What is that?

[Hesam]

God morning Kay :)

Yes, but doesn’t it seem real when you seemingly appear in a night time dream? Emotions, actions, movement of body, smell, taste etc still happen. Have you ever had a dream where you are being chased by something? Were you not running for your life and feeling extremely fearful? Whatever is happening in the dream still feels like it’s happening to you, and you are a part of, and in the dream? It isn’t until you wake up in the morning, that a thought appears saying that it was only a dream! How is that any different to day to day life? The only difference is the story ABOUT the dream. One is called a night time dream and supposedly happens when sleeping and the other is called day to day life that supposedly happens when awake. Either which way they are appearing in THIS but in both cases you are not IN the dream. You are aware of the dream, but you are not IN the dream

Yes, it totally feels real when dreaming at night (I don't want to get in to much in other theories about dreaming state, like lucid dreaming etc.) but you are correct, I always had this thoughts that dreams are as "real" as the day to day life.
I understand what you are saying with the person who wakes up and kind of breaths out in comfort that it was only a dream, while IN the dream it felt "as real as it gets". So if I have understood this correctly, the "daytime dreaming" is what the thoughts think "this is real" and when sleeping the thoughts are saying "this is not real, its just a dream", is this thoughts pattern happening because of the "I" identity like you explained previously "that you still think it is you, a person who wakes up and goes to sleep"?

Yes, just sensation labelled ‘pressure’. We are trying to see through stories, so yes, just keep it simple. :) Although I love your enthusiasm! :)

Haha, thank you Kay for seeing my enthusiasm! :)

Colour is ‘made of/from’ experience. Experience is not made from colour. In other words experience is appearing as colour. So, what is colour really? Go back to the gold analogy. Gold remains gold no matter what it appears as. It can appear as a ring, a bracelet an earring…but it still remains gold. So experience remains as experience no matter what it appears as. What does the word ‘different’ point to?

I have one question here, that might help me:
I have thought about just like you are explaining here, colour is "made of/from" experience". From childhood the teacher points at a colour, lets say "red" and tells everyone in the class that this is called "red", but how do we know that all of the 20th children see the color for the "real red" if I understand me, some of them might see that as "green", but we are all teached to agree on whatever the teacher is pointing at is "red". Do you understand what I'm asking kay? :)
Can this be similar to what you are pointing at here, with the gold analogy? I mean in the "perfect classroom" the teacher would have just said "this is a colour", and not give it a label at all, right?

What does the word ‘different’ point to?

Different = other?

Have a look at an object. Let’s say a chair. Ignore all thoughts about a chair and just focus on the colour. Now ignore all thoughts about colour and what is there? Just THIS aka experience appearing as colour.

Agreed! (suddenly the whole room got a other "feeling" to it)

There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But they don't. It is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

I had to google this Kay, does "one-to-one correspondence" mean "being able to match one object to one other object or person." :P
I get what you mean sort of, just wanted to be 100% that I understand it.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?

"RED"

Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?

The colour "red" is experienced

Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?

No :)

Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?

Yes it is suggesting the colour "green".

Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

Green is just a word label on the colour "red"

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

Still the same redness

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

No effect
(Is is funny however how many years of programming that red = bad is still so strong in the brain, that even in this exercise i assosiate it so much with being "bad", even though I know it has nothing to do with the question you are asking)

I really enjoyed that exercise Kay, thank you! It made so much "sense".

Have a good evening on the other side :) (How crazy that we can talk and so much distance :D)
Much love,
Hesam

[forgetmenot]

Hello Hesam!

So if I have understood this correctly, the "daytime dreaming" is what the thoughts think "this is real" and when sleeping the thoughts are saying "this is not real, its just a dream", is this thoughts pattern happening because of the "I" identity like you explained previously "that you still think it is you, a person who wakes up and goes to sleep"?

Well, thoughts don’t think anything! :) Thoughts appear that point to there being a difference between the appearance of a night time dream and the appearance of ‘day to day life’.
Have a LOOK, don't just agree with me. Is there any actual difference and if so, what is it? Are you the author of thoughts? What is it exactly that is “identifying’ with the idea of being a person?


Nobody dreams a dream - THIS shows up as a dream and is aware of its dreamy nature. Nobody is aware of a wakeful state, THIS shows up as a wakeful state, and is aware of its wakeful state nature.

Colour is ‘made of/from’ experience. Experience is not made from colour. In other words experience is appearing as colour. So, what is colour really? Go back to the gold analogy. Gold remains gold no matter what it appears as. It can appear as a ring, a bracelet an earring…but it still remains gold. So experience remains as experience no matter what it appears as. What does the word ‘different’ point to?

I have one question here, that might help me:
I have thought about just like you are explaining here, colour is "made of/from" experience". From childhood the teacher points at a colour, lets say "red" and tells everyone in the class that this is called "red", but how do we know that all of the 20th children see the color for the "real red" if I understand me, some of them might see that as "green", but we are all teached to agree on whatever the teacher is pointing at is "red". Do you understand what I'm asking kay? :) Can this be similar to what you are pointing at here, with the gold analogy? I mean in the "perfect classroom" the teacher would have just said "this is a colour", and not give it a label at all, right?

Experience does not refer to what is considered personal experiences. Experience refers to THIS. Experience and THIS that is, are one and the same. There is no person, so how can experience refer to something a person is experiencing? There is no experiencer of experience. That would mean that there are two…an experiencer and something that it is being experienced.

Have a look out the window. You might see some trees, sky, flowers, ground, road, other houses etc. And thought will say that they are all different colours. Where is the dividing line where one colour stops and another starts? Are they many different colours or just colour? How is it known that they are different? Does colour have a substance? Can you describe colour? Try and describe the colour ‘red’.

What does the word ‘different’ point to?

Different = other?

The word ‘different’ points to thought story. There is no AE of ‘different’.

I really enjoyed that exercise Kay, thank you! It made so much "sense".

So from the labelling exercise, can you tell me what it was pointing to?

Love, Kay
xx

[Hesam]

God morning Kay,

Well, thoughts don’t think anything! :) Thoughts appear that point to there being a difference between the appearance of a night time dream and the appearance of ‘day to day life’.
Have a LOOK, don't just agree with me. Is there any actual difference and if so, what is it? Are you the author of thoughts? What is it exactly that is “identifying’ with the idea of being a person?

So if thoughts point at the difference between "night dream" and "day to day" then it is no difference at all between them?

There is no author of thoughts, if so then as you have mentioned we would probably just program it to get the "good stuff".

