Just another seeker looking to find the truth

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

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?

Good point. It's just more thought!

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?

Only a mental construct links them.

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?

There is no connection. Just thought/mental images.

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

No connection here either.

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

Or only thoughts suggest it?
Only the same possible link as above. No actual connection found.

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?

The image doesn't suggest anything. It is seen, but there is no connection.
Thought recognises the image - but it does not suggest itself as a body.
There are colours and shapes, nothing more.

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

I could see my legs but not my feet, but same deal - only thoughts and mental images suggested there were feet.

Turning away.

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

No. There are only sensations. I also had a glimpse of this when jogging yesterday too (and a little again this morning). Just the views, the breeze, the rain, a heartbeat. No body, only sensations.

Walking.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

There are only sensations primarily seeing and feeling.

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

Walking is the label given to sensation. There was apparent movement, colours changing, sensation. No walking.

Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

Yes. Just thoughts.

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?

Yes - no body, just seeing, plus occasional thoughts about a body.

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

No walking found, just sensation.

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?

Sensations were not localized in space - there were changes of colour, different aspects seen, sensations changing, but no locations (unless I chose to label them).

Thanks,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hey Carter,

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

Walking is the label given to sensation. There was apparent movement, colours changing, sensation. No walking.

Is not the “apparent movement” AE of sensation? Is movement actually happening?

How is it known that there are lots of colours?



When looking at this picture, thought automatically divides and labels colour into many different colours, then further names those colours into specific objects.

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels - are there many colourS? Or is there simply colour?
Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’?
Where does colour begin and end?


Kay

[Carter]

Good afternoon Kay,

Is not the “apparent movement” AE of sensation? Is movement actually happening?

Yes, I see that... walking is sensation only. There is the scenery changing as I experience the sensation of walking. The scenery is colour. Sensation and colour. (Or sensationcolour - x)

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels - are there many colourS? Or is there simply colour?

Without labels there is only colour.

Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’?

The trees are colour. The sky is colour. All of it is one, there is no gap.

Where does colour begin and end?

Colour doesn't begin or end - it 'floods' out from the image across the whole page and beyond. It's everywhere.

Thanks,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hello Carter,

Is not the “apparent movement” AE of sensation? Is movement actually happening?

Yes, I see that... walking is sensation only. There is the scenery changing as I experience the sensation of walking. The scenery is colour. Sensation and colour. (Or sensationcolour - x)

So, since there are not many colourS and simply colour...is the scenery actually changing?
Are you moving through the scenery or is the scenery moving through you?

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels - are there many colourS? Or is there simply colour?

Without labels there is only colour.

Yes and 'colour' is also a label however it points to what IS. However, when you ignore the label 'colour' and all the thoughts that give meaning to the label...it is simply THIS appearing exactly as it is.

Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’?

The trees are colour. The sky is colour. All of it is one, there is no gap.

Yes...with the labels tree and sky...it is a seamless whole.

Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

So, since there are not many colourS and simply colour...is the scenery actually changing?
Are you moving through the scenery or is the scenery moving through you?

That is a real paradigm shifter!
Scenery is not changing. Experiencing is happening.
Yes, I experienced what you described. No walking. Just awareness of colour (what IS) all around me - and moving through me. Not past 'me', or through the body (because those are concepts which don't exist in AE). Just colour moving 'through me.' I experienced this even more keenly when driving.

This experience brought about peace and calm. Subtle joy.

Thanks,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hey Carter,

So let's look at the idea of time. The idea of change is about time as is the idea of cause and effect.

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Any actual experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

No. In the now there is only now. The past, near or recent is only an idea/thought. The same applies to the future. Even though we can get distracted by such thoughts of past or future, there is only now.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

No.

Any actual experience of one event following another?

No. That's what thought says is so, but is not AE.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

It's not moving at all.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

No, I can't.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

It doesn't begin and it doesn't end. You could say it lasts forever.

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

As above.

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

In AE now doesn't become the past.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

It doesn't exist in AE. It exists in thought only.

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

There is no actual experience of 'time' only thoughts about time.

Thanks,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hi Carter,

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

No. In the now there is only now. The past, near or recent is only an idea/thought. The same applies to the future. Even though we can get distracted by such thoughts of past or future, there is only now.

What is it exactly that is getting “distracted” by thoughts of past and future?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

It doesn't exist in AE. It exists in thought only.

Yes, he ‘past’ is AE of thought. Thoughts ABOUT a past are arising in this moment.

