Meditator wants to break through

[budgie]

Hi Kay:

So, in this seeming place of 'no thought', did sounds etc appear as well as sensations, and were those sounds and sensations not automatically labelled?

Yes, sounds, etc. appeared as well as sensations. They were not automatically labeled, they appeared but were not labeled by thoughts/stories

And the 'urge to think' is that not appearing in the so called 'no thought' state? How do you know it's an 'urge to think' unless that thought appeared saying so?

The labeling of "urge to think" appeared as a thought a moment after the experience of sensation, the sensations were labeled "urge to think"

If you could stop thought from appearing, and be in a state of 'no thought' then there must be a controller of thought and a thinker. Did you happen to find the controller and thinker in between thoughts? And if you are able to stop thoughts from appearing and be in a state of 'no thought', why don't you do it 24/7?

It might appear that there is a controller but this is a thought/story and there is no controller to be found. It did not seem like control: rather it was more like resting in the gap between thoughts...something that lasted a matter of seconds and not 24/7.

Describe to me in precise detail where this watcher is located and what it looks like.

I can't describe what's not there. I may have used language that points to a watcher but I was just using everyday language

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ken,

So, in this seeming place of 'no thought', did sounds etc appear as well as sensations, and were those sounds and sensations not automatically labelled?

Yes, sounds, etc. appeared as well as sensations. They were not automatically labeled, they appeared but were not labeled by thoughts/stories

That's interesting, so sensations and sounds appeared but they weren't noted as sensations and sounds appearing...they were noted as nothing? Unless there was a thought, albeit subtle, how did you know that sensation and sound appeared? What is it that suggested one was a sensation and the other was sound?

And the 'urge to think' is that not appearing in the so called 'no thought' state? How do you know it's an 'urge to think' unless that thought appeared saying so?

The labeling of "urge to think" appeared as a thought a moment after the experience of sensation, the sensations were labeled "urge to think"

It doesn't matter when the thought appeared...it still appeared and seemingly in the gap?
And what is it that suggested that the thought "urge to think" appeared after the sensation? Is that not also a thought and a thought pointing to time?

If you could stop thought from appearing, and be in a state of 'no thought' then there must be a controller of thought and a thinker. Did you happen to find the controller and thinker in between thoughts? And if you are able to stop thoughts from appearing and be in a state of 'no thought', why don't you do it 24/7?

It might appear that there is a controller but this is a thought/story and there is no controller to be found. It did not seem like control: rather it was more like resting in the gap between thoughts...something that lasted a matter of seconds and not 24/7.

The resting between thoughts....did a thought appear saying that "you are now resting between thoughts", or that "a thought is not appearing now", therefore "you have found and are resting in a gap"? What is it that suggests that the gap "lasted a matter of seconds"?

And you didn't answer the question, if you are able to stop thought even for a couple of seconds, why don't you do it 24/7?

Describe to me in precise detail where this watcher is located and what it looks like.

I can't describe what's not there. I may have used language that points to a watcher but I was just using everyday language

Great! As long as you are aware of language.

Love, Kay
xx

[budgie]

Hi Kay

That's interesting, so sensations and sounds appeared but they weren't noted as sensations and sounds appearing...they were noted as nothing? Unless there was a thought, albeit subtle, how did you know that sensation and sound appeared? What is it that suggested one was a sensation and the other was sound?

There was no conscious noting process that I was aware of but now I can see that there was subtle labeling going on. So "subtle thoughts" were probably going on but it seems that there were gaps where the thinking process quieted down.

And what is it that suggested that the thought "urge to think" appeared after the sensation? Is that not also a thought and a thought pointing to time?

I agree with that

The resting between thoughts....did a thought appear saying that "you are now resting between thoughts", or that "a thought is not appearing now", therefore "you have found and are resting in a gap"? What is it that suggests that the gap "lasted a matter of seconds"?

And you didn't answer the question, if you are able to stop thought even for a couple of seconds, why don't you do it 24/7?

