, not AE.

AE = sound, colour, smell, taste, sensation and the face value of thought. What is the AE of ‘tingling’?

AE of tingling is just sensation, with a label attached to attempt to convey the feeling. AE is sensation only.

Where is the ‘feeler’? Where does a sensation (the known) end and the knowing of it begin. Where is the boundary between what is known and the knowing of it?

There is no feeler. There is no boundary between sensation and knowing it. They are one and the same.

Hope that's better.

Thanks,
Carter.

[forgetmenot]

Hello Carter,

Okay, I’ll try to keep to AE in my responses.

Wonderful! The purpose of this is for your benefit so that what is being pointed to is seen clearly and not overlayed with thought stories that can confuse what is being explored.

Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

No.

Are seeing and knowing separate or are they one and the same. Is seeing colour and seeing seeing different, or are they are one and the same ie colourknowing?

Is there anything that is witnessing colour?

I cannot find anything witnessing the colour.

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

There is no seer, so there is no separation. It is all a seamless singular experience.

If there is no "seeing", how can there be anything "unseen"? How can experience appear just as it does if there is literally no see-er's? What are the implications when there is no witness to be found - no separable awareness of any kind?

Where does sensation end and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between the sensation (the known) and the knowing of/as it?

Senation and knowing of it are one and the same. I can find no divide between them.

Yes and what are the implications of this?

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?
Yes, it is like a windscreen. Seeing is not separate from what is seen, there is only what is seen. Awareness and experience are one and the same, no divide. There is just experience.

Lovely, yes. So that puts paid to distance and space…yes?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing? If you ignore thoughts and images of body and clothing…what is the actual experience? Is it smell, thought, taste, colour, sound or sensation?
There is no boundary. The AE of clothes touching body is sensation.

Lovely, yes….a nice clean succinct answer.

Yes, words fail you because you are going with thought instead of LOOKING. You are trying to describe actual experience. Please LOOK again and tell me what the actual experience is.

Weight is a thought. It is not sensation. Weight is a label created from an idea of pressure. It’s a thought about a thought.

Yes! See how simple and uncomplicated it is without all those other thoughts stories about AE?

And where exactly is this awareness? For something to be awaring something points to separation. Is there such a thing as awareness in which things appear? Is awareness ever actually experienced, or is it just an idea, an abstraction? Does it actually exist?

Awareness is nowhere to be found. I see colour, experience sensations, etc, but there is no awareness in which it happens. It is a concept, an idea, an abstraction, as you say.

Where exactly is this “I” that “sees colour, experiences sensations etc”? Can a dividing line be found between experience and ‘experiencer’?

The observer and observed often go together. It can seem like there's an unchanging witness/observer in which changing appearances arise. Without the belief in time, that whole structure should collapse.

You have determined that the body is not known...so how can there be eyes that see?
Can you actually see 'your' eyes? Can you actually see your head? Or is it thought and mental images that suggest that there are eyes and a head?

I cannot see my eyes. I can’t see my head. Only thought says they are there. It is a figure of speech. An idea, not AE.

Let’s examine the solidity of the head.

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

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

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

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

Where is the ‘feeler’? Where does a sensation (the known) end and the knowing of it begin. Where is the boundary between what is known and the knowing of it?

There is no feeler. There is no boundary between sensation and knowing it. They are one and the same.

Yes…experience/knowing is self aware.

Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

Are seeing and knowing separate or are they one and the same. Is seeing colour and seeing seeing different, or are they are one and the same ie colourknowing?

Seeing and knowing are one and the same. I cannot separate them. I see/know colour simultaneously. It is colourknowing.

If there is no "seeing", how can there be anything "unseen"? How can experience appear just as it does if there is literally no see-er's? What are the implications when there is no witness to be found - no separable awareness of any kind?

If experience appears as it does without any seers, then there is just pure raw experience and all else is an illusion. Everything is unified - the separate witness is an illusion. I cannot answer how it works, but I do not experience any seer when I look. The implication is the witness 'me' does not exist. That it, as a product of thought, is imagined. Everything experienced is real, but separation from it is illusory. I''m saying it because it feels true, but the epiphany (I don't mean stereotyped enlightenment, just the simple head/heart acceptance of this) has not yet come. Sorry for the extra commentary here!

Yes and what are the implications of this?

