No Self Anywhere, Ever

[forgetmenot]

John,

I think my form of guiding does not suit you. I am pointing for you to see that there is no self and therefore no separation but instead of LOOKING you insist on trying to point to me so that I see what you are pointing to. There is no separation. There is no awareness OF experience. For there to be AWARENESS of experience, then an subject/object split would be real. There is ABSOLUTELY NO difference between what is referred to as "awareness", and what is referred to as "experience. The idea that there is any difference, is a pure thought construct. Just empty abstractions referring to other empty abstractions.

I will ask for another guide to take over this thread.

Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

Thank you for your efforts Kay. I will persist with whomever gets assigned to me. Last night I inquired into, "What is 'THIS' which Kay refers so strongly to?" I found nothing separable from the present moment. The whole moment is a singularity. THIS is all there is and all that there ever is.

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

Yes, exactly! :) I can see and could see from the beginning that you have already seen through the separate self, and that is great! Where I am heading in this exploration is to point to help you to see through further constructs ie body, time, objects, separation and thoughts, as these are the mechanisms that point to there being a separate self and cause the yo-yoing between clarity, doubt and confusion. Also it is important to see through these constructs, as this exploration into seeing through the self is only the beginning, as other realisations will happen and seeing what body, time, objects are, help with these other realisations.

Language is also a barrier, as you are using your terminology and I am using mine...so, that, can also be challenging, as until I am clear to what you are saying, then I will keep pointing to the same thing, as my role is to make sure you are clear. So from that perspective, simple language is the best.

If you like, we can give this another go, as I should have explained this to you before, so that we were on the same page, so to speak.

Let me know what you think.

Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

If you are willing Kay, I would love to continue with you.

In my direct experience right now there is simply a field of experience/awareness. The components of the field can be distinguished, labeled and described but that is simply a set of thought/experience/awareness. There is no self here, there or anywhere, ever. There is merely THIS, which is this simple field of awareness/experience.

Seeing THIS doesn't change anything - for instance, my mood is somewhat down and the day is simply as it is. In another way, seeing THIS changes everything. None of the display is about or revolves around the "me" entity, whom I have been accustomed to identify as my "self."

There is openness, presence and a kind of "not knowing" which is quite immediate and indescribable.

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

Lovely...okay, let's continue on the basis of seeing through concepts/constructs, and to do so is to LOOK for actual experiential evidence of what actually IS, as opposed to thought stories about what IS ie let's get down to the bare bones.

Is not language just another name for thought? How can the label ‘language’ possibly communicate thought?

Language is label for a form of representation of thought. If someone speaks English to me, I will, most likely, understand what they intend to communicate. If they speak Chinese or Hmong, regardless of how clearly their thought is represented in their speech, I will not understand....

And what says…or how is it known that “language is a form of representation of thought”? Because an appearing thought says so?

Can you describe thought?
Can thought be heard?
Can thought be seen?
Can thought be thought?
Can thought be tasted?
Can thought be smelled?
Can thought be felt?
Or is thought simply known?

If you ignore thoughts about what thought says thought is, what remains?

How is it known that colour is “particular forms of colour that may create words which are recognizes as language”? Because a thought said so?

When I see particular forms of color which I recognize as the alphabet, in sequences which I recognize as words, I recognize language and I understand thoughts.

Yes, but how is it known (LOOK carefully) that when a particular form of colour is seen it is recognised as the alphabet, which are then recognised as words?

Can you find anyone/anything that is doing the recognising?

What exactly is it that is recognising colour and thought as language?

Awareness recognizes color (as in the immediately preceding example) as language. Awareness experiences thought as both thought and images....

Here, you are referencing to separation…that there is awareness which is experiencing. To be aware OF something points to a subject/object. To be aware AS something points to being self-aware. Can you see the difference?


Awareness doesn't recognise itself as colour, the label 'colour' is a thought overlay on experience, ie thought labels experience as 'colour'. Experience recognises itself as itself, no matter what thought labels it as.

In actual experience, is there a border where experience stops, and the "knowing" of it starts? For example, is there a border where colour stops and the “knowing’ of it starts?

The letters, words and sentences are just black squiggly lines which thought describes as words, letters and sentences. Can you see this?

Yes. But when I see written Russian, I recognize that it may represent words or thoughts but I do not understand any more than that...

Yes…but only because a thought said so. If you drop all ideas about language and that these black squiggly lines are words…what is the actual experience?

Thought may seem to be a useful tool for negotiating the illusion of a 'person in the world', but it's still all conceptual knowledge about an illusory world - it can't give you any genuine knowledge about reality. Experience knows everything about reality as it is ‘directly aware’ of it, as it is reality itself.

There is only colour. Are there many colourS or just colour?

I would say the answer to this question is a matter of how I regard it. All seeing is seeing color. The preceding sentence uses the word color as a general category which includes all the possible distinctions among colors - as in the previous example of the black, white, yellow, red colors which thought takes to represent Bart Simpson....

See how you are referencing your answers to a ‘me’? Where is this ’me’? You are thinking and using logical answers to answer question which I am pointing to…when I am asking you to tell what is appearing in actual experience?

