How can I let myself be finally free?

[PeterMkf]

So does the concept of ‘happy’ actually exist? And does the concept of ‘sad’ actually exist?

Nope, the happy doesn’t exist in reality, neither does sad.

The other thing to look at is what is the AE of “overwhelmed”?
And what is the AE of “anxious”?

There is a sensation and there are thoughts. They do appear and get labeled as overwhelmed or anxious. But the AE is of the thoughts and sensations only. There is no actual experience of “overwhelmed” or “anxious”.

So when the water from the shower is seemingly felt, they are just sensation….right?
So does the sensation labelled ‘water drops/stream of water suggest in any way that it is a stream of water/water drops?

Yes, they are just sensations and by themselves they don’t suggest anything until labelled.

Does the sensation labelled ‘cold’ suggest in any way that it is cold?

No, it doesn’t suggest, that it is cold. There is a sensation in reality happening. It might as well be labeled hot, but it won’t change the reality of what is appearing.

So what exactly is it that is thinking?
Does the word/label “thinking” contain a thinker?
Thinking implies an ordered sequence of thoughts by someone or something. Is there an organised sequence to thought? Or is that 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 would say, that I don’t know what that is, that is thinking, but when I look there is nothing. There is no thinker behind thoughts. They don’t appear to someone, they just do appear. The order of thinking is just another thought. Like any other illusion of order in the world. It’s a product of thinking. But not, that it was created by thought. It is just another thought appearing to nobody. The life just happens, the thought about the “order” appear, the thoughts about “thinking” appear. By themselves they are not a part of reality. They exist as concepts only.

[PeterMkf]

Hey Kay

Sorry, I just copy pasted the post from the document and posted it without adding any conversation to it :)

How are you doing today? :)

So does the concept of ‘happy’ actually exist? And does the concept of ‘sad’ actually exist?

Nope, the happy doesn’t exist in reality, neither does sad.

The other thing to look at is what is the AE of “overwhelmed”?
And what is the AE of “anxious”?

There is a sensation and there are thoughts. They do appear and get labeled as overwhelmed or anxious. But the AE is of the thoughts and sensations only. There is no actual experience of “overwhelmed” or “anxious”.

So when the water from the shower is seemingly felt, they are just sensation….right?
So does the sensation labelled ‘water drops/stream of water suggest in any way that it is a stream of water/water drops?

Yes, they are just sensations and by themselves they don’t suggest anything until labelled.

Does the sensation labelled ‘cold’ suggest in any way that it is cold?

No, it doesn’t suggest, that it is cold. There is a sensation in reality happening. It might as well be labeled hot, but it won’t change the reality of what is appearing.

So what exactly is it that is thinking?
Does the word/label “thinking” contain a thinker?
Thinking implies an ordered sequence of thoughts by someone or something. Is there an organised sequence to thought? Or is that 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 would say, that I don’t know what that is, that is thinking, but when I look there is nothing. There is no thinker behind thoughts. They don’t appear to someone, they just do appear. The order of thinking is just another thought. Like any other illusion of order in the world. It’s a product of thinking. But not, that it was created by thought. It is just another thought appearing to nobody. The life just happens, the thought about the “order” appear, the thoughts about “thinking” appear. By themselves they are not a part of reality. They exist as concepts only.

Have a wonderful Sunday!

[forgetmenot]

Hey Peter!

I hope you’re having a lovely relaxing weekend!

Sorry, I just copy pasted the post from the document and posted it without adding any conversation to it :) How are you doing today? :)

I woke to a lovely rainy Sunday! It’s nice to get the rain as it has been rather dry and rather warm for this time of year…plus I do like rainy days!

The other thing to look at is what is the AE of “overwhelmed”?
And what is the AE of “anxious”?

There is a sensation and there are thoughts. They do appear and get labeled as overwhelmed or anxious. But the AE is of the thoughts and sensations only. There is no actual experience of “overwhelmed” or “anxious”.

Wonderful!

And the colour/image labelled Peter/body is the AE of colour/image and not the AE of anxious or overwhelmed.
Can the colour/image labelled 'body' feel sensations?

