I abandon "myself" into your hands. :)

[Kamil]

Hey Kay,

NO, it cannot, because it's just the word. Although if 'brain' is AE of a thought and you wrote,:
If the content of thought contained experience, then the word ‘hot’ would be hot.
so it means that the content of the word doesn't contain experience, but it can be an AE? Is it a problem of a perspective? Can there be, actually, an AE of something else than mine?

If thought contained experience and the thought ‘hot’ appeared, then the sensation labelled ‘hot’ would be contained within the thought each time the thought appeared. So now, ‘think’ the word ‘hot’. Does the sensation labelled ‘hot’ appear with it?

NO, of course it doesn't.

Of course, it cannot. It's just a colour. But it can have an AE, just as a thought can. So it means it has separate (own?) perspective?

How can colour have its own perspective and its own actual experience?
Firstly, that just points to separation and secondly it doesn’t even make sense. So there is no “I” that can have its own perspective and experiences but colour can choose what it becomes and what perspective it has?

No way it has. Let me explain this confusion from my site. I got it today at work. The whole 'problem' with perspective emerged from the fact that English is not mine mother tongue. I simply misunderstood the context at the beginning of our writings and than I was looking with that wrong understanding.

So, yes, it's all clear know. I can see the Actual Experience. It's very simple. It's just colour, smell, sensation, taste, sound and thought. Six aspect of Actual Experience. Six aspects of everything.

The label ‘sky’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of the sky
The colour labelled ‘sky’ is the AE of colour and not the AE of the sky.
Can you see this?

Hallelujah, I can!

Experience appears as thought as well as colour, sound, smell, taste and sensation and there is no hierarchy of experience. However, thought seems to be more prevalent but there is no separation between what experience is appearing as. It is only thought that divides experience into these categories.

Yes, that's right. Thought seems to be stronger or even omnipresent. Until you start to look, and see the content of thought as AE of thought. Nothing else but one of the aspects of AE.

What is it exactly that can spend less time in thought and more time elsewhere?

It's content of the thought. It' s the 'I' that doesn't exist. 'I' is AE of thought. The 'I' cannot be found in looking, smelling, tasting, hearing or even in the sensation. 'The story of me' is all thought content therefore it's an AE of thought.

So what thought labels as ‘tired/fatigued’ is the appearance/experience of thought + sensation.
Is this clear?

Yes, it is.

Can you find anyone/anything that is having AN experience?

Can you find a dividing line to where 'you' end and a thought begins?

Answer to both questions is: no, I cannot. Even the words as silence, presence, nothing, void, emptiness, etc. are not adequate. They are just content of the thought.

Thanks,

Kamil

[forgetmenot]

Hey Kamil,

Just wanted to let you know…you are doing great! :)

How can colour have its own perspective and its own actual experience?
Firstly, that just points to separation and secondly it doesn’t even make sense. So there is no “I” that can have its own perspective and experiences but colour can choose what it becomes and what perspective it has?

So, yes, it's all clear know. I can see the Actual Experience. It's very simple. It's just colour, smell, sensation, taste, sound and thought. Six aspect of Actual Experience. Six aspects of everything.

Yes…exactly! :)

The label ‘sky’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of the sky
The colour labelled ‘sky’ is the AE of colour and not the AE of the sky.
Can you see this?

Hallelujah, I can!

Haha….great! :)

Experience appears as thought as well as colour, sound, smell, taste and sensation and there is no hierarchy of experience. However, thought seems to be more prevalent but there is no separation between what experience is appearing as. It is only thought that divides experience into these categories.

Yes, that's right. Thought seems to be stronger or even omnipresent. Until you start to look, and see the content of thought as AE of thought. Nothing else but one of the aspects of AE.

You cottoned on so quickly…lovely! :)

What is it exactly that can spend less time in thought and more time elsewhere?

It's content of the thought. It' s the 'I' that doesn't exist. 'I' is AE of thought. The 'I' cannot be found in looking, smelling, tasting, hearing or even in the sensation. 'The story of me' is all thought content therefore it's an AE of thought.

Yes, exactly! So let’s see if we can bring that understanding into a recognition and not just an understanding :)

So, let’s take a closer look a thought.

Sit for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

- Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
- Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
- Where are they coming from and going to?
- Can you predict your next thought?
- Can you push away any thought?
- Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
- Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?
- Can you choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?
- Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
- Is it possible to control any thoughts?
- Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?
- It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Look carefully when doing this exercise and do it several times if necessary. Please answer each question individually.

Love, Kay
xx

[Kamil]

Hello Kay,

Sit for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Does it make any difference whether I observe thoughts with closed or open eyes? If they are open, should I stare in one spot, or I can look around? Probably you'll say that it doesn't matter, but it's always better to ask.

I've done it for around half an hour with some breaks. I want to repeat it tomorrow.

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

No, it seems to be unattainable. I tried to think a particular thought, but I do not know what that thought would be in the first place. The one that tries to think a thought is a thought itself. It's clearly that there is no-one creating any thoughts. Although the thought 'I' makes the confusion. Thought 'I' says that it can do this or that.

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

Imposible.

- Where are they coming from and going to?