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

What exactly is it that is sharing perceptions or has personal thoughts? And to what exactly would this sharing be done with?

It seems that being, or consciousness, or awareness is sharing perceptions via sound or gesture. The second question puzzles me; I want to say, "...with other-self." But I am not satisfied with that response. Within this singularity, what is an individual? An "other" is experienced as sound, color and sensation accompanied by a collection of thoughts. In my direct experience sharing of perceptions is with a locus of sound, color and sensations....

So describe this “being” or “consciousness” to me that is sharing perceptions via sound or gesture. Since awareness is aware of itself…then describe it to me.

Once again….put a finger to the top of the head and then ignore all thoughts and images about a head an finger and what is the actual experience?

Sensation appears in awareness. This is not experienced as two; but rather as a singular sensing....

How does awareness sense? Are sensations known or sensed? There is a difference.

Since there is no AE of head…then where are these personal thoughts appearing? Where is this ‘voice in the head’ actually located?

"Personal" thoughts and the "voice in the head appear in awareness which does not seem to have a location....

So, in actual experience are there ‘personal thoughts’ or a ‘voice in the ‘head’?
Are not thoughts known? Can a ‘voice in the head’, be heard, or is it just the ‘knowing’ of/as thought?

Awareness is the knowing quality of the actual experience of seeing/hearing/sensing/smelling/tasting/thinking. This knowing quality is self-known. This awareness is like the space in which experience arises and passes. Awareness does not actually have an appearance, a feeling, a size, a center or a boundary. Awareness is a self-cognizant space which, in itself, is not a thing and it is indescribable. Awareness, now, presence, being all point toward the same inconceivable, indescribable, ever-present, silent, colorless, formless, non-locatable, ever-observant "thing," which experiences itself and appears as a continuous, endless and unpredictable flow of experience....

Yes, this is great to know/see, and what we need to do is to see how the ‘separate self’ is ‘created’, which is why I am pointing for you to see the bare bones of what actual experience is, including that these ‘words’ are the actual experience of colour and not the AE of thought.

There is no such thing as “clear, open space of awareness”. That is a concept. Please put aside everything you think you know…and just be willing to LOOK and respond from LOOKING.

I do not understand your objection to my statement. Awareness is a word referring to the moment-to-moment knowing/observing quality of experience. Awareness can be described as the knowing ground in, on and of the actual experience. Awareness is continuously present and experience is continually changing. When I look, what is looking is awareness. It is not a thing but I need to use language to communicate. Awareness is self-cognizant; it is aware of being aware. It is like a clear, open and all-inclusive space. In my direct experience, awareness and experience are in separable and mutually pervasive but they are also distinguishable. Awareness is constant and undefileable and experience is continuous but continuously changing. They can be likened to a container or a "space" and the contents which appear in and pass from the "space." I am looking, Kay. I am not sure what you want me to notice here....

There is no awareness AND experience. Where does experience end and awareness begin?

What you are alluding to here, I think, is that experience is the movie screen and that what appears on the screen comes and goes. However, what that analogy still points to, is that the screen is separate to the movie. There is no screen and movie. Experience is aware only of itself, no matter what movie is playing, but experience isn’t IN the movie, experiencing….it IS the movie in its entirety. But what it appears as is not aware…otherwise a rainbow would be aware!

How would you speak of having been an infant, a child, a teenager and being an adult? How would you express the fact that you are reading on sentence of my replies and then, a subsequent sentence without referring to the appearance of time? I am not getting this, Kay....

Yes, there are stories ABOUT childhood, etc, however, we aren’t going with thought stories in this exploration. Why I keep asking “how is it known” questions…is so that you LOOK to see what I am pointing at to see WHAT IS. This exploration isn’t about logic, reasoning or stories…it is about LOOKING with actual experience and actual experience is only ever NOW, to see how the idea of a person is perpetuated. And NOW/HERE doesn’t refer to time and space.

Where is the actual experiential evidence that you were ever a child? That is based on ‘memory’ and there is no such thing as memory. When is that 'memory ie thought/image actually appearing? Plus there is still the idea that there is a you who is doing something ie reading, writing, thinking etc. This will all become clearer if you start to LOOK with AE and not refer to thoughts for your answers. We will be looking at all of this as we move through this exploration, but at this stage, we are looking at thought, as I want you to see and be clear about thought.

A "country" is a label and a thought and does not exist as an actual experience. A map is a representation of a territory; neither the territory nor the map exist as actual experiences per se. Lines on the map represent conceptual divisions between areas of the territory and represent smaller areas of the same territory.

Yes, exactly and that is what thought does to THIS aka experience/awareness. So where are the dividing lines between colour, sound, thought, smell, taste and sensation?

Kay, do you not notice that awareness and experience are two aspects of the same moment?

If you really LOOK when there is an ‘awareness’ of a sound…and the sound itself….tell me where are there two aspects? Where is the dividing line?

I am not saying that the IDEA of there being two aspects will drop away, what I am trying to get you to see is that there is no separation and this is something that needs to be seen and not just intellectualised.

