Long time seeker - No-one-wannabe

[forgetmenot]

Hello Ray,

The better way to express that is: There is Color [guitar] and there is verbal thought: "I haven’t played my guitar in a few days” since there is no "I" to be triggered in any way.

The label ‘guitar’ is AE of thought and not AE of a guitar
Sound labelled as ‘guitar’ is AE of sound and not AE of a guitar
Sensation labelled as ‘playing guitar’ is AE of sensation and not AE of playing guitar
Colour labelled as ‘guitar’ is AE of colour and not AE of a guitar
Thoughts ABOUT a guitar, what it is, does etc are AE of thought and not AE of a guitar

What is known is label + sound + sensation + colour + thoughts, but is a guitar actually known?

There are no verbal thoughts? Without a thought suggesting that sound is ‘verbal thought’ how would this be known?

And when you saw your daughter as simply colour, sound and thought…how did that make you feel?

There was no difference between [my daughter] and [the background] regarding color. Words [thought] were being interpreted... There was a calmness about the "experience." A simplicity...

Nice :) Yes, everything is very simple. It is only thoughts that seem to complicate the simplicity of what IS/THIS.

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.

So, I meditated watching the breath, noticing thoughts arise and disppear ("Thinking" is happening right now).

Great! So did you notice that each and every thought ie all thoughts...no matter what the are, including labels, just arise and subside?

I sat twice but also kept noticing thoughts throughout the day.

Good, are you unaware of any thoughts? Can there be thoughts hidden anywhere that you are unaware of?

Could you find a thinker of thought between the gaps?

There is no "thinker" to be found anywhere in AE. There is only thought. When looked for, it is nowhere in Actual Raw Experience. This usually brings a "strange feeling" [thought] even chills sometimes.

Wonderful! So is there an "I" that is thinking thoughts or thoughts just arise and subside on their own?

As explained with the experiment…the goal was to see how each and every thought just arises and subsides. It was about you becoming aware of each and every thought, so watching all thoughts throughout your day is a great thing to do.

Kay

[Rayd8]

Hey Kay,

The better way to express that is: There is Color [guitar] and there is verbal thought: "I haven’t played my guitar in a few days” since there is no "I" to be triggered in any way.

The label ‘guitar’ is AE of thought and not AE of a guitar
Sound labelled as ‘guitar’ is AE of sound and not AE of a guitar
Sensation labelled as ‘playing guitar’ is AE of sensation and not AE of playing guitar
Colour labelled as ‘guitar’ is AE of colour and not AE of a guitar
Thoughts ABOUT a guitar, what it is, does etc are AE of thought and not AE of a guitar

What I was trying to say was that there is color (labeled "guitar") and there is the thought: "I haven't played my guitar in a few days" and that color didn't trigger thought.

I see what you're saying: The label ‘guitar’ is AE of Thought. Thoughts About "guitar" is AE if thought... etc

What is known is label + sound + sensation + colour + thoughts, but is a guitar actually known?

"Guitar" will never be known as AE. Guitar is AE of Thought. It's a label/thought: [guitar]

There are no verbal thoughts? Without a thought suggesting that sound is ‘verbal thought’ how would this be known?

I don't know if we're on the same page on this...

When I wrote:

I also noticed something like a "nervous tick" where the hand would "unconsciously" touch the face - usually the chin and this sensation would strengthen the "I" thought. Kinda like reminding: "There is a body here. Don't forget!" This was not a "language thought" but more like a subtle thought - not very obvious, but noticeable.

By "language thought" I didn't mean "spoken words" (sound). I meant that while doing the thought-watching exercise, I notice three "types" of thoughts: still mental pictures, mental movies (stories) and "mental talk" (the voice/narrator). By "language thought" or "mental talk" I mean the narrator in the head: "Where did I leave my keys?" or "Man, that's a cool looking car!" as opposed to seeing color and labeling it "tree" or "guitar."

These three are still just Thought, but should a distinction be made between the three?

Still practicing the exercise. 😎

[Rayd8]

Oops! Hit submit before I was done.

Great! So did you notice that each and every thought ie all thoughts...no matter what the are, including labels, just arise and subside?

Yes I did.

Good, are you unaware of any thoughts? Can there be thoughts hidden anywhere that you are unaware of?

Hidden where? Hidden from whom? There cannot be any hidden thoughts.

Wonderful! So is there an "I" that is thinking thoughts or thoughts just arise and subside on their own?

As strange as it sounds to admit it, and no matter how hard "I" look, thoughts just arise and subside/dissappear. There is no thinker to be found.