The 'identification' of a person is the illusion, the weaved AE (of smell, taste etc) into thoughts that again weaves up to being "Hesam" or "Kay". Just a collection of thoughts that don't know anything about them self.

Have a look out the window. You might see some trees, sky, flowers, ground, road, other houses etc. And thought will say that they are all different colours. Where is the dividing line where one colour stops and another starts? Are they many different colours or just colour? How is it known that they are different? Does colour have a substance? Can you describe colour? Try and describe the colour ‘red’.

There is no actual stop there, there will most likely be a thought that points to the separation like you say, when looking up in the "sky" and separates it from the "cloud".

Are they many different colours or just colour?

If "different colour" is coming from thought, then it has to just be colour, not "different colours". Then there is no different colour in what IS. There IS just colour.

Does colour have a substance?

No colour does not have substance, if they had substance then you would "feel" "red" as a sensation, right?

an you describe colour? Try and describe the colour ‘red’

No I can't describe colour, it is like the saying; "it is like describing colour to a blind man". I can only describe colour if the option of thought and labeling is allowed. Not in what IS.
Colour is just there, there is no difference, it's just colour. Labeling and thoughts is what separates it.

So from the labelling exercise, can you tell me what it was pointing to?

The labels does not know what it is "representing", in this exercise it was GREEN. But it would just as well have been Cocopuffs, colour is just there, and colour and thought actually have nothing in common in what IS. The colour "red" could not care less if we would call it Green, or whatever, it is just colour, and it is just appearing. It is the thoughts and the labeling that separates it and puts a story behind it, because the "red" does not know it is "red"

Much love!
Hesam

[forgetmenot]

God morning or good morning Hesam!

I am not sure if your God mornings are a typo; or are pointing to a belief in God? :)

Well, thoughts don’t think anything! :) Thoughts appear that point to there being a difference between the appearance of a night time dream and the appearance of ‘day to day life’.
Have a LOOK, don't just agree with me. Is there any actual difference and if so, what is it? Are you the author of thoughts? What is it exactly that is “identifying’ with the idea of being a person?

So if thoughts point at the difference between "night dream" and "day to day" then it is no difference at all between them?

It seems as though there is some difficulty with this. Is it because there is an idea that the night time dreams are seen as happening in the ‘head when sleeping’ ie, more like mental images, and day to day life is seen visually?

There is no author of thoughts, if so then as you have mentioned we would probably just program it to get the "good stuff".

There is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ stuff. What is it exactly that could be affected by thought or thought stories? Can you find anyone/anything in actual experience that could be affected by what happens/appears in the dream?

And what exactly is it that could program life to just get the ‘good stuff’?

The 'identification' of a person is the illusion, the weaved AE (of smell, taste etc) into thoughts that again weaves up to being "Hesam" or "Kay". Just a collection of thoughts that don't know anything about them self.

Exactly! Thought and thought stories are known, but they are not known by thought, and they are not known by dream characters/persons.

Is there a dividing line between the knowing of a thought and a thought?
LOOK very very carefully at this, so you can fully appreciate what is being pointed to here.

Have a look out the window. You might see some trees, sky, flowers, ground, road, other houses etc. And thought will say that they are all different colours. Where is the dividing line where one colour stops and another starts? Are they many different colours or just colour? How is it known that they are different? Does colour have a substance? Can you describe colour? Try and describe the colour ‘red’.

There is no actual stop there, there will most likely be a thought that points to the separation like you say, when looking up in the "sky" and separates it from the "cloud".

Is it most likely a thought or is there a thought that points to the sky and says the clouds are different colour to the sky? You don’t sound too sure. LOOK and then tell me what you find.

Are they many different colours or just colour?

If "different colour" is coming from thought, then it has to just be colour, not "different colours". Then there is no different colour in what IS. There IS just colour.

Where else would the thought “different colour” is coming from if not thought? There seems to be a questioning to whether it is thought that is pointing to colour being different. If you can find someone or something other than thought that is saying colour is different, please let me know, so I can become aware of it too.

Does colour have a substance?

No colour does not have substance, if they had substance then you would "feel" "red" as a sensation, right?

I don’t know, I have never felt ‘red’, smelt ‘red’ or tasted ‘red’ or heard ‘red’. “Red’ is an appearance in/as THIS. What I was getting at, is that colour does not have a tangible substance. You just can’t go 'buy' some red or yellow! The only ‘substance’ colour is, is experience itself. If you ignore the label ‘colour’ and thoughts ABOUT colour…all there is, is experience itself.

Can you describe colour? Try and describe the colour ‘red’

No I can't describe colour, it is like the saying; "it is like describing colour to a blind man". I can only describe colour if the option of thought and labeling is allowed. Not in what IS.

Even with thought and labelling, Hesam…how would you describe the colour ‘red’. Let’s pretend I am an alien and I know nothing of colour…how would you describe ‘red’ to me?

Colour is just there, there is no difference, it's just colour. Labeling and thoughts is what separates it.

Yes, exactly. So now, do that whole LOOKING that you just did with colour and do it with sound, taste, smell and sensation. Let me know what you find.

So from the labelling exercise, can you tell me what it was pointing to?

The labels does not know what it is "representing", in this exercise it was GREEN. But it would just as well have been Cocopuffs, colour is just there, and colour and thought actually have nothing in common in what IS. The colour "red" could not care less if we would call it Green, or whatever, it is just colour, and it is just appearing. It is the thoughts and the labeling that separates it and puts a story behind it, because the "red" does not know it is "red"

Yes! But let's look at the idea of colour and thought being different.

Where does colour end and thought begin? Where does thought end and sound begin? Where does sound end and colour begin?

But experience doesn’t care what labels are slapped on it; it doesn’t change what it is! Experience is changeless no matter what it appears as! Colour is (‘made of’) experience, experience isn’t (‘made of’) colour. There is a big difference between the two :)

Anyway, we are going beyond what this exploration is about. This exploration is simply about seeing through the concept of being a separate individual. Once this has been recognised and you would like to investigate further, this can be done. :)

Much love!
Kay xx

[Hesam]

Haha GOOD morning Kay!
It was just a typo, perhaps if you are a guide at another forum for English teaching, let me know, I could need some haha :D "liberation english" haha :)

(Would be funny if I came to this forum, but sneaked in the belief of God every now and then :D)

It seems as though there is some difficulty with this. Is it because there is an idea that the night time dreams are seen as happening in the ‘head when sleeping’ ie, more like mental images, and day to day life is seen visually?