Where is the ‘you’ that is hearing a sound?

I am gazing at the wallpaper behind the dialogue on the LU.com page. There is color. I know it is my thought that says, " Orange sky, mountains and trees, rippled, reflective waters. Is it only thoughts that discern shapes of colors? Or is that seeing?...

There is no ‘my thoughts’ there are just thought that is appearing in/as THIS. What is it exactly that is ‘seeing’? There is only colour. There SEEMS to be seeing happening, just as there seems to be hearing happening and tasting happening etc.

But when you LOOK can you find anyone/anything that is ‘seeing’?


Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

Is not language just another name for thought? How can the label ‘language’ possibly communicate thought?


Language is label for a form of representation of thought. If someone speaks English to me, I will, most likely, understand what they intend to communicate. If they speak Chinese or Hmong, regardless of how clearly their thought is represented in their speech, I will not understand....



And what says…or how is it known that “language is a form of representation of thought”? Because an appearing thought says so?

The only knowing function is the awareness. "Language is a form of representation of thought" is merely a thought about language.

Can you describe thought?
Can thought be heard?
Can thought be seen?
Can thought be thought?
Can thought be tasted?
Can thought be smelled?
Can thought be felt?
Or is thought simply known?

If you ignore thoughts about what thought says thought is, what remains?

Thought is an actual experience of known/knowing; it cannot be heard, seen, tasted, smelled or felt. There can be thoughts about thought and these thoughts about thought could comprise a descriptions of thought. But they, in fact, are simply the next known thought. If I ignore thoughts about what thought says thought is, what remains is the present moment of awareness/experience.

How is it known that colour is “particular forms of colour that may create words which are recognizes as language”? Because a thought said so?



When I see particular forms of color which I recognize as the alphabet, in sequences which I recognize as words, I recognize language and I understand thoughts.



Yes, but how is it known (LOOK carefully) that when a particular form of colour is seen it is recognised as the alphabet, which are then recognised as words?

Can you find anyone/anything that is doing the recognising?

The recogniton of forms of color as alphabet and the recognition of the patterns of letters as words are both subsequent thoughts which are known in the moment they appear as the actual awareness/experience of the moment. The thought/recognition is not a thing or an entity; rather it is a momentary awareness/experience.

What exactly is it that is recognising colour and thought as language?



Awareness recognizes color (as in the immediately preceding example) as language. Awareness experiences thought as both thought and images....


Here, you are referencing to separation…that there is awareness which is experiencing. To be aware OF something points to a subject/object. To be aware AS something points to being self-aware. Can you see the difference?

Thanks for this pointing, Kay. To be aware as something is non-dual and refers to the actuality of any particular awareness/experience. The experience is the awareness and the awareness is the experience.

Awareness doesn't recognise itself as colour, the label 'colour' is a thought overlay on experience, ie thought labels experience as 'colour'. Experience recognises itself as itself, no matter what thought labels it as.

In actual experience, is there a border where experience stops, and the "knowing" of it starts? For example, is there a border where colour stops and the “knowing’ of it starts?

Experience and the knowing of it can only be separated and distinguished from each other in thought about experience and knowing. In actual experience 'the experience of color' and 'the knowing of color' are merely two ways of denoting the same event.

The letters, words and sentences are just black squiggly lines which thought describes as words, letters and sentences. Can you see this?



Yes. But when I see written Russian, I recognize that it may represent words or thoughts but I do not understand any more than that...



Yes…but only because a thought said so. If you drop all ideas about language and that these black squiggly lines are words…what is the actual experience?

Without ideas about language and alphabets, these black squiggly lines are a knowing/experiencing as color.

Thought may seem to be a useful tool for negotiating the illusion of a 'person in the world', but it's still all conceptual knowledge about an illusory world - it can't give you any genuine knowledge about reality. Experience knows everything about reality as it is ‘directly aware’ of it, as it is reality itself.

There is only colour. Are there many colourS or just colour?



I would say the answer to this question is a matter of how I regard it. All seeing is seeing color. The preceding sentence uses the word color as a general category which includes all the possible distinctions among colors - as in the previous example of the black, white, yellow, red colors which thought takes to represent Bart Simpson....


See how you are referencing your answers to a ‘me’? Where is this ’me’? You are thinking and using logical answers to answer question which I am pointing to…when I am asking you to tell what is appearing in actual experience?

This is at the heart of the challenge of this, Kay. Even though I know from repeated looking and seeing that there is no I, me, or my except as a thought and a label, I repeatedly reference it. In re-responding to this question, I say there is just knowing/seeing/color. Many colors is a knowing/thinking about a knowing/seeing.

What exactly is it that is sharing perceptions or has personal thoughts? And to what exactly would this sharing be done with?


It seems that being, or consciousness, or awareness is sharing perceptions via sound or gesture. The second question puzzles me; I want to say, "...with other-self." But I am not satisfied with that response. Within this singularity, what is an individual? An "other" is experienced as sound, color and sensation accompanied by a collection of thoughts. In my direct experience sharing of perceptions is with a locus of sound, color and sensations....