So when the water from the shower is seemingly felt, they are just sensation….right?
So does the sensation labelled ‘water drops/stream of water suggest in any way that it is a stream of water/water drops?
Yes, they are just sensations and by themselves they don’t suggest anything until labelled.
Does the sensation labelled ‘cold’ suggest in any way that it is cold?
No, it doesn’t suggest, that it is cold. There is a sensation in reality happening. It might as well be labeled hot, but it won’t change the reality of what is appearing.

Yes, exactly!

So now LOOK carefully…are there sensations or just sensation (singular)?
Are there colours or just colour?
Are there sounds or just sound?
Are there tastes or just taste?
Are there smells or just smell?
Are there thoughts or just thought?

I would say, that I don’t know what that is, that is thinking, but when I look there is nothing. There is no thinker behind thoughts. They don’t appear to someone, they just do appear. The order of thinking is just another thought. Like any other illusion of order in the world. It’s a product of thinking. But not, that it was created by thought. It is just another thought appearing to nobody. The life just happens, the thought about the “order” appear, the thoughts about “thinking” appear. By themselves they are not a part of reality. They exist as concepts only.

Even though you are saying that you cannot find a thinker, there is still something in what you write that wants to refer to there being something that must be thinking for things to be coherent…for life to unfold to!

There is no one living life, as there is no one experiencing experience. Experience and the world are not separate.

Is experience dependent on a body and/or mind?

Love, Kay

[PeterMkf]

Hey Kay!

It feels like I’ve regressed through the weekend :)

I am going to post some answers, but I need a clearer head for it. Not much of real looking happening. Too much thinking.

And the colour/image labelled Peter/body is the AE of colour/image and not the AE of anxious or overwhelmed.
Can the colour/image labelled 'body' feel sensations?

It feels like I am sitting here and thinking, that I don’t know what to answer and what words to use here. This is what is happening.

So now LOOK carefully…are there sensations or just sensation (singular)?
Are there colours or just colour?
Are there sounds or just sound?
Are there tastes or just taste?
Are there smells or just smell?
Are there thoughts or just thought?

I would say, that there is only a sensation, sound, taste...the appearance of sounds, tastes, smells and thought are still concepts. Not reality.

But I thought it out, this is not looking.

Even though you are saying that you cannot find a thinker, there is still something in what you write that wants to refer to there being something that must be thinking for things to be coherent…for life to unfold to!

There is no one living life, as there is no one experiencing experience. Experience and the world are not separate.

Is experience dependent on a body and/or mind?

Yeah, there is no thinker, but there are still thoughts and they still appear. Many of them bring the “feeling” of a thinker and liver of life. There isn’t much experience of belief in those stories, but it is still happening.

Not really sure how to say else. I am going to try in the morning again :)

[forgetmenot]

Hi Peter,

I will wait for your morning response.

Kay xxoo

[PeterMkf]

Hey Kay!

New day and new adventure :)

And the colour/image labelled Peter/body is the AE of colour/image and not the AE of anxious or overwhelmed.
Can the colour/image labelled 'body' feel sensations?

The colour/image labelled body can’t feel anything as it is an experience of it’s own. Can an experience have an experience? :)

There is an experience of the body, which is made of images, sensations....but body as a concept doesn’t “feel” anything.

So now LOOK carefully…are there sensations or just sensation (singular)?
Are there colours or just colour?
Are there sounds or just sound?
Are there tastes or just taste?
Are there smells or just smell?
Are there thoughts or just thought?

There is a sound and there is a taste, but then they are labeled as tastes and sounds. In reality it “feels like” there is a colour, thought, smell….In the now...That’s what comes up, when I look.

Even though you are saying that you cannot find a thinker, there is still something in what you write that wants to refer to there being something that must be thinking for things to be coherent…for life to unfold to!

There is no one living life, as there is no one experiencing experience. Experience and the world are not separate.

Is experience dependent on a body and/or mind?

In the AE there is no body nor the mind, but in order for experience to happen there has to be a body and the mind. Not my body nor my mind. I am a bit confused by the question. Sorry for thinking, but could you please elaborate here?