If sensing and knowing are one and the same... all real knowing is from the senses. Eg, all experience is gleaned/gained from the senses as they are sensing. What is outside senses (and outside the moment of sensing) cannot be known and therefore does not exist in AE. It is thought only. What thought imagines to be the unseen, doesn't exist. Everything beyond what is sensed is not real. It is a product of thought. It is not actual experience.

Lovely, yes. So that puts paid to distance and space…yes?

Space and distance - yes - I do see that. Over time experientially I hope I will 'get it' too - that the understanding becomes 'real to me' and lived as such. I do sometimes have fun looking and seeing the distant ocean as near and immediate on my runs though!

Where exactly is this “I” that “sees colour, experiences sensations etc”? Can a dividing line be found between experience and ‘experiencer’?

This cannot be found except in thought. There is no dividing line, only experience. I look now and find no division.

Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?

There is just sensation labelled 'pressure' and thoughts.

Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?

Just sensations again!

And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them?

Nothing but thoughts about something between them.

Without thought, how big is your head?

It has no dimension of size. It's not there! :)

Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?

No inside, no out.

Without thought, does it have a location?

No location in AE!

Thanks again,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hi Carter,

If there is no "seeing", how can there be anything "unseen"? How can experience appear just as it does if there is literally no see-er's? What are the implications when there is no witness to be found - no separable awareness of any kind?

If experience appears as it does without any seers, then there is just pure raw experience and all else is an illusion. Everything is unified - the separate witness is an illusion. I cannot answer how it works, but I do not experience any seer when I look. The implication is the witness 'me' does not exist. That it, as a product of thought, is imagined. Everything experienced is real, but separation from it is illusory. I''m saying it because it feels true, but the epiphany (I don't mean stereotyped enlightenment, just the simple head/heart acceptance of this) has not yet come. Sorry for the extra commentary here!

That type of extra commentary is okay :) Epiphanies happen when they happen!
You understand there is no witness, that there is no separation...so what is it that is the knowingknown?

Yes and what are the implications of this?

If sensing and knowing are one and the same... all real knowing is from the senses. Eg, all experience is gleaned/gained from the senses as they are sensing. What is outside senses (and outside the moment of sensing) cannot be known and therefore does not exist in AE. It is thought only. What thought imagines to be the unseen, doesn't exist. Everything beyond what is sensed is not real. It is a product of thought. It is not actual experience.

For there to be “sensing” there would need to be a “sensor”. Awareness 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 still an implication in your response that 'taste' and 'sweet', for example are known separately through something/someone. That is simply not experience. 'Taste/sweet' IS experience and it's not known through anything or by anyone.

Can you find two things ie colour AND experience? Taste AND experience? Thought AND experience? Sound AND experience? Sensation AND experience? Smell AND experience?


Is taste different to colour? Is colour different to sound? Is sound different to sensation? Is thought different to smell?

Lovely, yes. So that puts paid to distance and space…yes?

Space and distance - yes - I do see that. Over time experientially I hope I will 'get it' too - that the understanding becomes 'real to me' and lived as such. I do sometimes have fun looking and seeing the distant ocean as near and immediate on my runs though!

How would this be lived exactly? There is simply a knowing that space and distance are a concept, nothing more.

Sit in a chair somewhere quiet and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and start to notice just the ‘body’, the chair, floor, rugs, furniture and walls. Without thought, all there is, is colour which thought then labels as clothes, or body, chair, wall etc (we are only looking at colour for this exercise).

Now look carefully.
1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?
2. Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniturel’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug and furniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’, ‘furniture’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just simply colour?
What do you find?

Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply seamless colour which thought divides into ‘things’ and further divides in into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?

Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

Where exactly is this “I” that “sees colour, experiences sensations etc”? Can a dividing line be found between experience and ‘experiencer’?

This cannot be found except in thought. There is no dividing line, only experience. I look now and find no division

So is there a Carterself AND colour AND experience? Or is there simply experience itself? And what is it that knows itself?

Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?

There is just sensation labelled 'pressure' and thoughts.

Great….so are you clear that the head, face, eyes, nose, mouth etc are imaginary?

Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

You understand there is no witness, that there is no separation...so what is it that is the knowingknown?