So describe this “being” or “consciousness” to me that is sharing perceptions via sound or gesture. Since awareness is aware of itself…then describe it to me.

This alleged "being" or "consciousness" doesn't exist as such. Both terms are thoughts about and labels of an imagined separate entity which has been assumed to be "me." In actual experience what is here is knowing/experiencing; that is not a "someone" or a "something," those are just thoughts.

Since awareness is aware of itself…then describe it to me

It is more accurate to say awareness/experience is aware as itself. This constitutes the knowing/experiencing which is each moment.

The second question puzzles me; I want to say, "...with other-self." But I am not satisfied with that response. Within this singularity, what is an individual? An "other" is experienced as sound, color and sensation accompanied by a collection of thoughts. In my direct experience sharing of perceptions is with a locus of sound, color and sensations....

I am not happy with this answer because of it's implication of two when I know there are not really two here. When I am in conversation and I am resting as the awareness/moment there is an exchange of information/energy which is known/experienced as a singularity of "shared oneness." I am having a hard time putting the experience into words...The "other" is a subset of the singular knowing/experiencing of soundcolorsmelltastesensationthought as am "I," as is the room or the environment.

Once again….put a finger to the top of the head and then ignore all thoughts and images about a head an finger and what is the actual experience?


Sensation appears in awareness. This is not experienced as two; but rather as a singular sensing....


How does awareness sense? Are sensations known or sensed? There is a difference.

Saying, "awareness senses," is a linguistic error. Awareness is sensing; sensing is aware-ing. To say sensing is known suggests two. Inherent in a moment of sensation is the knowing as sensing or sensing as knowing.

So, in actual experience are there ‘personal thoughts’ or a ‘voice in the ‘head’?
Are not thoughts known? Can a ‘voice in the head’, be heard, or is it just the ‘knowing’ of/as thought?

Since there is no person except as a thought and as a label, there are no "personal thoughts." Since, in actual experience, there is no head which can be located and thoughts have no voice, there is no "voice in the "head"" except as a poetic contrivance. Thoughts are known in the instance of their occurrence as knowing/thinking or knowing as thought and not as known objects.

Awareness is the knowing quality of the actual experience of seeing/hearing/sensing/smelling/tasting/thinking. This knowing quality is self-known. This awareness is like the space in which experience arises and passes. Awareness does not actually have an appearance, a feeling, a size, a center or a boundary. Awareness is a self-cognizant space which, in itself, is not a thing and it is indescribable. Awareness, now, presence, being all point toward the same inconceivable, indescribable, ever-present, silent, colorless, formless, non-locatable, ever-observant "thing," which experiences itself and appears as a continuous, endless and unpredictable flow of experience....




Yes, this is great to know/see, and what we need to do is to see how the ‘separate self’ is ‘created’, which is why I am pointing for you to see the bare bones of what actual experience is, including that these ‘words’ are the actual experience of colour and not the AE of thought.

Yes. I thank you for your persistence and insistence Kay. I, too, want to see the barest bones of what experience is and how the "separate self" is "created" so that innate freedom can not just be recognized here but clearly realized.

There is no awareness AND experience. Where does experience end and awareness begin?

Yes. I see this now. I was making and believing in a conceptual distinction - dividing one moment into an imagined two components. Awareness IS experience always and only.

What you are alluding to here, I think, is that experience is the movie screen and that what appears on the screen comes and goes. However, what that analogy still points to, is that the screen is separate to the movie. There is no screen and movie. Experience is aware only of itself, no matter what movie is playing, but experience isn’t IN the movie, experiencing….it IS the movie in its entirety. But what it appears as is not aware…otherwise a rainbow would be aware!

Yes! The analogy may express a temporarily useful distinction in thought but it exists only in thought. In the lived moment of actual experience of the movie is the awareness and these "two" are seamlessly inseparable.

Yes, there are stories ABOUT childhood, etc, however, we aren’t going with thought stories in this exploration. Why I keep asking “how is it known” questions…is so that you LOOK to see what I am pointing at to see WHAT IS. This exploration isn’t about logic, reasoning or stories…it is about LOOKING with actual experience and actual experience is only ever NOW, to see how the idea of a person is perpetuated. And NOW/HERE doesn’t refer to time and space.

Where is the actual experiential evidence that you were ever a child? That is based on ‘memory’ and there is no such thing as memory. When is that 'memory ie thought/image actually appearing? Plus there is still the idea that there is a you who is doing something ie reading, writing, thinking etc. This will all become clearer if you start to LOOK with AE and not refer to thoughts for your answers. We will be looking at all of this as we move through this exploration, but at this stage, we are looking at thought, as I want you to see and be clear about thought.

Yes, again. Actual Experience is only the awareness of now. Memory is a thought. Anticipation is a thought. They only, ever occur NOW. The idea of a me doing persists and is couched in my habits of language. There is no me here; reading, writing thinking are awareness as reading, writing or thinking.

A "country" is a label and a thought and does not exist as an actual experience. A map is a representation of a territory; neither the territory nor the map exist as actual experiences per se. Lines on the map represent conceptual divisions between areas of the territory and represent smaller areas of the same territory.