I have been trying to figure out what the "issue" is here, been thinking about it a lot and maybe I am just making it to complicated. I mean I know there is no difference, there is just "someone" thinking that sleep has happen, and that it self helps me see that "sleep" is just a label as well. But yes I would say that's where the mind gets upset about, dreaming = "happening in the head", and that day to day is more visually, rather more sensations, smell, taste etc. But I can also see that this comparison still points to there being a "Hesam" there, who wakes up and "feels" more things than when he dreams.
I just don't know why this question causes for the conflict.

There is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ stuff. What is it exactly that could be affected by thought or thought stories? Can you find anyone/anything in actual experience that could be affected by what happens/appears in the dream?

And what exactly is it that could program life to just get the ‘good stuff’?

Yes I know there is no good or bad, was just meaning that if that even was possible for 'humans', we would for sure try and change it to only get "good thoughts", if we where the authors of thought. (Its a good way for me to understand that we have zero control of thoughts, as "humans" love to think that they can control everything.

What is it exactly that could be affected by thought or thought stories?

There is no control of thought or thought stories, but be affected is another thing. (I really try to not point at there being a individual here but hope you understand me). For a "person" who has not yet understood the whole "there is no separate individual" thing, who still clings on every thought, that person would for sure be affected of the thoughts, by "feelings".
But I know that is not what you are asking here..
For someone who knows that there is no separation, thoughts are just thoughts, which can't affect anything, its just like having a TV ON in the background while doing something else, that is thoughts for "me", something just babbling on in the background.

And what exactly is it that could program life to just get the ‘good stuff’?

No one can program life to get the good stuff :) (I hope i explained my self in the question little above this one).

Is there a dividing line between the knowing of a thought and a thought?

(I am really trying to LOOK here Kay, I hope I'm not completely lost here). But no, there can't be a dividing line.. even the "knowing" has to be a thought, even the "I know I am thinking" points to someone is knowing, and there can't be someone, rather there is no "someone", it just IS.
The "knowing of a thought" and "thought" is no difference. I mean who is knowing about the thought... Nobody is knowing anything.
(I will keep LOOKING at this even though I answered, if something else comes up I will post one more reply just for this one.:))

Is it most likely a thought or is there a thought that points to the sky and says the clouds are different colour to the sky? You don’t sound too sure. LOOK and then tell me what you find.

The thought points to the colour difference between the sky and clouds. I mean if this body did not exist to experience, no thoughts to be thought about. The 'sky' and 'clouds' would just be as they are... They would "look" the same with or without "Hesam", have the colour (not different colour, just HAVE colour). So there is "something" (not saying there is separation) who points to the difference, and that is thought who does.

Where else would the thought “different colour” is coming from if not thought? There seems to be a questioning to whether it is thought that is pointing to colour being different. If you can find someone or something other than thought that is saying colour is different, please let me know, so I can become aware of it too.

Haha :) No Kay It is my poor English grammar who causes for this, while answering the questions I tend to also ask myself questions while typing and sometimes the question mark comes up.

I don’t know, I have never felt ‘red’, smelt ‘red’ or tasted ‘red’ or heard ‘red’. “Red’ is an appearance in/as THIS. What I was getting at, is that colour does not have a tangible substance. You just can’t go 'buy' some red or yellow! The only ‘substance’ colour is, is experience itself. If you ignore the label ‘colour’ and thoughts ABOUT colour…all there is, is experience itself.

I understand. :)

Even with thought and labelling, Hesam…how would you describe the colour ‘red’. Let’s pretend I am an alien and I know nothing of colour…how would you describe ‘red’ to me?

Yes I see what you mean, and you are correct as you explained above here, colour is just experience itself. What I meant was that lets say you and me are next to a wall, with half yellow and half red, I could point and say "this is red" and you would understand me. But yes there is no way to describe colour.

Yes, exactly. So now, do that whole LOOKING that you just did with colour and do it with sound, taste, smell and sensation. Let me know what you find.

Just experience, "things" that just appear in what IS. No time, no separation. nothing, just THIS.

Where does colour end and thought begin? Where does thought end and sound begin? Where does sound end and colour begin?

No ending, no beginning, experience has no start or finish. And experience does not care for thoughts. (Hope I understood your question correctly)

But experience doesn’t care what labels are slapped on it; it doesn’t change what it is! Experience is changeless no matter what it appears as! Colour is (‘made of’) experience, experience isn’t (‘made of’) colour. There is a big difference between the two :)

Yes I can see this Kay! :) (from my level of perception at least :))

Anyway, we are going beyond what this exploration is about. This exploration is simply about seeing through the concept of being a separate individual. Once this has been recognised and you would like to investigate further, this can be done. :)

Yes, thank you for keeping us on a steady course on what we need to explore. :)

Also Kay I want to apologize for my sloppy writing, I can see that sometimes I am not making my self clear or able to write my thoughts in a correct way, the limitation of writing (also in English) makes it a bit hard sometimes. But thank you, thank you, thank you for your patience and once again I am so truly grateful for all of this, however hard or frustrating at times. I try to not include to much "feelins" in what we write here, I try to just keep it simple as possible from what I "think" is LOOKING and actual experience, and sometimes it can cause for lesser words and me not explaining my self good enough.

Have a good evening :)

Much love!
Hesam

[forgetmenot]

Dearest Hesam, :)

You are such a pleasure to guide…thank you :)

I wouldn’t be doing my ‘job’ of guiding if I didn’t check to make sure that what you were saying was actually just said to explain something, and not something that you haven’t quite clearly seen. So it become repetitive, but it can only be a good thing, as it gets you to keep on LOOKING and the more LOOKING the clearer it becomes 

Haha GOOD morning Kay!
It was just a typo, perhaps if you are a guide at another forum for English teaching, let me know, I could need some haha :D "liberation english" haha :)

LOL…glad we cleared that up. Thought we would have to explore the idea of God! :)

(Would be funny if I came to this forum, but sneaked in the belief of God every now and then :D)

There’s that mischievousness that sparkles throughout your posts. I love it :)

It seems as though there is some difficulty with this. Is it because there is an idea that the night time dreams are seen as happening in the ‘head when sleeping’ ie, more like mental images, and day to day life is seen visually?

I have been trying to figure out what the "issue" is here, been thinking about it a lot and maybe I am just making it to complicated. I mean I know there is no difference, there is just "someone" thinking that sleep has happen, and that it self helps me see that "sleep" is just a label as well. But yes I would say that's where the mind gets upset about, dreaming = "happening in the head", and that day to day is more visually, rather more sensations, smell, taste etc. But I can also see that this comparison still points to there being a "Hesam" there, who wakes up and "feels" more things than when he dreams.
I just don't know why this question causes for the conflict.