[Rayd8]

OK, I re-read the whole thread from start to end and I found the answer to my question about "language thought" or "mental talk":

Have a look at an apple. When ‘looking at an apple’, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."
What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought. Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

[forgetmenot]

Hello Ray,

By "language thought" I didn't mean "spoken words" (sound). I meant that while doing the thought-watching exercise, I notice three "types" of thoughts: still mental pictures, mental movies (stories) and "mental talk" (the voice/narrator). By "language thought" or "mental talk" I mean the narrator in the head: "Where did I leave my keys?" or "Man, that's a cool looking car!" as opposed to seeing color and labeling it "tree" or "guitar."

These three are still just Thought, but should a distinction be made between the three?

What exactly is it that is making the distinction?
How is it known that there is a distinction?
Does thought know that there are distinctions?

What is the AE of “but should a distinction be made between the three?” What is it pointing to?

Good, are you unaware of any thoughts? Can there be thoughts hidden anywhere that you are unaware of?

Hidden where? Hidden from whom? There cannot be any hidden thoughts.

No, there cannot be any hidden thoughts. For there to be any hidden thoughts means that there is something outside of experience itself, and that points to separation. Nothing can be hidden, absolutely nothing.

Wonderful! So is there an "I" that is thinking thoughts or thoughts just arise and subside on their own?

As strange as it sounds to admit it, and no matter how hard "I" look, thoughts just arise and subside/dissappear. There is no thinker to be found.

Right! So since there is no thinker of thought and you can't choose what thought appears and when, can anyone or anything be responsible for anything?

Continuing our exploration at looking at thought, I would like you to look carefully when doing this exercise and do it several times if necessary. Please answer each question individually.

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"?

Kay

[Rayd8]

Hey Kay!

What exactly is it that is making the distinction?

Thought

How is it known that there is a distinction?

By AE of Thought.

Does thought know that there are distinctions?

No. Thought is just a label.

What is the AE of “but should a distinction be made between the three?” What is it pointing to?

It's just though of thought of though = story/fantasy. It points to thought.

...

Where are they coming from and going to?

 

There is no way to know where they come from or where they're going.

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

Nope. Nothing. They just appear.

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

No way I know of.

Can you predict your next thought?

Nope.

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

No. I wish!

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

No.

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

No.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? 

No.

Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

Nope.

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"?

I don't see an organized sequence to the thoughts as they rise and subside.

[Rayd8]

Oh shit Kay!

I'm at work and was thinking about all the no-self info and...

BAM! It hit me!

I have to write all of it up when I get off work, but we need to talk!

[Rayd8]

Ok, I have a couple of minutes to write...

I was reading this for the hundredth time:

Experience is not derived from people and things. People and things are derived from experience.

The term ‘experience’, as I use it, is THIS/What IS/Knowing/Awareness.

The illusion is that you have experiences.
The illusion is that there is an external world that you (e.g. through the body) perceive the so called external world... and that is what we conventionally call experience.

While you hold this belief, you necessarily feel separate because a world over there is only possible if there is a "me" over here.

This enquiry is about seeing that the subject-knows-object model of reality is only a belief and reality is non-dual. There is no subject, nor object, only self-aware experience.

I went to my car in the parking lot, and I started looking down at my feet while walking...

Then I started noticing the "sensation of the pavement under my feet." Them, that there is sensation at this individual area, separate, by itself...

Then I thought, "Wait! Then that means that each sensation happens individually at a certain" place."hell! This means that" sewing" is happening RIGHT ON THE EYEBALLS! By themselves, separately.

All this caused a weird sensation and fearful feeling of "Where the hell am I then?" Everything looked way different - perception was weird! I think I got used to it in a while, because everything is "normal now."

Now I have all kinds of questions about this...

Or should we keep going? I'll follow your lead.

Thanks!

[forgetmenot]

Hello Ray,

I am not sure what you were saying with the following…but I am sure the questions I have asked, you will be able to clarify it for me.

I went to my car in the parking lot, and I started looking down at my feet while walking...

Really look carefully at this….what is the AE of walking? Close your eyes…ignore ALL thoughts walking and images of legs and feet walking. Just focus on the area that thought suggests legs and feet are...and what is the AE of walking?

Then I started noticing the "sensation of the pavement under my feet." Them, that there is sensation at this individual area, separate, by itself...

How can that be possible? There is an assumption here of time and space and of location. There is nothing separate ever. The noticing of sensation is not happening in a particular location of the body or a particular place called ‘the pavement”:

You are not breaking down ‘stuff’ into AE! Break EVERYTHING down into AE.

What is the AE of a body?
What is the AE of pavement?
What is the AE of location?


Does experience have a location? If it does, where, exactly, is it located?
For example: Image of hammer hitting thumb, sensation of pain, thought saying, "ouch!!"