It may have been a very subtle recognition, it did not seem like thought in the sense of saying words in my head but you could say that it was a subtle thought. There was a short period of time which seemed like a matter of seconds in which thought seemed to slow down. Again there was subtle thought but it was non verbal.
I recognize that there is no control over this, so I was doing my best to describe my experience and I don't really have the sense that there is control over the appearance of thought so there would be no way to do it for any period of time let alone 24/7 As you comment on my experience I am seeing this more clearly

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ken,

That's interesting, so sensations and sounds appeared but they weren't noted as sensations and sounds appearing...they were noted as nothing? Unless there was a thought, albeit subtle, how did you know that sensation and sound appeared? What is it that suggested one was a sensation and the other was sound?

There was no conscious noting process that I was aware of but now I can see that there was subtle labeling going on. So "subtle thoughts" were probably going on but it seems that there were gaps where the thinking process quieted down.

‘Seems’ is the operative word…and seems = thought.
And what is it exactly that says it’s a ‘gap’? It would take a thought to say that the ‘gap’ is a gap!  Does the label ‘gap’ point to AE or to further thought story?

As you are now seeing, not all thoughts are loud, there are thoughts running in the background that don’t seem to be visible…but labelling and thought is constant.
It’s like when you have a radio playing softly in the background, even though there seems to be awareness that the radio is on, it’s not really noticed.

But what I am also pointing to is that it is thought that divides experience into sound, sensation, taste, smell, colour and thought. Without those labels and without thought appearing differentiating between sound, sensation and so on…..all that is appearing is experience. When sensation and sound appeared while you were supposedly in 'the gap', it was only a thought that said experience was appearing as sound and sensation....without the thought, all there is, is experience. Can you see this?

The resting between thoughts....did a thought appear saying that "you are now resting between thoughts", or that "a thought is not appearing now", therefore "you have found and are resting in a gap"? What is it that suggests that the gap "lasted a matter of seconds"?

It may have been a very subtle recognition, it did not seem like thought in the sense of saying words in my head but you could say that it was a subtle thought. There was a short period of time which seemed like a matter of seconds in which thought seemed to slow down. Again there was subtle thought but it was non verbal.

Yes, not all thoughts are loud and many actions seem automatic, however, if you pay attention then you start to notice the subtle thoughts as well.

And you didn't answer the question, if you are able to stop thought even for a couple of seconds, why don't you do it 24/7?

I recognize that there is no control over this, so I was doing my best to describe my experience and I don't really have the sense that there is control over the appearance of thought so there would be no way to do it for any period of time let alone 24/7 As you comment on my experience I am seeing this more clearly

Terrific! So this exercise had two points to it. Firstly, so you could see how thought works more clearly, and to see that there are loud and subtle thoughts. The other reason is that this is how I want you to LOOK when I ask you to LOOK. To LOOK carefully at everything so you become aware of what is actually appearing and what is thought story.

Do you have any questions, or is anything unclear about this exercise or anything that I have said with regards this exercise or in this post?

Love, Kay
xx

[budgie]

Hi Kay:

And what is it exactly that says it’s a ‘gap’? It would take a thought to say that the ‘gap’ is a gap!  Does the label ‘gap’ point to AE or to further thought story?

It's clear now that there were thoughts saying that it is a gap.

But what I am also pointing to is that it is thought that divides experience into sound, sensation, taste, smell, colour and thought. Without those labels and without thought appearing differentiating between sound, sensation and so on…..all that is appearing is experience. When sensation and sound appeared while you were supposedly in 'the gap', it was only a thought that said experience was appearing as sound and sensation....without the thought, all there is, is experience. Can you see this?

Yes and as I said it's subtle because there isn't the thought "I am hearing sound" or if there is it is some kind of pre verbal recognition that it is sound.....but, yes I can see that it is all experience

Do you have any questions, or is anything unclear about this exercise or anything that I have said with regards this exercise or in this post?

