Knock Knock

[forgetmenot]

H e l l o Julian,

What exactly is the ‘back’? The back of what exactly? The head? Back of the eyes? Where would the back of non-existent eyes be and what would it look like?

Kay, when you ask, and when I look to find answers, I can honesty say that the only AE of eyes is sensation and mental image, but that kind of doesn`t shake the assumption once and for all of "eyes" being here. Also with the inside and outside. You say without thought no location, but there is thought, so there is an aparent location dependent on thought.

And the idea that eyes see and that there are eyes won’t go away. There has never been a separate ‘you’ and the idea of eyes and eyes seeing have always been there….yes? Same with location. The idea of location will remain as well.

Thought doesn't stop telling you that it's your car, your job, your body, your craving, your preference, your pain, your happiness, your this and your that. Why would thought stop saying something just because it's seen what thoughts are.
It's never been any other way. So it is only an expectation that thought will suddenly change its tune.

What was interesting is that maybe now I get more what you were pointing to, was confirming again and again till yesterday that without thought, I wouldn`t have any clue of there being eyes or head, NOT A SINGLE EVIDENCE of eyes is found that is not thought, simply not an experience. They aren`t even visually evident, like hands for example.

It’s my job to make sure that you are clear about what is being pointed at. If it seems you aren’t sure, I will keep giving questions until it is. Although the clarity does seem to get murky, and it will, looking is the key.

Beautiful LOOKING with the drink exercise!

Althought I`m not getting the feeling of being the chooser because didn´t experience that, at least this time.

And the idea of being the chooser will appear, however, there becomes a knowing that it is just a story….but that absolute knowing takes time.

Okay…let’s have a look at the body with this exercise.

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.

Love, Kay

[JulianS]

Hi K A Y!!!!

Time to answer!!

So, without thought.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No. Only a thought could say how tall body is.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No. "Body" just sensations some more "intense" some not so...

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

No. Thought adds a "shape".

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

No. Sensations all way long.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

"Ass" and "chair" different labels for the same sensations. No boundary. No body. No chair.

Is there an inside or an outside?

No. Sensations. Sounds. All appearing.

If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?

Only a thought could say "inside".

If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

No outside. Sensations are. Not really much more can be said about them. They do not separate "space" or break it in two or more.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

Okay. First day was really tempted by the answer "to sensations".

But label "body" doesn´t point to the sensations happening, it points to a thought about a shape that contains sensations and that "moves" from here to there, that have parts.

Label "body" refers to a thought. An image thought.
Sensations are the label that points to the actual experience that can be found. "Body" points to a thought.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Same with the above question, really tempted to say "sensations", but you say look harder, saying sensations was too easy hehehehehe.


There is no ACTUAL experience of the body. Body doesn´t exist.
Sensations exists.
Body exists only in thought.

As with the eyes, becoming clearer that in order to know that these sensations are or indicate a body here, there is allways a thought needed for that. No thought no body. Just sensations.
There is only thought that is saying that this experience constitute a body. There is no evidence found of a thing called "body" that can be found without thought.

Saying this, there are thoughts, and they kind of "draw" some boundaries, but that is a thought about a boundary. An actual boundary.... well, I don´t even know how it would look like, will let you know if I find some hehehehe.

So it´s clear that when we are talking about a body, like a body wich borns and then dies, and is sick or is hurting, we are talking about thoughts all way long.

But for sensations, for actual sensations happening right now, there is no need for thought to arise for them to be. To just be. Maybe a thought is needed for calling them "sensations", wich is a labell, but they exist. Body doesn´t, ie, in order to know that a "body" is here, there is allways a thought needed.
Being repetitive?
So amazing hehehehehhee


Big hug,
Julian

[forgetmenot]

Hello Julian,

Words can’t express what appeared when reading your post…oh…the words delightful appeared….absolutely delightful! I do look forward to receiving your posts…thank you for making guiding such a pleasure.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

Okay. First day was really tempted by the answer "to sensations".

Drats….so you did not fall for my trickiness! Haha :)

But label "body" doesn´t point to the sensations happening, it points to a thought about a shape that contains sensations and that "moves" from here to there, that have parts.
Label "body" refers to a thought. An image thought.
Sensations are the label that points to the actual experience that can be found. "Body" points to a thought.