They just appear and disappear. There's no some other place the might come from or go to.

- Can you predict your next thought?

No chance.

- Can you push away any thought?

Seeing thoughts as an AE of a thoughts seems to make them less important and much 'lighter'. LOOKING makes them disappear as well. At least it looks like.
I know, you'll ask: to whom it seems to be less lighter? To me, so to a different thought.

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

No way. You can't choose your thoughts. Who would be making that choice? Some other thought? Thought thinking thoughts... :)

- Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

No, they fly freely - untouched. If 'I' is a thought and could stop other thought, than two thoughts would have to exist at the same moment. It's seems to be impossible. Thoughts appear one after the other.

I wrote earlier that LOOKING could make thought vanish. So again, If 'I' is a thought and it's obvious that thought cannot LOOK, simply because it's only a thought, than what is the LOOKING? LOOKING seems to be a decision. Your massages make me (this experience, this something) LOOK. What is it all about Kay?

- Can you choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

No, 'I' cannot. Otherwise painful and negative thoughts would not exist.

- Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

According to my previous answers 'I' should write 'no', but 'I' remember one of the meditation techniques. You observe the thoughts, pick one and try to think it back. As far 'I' remember 'I' could do it to some extent and the exercise would stop thinking or make it less pushy.

It's strange to write it knowing that 'you' and 'I' and all of this is just thinking...So who is it that fells strange? Thought can't experience sensation, but it looks like that thoughts create feelings.

- Is it possible to control any thoughts?

You cannot control "new"(fresh) thoughts, but the exercise 'I' mentioned above shows that you can think the thought again. I'm trying it now and it's quite impossible. They simply 'evaporate'. You cannot grasp it, because it's not solid.

- Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

Impossible to check. In order to know if you could prevent the thought from appearing, you would have to know what thought was going to appear. Than you could say: I stopped that thought from appearing. But it's again thought stopping thought. Thoughts do not have any owner. They do not belong to anyone.

- It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

There is no organisation. It's a chaos. No controller. Thought after thought, after thought. Whatever statement is being made it's only a thought. So what is it Kay?

Thank you.

Kamil

[forgetmenot]

Hello Kamil,

Sit for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Does it make any difference whether I observe thoughts with closed or open eyes? If they are open, should I stare in one spot, or I can look around? Probably you'll say that it doesn't matter, but it's always better to ask.
I've done it for around half an hour with some breaks. I want to repeat it tomorrow.

You could try doing it both ways, whichever way you find it easier to just notice appearing thought. If you are going to notice thoughts with the eyes open, then yes, it would be easier if you just stare at one spot.

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

No, it seems to be unattainable. I tried to think a particular thought, but I do not know what that thought would be in the first place. The one that tries to think a thought is a thought itself. It's clearly that there is no-one creating any thoughts. Although the thought 'I' makes the confusion. Thought 'I' says that it can do this or that.

Yes, exactly. The label “I” is what makes it appear that there is an “I” thinking and controlling thought.

However, can a thought think? So is it possible for a thought to think a thought?

Can an actual “I” be found, or only thoughts about an “I”?

The label “I” is the AE of thought and not the AE of an “I”
The colour labelled “I/me/body” is the AE of colour and not the AE of an “I"
The sensation labelled “I” is the AE of sensation and not the AE of an “I”

- Can you push away any thought?

Seeing thoughts as an AE of a thoughts seems to make them less important and much 'lighter'. LOOKING makes them disappear as well. At least it looks like.
I know, you'll ask: to whom it seems to be less lighter? To me, so to a different thought.

Thoughts are not AE of a thought, just as colour is not AE of colour! The term ACTUAL EXPERIENCE refers to EXPERIENCE ITSELF (THIS that IS). Thoughts do not experience themselves! Thoughts are an appearance in/of THIS.

- Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

No, they fly freely - untouched. If 'I' is a thought and could stop other thought, than two thoughts would have to exist at the same moment. It's seems to be impossible. Thoughts appear one after the other.

Look carefully here, how is it known that “thoughts appear one after another”?
How is it known where a middle of a thought is?

I wrote earlier that LOOKING could make thought vanish. So again, If 'I' is a thought and it's obvious that thought cannot LOOK, simply because it's only a thought, than what is the LOOKING? LOOKING seems to be a decision. Your massages make me (this experience, this something) LOOK. What is it all about Kay?

Good question and one that may be addressed later...but for now, we are LOOKING at what you are NOT.

- Can you choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

No, 'I' cannot. Otherwise painful and negative thoughts would not exist.

How is it known that there are painful and negative thoughts?
What is it exactly that describes/judges thoughts as negative and painful?

- Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

According to my previous answers 'I' should write 'no', but 'I' remember one of the meditation techniques. You observe the thoughts, pick one and try to think it back. As far 'I' remember 'I' could do it to some extent and the exercise would stop thinking or make it less pushy.

There is no such thing as 'memory'. Memory is a conceptual framework that suggests there is a storage system where thoughts and images are retrieved. What is the AE of memory?

How is it known that those were the previous thoughts thought?
How is it known that one thought came before another thought and one thought followed another?
When are those 'remembered' thoughts actually appearing?