I think your last few posts clarified things a lot. I had used the term "thought" in the past to mean "verbal self talk" but I now see how the term is used here

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ken,

And what is it exactly that says it’s a ‘gap’? It would take a thought to say that the ‘gap’ is a gap! Does the label ‘gap’ point to AE or to further thought story?

It's clear now that there were thoughts saying that it is a gap.

Great! Now you need to start to LOOK to see if thought is pointing to AE or to further thought story.

So it is clear that thought has something to ‘say’ about everything! Without thought there would just be appearances. Another great way to see this clearly is to do the following.

Find a TV team sport on TV or a Youtube clip that lasts for at least 5 minutes, team sport such as soccer (the ideal sport to use for this), or basketball, or football.

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 what you notice etc.

Yes and as I said it's subtle because there isn't the thought "I am hearing sound" or if there is it is some kind of pre verbal recognition that it is sound.....but, yes I can see that it is all experience

So when you are driving your car, what tells you that it's time to brake, put your foot on the gas, change gear etc? Is that pre-verabal? When a baby is born and 'hears' sound, does it know it is sound?

Okay, so let’s go back to the table exercise, which was referencing the AE of colour, so that is all I am interested in.

Look at a table and then drop ALL thoughts, ideas and images about a table, what is left? What is actually appearing?

Love, Kay
xx

[budgie]

Hi Kay,

I'll do one more post today since I had time to try the exercise with the video clip:

Find a TV team sport on TV or a Youtube clip that lasts for at least 5 minutes, team sport such as soccer (the ideal sport to use for this), or basketball, or football.

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 what you notice etc.

The minute I randomly chose was mostly a long shot of the soccer field so in the first viewing it was just experience of color and movement without much story attached to it. With the sound on then a whole new aspect was introduced: it was Madrid vs. Barcelona and the names of various players was mentioned. So there was this overlay of information that this is a soccer game, there are two teams competing and there are particular players singled out. When the sound was turned off again there was a difference because the commentary had been experienced. When the volume was turned on again I just noticed it as sound, but the words were still heard

So when you are driving your car, what tells you that it's time to brake, put your foot on the gas, change gear etc? Is that pre-verabal? When a baby is born and 'hears' sound, does it know it is sound?

Yes I would say it's pre verbal or non verbal because there is no interior monologue saying "Time to brake," etc. A baby doesn't know the experience as "sound" it is just experience

Look at a table and then drop ALL thoughts, ideas and images about a table, what is left? What is actually appearing?

It's pure experience. It hasn't been labeled.

[forgetmenot]

Hey Ken,.

Find a TV team sport on TV or a Youtube clip that lasts for at least 5 minutes, team sport such as soccer (the ideal sport to use for this), or basketball, or football.

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 what you notice etc.

The minute I randomly chose was mostly a long shot of the soccer field so in the first viewing it was just experience of color and movement without much story attached to it. With the sound on then a whole new aspect was introduced: it was Madrid vs. Barcelona and the names of various players was mentioned. So there was this overlay of information that this is a soccer game, there are two teams competing and there are particular players singled out. When the sound was turned off again there was a difference because the commentary had been experienced. When the volume was turned on again I just noticed it as sound, but the words were still heard

Terrific! So it really shows how thought overlays experience with narration! Without thought all there is, is the appearance of soundtastesmellthoughtcoloursensation (ie experience which thought divides into categories...but experience is indivisible)

So, let's look at movement.
Go for a walk, just around the loungeroom and go from room to room. Now, drop all thought, ideas etc about walking/movement and what is actually appearing? LOOK carefully.

So when you are driving your car, what tells you that it's time to brake, put your foot on the gas, change gear etc? Is that pre-verabal? When a baby is born and 'hears' sound, does it know it is sound?