Thanks a bunch for all of this! :)

[forgetmenot]

Hi Peter,

I would like for you to read the entire thread from the beginning and for you to redo the exercises. I don't want what is thought to be the right answers. Giving me right answers doesn't help you to see through the illusory self....only genuine LOOKING will do that. AE is not a suggestion of what is here….have a LOOK for yourself to see if you can find anything but actual experience. LOOKING is the key and LOOKING needs to happen constantly in daily life. And yes, there is the paradox that there is no one doing anything and that no person exists…and yet it SEEMS as if there is. That is why the illusion is so beautifully marvellous.

When you get to the picture of Einstein....really look there. Is there really a persons head and surroundings there...or is there just colour. Drop all concepts, thoughts, images etc and LOOK with AE.

Let me know when you are done and if any questions arise and then I will address your last post.

Love, Kay

[PeterMkf]

Hey Kay

Have you changed your last post?

It was longer and now I see the short version :)

I am going to do just what you asked. I am going to take couple of days to LOOK. I am going to do the exercises again, re-read our conversations and then get back here.

I am sure there is enough there to see through...

But first I would like to explain some "confusion", that is happening in thinking.

Through reading other posts and the book and articles I was expecting for the Self to be seen through as an illusion To LOOK and see it as a concept. Thinking is happening and it creates the illusion of Self. There is seeing of that.

Everything is happening and it is happening to no one. Life is happening.

Then we discuss the idea of who is raising the "hand" or "feeling" the "hand". There is no one doing that. There is just the sensation.

But then you ask me if the "hand" has to be there for the AE of the "hand" to happen? Which is the image/color or sensation of the "hand"...Not the concept of the "hand". Or "my" "hand". If the "hand" was removed, then there wouldn't be any sensation or color of it, nor the "feeling" of it on the table. So what would be the AE of the "hand" if there is no "hand"?

I read in the Gateless Gatecrashers book and other posts and some say things, that are opposite of what we are going through. But I know it's not really opposite. It's just the confusion, when you use words to explain reality.

This is the part, that is creating the struggle :)

Our work with you is the most eye-opening work I have ever done anywhere myself and I know the importance of this work.

Again, there seems to be too much attempt to describe reality with words and I fail miserably :)

Let me do the LOOKING and get back to you later.

It might seem, that we are going in circles here and sometimes I write the opposite of what we have been through, but I am sure it is not what is happening. I see it as the most important part of "seeing through the illusion" here.

Thanks for the patience

Have a wonderful day

[forgetmenot]

Hi Peter,

Have you changed your last post?
It was longer and now I see the short version :)

Yes, it was way too long and I had you LOOKING at too many things. I thought the simplest would be for you to have a read of what we have covered so far and to look at the exercises again and then go from there.

I am going to do just what you asked. I am going to take couple of days to LOOK. I am going to do the exercises again, re-read our conversations and then get back here.

I am sure there is enough there to see through...

Great, I look forward to seeing you back in a couple of days and we can continue looking at beliefs that can be sticking points in seeing through the illusion and can cause the doubts that appear.

Then we discuss the idea of who is raising the "hand" or "feeling" the "hand". There is no one doing that. There is just the sensation.

But then you ask me if the "hand" has to be there for the AE of the "hand" to happen? Which is the image/color or sensation of the "hand"...Not the concept of the "hand". Or "my" "hand". If the "hand" was removed, then there wouldn't be any sensation or color of it, nor the "feeling" of it on the table. So what would be the AE of the "hand" if there is no "hand"?

I don’t understand what you are saying here.

The AE of hand is that the hand does not exist…what is actually appearing is colour (image) + sensation + label.
The label “hand” is AE of thought and is not the AE of a hand
The sensation labelled as ‘hand’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of a hand
The colour/image labelled as ‘hand’ is the AE of colour/image and not the AE of a hand

So where in AE does a hand exist?

Let's say two people are looking at a painting of a hand. One says how beautiful the hand is, the other is saying how amazing the paint is. Are they aware of different things? Paint never appears without form. Are paint and form two things ?

There might also be an idea that the hand is solid. But have a look at that assumption.

Without thought how is it known that the hand is solid?
Without thought how is it known how light or heavy the hand is?
Without thought how is it known how big or small the hand is?
Without thought how is it know what shape the hand is?