It's strange to write it knowing that 'you' and 'I' and all of this is just thinking...So who is it that fells strange? Thought can't experience sensation, but it looks like that thoughts create feelings.

How is it known that thought creates feeling?
What is it exactly that links a thought and a sensation and says they go hand in hand?

- Is it possible to control any thoughts?

You cannot control "new"(fresh) thoughts, but the exercise 'I' mentioned above shows that you can think the thought again. I'm trying it now and it's quite impossible. They simply 'evaporate'. You cannot grasp it, because it's not solid.

[/color]
So, you went to some sort of storage container where previous thoughts are contained…rifled through this storage container until you found the thought you thought you thought previously and chose it, so you could bring that thought to the forefront again? If you can do that…how can you ever forget a thought? Plus I would really like for you to describe to me where this container is and what it looks like.

- Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

Impossible to check. In order to know if you could prevent the thought from appearing, you would have to know what thought was going to appear. Than you could say: I stopped that thought from appearing. But it's again thought stopping thought. Thoughts do not have any owner. They do not belong to anyone.

Thought cannot stop other thought. Thoughts do not have a life of their own.

Close your eyes and notice thoughts…and then try to stop the thoughts and really notice if thoughts have actually stopped.

Where does one thought end and another begin?

- It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

There is no organisation. It's a chaos. No controller. Thought after thought, after thought. Whatever statement is being made it's only a thought. So what is it Kay?

Experience appears as thoughtsmellsensationttastesoundcolour and experience is appearing as the story of LOOKING. Thought appears that ‘tell stories’, and thoughts appearance is not thought but experience itself showing up as thought.

Love, Kay
xxx

[Kamil]

Hi Kay,

However, can a thought think? So is it possible for a thought to think a thought?

No. Thought doesn't contain experience.

Can an actual “I” be found, or only thoughts about an “I”?

The 'I' is a thought. It appears and disappears like any other concept.

Look carefully here, how is it known that “thoughts appear one after another”?

It cannot be known. The idea “thoughts appear one after another” is a thought itself. Just like 'before' and 'after' are just the content of thoughts. Neither 'before' nor 'after' can be experienced.

How is it known where a middle of a thought is?

Thought doesn't have a middle. It is another concept.

How is it known that there are painful and negative thoughts?

None of the thoughts are painful or negative. Who is there to make the judgment in first place? Who is there to suffer? Thought makes the delusion that something is good or bad.

What is it exactly that describes/judges thoughts as negative and painful?

It is a thought.

There is no such thing as 'memory'. Memory is a conceptual framework that suggests there is a storage system where thoughts and images are retrieved. What is the AE of memory?

The AE of memory is just a thought.

How is it known that those were the previous thoughts thought?

It can't be known. The idea that there is a previous, last or next thought is a thought itself.

How is it known that one thought came before another thought and one thought followed another?

The above assumption is just a thought.

When are those 'remembered' thoughts actually appearing?

'When" is a thought as well. It's a meaningless concept that leads to other thought content. It cannot be experienced.

How is it known that thought creates feeling?

The assumption 'thought creates feeling' is impossible to experienced. What makes that statement is a thought itself.

What is it exactly that links a thought and a sensation and says they go hand in hand?

It's a thought.

So, you went to some sort of storage container where previous thoughts are contained…rifled through this storage container until you found the thought you thought you thought previously and chose it, so you could bring that thought to the forefront again? If you can do that…how can you ever forget a thought? Plus I would really like for you to describe to me where this container is and what it looks like.

Container exist as a concept only. It cannot be experienced, except as a thought.

Close your eyes and notice thoughts…and then try to stop the thoughts and really notice if thoughts have actually stopped.

Cannot be done. There is no-one to stop the thought.

Where does one thought end and another begin?

Thought doesn't have the beginning or end.

Experience appears as thoughtsmellsensationttastesoundcolour and experience is appearing as the story of LOOKING. Thought appears that ‘tell stories’, and thoughts appearance is not thought but experience itself showing up as thought.

It is clearly that in 'thoughtsmellsensationttastesoundcolourthoughtsmellsensationttastesoundcolourthoughtsmellsensationttastesoundcolour...' there is no experiencer.

Again, thanks a lot.

Kamil

[forgetmenot]

Hi Kamil,

Can an actual “I” be found, or only thoughts about an “I”?

The 'I' is a thought. It appears and disappears like any other concept.

Yes….so it is clear that there are only thoughts ABOUT a separate “I”?

Look carefully here, how is it known that “thoughts appear one after another”?

It cannot be known. The idea “thoughts appear one after another” is a thought itself. Just like 'before' and 'after' are just the content of thoughts. Neither 'before' nor 'after' can be experienced.

Yes…terrific! Nice LOOKING.

How is it known that there are painful and negative thoughts?

None of the thoughts are painful or negative. Who is there to make the judgment in first place? Who is there to suffer? Thought makes the delusion that something is good or bad.

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

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

Is the red colour experienced or is the green colour experienced as the label suggests?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness the inherent attribute of the experience of the red colour, or green is just a word label on the experience of the red colour?

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

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

When are those 'remembered' thoughts actually appearing?