Maybe if we have a look at the difference between ‘mental images’ and ‘visual image’ it might help? Let me know.

Thought distinguishes between 'mental image' and 'visual sight'.

Visual sight = the images that seemingly appear in the ‘outside world seen through the eyes’.
Mental image = images that seemingly appear ‘inside a mind’ that is not the image of the current picture seen by the eyes, but rather just a reappearing image from memory.

Since both definitions are about the body seeing and having experiences neither of these definitions are true. These 2 definitions are about time and space.

So in reality there are no such things as 'mental image' and 'visual sight'. There is only image/colour. Only thought labels them as 'visual' or 'mental'. And there are no ‘stand-alone’ images either. Experience doesn't have parts. Only thought say that experience can be divided into parts, like image + thought. And that thought which is 'saying' this is also not a stand-alone thought (meaning existing on its own). There is only experience. Without any division or parts.

Yes I know there is no good or bad, was just meaning that if that even was possible for 'humans', we would for sure try and change it to only get "good thoughts", if we where the authors of thought. (Its a good way for me to understand that we have zero control of thoughts, as "humans" love to think that they can control everything.

Wonderful…as I explained above…I would be remiss if I didn’t check to make sure that you weren’t off track! :) And you aren’t :)

What is it exactly that could be affected by thought or thought stories?

There is no control of thought or thought stories, but be affected is another thing. (I really try to not point at there being a individual here but hope you understand me). For a "person" who has not yet understood the whole "there is no separate individual" thing, who still clings on every thought, that person would for sure be affected of the thoughts, by "feelings".
But I know that is not what you are asking here.. For someone who knows that there is no separation, thoughts are just thoughts, which can't affect anything, its just like having a TV ON in the background while doing something else, that is thoughts for "me", something just babbling on in the background.

If we go back to the label 'green' exercise, we can see that experience cannot be affected by anything. How could it. How could experience be affected by itself! However, I just want to make sure you have no hidden expectations. Seeing or recognising that there is no self does not mean that thoughts etc don’t seemingly create an affect. This is a dream after all! There was no self prior to this exploration and there isn’t one now, so reactions to thoughts still appear, just as does anger, jealousy, tiredness, hunger, joy, sadness etc. However, it is seen that they are stories but thoughts do still seemingly have an affect! But by LOOKING to see what it is that can be affected each time that it happens, it becomes clearer that it is happening to no one. It is just happening and there is no one/no thing that can control whether a thought appears and/or if a reactions appears along with the thought.

Is there a dividing line between the knowing of a thought and a thought?

(I am really trying to LOOK here Kay, I hope I'm not completely lost here). But no, there can't be a dividing line.. even the "knowing" has to be a thought, even the "I know I am thinking" points to someone is knowing, and there can't be someone, rather there is no "someone", it just IS.
The "knowing of a thought" and "thought" is no difference. I mean who is knowing about the thought... Nobody is knowing anything.
(I will keep LOOKING at this even though I answered, if something else comes up I will post one more reply just for this one.:))

Yes…it just IS! Okay, so ‘knowing’ is another word for experience. Experience knows itself, so it is the knowing of itself. The ‘known’ is taste, smell, sensation etc and these are also experience…yes, as experience is whole and is not divided into categories.

So when I use the word ‘knowing’ it points to experience and the ‘known’ points to colour, smell and so on (also experience). So, another way to ask the question: is there a dividing line between ‘knowing’ and ‘known’ (knowing/known) or is there just knowingknown?

Is it most likely a thought or is there a thought that points to the sky and says the clouds are different colour to the sky? You don’t sound too sure. LOOK and then tell me what you find.

The thought points to the colour difference between the sky and clouds. I mean if this body did not exist to experience, no thoughts to be thought about. The 'sky' and 'clouds' would just be as they are... They would "look" the same with or without "Hesam", have the colour (not different colour, just HAVE colour). So there is "something" (not saying there is separation) who points to the difference, and that is thought who does.

There is no such thing as ‘colour’. “Colour’ is thoughts way (so to speak) of trying to describe the indescribable ie experience. However, it is a thought that does point to experience and not to some imaginary story about experience. There are no colourS or soundS etc. There is no division at all. It is only thought that says experience is divided into colour and sound and sensation and so on. There is no ‘and’. Experience is coloursensationthoughtsmellsoundtaste, they are one and the same.

I can’t remember if I did the map analogy?
A map shows how a country is seemingly divided into states and territories. Is the map made of those divisions? Or as those divisions simply the map being the map? The division are the map, but the map is not a division. Can you see this?

Yes, exactly. So now, do that whole LOOKING that you just did with colour and do it with sound, taste, smell and sensation. Let me know what you find.

Just experience, "things" that just appear in what IS. No time, no separation. nothing, just THIS.

Is smell a ‘thing’ or is it experience that thought describes as a ‘thing’ called ‘smell’?

Where does colour end and thought begin? Where does thought end and sound begin? Where does sound end and colour begin?

No ending, no beginning, experience has no start or finish. And experience does not care for thoughts. (Hope I understood your question correctly)

So what is it seen clearly that there is no dividing line ‘between’ colour and thought? And if there is no dividing line…are they different?

But experience doesn’t care what labels are slapped on it; it doesn’t change what it is! Experience is changeless no matter what it appears as! Colour is (‘made of’) experience, experience isn’t (‘made of’) colour. There is a big difference between the two :)

Yes I can see this Kay! :) (from my level of perception at least :))

Lol Hesam, it is either seen or not…there are no different levels of perception.

Also Kay I want to apologize for my sloppy writing, I can see that sometimes I am not making my self clear or able to write my thoughts in a correct way, the limitation of writing (also in English) makes it a bit hard sometimes. But thank you, thank you, thank you for your patience and once again I am so truly grateful for all of this, however hard or frustrating at times. I try to not include to much "feelins" in what we write here, I try to just keep it simple as possible from what I "think" is LOOKING and actual experience, and sometimes it can cause for lesser words and me not explaining my self good enough.

You are doing great, Hesam, no apologies needed. As I said above, I would be remiss if I didn’t check to make sure you have the right end of the stick! By all means, tell me about what feelings/emotions appear, and when frustration or resistance appear and so on. They are a good thing to LOOK at together, so that they can be seen clearly. That is all part of this exploration and in some ways an important part. Nothing is off limits to LOOK at as long as it is in the realms of this exploration! :) So next time frustration or whatever appears..mention it so we can look at it.