I read in the Gateless Gatecrashers book and other posts and some say things, that are opposite of what we are going through. But I know it's not really opposite. It's just the confusion, when you use words to explain reality.

This is the part, that is creating the struggle :)

There are different ways of guiding but ultimately they all lead to the same place….seeing through the illusory self.

Let me do the LOOKING and get back to you later.

It might seem, that we are going in circles here and sometimes I write the opposite of what we have been through, but I am sure it is not what is happening. I see it as the most important part of "seeing through the illusion" here.

Enjoy the LOOKING :) And thank you for sharing what is going on for you and what you are finding as a struggle. This is all part and parcel of this exploration. The language can create a confusion and it seems that we can be on opposite sides of a page...but are not and so on. Language is limited....but in the end we will get there.

Thank you for your patience when my pointing doesn't seem clear. I appreciate the hard work you are putting in to this through your desire to LOOK.

Love, Kay

[PeterMkf]

Hey Kay

I am back after re-reading and looking.

Let's check what has changed so far.

I was sitting and looking and there is stuff coming and going. Sounds, smells, thoughts, sensations and images. It became clear, that all that is - sound, smell, thought, sensation image happening non-stop. It is all there is in direct experience. But there was a misunderstanding of Direct Experience and thinking. Well, all of that was and all of this is.

Let's look more together.

How were you doing these days?

Peter

[forgetmenot]

Hi Peter,

Lovely to see you back :) I am 'doing' ;) wonderfully....thank-you.

I was sitting and looking and there is stuff coming and going. Sounds, smells, thoughts, sensations and images. It became clear, that all that is - sound, smell, thought, sensation image happening non-stop. It is all there is in direct experience. But there was a misunderstanding of Direct Experience and thinking. Well, all of that was and all of this is.

Yes, actual (direct) experience is the 5 senses plus thought...but what the thoughts are ABOUT are not AE but are story.

Like the wind that blows yet the blowing IS the label wind.

'Blowing wind' is a the AE of thought and not the actual experience of the wind blowing
The sensation labelled as 'blowing wind' is the AE of sensation and not the AE of blowing wind.

A rainbow IS colour, it doesn't consist of colours.
'Rainbow is the AE of thought and not the AE of a rainbow'.
The colour/image labelled as 'rainbow' is the AE of colour/image and not the AE of a rainbow.

Is this clear?

Let's look more together.

Yes....lets! :) I thought we would continue with my responses to your last post and go from there.

And the colour/image labelled Peter/body is the AE of colour/image and not the AE of anxious or overwhelmed.
Can the colour/image labelled 'body' feel sensations?

The colour/image labelled body can’t feel anything as it is an experience of it’s own. Can an experience have an experience? :)

I don’t understand what you are saying here.

The body is non-existent and is actually colour/image, but how is it an experience on its own?
What exactly is it that is experiencing colour/image on its own?
Where is the dividing line between colours? Or between colour and sound, thought and taste etc?

Go back and look at the post with Einstein. Drop all thoughts and ideas of there being a picture of a so called person/body with a head and face, hair and etc and what is actually there?
Is there a dividing line between the colours of the ‘outline of the person’ and the surroundings or are there just colours?

There is an experience of the body, which is made of images, sensations....but body as a concept doesn’t “feel” anything.

What exactly is it that is experiencing the concept of a body?
What exactly is it that is experiencing colour, sensations, thoughts?
What exactly is it that is SEEING colour? Do the body's eye's see?
How is colour experienced? How is sound experienced? How is taste experienced?

Where is the dividing line between experience and ‘experience-er’? Is there an 'experience-er' or is there just experience appearing as sound, taste, smell, thought, sensation, colour?

So now LOOK carefully…are there sensations or just sensation (singular)?
Are there colours or just colour?
Are there sounds or just sound?
Are there tastes or just taste?
Are there smells or just smell?
Are there thoughts or just thought?

There is a sound and there is a taste, but then they are labeled as tastes and sounds. In reality it “feels like” there is a colour, thought, smell….In the now...That’s what comes up, when I look.

