Knock Knock

[JulianS]

Hello Kay!!!!!


So, will take another day with these questions....

Don´t cheat on me, it´s up to midnight allready!!!!!! But yooooou, such a badass ActualExperiencer didn´t want me to tell something about timezones :P

Big hug Kay, will check tomorrow here-night.

:)

[JulianS]

Hi Kay!!!!!!!


Will adress the questions....


Do not know really where you were pointing to with the thought questions

Does thought have a voice?

It seems that there is a voice, lets call it "mental voice".
Nor that there is a thought or an entity that has that, but there is this appearance of a voice.

Does thought have sound?

Yes, you could say the "voice" is a sound...

Does thought have an image?

Yes, mental images appear.
Again, it is not the way it is formulated, there is no an entity "thought", just the present mental image.

Does thought have a sensation?

No

Does thought have a taste?

No

Does thought have a smell?

No

Can you describe a thought?

I could try, but that would be kind of weird. So I can not accurately describe a thought.

Could it be that there are thoughts about thought being sound or are thoughts simply known?

Thoughts are known.
Do not see such a difference, kind of seems a different way of putting it, ie, i deffinitely know a thought when it is here, sometimes it is quite similar to "hearing", and sometimes it is more image-like, but as thought is not the same as "sound" when we refer to sounds, guess you can call it.... thought.
I mean Kay, I can not negate I hear a voice, talking. It seems pretty much that the AE of thought is a voice talking (and the mentioned above, images) , am i miss seing this??

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?

Also didn´t get this....

Every experience is unique in terms that that precise sound, that precise sound wich is appearing right now, it is not a "sound", sound is a labell, the actual experience is "biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii", uncomunicabable. Same with sensations. What makes one sensation unique? Well, thought, kind of in order to compare things, or to say anything about experience, you need thought. So, unique is a story. But calling every "sensation" that appear "sensation", is a story also, sensations are not "sensations", sensation is a fucking labell, it isn´t an actual sensation. "Sensation is sensation", is a story too. The actual experience of that wich the word sensation points to, is not a story.

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

Hehe, so I was joking when saying the future thing....
No, they are thoughts and images appearing, that is all. They do not refer to anything "outside" them, meaning, the experience is just this thought, does not point to, does not predict, nor talks about a future.

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…

Hehehehe......

Soooooooooooooo......

This was really really interesting, still is, keeping the focus was harder today than yesterday. (Do not kill me for saying this please (today and yesterday)) (or kill me what the hell hehehe)

Think I got to start from the last question

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

It seems that the sense of self is a bunch of sensations and thought. It is not an image in terms of seeing input, but it can be a thought image.
What I found was that there is no a stable perception of this "sense of self", it is a bunch of changing impressions labelled as "I".
The word "I" is in language and that is a big part of the sense of self, but that is not a feeling. However, if thought weren`t saying "I" "I", incluiding this I, there wouldn´t be notion of an I. When thought says "I", it is talking about a) a sensation on head zone, or b)an image thought of a head or a face, or a body.
Also found, specially when thought content gets emphazised, that this sense of self kind of is felt in the "head" zone. Pretty convinced that if you chop out all those sensations, there wouldn`t be notion of an I.

So getting out that bunch of sensations and thoughts wich says "I", ahhh, and images of a "body" and a "face", and thoughts with "Julian", there wouldn´t be notion of an I.

So, did not find a stable thing wich can be called I.
Still looking for it.
Do not find, what can it be?

Do not know if this "sense of self" can be found as a more stable impression than that wich im getting.
Kind of a mirrage thing, when looking closely, that wich seemed to be an I, isn´t one, is just a sensation.

Does the sense of self have a location?

So, I mentioned "head zone", but that is a thought.

It has not a defined place.

Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

No.

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?

No it does not.

It does seem like that sometimes, but looking closer, just thoughts and sensations, and thoughts about a thinker.

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

Well.... no.

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.

Kind of looking, okay no keys, but do not admit my mistake hehehehehhehee


I was asking really hard Kay this "How the hell I know that there is an "i", where am I getting that data from?" This is really engaging me and helps me keeping the focus asking that, should I continue that way??
So, helps who????
See how intrincated in language is this "i" thing, how can it be that it is so difficult to pinpoint the thing that the more used word in everyday life points to, is not that madness!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????



That for now....
Good EVENING.
Hehe

Big big hug good friend :)

[forgetmenot]

Good afternoon Julian,

Does thought have a voice?

It seems that there is a voice, lets call it "mental voice".

There is no mental voice. Thoughts do not have a voice. They just appear and are known.

Sometimes you hear a song on the radio on your way to work or while you are cooking or doing something, and that song can stay with you all day. The song seems to play over and over again. All the intricate details are there. All the lyrics, all the notes in the guitar solo are as clear as when it was playing out of the car speakers. But really there is no music playing - no one singing, and no guitarist. It's just thought about sound.

Nor that there is a thought or an entity that has that, but there is this appearance of a voice.

Is a voice known or are the thoughts ABOUT sound labelled as ‘voice’ known?

Does thought have sound?

Yes, you could say the "voice" is a sound...

And what does this sound labelled ‘voice’ sound like? Describe it to be in precise detail please.

Does thought have an image?

Yes, mental images appear.