Love, Kay
xx

[Hesam]

Kay <3

You are such a pleasure to guide…thank you :)

I am the one who should say thanks! :) Pleasure is all mine <3

I wouldn’t be doing my ‘job’ of guiding if I didn’t check to make sure that what you were saying was actually just said to explain something, and not something that you haven’t quite clearly seen. So it become repetitive, but it can only be a good thing, as it gets you to keep on LOOKING and the more LOOKING the clearer it becomes 

Yes I know Kay, and I appreciate it so much, sometimes I am not seeing why you are going some kind of direction, but I have 100% trust and faith in this that we are doing and all the sudden something 'cracks in the mind' :). But I think i should also be better to explain my thoughts so it can get easier for you as well to direct/point. But yes, just keep pointing and ask when I am not clear, as I do when you are not clear. :)

LOL…glad we cleared that up. Thought we would have to explore the idea of God! :)

Haha indeed :P

There’s that mischievousness that sparkles throughout your posts. I love it :)

Haha I am glad that it is not causing trouble, humor should always be part of the journey :D

Maybe if we have a look at the difference between ‘mental images’ and ‘visual image’ it might help? Let me know

Yes Kay, thank you, this made this clear for me, let me explain:

I understand now why the thoughts wanted to separate 'sleeping' and 'day to day life', it was cause I was not looking at sleep as the 'mental images' as thoughts for some reason. 'sleep' was sort of "shutting down" in my thoughts before. But now I see what you mean. Now I see 'sleep' for the 'mental images' as it is (mental images = thoughts). I can't explain it better than this, but does it sound wierd to just say that I "feel" it, or rather see it?

Wonderful…as I explained above…I would be remiss if I didn’t check to make sure that you weren’t off track! :) And you aren’t :)

I fully understand :), I made the effort to explain my self here also to make it clearer for you as well where is was "in my mind".

However, I just want to make sure you have no hidden expectations. Seeing or recognising that there is no self does not mean that thoughts etc don’t seemingly create an affect. This is a dream after all!

I understand you 100% here Kay, this exploration is not about 'Hesam' being totally emotion free or not affected. I still honor this dream, and the "feelings/emotions", thoughts that appear in it. I do feel that with your wonderful help I am really seeing on how to have a distance to it all. It is sort of that Santa Claus example... I mean I still celebrate christmas, so why not still celebrate "Hesam" :), you understand me? :), I am also seeing that there won't be a *BANG* - awakening.. I am truly starting to understand what you said in the first posts - this is about what you already are. It is nothing new.

it becomes clearer that it is happening to no one. It is just happening and there is no one/no thing that can control whether a thought appears and/or if a reactions appears along with the thought.

100%

So when I use the word ‘knowing’ it points to experience and the ‘known’ points to colour, smell and so on (also experience). So, another way to ask the question: is there a dividing line between ‘knowing’ and ‘known’ (knowing/known) or is there just knowingknown?

When I first read this, I was super confused :D.. but I think I understand now what you are asking.
There is no dividing line, it is knowingknown. I mean experience is all that, it is just bunch together like that, no dividing.
'knowing' about the 'know', taste, smell etc.. So hard with this typing limitation, words can't even come close to what I want to say.. I hope you see my meaning here.

There is no such thing as ‘colour’. “Colour’ is thoughts way (so to speak) of trying to describe the indescribable ie experience

Yes I see your point, but if you and me could not use the word colour, then we would not be able to do this, right? Like you say, it would be like you said 'describing something indescribable' if not even the word "colour" was allowed. It is just like we are using the words "me" "I" etc, cause if we wouldn't, then it would be way to hard to understand and guide/point.

There are no colourS or soundS etc

Yes I have seen this as well. :) There is no colourS (that S would imply on 2,3,4, etc, and there is not even 1, is just IS.)

Experience is coloursensationthoughtsmellsoundtaste, they are one and the same.

YES! :) So going out on a little sidenote here... So actually we would not even need to speak of 'Actual experience' either at some point of understanding? I mean smell, taste, senastion and sound is also words, labels, that points to something that just IS, and the IS, is just bunched up like you typed there "coloursensationthoughtsmellsoundtaste".

I can’t remember if I did the map analogy?

No you have not done it before.

A map shows how a country is seemingly divided into states and territories. Is the map made of those divisions? Or as those divisions simply the map being the map? The division are the map, but the map is not a division. Can you see this?

Thats exactly what we do with experience, or THIS rather, we divided it with the 'actual experience', but in fact there is no dividing. experience is experience in all. Am I seeing this correctly?

Is smell a ‘thing’ or is it experience that thought describes as a ‘thing’ called ‘smell’?

Smell = something that thought describes as a "thing" called "smell". Thought is trying to to what the map example did, trying to divide states, but the ground it self on the earth don't care about those fancy lines written on a piece of paper.

So what is it seen clearly that there is no dividing line ‘between’ colour and thought? And if there is no dividing line…are they different?

Going back to the "coloursensationthoughtsmellsoundtaste" you wrote, I mean I agree that all those are "same" and not different, but I still can't fully understand what you are asking Kay, can you please ask again in another way?

Lol Hesam, it is either seen or not…there are no different levels of perception.

Haha, I meant to say "my level of knowledge". Sorry Kay! :)

You are doing great, Hesam, no apologies needed. As I said above, I would be remiss if I didn’t check to make sure you have the right end of the stick! By all means, tell me about what feelings/emotions appear, and when frustration or resistance appear and so on. They are a good thing to LOOK at together, so that they can be seen clearly. That is all part of this exploration and in some ways an important part. Nothing is off limits to LOOK at as long as it is in the realms of this exploration! :) So next time frustration or whatever appears..mention it so we can look at it.

Like the mastercard commercial says Kay, priceless <3 :D
Thank you very much.

Much much love,
Hesam

[forgetmenot]

Hello Hesam!

Maybe if we have a look at the difference between ‘mental images’ and ‘visual image’ it might help? Let me know

Yes Kay, thank you, this made this clear for me, let me explain:

I understand now why the thoughts wanted to separate 'sleeping' and 'day to day life', it was cause I was not looking at sleep as the 'mental images' as thoughts for some reason. 'sleep' was sort of "shutting down" in my thoughts before. But now I see what you mean. Now I see 'sleep' for the 'mental images' as it is (mental images = thoughts). I can't explain it better than this, but does it sound wierd to just say that I "feel" it, or rather see it?