Yes…beautiful! You have hit the nail on the head with your deconstruction of the label ‘body’.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Same with the above question, really tempted to say "sensations", but you say look harder, saying sensations was too easy hehehehehe.

Haha….yes LOOK harder! LOL. Lovely, Julian…bloody brilliant! :)

There is no ACTUAL experience of the body. Body doesn´t exist.
Sensations exists.
Body exists only in thought.

YES!

As with the eyes, becoming clearer that in order to know that these sensations are or indicate a body here, there is allways a thought needed for that. No thought no body. Just sensations.
There is only thought that is saying that this experience constitute a body. There is no evidence found of a thing called "body" that can be found without thought.
So it´s clear that when we are talking about a body, like a body wich borns and then dies, and is sick or is hurting, we are talking about thoughts all way long.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

But for sensations, for actual sensations happening right now, there is no need for thought to arise for them to be. To just be. Maybe a thought is needed for calling them "sensations", wich is a labell, but they exist. Body doesn´t, ie, in order to know that a "body" is here, there is allways a thought needed.
Being repetitive?

Haha….yes, all pointing is, is repetitiveness really. It all points to the same thing but in different ways.
I hope that you will want to become a guide when you have ‘gated’, Julian, you would make a great guide.

Find a TV team sport on TV or a Youtube clip that lasts for at least 5 minutes. The following link is to a game of soccer, but if you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTPxORAlT0Y

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice, seems to feel as though they can influence somehow what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome, the commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off.

Without thought, what is actually appearing/happening ie what is the actual experience of what seems to be happening etc?

Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?


Love, Kay

[JulianS]

Hi Kay!!!!

Thank you a lot for this guiding :)

Having fun with soccer..

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off.

So, sound off just watching kind of curiously but not following the "ball", sometimes looking the referi and the gestures, others the field, didn´t care about the supposed "game". Kind of enjoying looking whatever, looking here and there freely.
When sound on, I felt like if I was forced to grab some concepts like "He just failed" so "Aaaah so that means he failed" or "Corner" and so on, like take some effort to see where the hell the concepts were pointing to. (This could also be since I watched the game in spanish from spain and im from latin america so some expressions were quite unusual to me).
So it felt like being forced to see where concepts pointed and to understand what was happening.

As I said, weren´t familiar with expressions, that made easy the task to listen the voice as just sound, ie, I can not switch off the knowing of what "words" are being said, I mean, if you were to ask me what the voice just said, I could answer. However sometimes I could emphazise on just the sound. The sound and the knowing of what "word" is being said, kind of coexist.

Without thought, what is actually appearing/happening ie what is the actual experience of what seems to be happening etc?

Without thoughts, just a bunch of colours and sounds. This is more evident when the zoom is out, thought is kind of fast to interpret face colours when zooming close hehehe.
"Soccer game" is soooo far away from AE. Kind of when I watched without sound, there was thoughts translating experience, but some innocent thoughts like "referi" "ball" "grass"; but turn sound on and all the "game" interpretation, and intentions, teams, good or bad, thats kind of "farer" away than when sound off...

Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?

No, it´s not necesary at all....

And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

No, it´s just useless noise.
If it were necesary well..... There would be a mess round here.... Because when "flying" with thoughts, things just happen as well, driving happens, and thought tell stories, don´t see how it is necesary, even more, quite amazing that driving still occurs. The miracle is that life goes on perfectly in spite of commentary happening!!!!
So, not necesary, but can´t stop it...


BTW..

Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice, seems to feel as though they can influence somehow what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome, the commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

Sounds familiar hehehehe.



So, thank you a lot Kay, love doing this :)

Big hug
:)

[forgetmenot]

Hello Julian,

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off.

So, sound off just watching kind of curiously but not following the "ball", sometimes looking the referi and the gestures, others the field, didn´t care about the supposed "game". Kind of enjoying looking whatever, looking here and there freely.