'When" is a thought as well. It's a meaningless concept that leads to other thought content. It cannot be experienced.

Yes, the word ‘when’ points to time.
However, you didn’t answer my question. When a ‘remembered’ thought/image/smell/taste etc appears, when are they actually appearing?

So, you went to some sort of storage container where previous thoughts are contained…rifled through this storage container until you found the thought you thought you thought previously and chose it, so you could bring that thought to the forefront again? If you can do that…how can you ever forget a thought? Plus I would really like for you to describe to me where this container is and what it looks like.

Container exist as a concept only. It cannot be experienced, except as a thought.

What is it exactly that is experiencing a thought?
Is there a place where thought stops, and the "knowing" of it starts?




I think you have seen through thoughts and seen the difference between AE of thought and content of thought. So now let’s move onto the idea of control.

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down.
2. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.
Watch like a hawk.

Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire…

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?


Love, Kay
xx

[Kamil]

Hello Kay,

Yes….so it is clear that there are only thoughts ABOUT a separate “I”?

Yes it is.

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

The AE is both a colour and a thought.

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

The AE of this colour is a colour. Thought automatically 'reads' the word. What happens next is the thought comments: "No it's red not green".

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

It's red.

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

No, the labels are just thoughts. Concepts about 'reality'.

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

They suggest something different. The majority of thought stories are not about here and now. Thought is time, time is thought. They are either 'concerned' with the past or future.

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

It's just the label. Thought cannot be an experience of colour.

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

No it cannot be. Let's say that content of the thought is something 'separate' from the experience. It is not the same 'level of reality'. Of course, there is no level.

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

No, it cannot be.

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

With this example it is very clear that labels cannot affect the colour. If we go further, we can state that all labels are the same, simply because every label is a thought. The conclusion is that the 'I', being a thought, has no effect on 'reality' as well. Therefore the story of 'I' is nothing else than a content of a thought. The 'I' cannot do anything, because it doesn't exist in 'reality'.

However, you didn’t answer my question. When a ‘remembered’ thought/image/smell/taste etc appears, when are they actually appearing?

'Present moment' or 'now' are just labels. Many great sages teach that there is only present moment, but in reality - 'where' experience is everything - we cannot experience 'now'. All there is is the experience.
'Remembered' thought can appear only in experience.

What is it exactly that is experiencing a thought?

The conclusion is that it can only be the experience itself.

Is there a place where thought stops, and the "knowing" of it starts?

No, 'place' doesn't exist. It's a concept. There are 'moments' that the 'I' wakes up from a stream of thoughts. 'I' notices that it was absent for 'some period of time'. If 'I' is a thought, than it means that the thought comments on thought. Although 'thought comments on thought' is just the content of thought.

How is the movement controlled?

It cannot be experienced. Whatever idea comes is a thought.

Does a thought control it?

No.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No it can't. Just the experience. Description or controller is the content of thought.

How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.

The decision cannot be experienced.

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

No, I can't. In the experience 'thoughtsmellsensationttastesoundcolour' there is no experiencer. It can only exist in the content of thought.

Kay, among the six aspects of AE only thought seems to be so diversified and complex. Only thought has its content. Rest of the elements are 'flat'.

Thanks.

Kamil

[forgetmenot]

Hey Kamil,

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

The AE of this colour is a colour. Thought automatically 'reads' the word. What happens next is the thought comments: "No it's red not green".

I would like for you to look outside the window, or look around the room you are in. Ignore all thought and idea of objects and just notice colour. Where does one colour end and another begin? Are there different colours or just colour?

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

It's just the label. Thought cannot be an experience of colour.

Is there a dividing line to where thought ends and colour begins?

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

No it cannot be. Let's say that content of the thought is something 'separate' from the experience. It is not the same 'level of reality'. Of course, there is no level.

So is experience affected or changed in anyway by labels/thoughts?

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

With this example it is very clear that labels cannot affect the colour. If we go further, we can state that all labels are the same, simply because every label is a thought. The conclusion is that the 'I', being a thought, has no effect on 'reality' as well. Therefore the story of 'I' is nothing else than a content of a thought. The 'I' cannot do anything, because it doesn't exist in 'reality'.

Yes, lovely, Kamil.

However, you didn’t answer my question. When a ‘remembered’ thought/image/smell/taste etc appears, when are they actually appearing?

'Present moment' or 'now' are just labels. Many great sages teach that there is only present moment, but in reality - 'where' experience is everything - we cannot experience 'now'. All there is is the experience.
'Remembered' thought can appear only in experience.

Wonderful!
Tell me, what did you have for lunch today?

What is it exactly that is experiencing a thought?

The conclusion is that it can only be the experience itself.

You use the words “THE experience itself”…this points to thought experiencing itself.
Can thought experience a thought?

Is there a place where thought stops, and the "knowing" of it starts?

No, 'place' doesn't exist. It's a concept. There are 'moments' that the 'I' wakes up from a stream of thoughts. 'I' notices that it was absent for 'some period of time'. If 'I' is a thought, than it means that the thought comments on thought. Although 'thought comments on thought' is just the content of thought.