Mental images are lumbered with thoughts but they are actually colour/image. They are no different to image/colour that are seemingly seen through the eyes. It is thought that says they are different because one is considered to be seen ‘in the mind’, while the other is seen as being ‘more real’ because they are seen visually.

So, let’s have a look at this! :)

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

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

So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?

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

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

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

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

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

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

So when I use the word ‘knowing’ it points to experience and the ‘known’ points to colour, smell and so on (also experience). So, another way to ask the question: is there a dividing line between ‘knowing’ and ‘known’ (knowing/known) or is there just knowingknown?

When I first read this, I was super confused :D.. but I think I understand now what you are asking.
There is no dividing line, it is knowingknown. I mean experience is all that, it is just bunch together like that, no dividing.
'knowing' about the 'know', taste, smell etc.. So hard with this typing limitation, words can't even come close to what I want to say.. I hope you see my meaning here.

Yes, words are quite inadequate to express THIS! :)

Experience-er of experience is the same as knowing and known. When you looked for the dividing line between knowing and known, did you find one? Are you able to separate a thought from the “knowing” of it? Are you able to separate sound, colour and so on from the ‘knowing” of it?

Can anything be known without the knowing of it? In order for colour, sound, smell etc to exist, they must be known…right? Since there is no separation there cannot be something that is knowing of the known. Can you separate a smell from the knowing of it? If not, how can smell be separate to the knowing of it? So how can there be a dividing line between knowing and known…the ‘AND’ immediately implies separation. So can you see how there can be no ‘experiencer’ of experience?

There is no such thing as ‘colour’. “Colour’ is thoughts way (so to speak) of trying to describe the indescribable ie experience

Yes I see your point, but if you and me could not use the word colour, then we would not be able to do this, right? Like you say, it would be like you said 'describing something indescribable' if not even the word "colour" was allowed. It is just like we are using the words "me" "I" etc, cause if we wouldn't, then it would be way to hard to understand and guide/point.

Haha…yes! What I was pointing to here, is that ‘colour’ is also a concept. There is no such thing as colour, as described by thought…all there is, is experience and experience is nameless and has no parts.

The label ‘colour’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of colour! :) Same goes for sound, sensation and so on.

Experience is coloursensationthoughtsmellsoundtaste, they are one and the same.

YES! :) So going out on a little sidenote here... So actually we would not even need to speak of 'Actual experience' either at some point of understanding? I mean smell, taste, senastion and sound is also words, labels, that points to something that just IS, and the IS, is just bunched up like you typed there "coloursensationthoughtsmellsoundtaste".

Yes because there is no such thing as divisions of experience. Yep, actual experience is also a concept, but it’s useful in that it’s pointing to what is happening now, not what is imagined ie stories about AE. The pointing of sound as AE is only ever provisional, once it's pointed out, it's removed to include the 'rest of experience'.

A map shows how a country is seemingly divided into states and territories. Is the map made of those divisions? Or as those divisions simply the map being the map? The division are the map, but the map is not a division. Can you see this?

Thats exactly what we do with experience, or THIS rather, we divided it with the 'actual experience', but in fact there is no dividing. experience is experience in all. Am I seeing this correctly?

Yes, correct! If experience/THIS were divided then separation would exist! If there were no thought at all…there would be no concepts about experience being divided (ie that experience has different elements labelled sound + sensation + colour etc.)

So what is it seen clearly that there is no dividing line ‘between’ colour and thought? And if there is no dividing line…are they different?

Going back to the "coloursensationthoughtsmellsoundtaste" you wrote, I mean I agree that all those are "same" and not different, but I still can't fully understand what you are asking Kay, can you please ask again in another way?

If the experience of colour+thought shows up, where is the dividing line in actual experience that allows that experience to be divided into a separate experience of "colour" and a separate experience of "thought"?

Love, Kay
xx

[Hesam]

Hi Kay! :)

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

Yes, correct.

So, can a thought come from a sensation?

Been looking and looking, very hard one this one. I might be totally off here (sorry if I understood the questions wrong)...
A thought can't come from anything, it can't COME or be a CAUSE of a sensation (as in a consequence of sensation), I might just be picking words here, but to COME and also CAUSE is indicating that something is coming from somewhere, and in experience, there is no coming or going (how can anything come and go from it self), also if something is coming out from a sensation it is inflicting with the whole time existence. (As meaning that sensation is step 1, and the thought is step 2, and then step 3, 4 etc.)

Can a thought come from a mental image?

Mental images is just images that know nothing about them self, like the thoughts, they do not know about them self, so how can 2 things, that don't know anything of them self, create something more out of them self.

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

Right :)

Can sight come from a sensation?

I feel the same way here as with the question about the forehead. I mean all these actual experiences you helped me see, they where just this awesome way in understanding what experience is, but now that I saw with the whole map exercise and how we are trying to divide experience, I feel that none of these coloursensationthoughtsmellsoundtaste mean anything now, they are just labels which also don't know anything about them self, something that don't know anything about them self can't create anything else.

Before I go and answer rest of the questions I feel like i just need a check with you here that I am not going to the whole wrong direction from where you are pointing at. (I hope it is OK).
Cause I have been about this all day and this is what comes up every time.

Can anything be known without the knowing of it? In order for colour, sound, smell etc to exist, they must be known…right? Since there is no separation there cannot be something that is knowing of the known. Can you separate a smell from the knowing of it? If not, how can smell be separate to the knowing of it? So how can there be a dividing line between knowing and known…the ‘AND’ immediately implies separation. So can you see how there can be no ‘experiencer’ of experience?

Yes Kay, I see it. I am not saying that experience is experiencing it self (cause that implies that something is looking, and there is not even something, it just IS, but that the closest I can explain with words.

Haha…yes! What I was pointing to here, is that ‘colour’ is also a concept. There is no such thing as colour, as described by thought…all there is, is experience and experience is nameless and has no parts.

The label ‘colour’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of colour! :) Same goes for sound, sensation and so on.

I think it is really amazing, to now see your way of guiding. First I learned about AE,to separate it from what IS, and now I learn that AE is just labes as well, but only after that you have seen that I have understood what experience is. It is so awesome how THIS is doing all of it. How experience is sort of teaching it self.

If there were no thought at all…there would be no concepts about experience being divided

I really see this Kay.

If the experience of colour+thought shows up, where is the dividing line in actual experience that allows that experience to be divided into a separate experience of "colour" and a separate experience of "thought"?