Nice how you noticed with the muted video, that it left you rather neutral towards the apparent happenings on screen, while the commentary version of the game kind of sucked you into the story that the commentator was telling. Did you also notice that the muted watching was more about the current action whilst the commentator was mostly referring to what just happened. So this is how it goes with the story about a character called ‘Julian’!

So it felt like being forced to see where concepts pointed and to understand what was happening.

Nice observation! And when it comes to emotions, or unpleasant stories, it seems that the commentary keeps on pointing to the emotions or stories, so they are in a never ending loop, as if being forced into just being aware of the emotions/stories and dwelling in/on them and nothing else!

However sometimes I could emphazise on just the sound. The sound and the knowing of what "word" is being said, kind of coexist.

Yes, because ‘verbal’ words are AE of sound and not AE of verbal words.

And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

No, it´s just useless noise.
If it were necesary well..... There would be a mess round here.... Because when "flying" with thoughts, things just happen as well, driving happens, and thought tell stories, don´t see how it is necesary, even more, quite amazing that driving still occurs. The miracle is that life goes on perfectly in spite of commentary happening!!!!
So, not necesary, but can´t stop it...

Another nice observation, Julian! “The miracle is that life goes on perfectly in spite of commentary happening!!!!” – I have never looked at it that way…and you’re right lol

Okay, you have seen how there is no chooser or controller of thought, so let’s have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions overall.

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

[JulianS]

Hi kay,

Allready did that excercise and answer those questions, should do it again?

And,

.Did you also notice that the muted watching was more about the current action whilst the commentator was mostly referring to what just happened.

Yes!!,


And about

. Okay, you have seen how there is no chooser or controller of thought,

Have to be honest, it is quite clear that there is no controller, and no chooser of thought. However it seems to be this fixation on believing in a someone 'telling' some of them. Okay, that someone doesnt choose them, but somehow he is 'saying' them. Kind of hard or akward to look beyond that. When you instruct me to deconstruct and notice that a sensation can not think, and I see that, I truly say that it is true, and check it, however this rare assumption kind of still being there. You say thought wont change, is it an expectation that the idea of being a thinker will somehow vanish?


So, can do the excercise again if you want, we did that one and then we did the one of choosing a drink A or B


Big hug kay, good night
:)

[forgetmenot]

Hey Julian,

Sorry about giving you the same exercise! I am rather tired this morning and am not so switched on!

Okay, you have seen how there is no chooser or controller of thought,

You say thought wont change, is it an expectation that the idea of being a thinker will somehow vanish?

There has never been a separate self. There wasn’t one yesterday, there is one now who is reading this and there won’t be on tomorrow. So, if the idea/concept of there being a thinker of thought has always appeared…why would it vanish now? All it is, is a story about a “me” who is a thinker of thought. Can you find that “me” anywhere?

What would it feel like not to be a person is how it 'feels like' right now, that is how it 'feels like' to not be a person. But thought doesn't know that, hence the 'expectation'.

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Any actual experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Love, Kay

[JulianS]

Hi Kay!!!

Sorry for what you are about (not to) read...

I intended to answer the questions, BUT

they are reeeeeeeeally weird....
Specially the "now" ones...

What im saying is that I do not know where to look in order to answer them, they seem so abstract...

So this happened when first readed, and then decided to pick just one...

You say

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

So I took this and thought, okay, that is a clear instruction, just look at this moment and find out, and really tried,
and when trying to look was all day like -----> moment of looking, finding just sensations and colours sounds thoughts, and then kind of "Look at what?????" that sweety sensation of spaciousness could be it, hmm no, that is a sensation not a "this moment" Do not find the "this moment" that Im supposed to look in order to answer.... And it is really sweet not to find it...
I mean, I really don´t know what you are talking about when you say "just look at "this moment""-
Or when you say the "now", what are you talking about?????????? The "NOW"..... whaaaaaaaaaat is that???

Also first thinking "you are not going to write that you do not know what the now is, cmon, of course you know, the famous now" and, no, really don´t know.

So it was hillariuos and really weird.

So, need a little help..
Any clue???

Seriously, want to answer, but thought just answering "thats absurd" or "no time experience anywhere" to every question was not.... addecuate..