I want you to LOOK and tell me, can there ever be a thought without the knowing of it? Can a dividing line be found between a thought and the knowing of it?

How is the movement controlled?

It cannot be experienced. Whatever idea comes is a thought.

So what is the AE of ‘movement’?

Close the eyes and flip the hand. Ignore all thought and images about a hand flipping and what is the actual experience?

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No it can't. Just the experience. Description or controller is the content of thought.

Just the experience of what exactly?

Kay, among the six aspects of AE only thought seems to be so diversified and complex. Only thought has its content. Rest of the elements are 'flat'.

Yes, however, “thought seeming to be diversified and complex” is just story about thought.


Love, Kay
xx

[Kamil]

Hi Kay,

I would like for you to look outside the window, or look around the room you are in. Ignore all thought and idea of objects and just notice colour. Where does one colour end and another begin? Are there different colours or just colour?

There is only one colour. It doesn't end. Thought 'divides' colours by naming them. However, in reality, it simply cannot be divided.

Is there a dividing line to where thought ends and colour begins?

The dividing line cannot be experienced. It doesn't exist.

So is experience affected or changed in anyway by labels/thoughts?

No, it looks like it cannot be.

Tell me, what did you have for lunch today?

Haha. It has to be a tricky question... :) I had some salad, grapes and two muffins.

You use the words “THE experience itself”…this points to thought experiencing itself.
Can thought experience a thought?

Ok, so if the 'experience' experienced a thought, and thought is an 'aspect' of the 'experience', it would mean that thought can experience a thought. We have already 'established' that it cannot 'happen'. Thought can't experience a thought..

I want you to LOOK and tell me, can there ever be a thought without the knowing of it? Can a dividing line be found between a thought and the knowing of it?

No, it can't. No dividing lines or borders can be experienced. Anyway, it's 'thoughtsmellsensationttastesoundcolour' and it means that 'knowing' of a thought cannot be experienced as well. Just as a thought.

So what is the AE of ‘movement’?

AE of 'movement' is thought.

Close the eyes and flip the hand. Ignore all thought and images about a hand flipping and what is the actual experience?

It's amazing. Movement cannot be experienced! Indeed, it's just a thought.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No it can't. Just the experience. Description or controller is the content of thought.

Just the experience of what exactly?

When it comes to the 'effect', this question points to the same 'experience' as previous one. It 'proves' that 'experience' is just a thought. It cannot be experienced. What stays can't be described. It's not a thought, smell, sensation, taste, sound or colour. Whatever you want to call it, it's not it.

Thank you Kay.

Kamil

[forgetmenot]

Hi Kamil,

I would like for you to look outside the window, or look around the room you are in. Ignore all thought and idea of objects and just notice colour. Where does one colour end and another begin? Are there different colours or just colour?

There is only one colour. It doesn't end. Thought 'divides' colours by naming them. However, in reality, it simply cannot be divided.

Yes, exactly. So there are not many colours…there is just colour. And colour and experience are one and the same.

Is there a dividing line to where thought ends and colour begins?

The dividing line cannot be experienced. It doesn't exist.

Yes, so in this example, there is no thought AND colour, there is only thoughtcolour? Yes?

Tell me, what did you have for lunch today?

Haha. It has to be a tricky question... :) I had some salad, grapes and two muffins.

Haha yes! So, is there any actual evidence that you had a salad, grapes and two muffins for lunch, or did those thoughts and images appear when you ‘answered the question’ ie in that ‘moment’? (yes, there are no ‘moments’, but I would like for you to answer the question please from your understanding of what I am pointing to here).

You use the words “THE experience itself”…this points to thought experiencing itself.
Can thought experience a thought?

Ok, so if the 'experience' experienced a thought, and thought is an 'aspect' of the 'experience', it would mean that thought can experience a thought. We have already 'established' that it cannot 'happen'. Thought can't experience a thought..

Thought seemingly ‘divides’ experience into 6 aspects and labels them Thought AND smell AND sound AND sensation AND taste AND colour. Thought then tells stories about those aspects, however these aspects are not divided and are thoughtsoundsemllsensationtastecolour. So experience and soundtastecoloursmellthoughtsensation are one and the same thing. However, without labelling (which is hard since we need to communicate this) there is still experience which is labelled ‘sensation’! How could there not be? Experience appears as everything but is no ‘thing’. So there is no THE experience...there is only experience and experience is soundcoloursensationthoughtsmelltaste - no division.

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?

I want you to LOOK and tell me, can there ever be a thought without the knowing of it? Can a dividing line be found between a thought and the knowing of it?

No, it can't. No dividing lines or borders can be experienced. Anyway, it's 'thoughtsmellsensationttastesoundcolour' and it means that 'knowing' of a thought cannot be experienced as well. Just as a thought.

Thoughts have to be ‘known’ in order for them to exist, just as colour, smell and so on. However, is there a dividing line between the ‘knowing’ of what is ‘known’ ie thought? Is there knowing and known (knowing/known) or just knowingknown?

Close the eyes and flip the hand. Ignore all thought and images about a hand flipping and what is the actual experience?

It's amazing. Movement cannot be experienced! Indeed, it's just a thought.