I can't see the dividing line Kay, I mean what is allowing it, it has to be just in this illusion/dream that is allowing dividing of experience into AE.

A lot of confusion today if it turns out that I am looking at a completely "wrong" direction. :P

Much love,
Hesam

[forgetmenot]

Hello Hesam :)

So, can a thought come from a sensation?

Been looking and looking, very hard one this one. I might be totally off here (sorry if I understood the questions wrong)...
A thought can't come from anything, it can't COME or be a CAUSE of a sensation (as in a consequence of sensation), I might just be picking words here, but to COME and also CAUSE is indicating that something is coming from somewhere, and in experience, there is no coming or going (how can anything come and go from it self), also if something is coming out from a sensation it is inflicting with the whole time existence. (As meaning that sensation is step 1, and the thought is step 2, and then step 3, 4 etc.)

You are correct, Hesam. Neither thought, sensation, colour, sound, smell or taste COME from anywhere and nor are they created by anything or each other.

However, the exploration is now moving on. I have to use the word ‘come’ to point, otherwise how else am I going to get you to LOOK to see if a sensation can create a thought, as a means for you to see that there is no correlation between a thought and a sensation, and that thoughts don’t ‘come’ from the forehead for you to see through the concept of the ‘sense of self’ that comes with the idea that thoughts and mental images come from the forehead. Do you see what I mean? These exercises are a means to another end as we now move along in our exploration. I gave you these exercises in reference to the following I wrote in my last post, in reply to your response that mental images were thoughts. And yes, this exploration can become repetitive…but there is a method to the madness. :)

Mental images are lumbered with thoughts but they are actually colour/image. They are no different to image/colour that are seemingly seen through the eyes. It is thought that says they are different because one is considered to be seen ‘in the mind’, while the other is seen as being ‘more real’ because they are seen visually.

Can a thought come from a mental image?

Mental images is just images that know nothing about them self, like the thoughts, they do not know about them self, so how can 2 things, that don't know anything of them self, create something more out of them self.

Lovely! :)

Can sight come from a sensation?

I feel the same way here as with the question about the forehead. I mean all these actual experiences you helped me see, they where just this awesome way in understanding what experience is, but now that I saw with the whole map exercise and how we are trying to divide experience, I feel that none of these coloursensationthoughtsmellsoundtaste mean anything now, they are just labels which also don't know anything about them self, something that don't know anything about them self can't create anything else.

Before I go and answer rest of the questions I feel like i just need a check with you here that I am not going to the whole wrong direction from where you are pointing at. (I hope it is OK).
Cause I have been about this all day and this is what comes up every time.

And I appreciate you checking in. Why I gave you these exercises about the forehead and visual sight, was to get you to see there is no difference between a mental image and visual image and that neither mental images nor thoughts come from the head or forehead as a lead in to move on with our exploration. This was to help you with the difficulty you were having with night time dream and day to day life. You said that night time dreams were mental images which were thoughts, and I am pointing to show you that they aren’t thoughts they are AE of colour/image so that you could then get to see that there is no difference between a mental image and a visual image. I know you have seen through the concept of division…but we are now moving on from that.

So can you go back and answer the questions as they were given, so we can ‘flow on’ with the exploration? Would that be okay?

Can anything be known without the knowing of it? In order for colour, sound, smell etc to exist, they must be known…right? Since there is no separation there cannot be something that is knowing of the known. Can you separate a smell from the knowing of it? If not, how can smell be separate to the knowing of it? So how can there be a dividing line between knowing and known…the ‘AND’ immediately implies separation. So can you see how there can be no ‘experiencer’ of experience?

Yes Kay, I see it. I am not saying that experience is experiencing it self (cause that implies that something is looking, and there is not even something, it just IS, but that the closest I can explain with words.

Yes, exactly. Experience cannot experience itself, it is experience! Haha…it is hard to put into words :)

The label ‘colour’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of colour! :) Same goes for sound, sensation and so on.

I think it is really amazing, to now see your way of guiding. First I learned about AE,to separate it from what IS, and now I learn that AE is just labes as well, but only after that you have seen that I have understood what experience is. It is so awesome how THIS is doing all of it. How experience is sort of teaching it self.

Yes, however experience does not teach itself anything. Experience is never confused, lost and never not knows itself. That would be impossible. Experience doesn’t HAVE colour…it IS colour. Experience doesn’t have aroma….it IS aroma. Experience doesn’t have flavour…it IS flavour. Experience doesn’t have sound….it IS sound. Experience doesn’t have sensation…it IS sensation. Experience doesn’t have thought….it IS thought. So how could experience possibly never know itself, it is everything that appears!

A lot of confusion today if it turns out that I am looking at a completely "wrong" direction. :P

You are not confused. You have seen that there is no division and that it is only thought that says experience is divided. However, as I wrote above, there is more to explore now. I like to be thorough so that when confusion and doubt appear, which they will, that we have explored through concepts so that you can LOOK to see that there is no separate self. So, yes, your trust is appreciated.

But for the sake of being thorough, let's look at the idea of 'confusion'.

The label 'confused' is the AE of thought and not the AE of confused
The sensation labelled 'confused' is the AE of sensation and not the AE of confused
The image/colour labelled 'Hesam/body' is the AE of colour and not the AE of confused.

So can 'confused' be found in AE? No. All that is appearing is thoughtsensationcolour. :)

Much love, Kay
xx

[Hesam]

Dear Kay <3

Thank you so much for the clarification, now I understand! :) (Confusion gone)

I just wanted to say thanks and that I will read through this again properly when I wake up :), and "sleep a little" on the questions and also LOOK more on the sleep VS waking state that you so kindly pointed at.

you to see through the concept of the ‘sense of self’ that comes with the idea that thoughts and mental images come from the forehead. Do you see what I mean?

Yes I understand now what you where pointing at :)

this exploration can become repetitive…but there is a method to the madness. :)

What 'you' are doing for 'me' here (and already done), I am forever grateful, and I trust your guidance to 100%.

Talk more tomorrow. (And also I wish you a happy new year <3)
Much love!
Hesam

[forgetmenot]

Happy New Year to you, Hesam...and I look forward to hearing from you in 2107 ;)

Love, Kay
xx

[Hesam]

Hi Kay, I hope that you had a safe and good new years eve :). I thought yesterday that confusion was gone, but you will see in this post that it still is there. Sorry for the trouble and being all over the place in this post.. :-/

So can you go back and answer the questions as they were given, so we can ‘flow on’ with the exploration? Would that be okay?