Past and memory go hand-in-hand as almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened; that a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.

Please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

WHEN does the memory actually appear?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

What is it exactly that is getting “distracted” by thoughts of past and future?

Hmmm. Nothing but thought itself!

What is memory exactly?

thoughts and thought pictures.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Nothing.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

There is no difference found. General thoughts and memory thoughts are 'made of the same stuff.' Just thought.

WHEN does the memory actually appear?

In the now

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

It is not known.

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

Thought. Images and thought.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

In the now.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?

No difference can be found. Both are thoughts about something.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

It isn't known at all. It's a guess. Just a thought.

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

I can't pin point a difference in them, only in thought. (eg, thought says they reference different times - which exist in thought!)

If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

I don't find a difference. They are both thoughts without an anchor to AE.

Thanks,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hello Carter,

What is it exactly that is getting “distracted” by thoughts of past and future?

Hmmm. Nothing but thought itself!

Can thought be or get distracted? Is thought an entity that can be distracted, or is “getting distracted” simply an arising thought?

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Nothing.

Memories are AE of thought that are appearing now.

Look into the mirror throughout the day. Body image appears... notice that all that's really there are some colours, and a thought-story saying 'these colours are my body'

When you return to the mirror each time, consider whether these 'body colours' have ever appeared before.

Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body?

Can you find any previous appearances of the body? Where are they? If not how can it be known that the body has appeared before?

Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

Do that for today and report back what you find.

Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay

Can thought be or get distracted? Is thought an entity that can be distracted, or is “getting distracted” simply an arising thought?

I see what you mean. It's thought arising.

Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body?

This is the only time I can have been aware of these exact colours. Everything changes. I cannot have seen exactly the same image at any previous time. And any previous time only exists in thought.

Can you find any previous appearances of the body? Where are they? If not how can it be known that the body has appeared before?

I can only find previous appearances in thought. Which means it cannot be known if the body has appeared before.

Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

Yes, there is an urge - the thought-story - to say I have seen it before or that it is mine, but AE says the image is only colour in the here and now. Everything else is thought.

Thanks,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hi Carter,

Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

Yes, there is an urge - the thought-story - to say I have seen it before or that it is mine, but AE says the image is only colour in the here and now. Everything else is thought.

AS AE the image is AE of colour AS the here and now.

What does ‘here and now’ actually point to? Does it point to a location and time or does it point to experience (THIS) that is always here now and is the ‘herenow’?

Look at this doodle. It looks like there are a lot of separate things…right?



Life seems to be a gigantic soup of experience that is grouped, categorised and labelled as things. There seems to be a ‘me’ that is ‘here’ that is experiencing things that are ‘out there’. And all those things ‘out there’ are all individual separate things.

None of it is separated except through thought because all of the images present are just one big canvas. Sounds overlap and intrude on each other, and there is a thought that says “I can separate bird song from car horns. Look! See? I've just named them!” But what is actually appearing is sound, with perhaps an image of a bird and an image of a car, and thoughts ABOUT sound appearing as a bird and car!

And thought appears saying “I can separate a cat from a book. See, I’ve just named them!” But what is actually appearing is colour and thoughts ABOUT colour appearing as shapes/images labelled ‘cat’ and ‘book’.

‘Things’ seemingly appear and there are never not things, but have a LOOK to see what is actually appearing.

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene. Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?


Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

What does ‘here and now’ actually point to? Does it point to a location and time or does it point to experience (THIS) that is always here now and is the ‘herenow’?

It actually points to experience - THIS - happpening. It's always here and now. The 'herenow' as you say.

What separates things?

Nothing separates things apart from thought. Seeing lands on the tree and thought says 'tree'. But the tree is part of the whole of everything else, never separate.

What makes up the borders?

There are no borders anywhere.

Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us?

No, we can't.

If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

It is only thought which makes it so.

The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene. Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?

Looking at the screen, I can't pluck anything from it. And the image IS a seamless whole. Sounds are heard and labelled as words, which seem to come from colour on screen - which has variations - and which thought says are different faces which are then also labelled by thought as different characters. Thought is what makes it seem as if there are separate objects on the screen. But it's clear they are not truly separated. The movie is one seamless whole, with only thought separating things.

Thanks,
Carter

[forgetmenot]

Hey Carter,

Lovely responses...thank you.

Let's see if there is something unclear. Please answer what's true for you right now, rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer.