Yes, exactly and that is what thought does to THIS aka experience/awareness. So where are the dividing lines between colour, sound, thought, smell, taste and sensation?

Beautifully clear and immediately self-evident. Thought divides the singularity of experience/awareness in an abstract way and thought portrays reality as if the flow of awareness as colorsoundthoughtsmelltastesensation was broken into the allegedly objective bits it describes. Even the thoughts of division are inseparable from the awareness as thought.

If you really LOOK when there is an ‘awareness’ of a sound…and the sound itself….tell me where are there two aspects? Where is the dividing line?

Again, there is no division except in an imagined realm constructed of/by thought.

I am not saying that the IDEA of there being two aspects will drop away, what I am trying to get you to see is that there is no separation and this is something that needs to be seen and not just intellectualised.

Where is the ‘you’ that is hearing a sound?

There is no one hearing a sound. What we conventionally call "awareness of sound" is a moment of sound/awareness. There may be moments when the idea of two aspects is useful - as right now in pointing out the mistake of the notion - but the "two" never for an instant exist as two; they are always a moment of awareness as sound.

I am gazing at the wallpaper behind the dialogue on the LU.com page. There is color. I know it is my thought that says, " "Orange sky, mountains and trees, rippled, reflective waters. Is it only thoughts that discern shapes of colors? Or is that seeing?...



There is no ‘my thoughts’ there are just thought that is appearing in/as THIS. What is it exactly that is ‘seeing’? There is only colour. There SEEMS to be seeing happening, just as there seems to be hearing happening and tasting happening etc.

But when you LOOK can you find anyone/anything that is ‘seeing’?

Thanks for catching this "my," Kay. There is just thought appearing in/as THIS. There is just color, just sound, just taste appearing in and as THIS. There is just THIS appearing in/as thoughtcolorsoundsmelltastesensation. There is only THIS. THIS is all that ever is, was and could be.

With grateful tears streaming, I thank you for persisting with me, Kay.

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

Awareness recognizes color (as in the immediately preceding example) as language. Awareness experiences thought as both thought and images....

Here, you are referencing to separation…that there is awareness which is experiencing. To be aware OF something points to a subject/object. To be aware AS something points to being self-aware. Can you see the difference?

Thanks for this pointing, Kay. To be aware as something is non-dual and refers to the actuality of any particular awareness/experience. The experience is the awareness and the awareness is the experience.

Yes, exactly! :) There is no border between ‘knowingknown’ aka ‘awarenessawared.

There is only colour. Are there many colourS or just colour?

In re-responding to this question, I say there is just knowing/seeing/color. Many colors is a knowing/thinking about a knowing/seeing.

Hmmm…I am not sure if we are on the same page here. So, let me do it this way.

Have a look at the following picture. Ignore all thoughts about what the picture is, just look at colour and ignore all the labels thought gives colour ie green, brown, blue etc.

Are there many colourS or just colour? Is there a border to where one colour ends and another begins?

There is no awareness AND experience. Where does experience end and awareness begin?

Yes. I see this now. I was making and believing in a conceptual distinction - dividing one moment into an imagined two components. Awareness IS experience always and only.

Yes…nice LOOKING, John!

A "country" is a label and a thought and does not exist as an actual experience. A map is a representation of a territory; neither the territory nor the map exist as actual experiences per se. Lines on the map represent conceptual divisions between areas of the territory and represent smaller areas of the same territory.

Yes, exactly and that is what thought does to THIS aka experience/awareness. So where are the dividing lines between colour, sound, thought, smell, taste and sensation?

Beautifully clear and immediately self-evident. Thought divides the singularity of experience/awareness in an abstract way and thought portrays reality as if the flow of awareness as colorsoundthoughtsmelltastesensation was broken into the allegedly objective bits it describes. Even the thoughts of division are inseparable from the awareness as thought.

Yes, now we are cooking with gas, as they say! :)



‘Things’ seemingly appear and there are never not things, but have a LOOK to see what is actually appearing.

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene. Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?

Okay, let’s have a look at the body!

Here is an interesting exercise on the body.
Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.

Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.

With grateful tears streaming, I thank you for persisting with me, Kay.

Oh, John it is my absolute pleasure. I thought that you would be better off with another guide, not because you weren’t committed in LOOKING, but because I wasn’t sure if I could point clearly for you. I am so grateful to be your guide..thank-you for persisting with me.

Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

Have a look at the following picture. Ignore all thoughts about what the picture is, just look at colour and ignore all the labels thought gives colour ie green, brown, blue etc.

Are there many colourS or just colour? Is there a border to where one colour ends and another begins?

There are many colors. This statement, "There are many colors," is a thought. In direct experience of the image there are shapes which are defined by differences in color. I don't know how to distinguish between the idea that there are many colors and the idea that there is color with infinite variations. It doesn't seem to matter. What is absolutely true is that there is awareness as seeing and awareness as thought.

‘Things’ seemingly appear and there are never not things, but have a LOOK to see what is actually appearing.

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene. Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?