No, the concept of ‘movement’ cannot be ‘experienced’…however LOOK again.
Close the eyes and ‘move the hand around’, what is the actual experience other than thought?

Just the experience of what exactly?

When it comes to the 'effect', this question points to the same 'experience' as previous one. It 'proves' that 'experience' is just a thought. It cannot be experienced. What stays can't be described. It's not a thought, smell, sensation, taste, sound or colour. Whatever you want to call it, it's not it.

So, what I think you are saying, is that if you ignore all the labels and thoughts about what experience is…all that is left is experience itself? (The word ‘experience’ and WHAT IS or THIS are one and the same – some call it ‘awareness’, ‘consciousness’….in this exploration, the term ‘experience’ is being used).

Love, Kay
xx

[Kamil]

Hey Kay,

Yes, so in this example, there is no thought AND colour, there is only thoughtcolour? Yes?

Yes. It's experience. 'Dividing line' is a thought. One cannot experience anything else apart from experience.

Haha yes! So, is there any actual evidence that you had a salad, grapes and two muffins for lunch, or did those thoughts and images appear when you ‘answered the question’ ie in that ‘moment’? (yes, there are no ‘moments’, but I would like for you to answer the question please from your understanding of what I am pointing to here).

You are pointing to the AE of thought. Evidence doesn't exist. Only thought.

Thought seemingly ‘divides’ experience into 6 aspects and labels them Thought AND smell AND sound AND sensation AND taste AND colour. Thought then tells stories about those aspects, however these aspects are not divided and are thoughtsoundsemllsensationtastecolour. So experience and soundtastecoloursmellthoughtsensation are one and the same thing. However, without labelling (which is hard since we need to communicate this) there is still experience which is labelled ‘sensation’! How could there not be? Experience appears as everything but is no ‘thing’. So there is no THE experience...there is only experience and experience is soundcoloursensationthoughtsmelltaste - no division.

Yes, it's clear.

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?

I think I understand that. It's quite logical. What you refer to is that 'colour' is experience, but experience is not a colour, it's soundcoloursensationthoughtsmelltaste. It's all there is. Cannot be divided.

Thoughts have to be ‘known’ in order for them to exist, just as colour, smell and so on. However, is there a dividing line between the ‘knowing’ of what is ‘known’ ie thought? Is there knowing and known (knowing/known) or just knowing known?

I guess this is what Jiddu Krishnamurti meant by "the observer is the observed".

There is 'knowingknown'.

No, the concept of ‘movement’ cannot be ‘experienced’…however LOOK again.
Close the eyes and ‘move the hand around’, what is the actual experience other than thought?

It's experience. What else could there be? It's ‘consciousness’, ‘awareness’, 'it', 'now', 'silence', 'void', 'emptiness', 'space', 'unnameable', and so on.

So, what I think you are saying, is that if you ignore all the labels and thoughts about what experience is…all that is left is experience itself? (The word ‘experience’ and WHAT IS or THIS are one and the same – some call it ‘awareness’, ‘consciousness’….in this exploration, the term ‘experience’ is being used).

Yes, exactly.

Thanks.

Kamil

[forgetmenot]

Hello Kamil,

Yes, so in this example, there is no thought AND colour, there is only thoughtcolour? Yes?

Yes. It's experience. 'Dividing line' is a thought. One cannot experience anything else apart from experience.

And what is this experience that one is experiencing?

Haha yes! So, is there any actual evidence that you had a salad, grapes and two muffins for lunch, or did those thoughts and images appear when you ‘answered the question’ ie in that ‘moment’? (yes, there are no ‘moments’, but I would like for you to answer the question please from your understanding of what I am pointing to here).

You are pointing to the AE of thought. Evidence doesn't exist. Only thought.

I think we have a problem as you are denying the appearance of WHAT IS. We are not denying appearances…how could that be possible when they are experience itself appearing as everything. It is the story about the appearances which are what we are exploring.

If sensation *brrrrr brrrrr* is showing up, and thought is saying, "this is cold", you didn't need thought to say, "this is cold", in order to be aware of the "brrrr brrrr*, to which thought is referring. Thought is a commentator you have no need of, in order to be aware of *brrrr brrrrr*. But you know that the thought/concept "cold" is referring to ACTUAL experience of *brrrr brrrr*.

So *brrr brrrr* is experience, it is the stories that thought says about *brrr brrr* that is the illusion! Experience is not a void, silence, emptiness...they are all concepts! How can there be a void when experience is the void. Experience is the sound and is the silence!

Thoughts have to be ‘known’ in order for them to exist, just as colour, smell and so on. However, is there a dividing line between the ‘knowing’ of what is ‘known’ ie thought? Is there knowing and known (knowing/known) or just knowing known?

I guess this is what Jiddu Krishnamurti meant by "the observer is the observed".
There is 'knowingknown'.

I don’t want you to guess, Kamil….I want you to LOOK.

I want you sit quietly somewhere and close the eyes and listen for a sound. Can a dividing line be found between the knowing (awareness) of the sound and the sound itself (the known)?