Is there a separate individual/entity that is the ‘experiencer’?

Is there a separate entity that is the doer?

Is there ‘someone/something’ who can control what happens?

Is there a ‘self’ that can ‘make decisions’ or that can 'choose' anything?

Is there a separate 'self’ who ‘does the thinking’?

Or a ‘separate self’ that is the body or is inside the body?

Are thought, sensation, colour, sound, taste and smell ‘experienced’ by a ‘separate self’?

Is there a ‘self’ ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’?

Is the ‘separate self’ anything other than a imaginary story?

Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

Looking forward to your answers!

Kay

[Carter]

Hi Kay,

Please answer what's true for you right now, rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer.

No worries, will do.

Is there a separate individual/entity that is the ‘experiencer’?

Honestly? Less and less.

Is there a separate entity that is the doer?

I have tasks to be done, but they get done. I am not the doer. When I look, those tasks are done before 'I am doing.' There is no separate entity 'the doer.'

Is there ‘someone/something’ who can control what happens?

There is occasionally the belief and the will to control what happens... Often now followed by the realisation that I am not in control and never was. This process manifests as 'physical tension from trying to control' to a sense of relaxation, and even sometimes a smile. In short, there is no someone/something, but thought habit can have me briefly have me forget that. But I soon remember and look.

Is there a ‘self’ that can ‘make decisions’ or that can 'choose' anything?

There is no self. Forgive another jogging example, but here goes :) I am very clearly not a self and no one is present when out jogging. Just sensation and colour. Decisions are not made... I can feel as if I've chosen certain things, but only in thought, which I now understand these thoughts are just stories told to myself in the moment.They pass and I smile because I know I didn't choose. I'm not just saying this. I feel the truth of it.

Is there a separate 'self’ who ‘does the thinking’?

Thinking? No. Thoughts arise of themselves. There are no thought-bundles of self. Just one thought arising and then maybe another. Self does not exist. There is existing but no self. Thoughts come and go, sensations come and go. No who. No self.

Or a ‘separate self’ that is the body or is inside the body?

The self, beyond thought, doesn't exist. And the body doesn't exist in AE, also only experienced as a concept in thought.

Are thought, sensation, colour, sound, taste and smell ‘experienced’ by a ‘separate self’?

No. They are not experienced by a separate self. They are the substance of experiencing. But there is no past tense experienced. Only experiencing. And there is no separate self. Experiencing is of the seamless whole.

Is there a ‘self’ ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’?

No. There is no self 'in here' separate to the others 'out there'. I am not separate from the world in any way. The world in direct experience is full of life and colour and cannot ever be separated from 'self.' Which is to say there is no self, only experiencing 'the world' as it happens. I know the trees, the sky, the manure, the birds, the laptop etc, are all a part of this experiencing formerly known as me :) The same applies to family, children, etc. I am one with them in experiencing. I have far fewer incidences of 'them and me' than ever before - examples? Traffic. Queueing. Shops. I don't mind the stuff that used to bother me, because I know those people are me too...

Is the ‘separate self’ anything other than an imaginary story?

The separate self can only be imaginary. In the present moment, I can look for self but don't find it. Whenever I look, I don't find self. There, I just tried again. No self. Which means self is not a permanent fixture as the 'world' would seem to have us believe. No. The self is a concept. Thought. Imaginary.

Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

Confusion, no... but I was going to say that I think that treating all 'strangers' as part of 'me' (please forgive the incorrect phraseology) would be a developmental area. Eg, it's happening and the 'imagined boundaries' are fading. But as I write this, I am also keenly aware that this is just a thought with no basis in reality! There are no boundaries, just thoughts of boundaries and none of it exists in actual experience. Even the 'fading' is imaginary because they were never there in the first place. Funnily enough, a guy rang my doorbell a moment ago and interrupted me as I wrote these responses. Timely and useful, right? The visitor was a young offender, a man who came to sell me some wares as part of his community rehabilitation program. I listened to his rehearsed sales pitch and I then simply told him I didn't want to buy his stuff. Before this process I might have struggled with my answer, because I felt sorry for him, or because of a whole bunch of other possible thoughts. I might have felt guilty for not helping him. But actually, I simply said no. The man went his way and I wished him well. There was no sense of him/me interfering with the experience. Nor did I feel a need to compose an answer in a certain way. There was no guilt and no need for any guilt. There was no after-thought tailspin! It was a clean experience. It was AE!

Thanks,
Carter