So, not getting this...

PS: The now was not in your list of what AE is... hehehe
PS 2: This post is not a joke nor fancy philosophy, is really what is happening when trying to answer...


Big hug Kay

[forgetmenot]

Hey Julian...just letting you know I won't be able to respond to your post for a day or maybe two.

Love, Kay

[JulianS]

Ok Kay,

I will answer the questions now...

Yes, "now" ehehehehehee

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

No, there is no experience of that.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

No.
Just the current colour,sound,thought,etc.
Just the current AE.

Any actual experience of one event following another?

No.
Just the event taking place.
Of course that event can include a thought ABOUT something that supposedly occured just before. The AE is only the thought appearing.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

There is no one "entity" or "basis" called present moment wich is moving.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

Do not find the "this moment". Just sounds colours thoughts taste.
Can not find a point where the "now" wich i can not find either, started.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Do not know, maybe 2 or 3 secs.
Hahahahhaa

The now does not exist!!!!!!!!!!!! What are you talking about!!!!!!???? What is the "now"??????

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

No now, no beginning, no end.
Just sensations thoughts colours.

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

Never.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

The inexistent hated brother of the inexistent now. Do not live in the past, just live in the inexistent now.

So, of course anything you can call "past" is just a thought being known just now that is talking about "something", that thought is just images and sounds, and do not ensamble nor refer to something that "happened". It does not represent a past event, ie, it does not gives a more or less accurate impression of what happened, it just is an arrising. Does not refer to anything that exist (or supposedly existed) in AE.

And of course there is no problem whatsoever with those thoughts appearing sometimes. They never point to something real. How the fck could I experience or live in the "past"? So that would mean I could have an experience that Im not having now. How weird does that even sound.

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Thoughts about time.



So, think I could answer them after all hehehehehe.

Big hug Kay,
have a lovely weekend

:)

[forgetmenot]

Hello Julian,

I will have to stay away more often! ;) hehe

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

No, there is no experience of that.

So what is the experience?

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

No. Just the current colour,sound,thought,etc. Just the current AE.

Yes…nice! Just the current AE and the stories (AE of thought) ABOUT the current AE’s! :)

Any actual experience of one event following another?

No. Just the event taking place.
Of course that event can include a thought ABOUT something that supposedly occured just before. The AE is only the thought appearing.

Yes, just AE seemingly appearing as objects and stories about those seeming objects.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

Do not find the "this moment". Just sounds colours thoughts taste.
Can not find a point where the "now" wich i can not find either, started.
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Do not know, maybe 2 or 3 secs.
Hahahahhaa

Lovely! The 'now' is always present. It has no definable length and therefore has no beginning or end. You cannot move out of 'now', there is no way to not live in the now...that would be to live in the past or future, which is impossible. Those are just the content of thought, so do not exist. The idea of living in the past or future is laughable, as that would be the 'now’! :)

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

No now, no beginning, no end.
Just sensations thoughts colours.

Yes, just sensation, thoughts, colours, sensation, sound, taste and smell.
You are not in the now.
You are not here.
‘Now’ doesn’t refer to a time, nor does ‘here’ refer to a place.
HereNow refers to what currently and undeniably is.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

The inexistent hated brother of the inexistent now. Do not live in the past, just live in the inexistent now.

The "past" is a presently appearing, self-consistent 'conceptual story', about this now.



Almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened.
That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.

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

What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?

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

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

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

WHEN does the future thought appear?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

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

Love, Kay

[JulianS]

Hi Kay


Okay, let´s see....

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

No, there is no experience of that.

So what is the experience?

Think I adressed this on the last post.
Experience is the impressions occuring, be it sound right now, some colours thoughts sensations.
What is not an experience is a thing named "now" moving in something called "line of time", it sounds a madness.
When looking for a "time basis" in wich all this is occuring, no thing can be found, I mean, everything that is occuring can be found, that is sensations colours thoughts, what is not here is a "now".

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Thought, be it image or sound, or both, most times both.

WHEN does the memory appear?