"Things" are mind-made distinctions, labels and descriptions in awareness as thought. What appears is a singular and seamless whole of awareness as visual field. Thought divides this into bits it calls things and other things. The awareness as seeinghearingfeelingsmellingtastingthinking field is singular and indivisible. Many are apparent but they are all the same One, THIS.

Here is an interesting exercise on the body.
Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.

Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No. All that is here is various patterns of awareness as sensation.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No. These concepts of weight and volume can only refer to various patterns of awareness as sensation.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

No.The actual experience of the body is as an amorphous field of awareness as sensing with diffuse and non-specific "edges."

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

Boundaries are not discernable. Body/clothing and body/chair are relatively unique awareness/sensings adjacent to and continuous with other relatively distinct awareness/sensings. The concepts inside and outside loose meaning in the actual experience of the continuous, uninterrupted field of awareness as sensing.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

The word/label "body" refers to a set of awareness as sensings and a set of awareness as colors which have been conceptually separated from the whole field of awareness as experience and denoted by further thought as "my body." In Truth, the whole field of awareness as experience is the bodying forth of THIS, which is the only actuality. (I am submitting this; but I will continue, for at least the rest of today, to explore these questions and the theme of, "what is THIS?"

With pranams and deep gratitude, thank you Kay.

[forgetmenot]

Hello John,

I would like for you to redo the body questions and respond from the place of actual experience. What is the actual experience and not jump straight to the 'ultimate'. You are aware of what the 'ultimate' is, I am trying to point for you to LOOK at what really is, when the idea of the body appears. So, please LOOK. When the question of "is there a boundary between body and clothing", I want you to LOOK to see what the actual experience is, ie sound, thought, smell, taste, sensation, colour.

Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.

Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.

I did this exercise last night for a couple of hours and again this morning. What I find is that with the eyes closed, the "body" is a poorly defined, amorphous set of sensations - awareness as sensings - only. There is no sense of anything to compare to so there is no sense of height, weight, volume, shape or form. The set of sensations can be categorized by awareness as thought into pressure, temperature, tinglings, pulsations but in themselves they are merely awareness as sensing. With eyes closed there is no edge to the "body" and so, "inside" and "outside" are poorly defined concepts at best and meaningless at worst. Both clothing and chair (or blankets and bed) are experienced as as awareness as sensing. Wit eyes closed the word/label "body" actually refers to an amorphous collections of awareness as sensings labeled and described by awareness as thought. With eyes open these awareness as sensings and awareness as thought are still here and they are accompanied by patterns of color which are experienced as awareness as seeing. When "I" scratch "my" "head" there is both awareness as sensing and awareness as sound. "Body" is a label and a thought which is applied to these awarenesses as experiencing.

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

Where is the "awareness of sensing"? Awareness/experience = sound, taste,smell, thought, colour, sensation. How does colour sense exactly? How does smell sense exactly? How does taste sense exactly? How does sensation sense exactly? How does sound sense exactly? How does thought sense exactly?

Are there two things present? Colours AND experience? Smell AND experience? Thought AND experience? Taste AND experience? Sound AND experience? Sensation AND experience? If not, then what exactly is it that is "sensing"?

For something to be "sensing" means that there must be a self.

So, I’d like to ask you to explore this SENSE of ‘self’ very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING it. Take your time.

Keep the focus of attention on the sense of ‘self’ and inquire…

Does the sense of ‘self’ have a location?
Does the sense of ‘self’ have a shape or a size?
Does the sense of ‘self’ say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense of ‘self’ do this exactly?
Does the sense of ‘self’ have any characteristics or attributes?
What is the sense of ‘self’ ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?


Love, Kay

[John DeLight]

Hi Kay,

Where is the "awareness of sensing"? Awareness/experience = sound, taste,smell, thought, colour, sensation. How does colour sense exactly? How does smell sense exactly? How does taste sense exactly? How does sensation sense exactly? How does sound sense exactly? How does thought sense exactly?

I believe you misunderstood what I meant. When I say, "awareness of sensing" I mean the ongoing experiencing of the awareness of sensation. Color, smell taste etc. don't sense; they are experiences which are known. the knowing/experiencing is singular. Awareness of seeing is the experiencing of color. Awareness of smell is the experiencing of odor. Awareness of taste is the experiencing of flavor, etc.

Are there two things present? Colours AND experience? Smell AND experience? Thought AND experience? Taste AND experience? Sound AND experience? Sensation AND experience? If not, then what exactly is it that is "sensing"?

No; these are never actually two as your question represents them. Experience is the awareness of color, experience is the awareness of smell, etc. I should never have used this word "sensing" in my communication; what I meant by "sensing" is the ongoing awareness of sensation which is not meant to communicate the appearance of two things. Sorry, Kay. In my direct experience, sensations are continuously in flux. I was merely attempting to communicate the ongoing experiencing of sensations by using the present participle "sensing;" I did not mean to imply the existence of a "senser."

For something to be "sensing" means that there must be a self.

So, I’d like to ask you to explore this SENSE of ‘self’ very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING it. Take your time.