Thank you so much for explaining the exercise about the forehead and the eyes, is it still needed to answer them with what I have written below? (I am in other words asking if I have seen through the difficulty I had with the dream and day to day life.)
So a "dream" when sleeping, is actually also colours/images right? When one is dreaming and "seeing things" is AE of colour/image, and not AE of thought (you explained that they are lumbered with thought however) ( Like I said previously that Mental images is thought (which was not correct), rather mental images is colour/image.. Am I correct? A mental image from the forehead is nothing different from the visual image from the eyes, they are both AE of colour/image.
Because lets say in the night time sleep,if I dream about an 'elephant', which is just a colour/image, the thought is what labels it 'elephant' in the dream even, just like thought would do if I would see a elephant in "day to day life"... right?



I was trying to answer the questions to get back to the 'flow' of the exploration, but I got totally blocked, the questions is like greek to me right now, because I am thinking that you already explained in the last post that:
"as a means for you to see that there is no correlation between a thought and a sensation, and that thoughts don’t ‘come’ from the forehead for you to see through the concept of the ‘sense of self’ that comes with the idea that thoughts and mental images come from the forehead. Do you see what I mean?"
So in my head I am thinking "It got explained, or is it something else he is pointing at?"

I still tried too answer however, and I did not remove it, just for you to see what I was thinking about.

Here are the questions I have problem with now:

So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?

And these

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

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

Are these questions still related to the sleep and day to day life difficulty I have( or had depending on what you take from my answers), or are they about something completely new? (Stupid question, you already explained but I have to ask one more time.)

So this is what I wrote regarding the questions:

You are correct, Hesam. Neither thought, sensation, colour, sound, smell or taste COME from anywhere and nor are they created by anything or each other.

You explained this, so know I know that they cant create anything from each other. (Because I was actually going into that direction AGAIN when wanting to answer the questions, even thought you explained it all to me...)

So, can a thought come from a sensation?

The question draws me back to the sensation exercise with the finger and head, or feet and the floor. You asked me to drop all thoughts, and see what was left, and it was just 'pressure'. But to be able to understand the word ' pressure' I must know about the label "pressure". In that way, or in that exercise, thought was the thing that came from the sensation.
I mean the only thing that is allowing for a thought to come from a sensation is from of the illusion "Hesam". I am the one who is allowing a thought to come from a sensation, 'I am' the one who things that things are happening to me.

Can a thought come from a mental image?

Here it just says stop again Kay, I am very very sorry :(, I just keep thinking that you already explained that it can't, and if they can't, whats left for me to answer? I mean 'Hesam' don't exist, there is no individual, there is no thoughts coming from the forehead or visuals being seen from the eyes.

I feel like I am all over the place with these questions. And it was only these questions left that I did not answered when looking at the previous reply you posted.

Much love,
Hesam

[forgetmenot]

Hi Hesam,

Okay, Hesam. Let’s just put aside the whole dream thing…we will come back to that later. What concerns me is that you wrote several times “that I (Kay) have explained things to you, therefore you now know. That’s not good. I don’t want you taking what I say on board as if it’s gospel! I am not a teacher trying to give you new beliefs or to see it my way. This process is about you looking at your beliefs for yourself, to see if they are true/correct! I might explain things to help clarify what is pointed at, but then you must LOOK for yourself to see it for yourself.

So, I am going to go back to basics. Whether or not I have explained something or you feel you have already seen this. I would just like for you to follow the exercise and tell me what you find. Just like you followed the thought exercise I gave you. Just follow the exercise instructions. Okay? It is that simple. So, if I ask you if a thought can come from a sensation, I don’t want you to think about it, I don’t want you to think about what I have already explained…I want you to actually LOOK. I want you to literally look at the sensation and ask the question. “Can a thought come from a sensation”? And if you can see that a thought does not come from a sensation..then that is what you answer with. However, if you are not sure, then you tell me that as well. I don’t want you to answer with what you think MIGHT be the right answer. This isn’t about getting questions right. Getting questions right is about learning something from someone. This is about actually seeing it for yourself through actual, literal LOOKING. Is this clear?

So, can a thought come from a sensation?

The question draws me back to the sensation exercise with the finger and head, or feet and the floor. You asked me to drop all thoughts, and see what was left, and it was just 'pressure'. But to be able to understand the word ' pressure' I must know about the label "pressure". In that way, or in that exercise, thought was the thing that came from the sensation.

LOOK again, Hesam and LOOK very carefully at the questions.

Close your eyes and put a finger to the top of the head. Now ignore all thoughts about the head and finger, and really LOOK at what is actually there?

Is it ‘pressure’, or it is sensation which thought THEN labels ‘pressure’?
Does the sensation know anything about ‘pressure’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘pressure’?
So, can a thought literally come from a sensation?

I mean the only thing that is allowing for a thought to come from a sensation is from of the illusion "Hesam". I am the one who is allowing a thought to come from a sensation, 'I am' the one who things that things are happening to me.

Tell me Hesam, can an illusory unicorn be ridden? Can an illusory unicorn actually fly? If not, then how can an illusory Hesam allow a thought to come from a sensation, or have things happen to? If something is illusory…then does it actually exist?

Where can an "I" be found in either the sensation or thought that is labelling the sensation 'pressure'?

Much love, Kay
xx

[Hesam]

Hey Kay!

So, I am going to go back to basic

Thank you

Just follow the exercise instructions. Okay? It is that simple

I am trying to LOOK Kay, I really am, and it was not simple for me, the question “Can a thought come from a sensation” just caused error in the head. But next time I will just tell straight away if I am not sure, instead of overthinking when I should be spending that time in LOOKING instead.

Is this clear?

Yes

Is it ‘pressure’, or it is sensation which thought THEN labels ‘pressure’?

It is a sensation, which thought then labels 'pressure'.

Does the sensation know anything about ‘pressure’?

No

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

No

So, can a thought literally come from a sensation?

No

Tell me Hesam, can an illusory unicorn be ridden? Can an illusory unicorn actually fly? If not, then how can an illusory Hesam allow a thought to come from a sensation, or have things happen to? If something is illusory…then does it actually exist?

I see.. no something illusory does not exist.

Where can an "I" be found in either the sensation or thought that is labelling the sensation 'pressure'?

Nowhere, the sensation or thought knows nothing about them self.. and not about something else either, as an "I".

Thank you Kay, I needed to go back to basics

Much love
Hesam