No, the concept of ‘movement’ cannot be ‘experienced’…however LOOK again.
Close the eyes and ‘move the hand around’, what is the actual experience other than thought?

It's experience. What else could there be? It's ‘consciousness’, ‘awareness’, 'it', 'now', 'silence', 'void', 'emptiness', 'space', 'unnameable', and so on.

You are not LOOKING, you are just thinking your answers from what you think you know about all of this. That is not what I asked.

When the ‘hand is moved’ the actual experience is sensation. It is thought that says that the sensation is ‘hand moving’, but the actual experience is sensation and actual experience is the thoughts that make up the story about a hand moving.
Can you see this?

This exploration is not about what you think you know. Knowing about something is thought, while the knowing AS (the appearance) is direct/actual So please put aside everything you think you know and what you think ‘seeing’ through the separate self looks like and just LOOK with actual experience.

So, what I think you are saying, is that if you ignore all the labels and thoughts about what experience is…all that is left is experience itself? (The word ‘experience’ and WHAT IS or THIS are one and the same – some call it ‘awareness’, ‘consciousness’….in this exploration, the term ‘experience’ is being used).

Yes, exactly.

So, is colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation and sound illusions, if so, then how is experience known?

Kay
xx

[Kamil]

Hello Kay,

You are not LOOKING, you are just thinking your answers from what you think you know about all of this. That is not what I asked.

Ok, I think I'm stuck now. I admit that I do not know how to look, although I'm trying. It's not a joke for me. Finding the "truth", or whatever you want to call it, is the highest priority in my life. I've never had anything, I would be so determined about (this is not a complaint, simple fact). Everything else comes and goes and that's fine.

I'm thinking my answers... Yes it might be true, and probably is. I'm not doing it on purpose. Thinking is so diverse, mosaic and transparent that quite often I do not even know whether it's thinking or not. If I had a choice to snap my fingers and see the 'truth', I would do it straight away.

I understand what we're doing here 'intellectually' (yes, it's a thought, not SEEING). I trust you and people on that website completely. I have absolutely no doubts. I know this is up to me, the SEEING. I do not want to waste your time and I DO appreciate your commitment greatly. The thing is that it's quite confusing at the moment.

And what is this experience that one is experiencing?

I close my eyes and I look. I ignore thoughts, because I do not want think it out. It's blackness, sensations, hearing, thoughts. Nothing else at the moment. This is it.

I want you sit quietly somewhere and close the eyes and listen for a sound. Can a dividing line be found between the knowing (awareness) of the sound and the sound itself (the known)?

There's simply hearing. That's all. Calling it 'awareness' of sound or knowing of sound is a concept for me. The sound is.

When the ‘hand is moved’ the actual experience is sensation. It is thought that says that the sensation is ‘hand moving’, but the actual experience is sensation and actual experience is the thoughts that make up the story about a hand moving.
Can you see this?

Yes, there is sensation and thoughts. Although thoughts comment on everything all the time. It would be tremendous relief if they just stopped for good. I cannot stay with sensation, because thoughts come and take the attention into some story. The fact is that I do not 'spend' my daily time mostly with colour, sound, taste, sensation or aroma. Thoughts intrude and cover everything.

So, is colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation and sound illusions, if so, then how is experience known?

No, I do not claim they are illusions. There are no grounds to think so.

You are saying that nothing apart from thoughtsmellsensationttastesoundcolour exist. There is absolutely nothing else. Is that right? I'm asking, because I do not see it yet...

Cheers,

Kamil

[forgetmenot]

Hello Kamil,

Ok, I think I'm stuck now. I admit that I do not know how to look, although I'm trying. It's not a joke for me. Finding the "truth", or whatever you want to call it, is the highest priority in my life. I've never had anything, I would be so determined about (this is not a complaint, simple fact). Everything else comes and goes and that's fine.

I know it’s not a joke to you, Kamil…otherwise you wouldn’t be here. That is why I need you to LOOK and not think your answers with what you think you know from books and prior learning. I would like for you to put all that aside and just be here with an open mind and a willingness to LOOK.

In the beginning it takes time to shift from thinking to noticing and it can be frustrating as it requires some practice. Thoughts are the "wrong tool" to do this inquiry. This is about noticing what can be found in your immediate experience. Noticing what's going on ‘here now’ and describing what can be found ie actual experience of sound, thought, smell, taste, sensation and colour (image).

I understand what we're doing here 'intellectually' (yes, it's a thought, not SEEING). I trust you and people on that website completely. I have absolutely no doubts. I know this is up to me, the SEEING. I do not want to waste your time and I DO appreciate your commitment greatly. The thing is that it's quite confusing at the moment.

I appreciate your trust, you just have to trust the process and that ‘seeing’ happens when it happens. You cannot force it to happen as paradoxically there is no one that can force it to happen anyway! Having said that…I do need you to start to LOOK as it is the key to ‘seeing’.

And what is this experience that one is experiencing?

I close my eyes and I look. I ignore thoughts, because I do not want think it out. It's blackness, sensations, hearing, thoughts. Nothing else at the moment. This is it.

Yes! So what is appearing is colour (blackness) + sensations + sound + thought.