Keep the focus of attention on the sense of ‘self’ and inquire…

Does the sense of ‘self’ have a location?
Does the sense of ‘self’ have a shape or a size?
Does the sense of ‘self’ say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense of ‘self’ do this exactly?
Does the sense of ‘self’ have any characteristics or attributes?
What is the sense of ‘self’ ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

There has been a sense of self which is in fact a pattern of sensation, an awareness of sensation which arises with an associated, in thought, awareness of thought (images and description). When I say the word, "I", either aloud or silently, there is a sensation in the upper chest which has been associated with the word/thought "I", and this sensation, word/thought combinations has been recognized to have been what I have referred to as my "sense of self."

At this point, with your help, Kay, I have begun to distinguish the word/label/thought "I" from the idea of a personal, individual entity; and, I recognize that this awareness of sensation in my chest is merely a sensation and not a personal, individual entity. This sensation in my chest is about the size of a cantaloupe; it is like a cloud of energy with edges which become vague and diffuse as it fades into the sky of awareness in which and of which it is an appearance. This awareness of sensation in the upper chest doesn't communicate anything. When I have identified this awareness of sensation as "myself," there would appear within the awareness of thought characteristics attributed to "myself" which varied depending upon whether the moment was "flavored" by a positive or negative "self" image. This old, habitual sense of "self" has been "made of" distinct awarnesses of sensation and awarenesses of thought/image.

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

With eyes open these awareness as sensings and awareness as thought are still here and they are accompanied by patterns of color which are experienced as awareness as seeing. When "I" scratch "my" "head" there is both awareness as sensing and awareness as sound. "Body" is a label and a thought which is applied to these awarenesses as experiencing.

You keep referring to "awareness of" or “awareness as”...this says to me that you are referring to a 'you' (whether that be a personal you or "awareness" itself) and a something else. What I would like for you to do is to leave the word "awareness" out of your next responses and just respond from actual experience of sound, thought, smell etc please.

Since colour and seeing are synonymous, then what is experiencing the “patterns of colour which are experienced as awareness as seeing”? There is no “awareness AS seeing? There is just colourseeing.

So even though you are clear that the body is the AE of thought, your wording implies that sound and colour that are labelled as the body are being experienced by something/someone.

Have a look at the following picture. Ignore all thoughts about what the picture is, just look at colour and ignore all the labels thought gives colour ie green, brown, blue etc.
Are there many colourS or just colour? Is there a border to where one colour ends and another begins?

There are many colors. This statement, "There are many colors," is a thought. In direct experience of the image there are shapes which are defined by differences in color. I don't know how to distinguish between the idea that there are many colors and the idea that there is color with infinite variations. It doesn't seem to matter. What is absolutely true is that there is awareness as seeing and awareness as thought.

Where is this “awareness as seeing and awareness as thought” or are you saying that awareness is seemingly appearing as colour and thought, which thought labels as colour and thought?

But yes, Is there a difference between, ice, water and steam? They may appear different but they are all made from the same substance. The same goes for thought, colour, sound, smell, taste and sensation. So colour may appear different, same as thought, sound etc…but they are all ‘made from the same substance’. So experience is appearing as colour….not colours.

We can say that 'colour' is simply 'seeing' appearing as 'colour'. Not even that though, because there is no way to see something other than colour. In that sense, colour and seeing are synonyms. So if 'colour' and 'seeing' are the same thing, can you 'see' 'colour'? Can you 'see' a 'rainbow?

At this point, with your help, Kay, I have begun to distinguish the word/label/thought "I" from the idea of a personal, individual entity; and, I recognize that this awareness of sensation in my chest is merely a sensation and not a personal, individual entity.

Great! Are there different locations to where sensation appears ie when stubbing a toe and when having a headache?

This sensation in my chest is about the size of a cantaloupe; it is like a cloud of energy with edges which become vague and diffuse as it fades into the sky of awareness in which and of which it is an appearance. This awareness of sensation in the upper chest doesn't communicate anything. When I have identified this awareness of sensation as "myself," there would appear within the awareness of thought characteristics attributed to "myself" which varied depending upon whether the moment was "flavored" by a positive or negative "self" image. This old, habitual sense of "self" has been "made of" distinct awarnesses of sensation and awarenesses of thought/image

Yes, so in the language I use…is that the separate self is actual experience sensation, thought, colour labelled as ‘body/self’.

Love, Kay
xx

[John DeLight]

Hi Kay,
The phrases "awareness as thought" or "awareness as sensation" came from you. On Tue May 8, 2017, in the, my time, 4:48 AM message, you wrote: "To be aware OF something points to a subject/object. To be aware AS something points to being self-aware. Can you see the difference?" I appreciated that distinction and adopted the phrase.

Since colour and seeing are synonymous, then what is experiencing the “patterns of colour which are experienced as awareness as seeing”? There is no “awareness AS seeing? There is just colourseeing.

Yes; color and seeing are synonymous. Patterns of color are seeing. Seeing/experiencing are the same event.

...even though you are clear that the body is the AE of thought, your wording implies that sound and colour that are labelled as the body are being experienced by something/someone.