Your answer is not clear at all. This question was part of your example of having a shower, to see if there were different ‘experiences’ of sensation ie cold water, streaming water etc.

Can a sensation suggest in any way that it is cold or knows anything about cold?
Can a sensation suggest in any way that it is a stream of water?

So, if you drop all thoughts/labels, concepts and images of shower, water, cold and location….are there many sensationS or just sensation (singular). Without thoughts and labels….and the idea of ‘different’, are there sensationS or just sensation?

Even though you are saying that you cannot find a thinker, there is still something in what you write that wants to refer to there being something that must be thinking for things to be coherent…for life to unfold to!
There is no one living life, as there is no one experiencing experience. Experience and the world are not separate.
Is experience dependent on a body and/or mind?

In the AE there is no body nor the mind, but in order for experience to happen there has to be a body and the mind. Not my body nor my mind. I am a bit confused by the question. Sorry for thinking, but could you please elaborate here?

There is an idea here that there is AE PLUS life/experience that is more than (outside of) AE! That there is AE PLUS a world. There is no “in the AE”….there is nothing IN actual experience…there is JUST (actual) experience.

Is there sound AND the content of the sound?
What is the content of a sound?

Is there taste AND the content of the taste?
What is the content of a taste?

Is there smell AND the content of the smell?
What is the content of a smell?

Is there sensation AND the content of the sensation?
What is the content of a sensation?

We have been looking to see what exactly is it that is experiencing any of these things and you have said there is nothing…but now you say in order for experience to be experienced there needs to be a body and mind – even though it is seen there is no body or mind! The whole point of this exploration is to see that there is absolutely nothing/no one that is experiencing anything.

You are saying that there is no experiencer in AE but there is an experiencer who is experiencing AE!
In all the exercises you have done to date….have you found anything/anyone that is experiencing anything?
What exactly is it that is experiencing experience? Can you find it anywhere?


Where is the dividing line (boundary) between hearing and heard? Close your eyes and listen to sound - drop all thoughts. What says where the sound is coming from? Is there an outside and an inside? Is there actual distance (ie space)between the sound and the 'hearing' of the sound? Spend time with this and do it over and over until it becomes clear.

Close your eyes and put a hand on the table. Drop all concepts and images and thoughts about hand and table…and what you have is pure sensation. For that sensation to be there did it need a hand and table to ‘create’ it? Is the hand and table the cause of the experience?

What exactly is the hand – what is the AE of ‘hand’?
What is the AE of table?


Love, Kay

[PeterMkf]

Hey Kay

We've been having a very rainy period for about 2 weeks now and pretty cool as in cold :) weather. It's very unusual for Philadelphia, but it very much reminds "me" of the place "I am" from originally in Europe. There are some stories from the past, that come and go :) This is my story for you today :)

How are you doing?

Let's look:

The body is non-existent and is actually colour/image, but how is it an experience on its own?
What exactly is it that is experiencing colour/image on its own?
Where is the dividing line between colours? Or between colour and sound, thought and taste etc?

Go back and look at the post with Einstein. Drop all thoughts and ideas of there being a picture of a so called person/body with a head and face, hair and etc and what is actually there?
Is there a dividing line between the colours of the ‘outline of the person’ and the surroundings or are there just colours?

There is no dividing line between colors. There is only color. The dividing line between colors is created by content of the thought.

What exactly is it that is experiencing the concept of a body?
What exactly is it that is experiencing colour, sensations, thoughts?
What exactly is it that is SEEING colour? Do the body's eye's see?
How is colour experienced? How is sound experienced? How is taste experienced?

Where is the dividing line between experience and ‘experience-er’? Is there an 'experience-er' or is there just experience appearing as sound, taste, smell, thought, sensation, colour?

There is no limit to what thinking might lead sometimes. Sorry, I just forget to LOOK sometimes :)

Here is looking...
In the actual experience there is only what is happening now. There is sound, sensation...There is no line between the experience and experiencer. There is only experience happening.

Can a sensation suggest in any way that it is cold or knows anything about cold?
Can a sensation suggest in any way that it is a stream of water?