Could a ‘me’ be found anywhere in the colour or the sensations or the sound or the thoughts or only thoughts about a ‘me’?

I want you sit quietly somewhere and close the eyes and listen for a sound. Can a dividing line be found between the knowing (awareness) of the sound and the sound itself (the known)?

There's simply hearing. That's all. Calling it 'awareness' of sound or knowing of sound is a concept for me. The sound is.

Hearing is a concept. For something to be heard, points to someone hearing a sound. What could possibly be ‘hearing’?

For a sound to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ of sound!
Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ of the sound and the sound itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?

When the ‘hand is moved’ the actual experience is sensation. It is thought that says that the sensation is ‘hand moving’, but the actual experience is sensation and actual experience is the thoughts that make up the story about a hand moving.
Can you see this?

Yes, there is sensation and thoughts. Although thoughts comment on everything all the time. It would be tremendous relief if they just stopped for good. I cannot stay with sensation, because thoughts come and take the attention into some story. The fact is that I do not 'spend' my daily time mostly with colour, sound, taste, sensation or aroma. Thoughts intrude and cover everything.

Thought is actual experience but the meaning thought gives thought is the story. It is just thoughts about thought.

What is it exactly that could be “tremendously relieved if thought stopped for good”?


I would like for you to go back to the original exercise given at looking with AE and to do this for several days.

Label each experience simply colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:

Seeing a cup, simply= image/colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell,
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation.
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought.

Just break down all experiences into these categories (which are all actual experience)

You are saying that nothing apart from thoughtsmellsensationttastesoundcolour exist. There is absolutely nothing else. Is that right? I'm asking, because I do not see it yet...

I do not expect you to see much at all at this stage. We have only just begun. I am not going to answer your question…as I want you to SEE for yourself..and you will, as this exploration progresses.


Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts:

(1) Notice the current thought that is present.
Like when you sit observing the body, a thought might arise “this is my feet” or “here is a pain” or “my breathing is too quick” or “I am bored with this exercise” or “I have better things to do” or any sorts of thoughts.

(2) This thought will pass and another thought will come. So just observe this thought passing.

(3) Then wait for the next thought to come.

(4) When the next thought is present, just notice it, and see how it passes.

(5) Then wait for the next thought to come.

(6) Repeat #4 and #5 many-many times.

Between the 2 thoughts there is a gap. It can be very short or subtle, just a second or a few seconds before the next thought come in.

This is how to look at thoughts.
Looking how they come and go.
And observing the short gap between them.
Noticing how the current thought is passing.
And waiting for the next thought to come.

Please do the following exercise:
Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.

Let me know how you go.

Love, Kay
xx

[Kamil]

Hey Kay.

In the beginning it takes time to shift from thinking to noticing and it can be frustrating as it requires some practice. Thoughts are the "wrong tool" to do this inquiry. This is about noticing what can be found in your immediate experience. Noticing what's going on ‘here now’ and describing what can be found ie actual experience of sound, thought, smell, taste, sensation and colour (image).

It makes things quite clear. I've noticed some time ago that I look at world with thinking most of the time. It's really pervasive.

I appreciate your trust, you just have to trust the process and that ‘seeing’ happens when it happens. You cannot force it to happen as paradoxically there is no one that can force it to happen anyway! Having said that…I do need you to start to LOOK as it is the key to ‘seeing’.

Ok, it's all about LOOKING. Alright.

Could a ‘me’ be found anywhere in the colour or the sensations or the sound or the thoughts or only thoughts about a ‘me’?

The 'me' cannot be located anywhere apart from the thought content. It's always the story about me. I've noticed it today at least couple of times. When the story appears. It always talks about 'me', but no 'me' is present. Always a narrative.
As far as I can remember it's always been this way, but I have never questioned it. I might be wrong, however, I see it differently now. It's only a story that appears. It's not controlled or created by anyone. It's a free commentary. It doesn't matter how silly or true it seems to be.

Hearing is a concept. For something to be heard, points to someone hearing a sound. What could possibly be ‘hearing’?

By 'hearing' I meant sound. Yes, 'hearing' is a concept.

For a sound to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ of sound!
Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ of the sound and the sound itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?

Definitely no line can be found between 'knowing' and sound. Sound appears and disappears just like a thought.

I would like for you to go back to the original exercise given at looking with AE and to do this for several days.

Ok, I'll do.

What is it exactly that could be “tremendously relieved if thought stopped for good”?

I LOOK and I'm not able to find an answer for this question. Cannot locate it. I could think it out, and say... But I'm not going to do it.

Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.

I've been practicing the task you gave me. It's not easy at the begging. You catch yourself lost in doing necessary daily activities. I want the practice to go on. The gaps between thoughts 'taste' similar to LOOKING. It feels the same.

I've spent some time with 'Enlightening Quotes' app today. I finished reading the fear section. One of the quotes said that the fear creates the 'separate self'. I looked at it and I have to admit that there's something about that. There's so many little fears in me that have been going on for years. Very similar, almost transparent. I have never faced them really. They repeat themselves over and over again. They are 'connected' with the story of me. Each one of them is concerned with the 'me'. Protects the 'me'. They are part of the story.

Love,

Kamil