Again, my wording was something I adopted from something you shared that I appreciated. Sound/experiencing are a singular event. Color/experiencing is a singular event. Increasingly now in my own experience, there is sound and color and thought, etc without positing an imagined hearer, seer or thinker.

Where is this “awareness as seeing and awareness as thought” or are you saying that awareness is seemingly appearing as colour and thought, which thought labels as colour and thought?

I am intending to communicate that awareness, or this knowing faculty, in one moment appears as color, in another moment as sound, etc. As colors are distinguished or sounds are labeled, awareness is appearing as thought.

But yes, Is there a difference between, ice, water and steam? They may appear different but they are all made from the same substance. The same goes for thought, colour, sound, smell, taste and sensation. So colour may appear different, same as thought, sound etc…but they are all ‘made from the same substance’. So experience is appearing as colour….not colours.

Kay, in this are you saying that thought, color, sound, smell, taste and sensation are apparent forms of experience? This is how it seems.

We can say that 'colour' is simply 'seeing' appearing as 'colour'. Not even that though, because there is no way to see something other than colour. In that sense, colour and seeing are synonyms. So if 'colour' and 'seeing' are the same thing, can you 'see' 'colour'? Can you 'see' a 'rainbow?

I appreciate this distinction. To say, "seeing color" is redundant. Seeing is nothing other that color. In the image referred to here, the experiencing is seeing/color. "Colors" and "rainbow" are thought/labels and these occur in a succeeding instant.

Are there different locations to where sensation appears ie when stubbing a toe and when having a headache?

In a real sense, toe and head are only in different locations within a conceptual map i.e. thought. In actual experience, stubbed toe and headache happen the only "place" anything happens - the nonlocatable "place" - "here."

Yes, so in the language I use…is that the separate self is actual experience sensation, thought, colour labelled as ‘body/self’.

Yes, indeed. That imagined separate "self" is actual experience; it is sensation,thought,color,etc. labelel in thought as "body/self."
thanks, Kay,
John

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

The phrases "awareness as thought" or "awareness as sensation" came from you. On Tue May 8, 2017, in the, my time, 4:48 AM message, you wrote: "To be aware OF something points to a subject/object. To be aware AS something points to being self-aware. Can you see the difference?" I appreciated that distinction and adopted the phrase.

Yes, AS/IN/OF are used as a means to point to there being no experience AND something. But they are concessions only to begin with…but as there is no separation there is no “as/of/in awareness”. There is only experience aka THIS appearing exactly as it is.

...even though you are clear that the body is the AE of thought, your wording implies that sound and colour that are labelled as the body are being experienced by something/someone.

Again, my wording was something I adopted from something you shared that I appreciated. Sound/experiencing are a singular event. Color/experiencing is a singular event. Increasingly now in my own experience, there is sound and color and thought, etc without positing an imagined hearer, seer or thinker.

Okay great…thank you for clarifying. Yes, in the beginning to get you to see what actually IS…there needs to be a seeing of actual experience in their singularities/categories.

However, if you LOOK, can you find a dividing line between sound and thought, thought and colour, colour and smell and so on?

Where is this “awareness as seeing and awareness as thought” or are you saying that awareness is seemingly appearing as colour and thought, which thought labels as colour and thought?

I am intending to communicate that awareness, or this knowing faculty, in one moment appears as color, in another moment as sound, etc. As colors are distinguished or sounds are labeled, awareness is appearing as thought.

Yes, experience appears as colour, sound thought etc…but it is not those things, if it were, then it would disappear whenever one of those appearances disappeared.

Experience may seem to appear as 'change'. But that doesn't mean experience is changing. Just as experience may appear as 'blue'. But that does not mean experience is blue. 'Blue' is experience, experience is not 'blue'. (Blue is appearing/showing up as experience but experience is not blue)

But yes, Is there a difference between, ice, water and steam? They may appear different but they are all made from the same substance. The same goes for thought, colour, sound, smell, taste and sensation. So colour may appear different, same as thought, sound etc…but they are all ‘made from the same substance’. So experience is appearing as colour….not colours.

Kay, in this are you saying that thought, color, sound, smell, taste and sensation are apparent forms of experience? This is how it seems.

Yes, exactly! However, that discussion is not for this exploration, as we are really just exploring through the idea of there being a separate self.

We can say that 'colour' is simply 'seeing' appearing as 'colour'. Not even that though, because there is no way to see something other than colour. In that sense, colour and seeing are synonyms. So if 'colour' and 'seeing' are the same thing, can you 'see' 'colour'? Can you 'see' a 'rainbow?

I appreciate this distinction. To say, "seeing color" is redundant. Seeing is nothing other that color. In the image referred to here, the experiencing is seeing/color. "Colors" and "rainbow" are thought/labels and these occur in a succeeding instant.

Yes :)

Are there different locations to where sensation appears ie when stubbing a toe and when having a headache?

In a real sense, toe and head are only in different locations within a conceptual map i.e. thought. In actual experience, stubbed toe and headache happen the only "place" anything happens - the nonlocatable "place" - "here."

Beautiful yes…and yes, the ‘herenow’ is not a place.

Love, Kay
xx