So, if you drop all thoughts/labels, concepts and images of shower, water, cold and location….are there many sensationS or just sensation (singular). Without thoughts and labels….and the idea of ‘different’, are there sensationS or just sensation?

Sensation does not suggest in any way the label.
Sensation is all there is in the direct experience.
The rest is the content of the thinking.
If all labels are dropped, then there is only sensation.

Is there sound AND the content of the sound?
What is the content of a sound?

Is there taste AND the content of the taste?
What is the content of a taste?

Is there smell AND the content of the smell?
What is the content of a smell?

Is there sensation AND the content of the sensation?
What is the content of a sensation?

In the Direct Experience there is only the sound. Before the content of the thoughts as labels there is only sound, taste, smell, sensation...

In all the exercises you have done to date….have you found anything/anyone that is experiencing anything?
What exactly is it that is experiencing experience? Can you find it anywhere?

Nope, through all of our work I haven’t found anything, that exists, that is experiencing the experience. When looking in the direct experience nothing of sorts is out there.

What exactly is the hand – what is the AE of ‘hand’?
What is the AE of table?

The AE of the hand is the AE of color of the hand + sensation + label of thought

The AE of the table is the AE of color of the table + sensation + label of thought

The difference between the two is the content of thought. The “problem of the hand” as could be used here is that it is labeled as part of “the body” or “my body”, which creates a feeling of part of “me”. A variety of these thought labels create a feeling of “identity”. They might be perceived as “mental” or “physical”.

But in reality none of this exists.

In the direct experience there is no difference between the hand or the table. Before the content of the thought there is only the color appearing, sensation appearing, thinking happening.

I can see that very clearly now.

When you wrote this in your previous post:

I don’t understand what you are saying here.

The AE of hand is that the hand does not exist…what is actually appearing is colour (image) + sensation + label.
The label “hand” is AE of thought and is not the AE of a hand
The sensation labelled as ‘hand’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of a hand
The colour/image labelled as ‘hand’ is the AE of colour/image and not the AE of a hand

So where in AE does a hand exist?

Let's say two people are looking at a painting of a hand. One says how beautiful the hand is, the other is saying how amazing the paint is. Are they aware of different things? Paint never appears without form. Are paint and form two things ?

There might also be an idea that the hand is solid. But have a look at that assumption.

Without thought how is it known that the hand is solid?
Without thought how is it known how light or heavy the hand is?
Without thought how is it known how big or small the hand is?
Without thought how is it know what shape the hand is?

It made me look and the looking happened, I could see through the illusion very clear. I didn’t feel like I had to re-read all of our thread, but then I did it anyway and some other threads.

Sometimes the thinking happens and the content of thought is taken for the actual looking or actual experience. Well, stuff happens and it happens to no one anyway. The story takes over, then it is seen through. Still another story I guess :)

I think I see through the illusion very clearly of what you have asked me by now. Let’s have a LOOK at something else :)

Have a great one!

[forgetmenot]

Hey Peter,

Thank you for your story! :) It is a pristine Autumn Mother’s Day morning here. A beautiful crystal clear blue sky with many bird songs to be heard and a slight chill in the air. Autumn is my favourite season.

The difference between the two is the content of thought. The “problem of the hand” as could be used here is that it is labeled as part of “the body” or “my body”, which creates a feeling of part of “me”. A variety of these thought labels create a feeling of “identity”. They might be perceived as “mental” or “physical”.

The ‘feeling’ which you refer to is not a sensing/feeling but is an idea and an idea is thought. So it is a matter of continually LOOKING when this ‘feeling’ appears to see what is actually there.

Is there an idea that this idea will no longer appear by seeing through the illusory self? Since there was no separate self before this exploration started and no self now, why would it be any different? What is different is that there is no longer the absolute belief in this 'feeling' AKA idea/thought/story.

It made me look and the looking happened, I could see through the illusion very clear. I didn’t feel like I had to re-read all of our thread, but then I did it anyway and some other threads.

I am glad you re-read it because it cleared up your confusion. I would prefer that you didn’t read other threads until after we have finished our exploration. It can create confusion as there are different styles of guiding.