Yes I would say it's pre verbal or non verbal because there is no interior monologue saying "Time to brake," etc. A baby doesn't know the experience as "sound" it is just experience

Okay thanks, I just wanted to see what you meant by pre-verbal! :)
What is it that suggests there is pre-verbal and verbal thought? What does 'pre-verbal' point to, and what does 'verbal' point to?

Thought doesn't have a voice, so is it 'heard'? If something is 'heard', is that not sound? You can't see thought. You can't feel it. You can't taste it. You can't smell it. You are aware of it, though. In fact, if you try to describe thought, it's quite impossible.

When a 'other' is speaking, is that thought or sound?

Look at a table and then drop ALL thoughts, ideas and images about a table, what is left? What is actually appearing?

It's pure experience. It hasn't been labeled.

Yes, but I wanted you to tell me what is there, when you drop all thought etc
What is left is colour....right?
Then drop all thought/ideas and images about colour, and what is there is pure experience.

Kay
xx

[budgie]

Hi Kay,
I didn't get the usual email that is sent to remind me that you had replied to my last post and yesterday I checked the thread and it hadn't updated. Today, I see that you had replied. Not sure maybe there is a bug in the system?

Go for a walk, just around the loungeroom and go from room to room. Now, drop all thought, ideas etc about walking/movement and what is actually appearing? LOOK carefully.

The actual experience is sight sounds sensation but "movement" is a thought/story

What is it that suggests there is pre-verbal and verbal thought? What does 'pre-verbal' point to, and what does 'verbal' point to?

It's another thought that labels it. I used the term verbal to point to thought that is usually described as an "interior monologue" and pre verbal or i guess it could be called "non verbal" to point to the subtle assumptions that are made without thinking in words. For example in the previous exercise I am not thinking in words "I am moving from room to room" but there is a "recognition" (which is thought) that puts that label on experience without using verbal self talk. Now I recognize that it is all thinking. The suggestion that one is preverbal and is verbal is just a thoughts.

When a 'other' is speaking, is that thought or sound?

It's a sound but it becomes "interpreted" using thought

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ken,

I didn't get the usual email that is sent to remind me that you had replied to my last post and yesterday I checked the thread and it hadn't updated. Today, I see that you had replied. Not sure maybe there is a bug in the system?

Like all systems, bugs do appear in this system from time to time. I thought that perhaps you were being very diligent with the walking exercise! :)

Go for a walk, just around the loungeroom and go from room to room. Now, drop all thought, ideas etc about walking/movement and what is actually appearing? LOOK carefully.

The actual experience is sight sounds sensation but "movement" is a thought/story

Yes....movement is a thought story.
What is sight? What is actually seeing? Seeing and colour are one and the same. There is no see-er of colour, just like there is no hearer of sound. Hearing and sound are one and the same. Hearingsound, seeingcolour = knowingknown = experience.

There is no experience of a thing apart from knowing that thing, because there is neither knowing nor is there known.

Any sound (including voice) is nothing more than an appearance, a fictional division of experience. Separate 'things', 'senses', and 'sensations' are nothing more than arbitrary concepts pointing to THIS that is not separate. Experience is not made out of parts, as all apparent parts are also experience, including the apparent person who seemingly hearing a voice.

What is it that suggests there is pre-verbal and verbal thought? What does 'pre-verbal' point to, and what does 'verbal' point to?

It's another thought that labels it. I used the term verbal to point to thought that is usually described as an "interior monologue" and pre verbal or i guess it could be called "non verbal" to point to the subtle assumptions that are made without thinking in words. For example in the previous exercise I am not thinking in words "I am moving from room to room" but there is a "recognition" (which is thought) that puts that label on experience without using verbal self talk. Now I recognize that it is all thinking. The suggestion that one is preverbal and is verbal is just a thoughts.

Yep, nice story ABOUT preverbal and verbal! The labels “preverbal” and “verbal point to thought story. There is no AE of preverbal or verbal. The labels themselves are AE of thought, as is the stream of thoughts ABOUT preverbal and verbal, but the content of thought is illusion.