Where exactly did all of that happen?
Where was experience located?
Was experience of pain located in the thumb?
Was experience of colour (images) located at the thumb and hammer?
Or is experience always "closer" than even the word "here" can convey?
Does anything actually have a location?
How would you know?
What would count as evidence of actual location?

If you need a more ‘hands on’ experiment, slap your hand down hard on a table and then look at the questions asked.

Then I thought, "Wait! Then that means that each sensation happens individually at a certain" place."hell! This means that" sewing" is happening RIGHT ON THE EYEBALLS! By themselves, separately.

Where’s the looking at AE happening?

What is the AE of sewing?
What is the AE of eyeballs?

There is no such this as separation….no such thing as object/subject split. Since an ‘apple’ is not known…then how can ‘eyeballs’ be known?

Kay

[Rayd8]

Hey Key,

So glad to hear from you! I've been tryjng to figure out what I saw and what I'm seeing. I was pretty excited when I wrote the post so after that I started looking at it all more carefully.

I'm going to answer all the questions carefully so I'll answer in a little bit. Just reading over your post once tells me that I misinterpreted what happened. Let's see if I can sort it out with your help.

I had a typo that I want to clarify sweing should have been seeing. I wrote it on my phone - autocorrect... I'll tell you what I meant by that when I answer all the questions.

Then I thought, "Wait! Then that means that each sensation happens individually at a certain" place."hell! This means that"SEEING" is happening RIGHT ON THE EYEBALLS! By themselves, separately.

Where’s the looking at AE happening?

What is the AE of SEEING?
What is the AE of eyeballs?

I'll post asap.

[Rayd8]

I'm writing on my phone so please excuse any typos I miss.

I'd like to answer this one by itself first, because I think it has the key to "open the door", so to speak.

Really look carefully at this….what is the AE of walking? Close your eyes…ignore ALL thoughts of walking and images of legs and feet walking. Just focus on the area that thought suggests legs and feet are...and what is the AE of walking?

The AE of walking is is AE of Thought since walking is a label/thought.

There are sensations somewhere (where thought says its the "soles of the feet") and more sensations of "muscles" in the legs and also a sensation of "change of balance" which is a thought. All of this is Fantasy, I know this for a fact, but I'm trying to figure out the AE of this... Basically, I know there are no feet, or body, but I need to figure out the AE of this edperoence/perception.

I'm really confused as to "where I really am." I don't want to assume anything at all. I know you won't let me either...

When I said that "seeing" was right at my eyeballs I was trying to explain the sensation of feeling the field or "screen" of what is seen was right up to "me" like no space at all. It's really hard to describe. Like there is no space between "me" or "my skin" and the seen. Like I'm touching everything I'm looking at? Crap this makes no sense.

OK. I'll keep working on the rest of the questions...

[Rayd8]

Here are the rest of the questions:

Then I started noticing the "sensation of the pavement under my feet." Them, that there is sensation at this individual area, separate, by itself...

How can that be possible? There is an assumption here of time and space and of location. There is nothing separate ever. The noticing of sensation is not happening in a particular location of the body or a particular place called ‘the pavement”:

You are not breaking down ‘stuff’ into AE! Break EVERYTHING down into AE.

What is the AE of a body?

The AE of a body is thought. "Body" is a label.

What is the AE of pavement?

The AE of "pavement" is thought.

What is the AE of location?

The AE of "location" is thought. "Location" cannot be known in Raw Experience.
The AE of "walking" is the AE of thought + sensation + color + sound.

Does experience have a location? If it does, where, exactly, is it located?
For example: Image of hammer hitting thumb, sensation of pain, thought saying, "ouch!!"

Where exactly did all of that happen?

There is no way to know where it happened. Location is AE of thought.

Where was experience located?

There is no way to know where it happened. Location is AE of thought.

Was experience of pain located in the thumb?

No. "Thumb" is AE of thought.

Was experience of colour (images) located at the thumb and hammer?

No, because location is AE of thought. There is no way to know the location of color. Location is AE of thought.

Or is experience always "closer" than even the word "here" can convey?

Yes. CLOSE! This is what I felt... That everything was incredibly close to "me" - Like always touching. When I looked at my feet as I walked, it felt like the floor was not down there, away from me, but up VERY CLOSE... But also, there was the "localized" sensation. It was like a paradox. Like feeling it very close, but localized "on the soles of the feet" at the same time. This is why I said it felt localized to an area of the body. Like the sensation "on the soles of the feet" was right THERE and not travelling through a nervous system to the brain to be interpreted. It's hard to understand what happened and my current experience, and very difficult to express all this in words.

I'm hoping you can help me sort this out! haha

By the way, I couldn't stay with the experience long because people started talking to me right as this was all happening. I was trying to sort all this out and kept being pulled away by others...