Sometimes the thinking happens and the content of thought is taken for the actual looking or actual experience. Well, stuff happens and it happens to no one anyway. The story takes over, then it is seen through. Still another story I guess :)

Yes…stuff happens and it is all part of the SHOW. Where is the ‘do-er’ in all of this?!

I think I see through the illusion very clearly of what you have asked me by now. Let’s have a LOOK at something else :)

It is great that this is all crystal clear to you now. It’s is important that it is. Doubt and confusion will inevitably appear and a solid foundation is needed to see through the doubts and confusion.


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.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…

What is the memory ‘made of’?

WHEN does the memory appear?

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

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?

Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

Love, Kay

[PeterMkf]

Hey Kay

Great Sunday here and I hope it’s a great Monday out there already :)

I am glad you re-read it because it cleared up your confusion. I would prefer that you didn’t read other threads until after we have finished our exploration. It can create confusion as there are different styles of guiding.

Got it. No more other threads :)

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…

What is the memory ‘made of’?

The AE of the memory is the AE of image, sensation, thought or other sense.

This is all accompanied by labels, that this has happened to “me” some time ago.

Before the label there is only the AE of whatever appears now.

WHEN does the memory appear?

It appears the same way thinking happens.

What is memory anyway, but another label? There is no memory. A memory of who? If there is no one living a life, then who is there to have a memory?

The label memory is created as any other label. It just appears and disappears.

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

There is no difference between the label “general” thought and “memory” thought in the AE. The content of thought, the label appears different.

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

In the AE it does not refer to anything. Nothing has happened in the AE. There is only happening here and now. The rest is the story made of thought content.

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

WHEN does the future thought appear?

The thought about the future happens the same way in the AE. The story is different.

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?

In the AE the thought about the future is just the AE of the senses. There is no reference to anything.

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?

There is no difference in the AE between the two. The labels appear as the difference.

If there is story about “me”, then there is the story about what has happened and there is a story about what will happen. There is past and there is future in the story about me.

Since there is no me, that can be found anywhere, then this story is just another story. There is no past, nor future without the story about me.

In the actual experience no past, nor present can be found. No person, no object is present. No history, no future. Before the label the life is happening in the now.

Have a wonderful Monday!

[forgetmenot]

Hi Peter,

I hope you had a lovely and relaxing weekend :)

What is the memory ‘made of’?

The AE of the memory is the AE of image, sensation, thought or other sense.
This is all accompanied by labels, that this has happened to “me” some time ago.
Before the label there is only the AE of whatever appears now.

Yes….the label “past/memory” is AE of thought and is not the AE of memory
The images labelled “past/memory” are AE of colour/image and not the AE of memory
The sensation associated with “past/memory” is the AE of sensation and not the AE of memory

So ‘memory’ doesn’t exist. What is appearing is thought + image + sensation which is appearing ‘now’.

WHEN does the memory appear?

It appears the same way thinking happens.
What is memory anyway, but another label? There is no memory. A memory of who? If there is no one living a life, then who is there to have a memory?
The label memory is created as any other label. It just appears and disappears.

Yes…and it is appearing ‘now’. So where/how can a ‘past’ be found ‘now’?

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

In the AE it does not refer to anything. Nothing has happened in the AE. There is only happening here and now. The rest is the story made of thought content.

Yes…it is appearing ‘now’.

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?

In the AE the thought about the future is just the AE of the senses. There is no reference to anything.

Yes. It is just an appearing thought story saying ‘this will happen in the future’, but the thought story (and images etc) is actually appearing ‘now’.

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?

There is no difference in the AE between the two. The labels appear as the difference.

Yes, “the labels appear as the difference”. So are there many different thoughts or just thought? (Look back at sensation).

If there is story about “me”, then there is the story about what has happened and there is a story about what will happen. There is past and there is future in the story about me.
Since there is no me, that can be found anywhere, then this story is just another story. There is no past, nor future without the story about me.
In the actual experience no past, nor present can be found. No person, no object is present. No history, no future. Before the label the life is happening in the now.

Yes, lovely and clear Peter :)

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?

How fast is the present moment actually moving?

How long does the now last?

Where does it start and where does it end?

When does the now exactly become the 'past'?

What is the past in actual experience?


Love, Kay