And actually, thought doesn't label anything. Thoughts appear and SEEMINGLY point to other thoughts labelling thoughts or objects, sensations, tastes, smell and so on, but that is in and of itself just another appearing thought! Experience doesn't need thought to know itself as vroomvroomyumyumouchouch....

When a 'other' is speaking, is that thought or sound?

It's a sound but it becomes "interpreted" using thought

The ‘voice of another person’ is sound.
A label SEEMINGLY appears ‘simultaneously’ or after pointing to sound and calling it a voice. There is no one interpreting anything. Thought can’t interpret thought, or sound, or colour etc! Thought knows nothing.

I think at this stage, it would be good for you to go back to the beginning of your thread and re-read it in its entirety, and even re-do some of the exercises.

Let me know what you notice as you re-read it and once you have read it all.

Love, Kay
xx

[budgie]

Hi Kay,

I think at this stage, it would be good for you to go back to the beginning of your thread and re-read it in its entirety, and even re-do some of the exercises.

Let me know what you notice as you re-read it and once you have read it all.

So I was re reading the thread. It's interested to see that only about 3 weeks have passed since I first started here.

I see that a big piece of the process is learning to understand the language that is used here and what it points to. I see that I had been getting tripped up on thoughts and concepts. In any case there is a lot more clarity about "actual experience" and "thoughts".....

I noticed something that Xain said when I was working with him about seeing with "100% certainty and clarity that there is no separate self." Don't think I am really 100% there yet but there is a deepening sense of certainty and clarity that is going on. I think my understanding of this is deeper.

I would be happy to repeat any of the exercises, are there particular ones that you think would be especially helpful at this point?

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ken,

I see that a big piece of the process is learning to understand the language that is used here and what it points to. I see that I had been getting tripped up on thoughts and concepts. In any case there is a lot more clarity about "actual experience" and "thoughts".....

Yes, language appears as the difficulty because it is important that the language used is clear for clarity sake.

I noticed something that Xain said when I was working with him about seeing with "100% certainty and clarity that there is no separate self." Don't think I am really 100% there yet but there is a deepening sense of certainty and clarity that is going on. I think my understanding of this is deeper.

No, I don't think you have reached 100% certainty and clarity either.

I would be happy to repeat any of the exercises, are there particular ones that you think would be especially helpful at this point?

Doing them all again wouldn't do any harm. But go and look at each exercise and look at the questions again and see if there is absolute clarity to what the questions are pointing to....if not...do the exercise again.

Love, Kay
xx

[budgie]

Hi Kay,
So I will take a little time to review the thread and revisit the exercises again. I may not post again for about 5 days or so unless some questions or comments come up. In the meantime if you have any new exercises or pointers I would be glad to work with them. Ken

[vinceschubert]

Hi Ken, tell me what is your current take of the true nature of your Self ? (that which you call I/Me)

vince

[budgie]

Hi Vince,
I'm not sure but I think I have some idea of what was going in my previous guidance. I think that I felt a little unsure of how to express myself because at times I was told to use ordinary everyday language which tends to be dualistic and points to a "self" so it started to seem like the only thing I could say "correctly" was that there was "Actual Experience" and that led me to give very short answers....which led previous guides to think that I was not engaging in the process. I don't know it may be totally true that I wasn't engaging or I was just inventing self imposed roadblocks or had some kind of internal resistance to the process. Perhaps we can deal with these issues on a post to post basis as you guide me.

Hi Ken, tell me what is your current take of the true nature of your Self ? (that which you call I/Me)

vince

Well, ok and again here I will use everyday language. I think there is something that is "big self" which is "What Is" ....in other words the whole shebang. It's whatever is going on with or without thought. The universe and all parallel worlds. Consciousness which pervades all universes. If none of this "exists" then the illusion is the "big self". I know I am using labels but it the all pervading consciousness
Then there is the "relative world" the "little self" which "doesn't exist" ......but in relative terms does exist.
The true nature of the self ultimately is "big self"