After a bit, the intense sensation subsided, but it's still there if I pay attention to it. I was left with a nice and peaceful sensation for the rest of the day too. Like everything's perfectly ok.

Does anything actually have a location?

If everything (every thing) is at zero distance to everything else, location is zero, or non-existent.

How would you know?

There would have to be an AE of "distance" or "separation" but those are both AE of thought.

What would count as evidence of actual location?

There would have to be an AE of "location", but "location' is Thought, so there can never be evidence of "location."

If you need a more ‘hands on’ experiment, slap your hand down hard on a table and then look at the questions asked.

Then I thought, "Wait! Then that means that each sensation happens individually at a certain" place."hell! This means that" seeing" is happening RIGHT ON THE EYEBALLS! By themselves, separately.

Where’s the looking at AE happening?

There is no "where" there is no "location" - both are AE of thought (labels).

What is the AE of seeing?

There is only AE of color. The AE of "seeing" is thought.

What is the AE of eyeballs?

The AE of "eyeballs" is the AE of thought. There are no eyeballs in Direct (Raw) Experience.

[forgetmenot]

Hello Ray,

You don't have to keep my questions in blue text when responding. I use blue text so that you know what questions I would like answered.

The AE of "walking" is the AE of thought + sensation + color + sound.

If you ignore all thought and images…all that is known is AE of sensation.

Or is experience always "closer" than even the word "here" can convey?

Yes. CLOSE! This is what I felt... That everything was incredibly close to "me" - Like always touching. When I looked at my feet as I walked, it felt like the floor was not down there, away from me, but up VERY CLOSE... But also, there was the "localized" sensation. It was like a paradox. Like feeling it very close, but localized "on the soles of the feet" at the same time. This is why I said it felt localized to an area of the body. Like the sensation "on the soles of the feet" was right THERE and not travelling through a nervous system to the brain to be interpreted. It's hard to understand what happened and my current experience, and very difficult to express all this in words.

Wonderful! How these types of experiences appear, paradoxically are different for everyone!

The word 'here' does not refer to a place and the word 'now' does not refer to a time. The herenow refers to experience/THIS exactly as it is.

By the way, I couldn't stay with the experience long because people started talking to me right as this was all happening. I was trying to sort all this out and kept being pulled away by others...

It is only an expectation that these experiences that seem to be happening to a someone will become permanent.

To whom or what would it become permanent?

After a bit, the intense sensation subsided, but it's still there if I pay attention to it. I was left with a nice and peaceful sensation for the rest of the day too. Like everything's perfectly ok.

Nice! Everything is always okay. It is only appearing thoughts that say it’s not.

Does anything actually have a location?

If everything (every thing) is at zero distance to everything else, location is zero, or non-existent.

Lovely, yes!

Look at the display before you.
When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, can you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses?

How would you know?

There would have to be an AE of "distance" or "separation" but those are both AE of thought!

Love how you have seen how thoughts work! It makes it so much easier to see the stories.

What is the AE of seeing?

There is only AE of color. The AE of "seeing" is thought.

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

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. Notice how the sports commentator is like the 'inner narrator' labelled 'my thoughts'.

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?

Kay

[Rayd8]

Hey Kay,

This is wild.

OK, here we go!

To whom or what would it become permanent?

To no one. I can't find a me. There's only awareness. There's only IS.

I'm still adjusting to this reality. Many many questions too, but they should be answered in due time so let's keep going.

Look at the display before you.
When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen?

There is no division.

Are these three separate?

There is no division or separation between them. Actually, I can't find a see-er nor seeing. Seeing and see-er are AE of Thought. It's very weird, but it's like there is only the "seen" only the IS (what IS).

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

None to be found.

...

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?

Not necessary at all. It actually doesn't add any "value" to the right experience.

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

It is not necessary at all. The experience just IS.

Hit me.

[forgetmenot]

Hello Ray,

Are these three separate?

There is no division or separation between them. Actually, I can't find a see-er nor seeing. Seeing and see-er are AE of Thought. It's very weird, but it's like there is only the "seen" only the IS (what IS).

So, is there a body with a someone in the body that is doing any of this?

You did not answer the following question. Can you redo the exercise and answer it for me please.

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?

Not necessary at all. It actually doesn't add any "value" to the right experience.

What do you mean "to the right experience"?

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

It is not necessary at all. The experience just IS.

We are not talking about what just IS, here. We are not denying that stories are appearing of a character called Rayself who seems thinks thoughts and then seems to actions those thoughts. We are looking to see if this assumption is correct. We are looking at how it SEEMS that thoughts are needed for the character to do things, for life to happen.Does inner narration need to happen for ‘things’ to happen in life? Or is everything just happening? Do you need a thought to tell you to pick up a sock up off the floor, or to drink water etc?

Kay