I know I juuuust say that there is not a "now".
So let´s call it "now", understanding that im not refering to something that is a thing and can be or not be here or have qualities, or appeared and will dissapear. Just the no-time of experientiation.

So of course memory is appearing now.

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

There is no difference.

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

With this one I was a while.

So, the "memory thought" is the images and sounds, that is the thought. In order for the knowing that that thought refers to an event that has happened, or is a fantasy or whatever, a thought about the thought is needed. You know, I didn´t find anything in the thought that could be the knowing that this thought referred to something that had happened. But looking closer, I did find that other thoughts could say like "Of course that happened" "Yeah, April 21fs (or whatever, just thought about the first thought)". Asking further sometimes sitting quietly, found like a loop, pretty similar to when looking for evidence that I was making the thoughts appear, just thoughts talking about thoughts like "It happened because I know it happened" "And how I know?" "Because I know" "No really, how do I know!?" "Because that happened, it´s obvious!!!", so thoughts all the way. No other source of that knowing that is a past thought other than a thought could be found. The thought itself, the image displaying, is not saying anything about being a thing that occured, but it kind of coexist with thoughts about it.

Then, look at a thought about the future.

It was easier... More evident. (another thought heheheheheheheeee)

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

They are made of chocolate.

Ah, and of course images and sounds. We allready discused whether the sound-thoughts are sounds or thoughts, and think we got an arrangement that we can call it either way, doesn´t change the fact.
So Im not meaning actual images or sounds, but thought images and sounds.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

You are being redundant, of course they appear in the future, when would they?

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

No difference, ie, every thought is unique, every experience is unique, but thoughts are thoughts, no matter how they are labelled.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Fun here, that conviction of thought refering to something that will happen ( conviction being just more thought) is almost never here. When it is, they are thoughts talking about the image. Mostly thoughts label the image thoughts as "hypotetic" thoughts. Think the main point that reallised here was this: they are not talking about something that will happen, they are not talking about something that will not happen either, no evidence found to sustain none of those claims, they are no talking about anything!!! they are literally images and sounds, they are the experience of the thought as they are appearing in and of itself. There is no other thing being (or to be) experienced regarding this thought, other than it´s appearance right now. Makes sense??

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

There is no difference.
The only difference can be found only in thoughts talking about those thoughts.

Make it graphycall,
thinking on a nurse <----- first thought, an image and sound,
I saw that nurse today <------ another thought, call it second thought.
Yeah, when I was at the clinic <---- call it third.


thinking on a mate <------ first thought, an image of a mate, yerba and the kitchen
Will prepare it just in a bit <------ second thought
Iccky sensation <----- sensation
No third is appearing.

So, the first thoughts on both sequences are just equal, if you want to find why there SEEMS TO BE a difference sometimes, you need to go to the second or third thoughts, wich are talking about the thought. Even though, seconds thoughts are made of the same ---- just thoughts!!!!!!!!!!

So if there seems to be a difference it is just thoughts saying some things about the thoughts.

Nor future or past can be found as an ingredient of these experiences.

So, OMG, sometimes thought like said "illusion is toooooooooooo big" "every fckng thing is thought made" "Go to hell"

Kay, think need to dig a little more in that wich you called the "SENSE OF self", kind of returned back to looking at the sensations arround the forehead just today because when trying to look in activities today to find that "me" that is supposedly thinking some thoughts, those sensations get reppeatedly pinpointed, over and over again.

Big hug Kay,
have fun

or not,

not your choice

Big hug,
having fun

[forgetmenot]

Hello Julian

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?
No, there is no experience of that.
So what is the experience?

Think I adressed this on the last post.
Experience is the impressions occuring, be it sound right now, some colours thoughts sensations.
What is not an experience is a thing named "now" moving in something called "line of time", it sounds a madness.
When looking for a "time basis" in wich all this is occuring, no thing can be found, I mean, everything that is occuring can be found, that is sensations colours thoughts, what is not here is a "now".

You may have addressed it in your last post, however, it must not have been as crystal clear as what you have written now, because that is crystal clear! Thank you!

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Thought, be it image or sound, or both, most times both.

I know we discussed sound as thought. Let’s look at that a little more now.