Okay, I am struggling a little here as we push on - but I will keep at it!I would say the knowingknown is 'all there is.' All that is perceived. It is all one whole, the universe experienced in the moment. I don't have the capacity (currently) to describe it further. Or maybe I am missing an insight - probably that. I know some people describe it as awareness, consciousness, whatever. Stories here?: Experience is that this is all there is flowing, changing, interrupted by logic/thought/stresses which are part of it, immediate, intimate, expansive. Doubts arise: What am I not getting, seeing etc - and how to get there :)

Can you find two things ie colour AND experience? Taste AND experience? Thought AND experience? Sound AND experience? Sensation AND experience? Smell AND experience?

I get that. Colour is seen. Taste is there. Sounds heard. All is experience as it happens, indivisible. I get it, but do I get it?!

Is taste different to colour? Is colour different to sound? Is sound different to sensation? Is thought different to smell?

Here I can only answer yes. They are different. Taste is taste, Sound is sound. They all arise and depart, but to me they are different.

1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?

No. Only the perception of a colour change.

2. Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?

As above.
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniturel’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour
Space seems to be a concept. There is only colour.
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug and furniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’, ‘furniture’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just simply colour?
What do you find?
No space. Simply colour.

Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply seamless colour which thought divides into ‘things’ and further divides in into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?

There are no dividing lines. Just colour. Seamless colour.

Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?

The questions above undermined (positively) the concept of space, which means distance is also undermined. They are concepts not experience.

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

Colour sits in a colour called chair! :)

So is there a Carterself AND colour AND experience? Or is there simply experience itself? And what is it that knows itself?

There is no Carterself. There is colour. But not divisible from experience.
There is experiencing happening. No one knows itself. There is no self. There is the surface experiencing and nothing more nor less.

Great….so are you clear that the head, face, eyes, nose, mouth etc are imaginary?

They are not in my actual experience. They are labels for concepts one chooses to believe are there. Yes, they are imaginary. Feels ridiculous to admit it, actually, but there it is! :)

Thanks,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hello Carter,

You understand there is no witness, that there is no separation...so what is it that is the knowingknown?

Okay, I am struggling a little here as we push on - but I will keep at it!I would say the knowingknown is 'all there is.' All that is perceived. It is all one whole, the universe experienced in the moment. I don't have the capacity (currently) to describe it further. Or maybe I am missing an insight - probably that. I know some people describe it as awareness, consciousness, whatever. Stories here?: Experience is that this is all there is flowing, changing, interrupted by logic/thought/stresses which are part of it, immediate, intimate, expansive. Doubts arise: What am I not getting, seeing etc - and how to get there :)

Experience/awareness/consciousness/knowingknown/THIS are all synonymous and all point to the the same thing. Experience Itself…the I AM…the What IS. Experience is not derived from people, life and things. People, life and things are derived from Experience itself.

Colour, smell, taste, thought, sensation and sound are labels that thought overlays experience itself, which SEEMS to divide experience into 6 categories. Experience can never be divided..it is whole, complete and seamless no matter what thought says.

There is no colour AND taste AND thought AND sensation AND sound AND smell. There is no AND. Colourtastethoughtsensationsoundsmell = experience. If you ignore the labels of colour, sound, smell etc that thought gives experience, there is simply experience appearing exactly as it is.

Can you find two things ie colour AND experience? Taste AND experience? Thought AND experience? Sound AND experience? Sensation AND experience? Smell AND experience?

I get that. Colour is seen. Taste is there. Sounds heard. All is experience as it happens, indivisible. I get it, but do I get it?!

How is colour seen? Does the body’s eyes see? For something to be seen means there must be a seer. Where is the dividing line between seer and seen, or is there simply seerseen ie colourseeing? Let's explore this.

The usual belief that 'I am this body' is usually tied in with the belief that the body as a separate item is responsible for 'DOING' the senses - 'I see', 'I hear', 'I feel' etc

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

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

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

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

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeingcolour?

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 anything that is witnessing colour?

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

Is taste different to colour? Is colour different to sound? Is sound different to sensation? Is thought different to smell?

Here I can only answer yes. They are different. Taste is taste, Sound is sound. They all arise and depart, but to me they are different.

And without thought, how is it known that they are different?

1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?
No. Only the perception of a colour change.

What is it exactly that is perceiving colour? Can you find a perceiver and perceived? Can a perceiver be found in taste, smell, colour, thought, sensation or sound?

3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniturel’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour

Space seems to be a concept. There is only colour.

Yes…only seamless experience which thought labels as ‘colour’ and then further divides by labelling colour pink, blue, green, yellow and so on. Without thought suggesting that experience is divided…how would this be possible?

Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?

The questions above undermined (positively) the concept of space, which means distance is also undermined. They are concepts not experience.

Yes, they are concepts and nor are they experience. The word ‘experience’ is not used in this exploration to mean experiences that a seeming character seemingly experience. Where in (actual) experience, can space or distance be found?

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

Colour sits in a colour called chair! :)

I am thinking you are joking and you realise that colour cannot sit in colour!

So is there a Carterself AND colour AND experience? Or is there simply experience itself? And what is it that knows itself?

There is no Carterself. There is colour. But not divisible from experience.
There is experiencing happening. No one knows itself. There is no self. There is the surface experiencing and nothing more nor less.

Experience/THIS knows itself. It is self-aware. It does not know itself as thought describes it and it does not know itself as ‘things’. Experience is appearing as thought….not the other way round. A thought isn't known because of its appearance or its content...it is known because it is experience/THIS (/I AM). Colour isn’t known because it is a colour, or that it is an appearance...it is known because it is the I AM, same goes for smell, taste, sound and sensation. Without those labels…all there is, is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.

Great….so are you clear that the head, face, eyes, nose, mouth etc are imaginary?

They are not in my actual experience. They are labels for concepts one chooses to believe are there. Yes, they are imaginary. Feels ridiculous to admit it, actually, but there it is! :)

What and where exactly is the “one” that “chooses to believe in labels for concepts”?
Describe this “one” to me in precise details and describe where it is located.

Thought says that the foot is ‘down there’. So presumably you are above your foot. Where are you? Sit quietly, close your eyes, take a few breaths and locate where you feel yourself to be. Locate yourself vertically in the body, horizontally to the left or right, and depth, how far in. Feel how big you are, where you reside. Then point with a finger to ‘you’. Open your eyes, where is your finger pointing?

Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

Thanks for being so patient with this!

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?

Yes, I can confirm this.

2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?

No, there is only black.

3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?

No, there is no see-er found.

4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?
What do you find?

There is no pair of eyes, I, me, person here seeing black.

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

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?

seeing and colour are unified. They are the same. There is the experience only. Seeingcolour.

Can a 'see-er' be found at all in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

Not at all. No see-er here.

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?

Anything that is believed in as a see-er, anything which appears to be a see-er is thought only.

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?

Both are the appearance of colour.

Is there anything that is witnessing colour?

Nothing is witnessing colour.

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

The see-er is not separate. There is no see-er. There is only experiencing - singular experience.

Senses.

And without thought, how is it known that they are different?

With thought there is only conceivable difference - concept of difference and contrast. Without thought processing, there is only experiencing. They cannot be distinguished except by analysis in thought and communication.

What is it exactly that is perceiving colour? Can you find a perceiver and perceived? Can a perceiver be found in taste, smell, colour, thought, sensation or sound?

Nothing and no one is perceiving colour. There is only experiencing. No perceiver here. Just things happening. no Perceiver in taste, smell, colour, thought, sensation, sound. All just happening without reference to a perceiver of any kind.

Yes…only seamless experience which thought labels as ‘colour’ and then further divides by labelling colour pink, blue, green, yellow and so on. Without thought suggesting that experience is divided…how would this be possible?

It isn't. Names of colours, distinguishing labels are all thought. Without labels, they are simply colour.

Yes, they are concepts and nor are they experience. The word ‘experience’ is not used in this exploration to mean experiences that a seeming character seemingly experience. Where in (actual) experience, can space or distance be found?

Space cannot be found. Distance is based on thoughts, estimates, calculations, systems of thinking = thought. Space and distance are not found in actual experience.

I am thinking you are joking and you realise that colour cannot sit in colour!

Yes, just being silly.

Experience/THIS knows itself. It is self-aware. It does not know itself as thought describes it and it does not know itself as ‘things’. Experience is appearing as thought….not the other way round. A thought isn't known because of its appearance or its content...it is known because it is experience/THIS (/I AM). Colour isn’t known because it is a colour, or that it is an appearance...it is known because it is the I AM, same goes for smell, taste, sound and sensation. Without those labels…all there is, is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.

Thank you for laying this out. I have felt close to getting this, seeing it, feeling it, knowing it, but confusion often arises and I get lost again. The clarity here is great. I feel as if I am on the edge of a watershed/breakthrough/a place I've glimpsed a few times when I read that. Simplicity, peace. Please forgive my purple prose here.