I would like you to have a real good look at thought.
Does thought have a voice? Does thought have sound? Does thought have an image? Does thought have a sensation? Does thought have a taste? Does thought have a smell? Can you describe a thought?
Could it be that there are thoughts about thought being sound or are thoughts simply known?

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

So, the "memory thought" is the images and sounds, that is the thought. In order for the knowing that that thought refers to an event that has happened, or is a fantasy or whatever, a thought about the thought is needed.
You know, I didn´t find anything in the thought that could be the knowing that this thought referred to something that had happened. But looking closer, I did find that other thoughts could say like "Of course that happened" "Yeah, April 21fs (or whatever, just thought about the first thought)". Asking further sometimes sitting quietly, found like a loop, pretty similar to when looking for evidence that I was making the thoughts appear, just thoughts talking about thoughts like "It happened because I know it happened" "And how I know?" "Because I know" "No really, how do I know!?" "Because that happened, it´s obvious!!!", so thoughts all the way. No other source of that knowing that is a past thought other than a thought could be found. The thought itself, the image displaying, is not saying anything about being a thing that occured, but it kind of coexist with thoughts about it.

Love your response and I love that you look so deeply and describe what you find so beautifully.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

They are made of chocolate.

Hehehe….you are dreaming ;)

So Im not meaning actual images or sounds, but thought images and sounds.

Future thoughts are simply thoughts about a time called ‘the future’, and point to nothing but thoughts about thought.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

You are being redundant, of course they appear in the future, when would they?

Where is the ‘future’, Julian? Is there such a time called the future? When are thoughts about the future actually appearing?

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

No difference, ie, every thought is unique, every experience is unique, but thoughts are thoughts, no matter how they are labelled.

To what exactly is every experience unique? Sensation is sensation no matter what stories thought overlays sensation with or calls it. What makes one sensation unique to another?

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Think the main point that reallised here was this: they are not talking about something that will happen, they are not talking about something that will not happen either, no evidence found to sustain none of those claims, they are no talking about anything!!! they are literally images and sounds, they are the experience of the thought as they are appearing in and of itself. There is no other thing being (or to be) experienced regarding this thought, other than it´s appearance right now. Makes sense??

So, they are thoughts and images appearing now about a ‘furturistic time’ that does not exist?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

There is no difference.
The only difference can be found only in thoughts talking about those thoughts.
Nor future or past can be found as an ingredient of these experiences.

Yes exactly, future and past thoughts, be they images as well, are appearing in this current moment and point to thoughts about thought, as the past and future are just fictional places on a fictional time line.

Kay, think need to dig a little more in that wich you called the "SENSE OF self", kind of returned back to looking at the sensations arround the forehead just today because when trying to look in activities today to find that "me" that is supposedly thinking some thoughts, those sensations get reppeatedly pinpointed, over and over again.

Let’s say that you have lost your keys and you swear that you left them in your coat. You go to look and check all the pockets - the keys are not there. You swear they must be, that was the last place you remember them, you have a vivid memory of putting them there after you left the house. But when you check they are not there. At this point you can keep believing the keys are in your pocket or you can admit you were mistaken. This is just like that. You may see clearly that the self is an illusion but still feel a sense of self - just like the keys. But feeling something to be true and seeing that it is or is not is different. This is why we may find ourselves coming back to your expectations at the start and at the end.

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

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 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

[JulianS]

Kay!!
Thank you for your answer, a lot, just finished reading it, will take my time, but, just for the record,

WHEN does the future thought appear?

You are being redundant, of course they appear in the future, when would they?

Was messing you with this one, no cool, sorry
So

.Where is the ‘future’, Julian? Is there such a time called the future? When are thoughts about the future actually appearing?

Of course there is no future!!!!!!!!
Of course thoughts are appearing just now!!!!!


Sorry, just woke up clown-like


So thats my confession
Will keep it alive Kay


Bigger hug!!!!!!!!

!!!!

[forgetmenot]

Hey Julian.....I thought you were messing with me...but it's not easy to tell at times using this way of communicating :)

And WAKE UP. SLEEPY HEAD..I have been awake for hours..it is now coming up to midday!

Love, Kay