What and where exactly is the “one” that “chooses to believe in labels for concepts”?
Describe this “one” to me in precise details and describe where it is located.

The one which chooses to believe in labels: is a concept. Is thought believed. It is a thought. Where? The one who believes in labels cannot be found. It believed itself to be in the head, analysing, believing, processing, etc. But there is no head. There is no self apart from thought. Me is a container which doesn't exist in experience. I cannot locate it. The one is not in the body, there is no body. It is not behind the eyes. There are no eyes. Even as a thought it doesn't exist, either, because I am looking for it and it is not there. It is nowhere. It isn't! :)

Thought says that the foot is ‘down there’. So presumably you are above your foot. Where are you? Sit quietly, close your eyes, take a few breaths and locate where you feel yourself to be. Locate yourself vertically in the body, horizontally to the left or right, and depth, how far in. Feel how big you are, where you reside. Then point with a finger to ‘you’. Open your eyes, where is your finger pointing?

My finger is not pointing. I cannot find anywhere to point to.

Thanks again,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Good morning Carter,

Thanks for being so patient with this!

No worries. I have the patients as long as genuine and consistent looking is happening by you, in order for you to see what is being pointed at. It is the seeing that brings the realisation of no self and not the reliance on thought. Thought knows nothing.

Or is there just seeingcolour?

seeing and colour are unified. They are the same. There is the experience only. Seeingcolour.

Yes, seeing and knowing are one and the same. Seeing of colour and seeing of seeing are one and the same = colour

And without thought, how is it known that they are different?

With thought there is only conceivable difference - concept of difference and contrast. Without thought processing, there is only experiencing. They cannot be distinguished except by analysis in thought and communication.

The word "experienced" is the past tense of the VERB "to experience", so it obviously implies that something DID the experiencing. And for something to do the EXPERIENCING, it would be required to do an experiencing (knowing) of experience (known). Since there is no dividing line between knowing and known, obviously there can never be experiencing of experience.

And without thought, how is it known that they are different?

With thought there is only conceivable difference - concept of difference and contrast. Without thought processing, there is only experiencing. They cannot be distinguished except by analysis in thought and communication.

There is no EXPERIENCING. This points to someone/something experiencing something which is subject/object split and the idea of cause and effect. There is no separation in any shape or form. Can a bird experience anything other than being a bird? Can a bird be experiencing being a bird? There is only EXPERIENCE which is self-aware.

What is it exactly that is perceiving colour? Can you find a perceiver and perceived? Can a perceiver be found in taste, smell, colour, thought, sensation or sound?

Nothing and no one is perceiving colour. There is only experiencing. No perceiver here. Just things happening. no Perceiver in taste, smell, colour, thought, sensation, sound. All just happening without reference to a perceiver of any kind.

Yes…without thought how can it possibly be known that there is something perceiving something or that there is something to be perceived? That is object/subject split.

Seeing that experience and awareness are one and the same, isn't that another way of saying that experience is aware of itself? So no perceiver needed and a perceiver cannot be found.

Yes…only seamless experience which thought labels as ‘colour’ and then further divides by labelling colour pink, blue, green, yellow and so on. Without thought suggesting that experience is divided…how would this be possible?

It isn't. Names of colours, distinguishing labels are all thought. Without labels, they are simply colour.

And ‘colour’ is also a label. If you look at a table, and let say it is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’ and you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what are you left with? You are left with experience exactly as it is.

Experience/THIS knows itself. It is self-aware. It does not know itself as thought describes it and it does not know itself as ‘things’. Experience is appearing as thought….not the other way round. A thought isn't known because of its appearance or its content...it is known because it is experience/THIS (/I AM). Colour isn’t known because it is a colour, or that it is an appearance...it is known because it is the I AM, same goes for smell, taste, sound and sensation. Without those labels…all there is, is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.

Thank you for laying this out. I have felt close to getting this, seeing it, feeling it, knowing it, but confusion often arises and I get lost again. The clarity here is great. I feel as if I am on the edge of a watershed/breakthrough/a place I've glimpsed a few times when I read that. Simplicity, peace. Please forgive my purple prose here.

As soon as experience/THIS has been labelled it becomes divided. It becomes divided into 6 main categories: - sound AND smell AND thought AND colour AND taste AND sensation. If you take away the AND it is soundsmellthoughtcolourtastesensation which denotes that there is no division. However, the ‘thinking mind’ still sees even that as separate words pointing to experience having 6 different forms.
So let’s replace soundsmellthoughtcolourtastesensation with just X.
X = experience/THIS exactly as it is.

What and where exactly is the “one” that “chooses to believe in labels for concepts”?
Describe this “one” to me in precise details and describe where it is located.

The one which chooses to believe in labels: is a concept. Is thought believed. It is a thought. Where? The one who believes in labels cannot be found. It believed itself to be in the head, analysing, believing, processing, etc. But there is no head. There is no self apart from thought. Me is a container which doesn't exist in experience. I cannot locate it. The one is not in the body, there is no body. It is not behind the eyes. There are no eyes. Even as a thought it doesn't exist, either, because I am looking for it and it is not there. It is nowhere. It isn't! :)

Yes. It is generally believed that thoughts are coming from the head somewhere around the forehead. When we try to trace back the origin of a thought, it is often believed that it's coming from the forehead, because the attention automatically goes to the sensation of the forehead. Investigate this carefully as often as you can throughout the day.

Close your eyes and look to see what the AE of the ‘forehead’ is. Then look at the following questions.

What is the forehead in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead), right?

So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?
Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?
Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?

Have a very deep look here... the forehead is one of the 'residence' of the SENSE of self. Or rather say, the sensation that is labelled as forehead is believed to be one of the location of the sense of self.

Furthermore, it's also believed that both the 'visual sight' and 'mental images' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and at the same time the image 'of the eyes' appear with it.

So another SENSE of self is linked to the sensation 'of the eyes'.

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image, right?

Can sight come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)?

Thought says that the foot is ‘down there’. So presumably you are above your foot. Where are you? Sit quietly, close your eyes, take a few breaths and locate where you feel yourself to be. Locate yourself vertically in the body, horizontally to the left or right, and depth, how far in. Feel how big you are, where you reside. Then point with a finger to ‘you’. Open your eyes, where is your finger pointing?

My finger is not pointing. I cannot find anywhere to point to.

Terrific…so when doing this exercise…there was no particular sensation in the body (around the chest, or the head) that thought was hinting was the self?

Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

Hope you're doing well.

Rest assured, I am doing my best to look and see, but I can be pretty slow on the uptake sometimes. You may have noticed! Anyway- down to business :)

What is the forehead in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead), right?

Yes, actually mostly a skin and muscle sensation.

So, can a thought come from a sensation?

Nope.

Can a thought come from a mental image?

Nope, that's another thought.

Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’?

No.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’?

Not really... No.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?

No.

Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?

No I can't.

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image, right?

Yes. Agreed.

Can sight come from a sensation?

No.

Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

Not at all.

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?

No. Thought overlays sensation/attaches with a mental image. Short answer - no.

Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)?

A thought cannot create a thought. That is a conventional notion, but not a true one. Short answer - no.

Terrific…so when doing this exercise…there was no particular sensation in the body (around the chest, or the head) that thought was hinting was the self?

To be honest, no. I've done this question once before (probably via the app, I think, not too long before our conversations) and found myself pointing at my T-shirt. Understanding that I wasn't my T shirt I broke out laughing. I don't feel a me there in the same way now. I feel sensation, not me. I understand I'm not in my head. I understand I'm not in my chest.

Thanks for all your help,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hey Carter,

Rest assured, I am doing my best to look and see, but I can be pretty slow on the uptake sometimes. You may have noticed! Anyway- down to business :)

Learning a new language and a new way of looking at things takes time…so there is no being “slow on the uptake”! 

What is the forehead in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead), right?

Yes, actually mostly a skin and muscle sensation.

Hmmm…what is the AE of ‘skin’ and ‘muscle’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘skin and muscle’, or is it thought that suggests this?

Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?

No I can't.

So does analysing, believing, processing or even thinking take place in a forehead or head, or is it only a mental construct (an idea) that links them?

Terrific…so when doing this exercise…there was no particular sensation in the body (around the chest, or the head) that thought was hinting was the self?

To be honest, no. I've done this question once before (probably via the app, I think, not too long before our conversations) and found myself pointing at my T-shirt. Understanding that I wasn't my T shirt I broke out laughing. I don't feel a me there in the same way now. I feel sensation, not me. I understand I'm not in my head. I understand I'm not in my chest.

Terrific…we can cross that off the imaginary list then! :)

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?


(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?


Kay