Where is this place called ‘mental’? Is there an inside or an outside of the body? The images that are labelled as words/thought are AE of image and not AE of words/thoughts

Can you describe a thought?

I could try, but that would be kind of weird. So I can not accurately describe a thought.

Yes, you could try but there is no way of describing a thought, because thought is experience appearing as thought and experience is indescribable.

I mean Kay, I can not negate I hear a voice, talking. It seems pretty much that the AE of thought is a voice talking (and the mentioned above, images) , am i miss seing this??

Yes, because you would have to be a separate self to hear a voice talking. Who is this voice talking to? Thoughts are known as they appear, there is no one thinking thoughts and the same goes for sound. There is no hearer of sound. There is just simply sound appearing. There are thoughts about thoughts been heard, but they are only thoughts.

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?

Every experience is unique in terms that that precise sound, that precise sound wich is appearing right now, it is not a "sound", sound is a labell, the actual experience is "biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii", uncomunicabable. Same with sensations. What makes one sensation unique? Well, thought, kind of in order to compare things, or to say anything about experience, you need thought. So, unique is a story. But calling every "sensation" that appear "sensation", is a story also, sensations are not "sensations", sensation is a fucking labell, it isn´t an actual sensation. "Sensation is sensation", is a story too. The actual experience of that wich the word sensation points to, is not a story.

Yes…so then it is not unique…it just simply IS.

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

It seems that the sense of self is a bunch of sensations and thought. It is not an image in terms of seeing input, but it can be a thought image.
What I found was that there is no a stable perception of this "sense of self", it is a bunch of changing impressions labelled as "I".

Are you aware of this ‘sense of self’ 24 hours a day? No. So even seeing, that this ‘sense of self’ feeling is not 24/7, shows that it is an appearance that comes and goes. If you were this sense of self, then you would disappear each time the sense of self disappeared….and that would be impossible, because then you would not exist.

The word "I" is in language and that is a big part of the sense of self, but that is not a feeling. However, if thought weren`t saying "I" "I", incluiding this I, there wouldn´t be notion of an I.

If thoughts said that unicorns were real, would you believe that thought? There is no difference between thought saying a unicorn is real and saying that the separate “I” is real!

For every thought that comes up, to determine whether it is referring to actual experience or whether it is pure fantasy, replace it with “blahblahblah” and check whether what it was referring to remains.

When thought says "I", it is talking about a) a sensation on head zone, or b)an image thought of a head or a face, or a body.

No, when the label “I” appears it is not talking about anything. Thought knows nothing. Thoughts either point to AE or they point to more thoughts about thoughts.

Also found, specially when thought content gets emphazised, that this sense of self kind of is felt in the "head" zone. Pretty convinced that if you chop out all those sensations, there wouldn`t be notion of an I.

If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘sense of self’? Is there any inherent self in the sensation itself?

Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘sense of self’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?
Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in the head zone …what is the difference between them?
A part from being a bit more intense, is there any difference?

Do not know if this "sense of self" can be found as a more stable impression than that wich im getting.
Kind of a mirrage thing, when looking closely, that wich seemed to be an I, isn´t one, is just a sensation.

Is it really a sensation? Is the body AE of sensation or AE of thought?
Is the “I” AE of sensation or AE of thought?

I was asking really hard Kay this "How the hell I know that there is an "i", where am I getting that data from?" This is really engaging me and helps me keeping the focus asking that, should I continue that way??

There is no you "and" thought. There is just thoughts saying that there is you "and" thought. There is no background where thoughts are formed. Thoughts are simply here, like these very words (black squiggly lines) are.

Love, Kay

[JulianS]

Hi KAY!!!!!
Good afternoon :)

Is a voice known or are the thoughts ABOUT sound labelled as ‘voice’ known?

This was a bit confusing at first to look at.....
The experience labelled as "voice" or "mental voice" is a thought being known.

And what does this sound labelled ‘voice’ sound like? Describe it to be in precise detail please.

Okay, this sound sounds like..... aaaaa, eeee, iii, ooo, can not describe the sound. It has no location either. The best that can be done is this: right now, as you are reading this, this experience of the sound appearing as attention moves into colours labelled "words", that is what is labelled "voice".

Where is this place called ‘mental’? Is there an inside or an outside of the body? The images that are labelled as words/thought are AE of image and not AE of words/thoughts

There is no place that is called "mental", thoughts are appearing just as every other perception is, in the same.... would say space, but can find a "space" in where everything is appearing.
There is no inside or outside of the body.

Want to clarify what you mean with image. If I would to ask you, right now imagine an apple in your desk, and you imagine it there, that kind of experience is what you are calling "image"?

If you don’t think about it, do you know that this sensation is something called ‘sense of self’? Is there any inherent self in the sensation itself?

No, no thinking about it, sensations are just sensations. There is no "self" in a sensation. Self can not be a sensation either.

Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘sense of self’? Or is it just a neutral, undefined tingling sensation?

Tingling, wich is a labell, does not describe it accurately as it is appearing right now, kind of an alivenes or softness is felt to. However, wouldn´t call it sense of self.

Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in the head zone …what is the difference between them?A part from being a bit more intense, is there any difference?

There is no difference. The softness (really do not know how to describe sensation) is also on the head zone. There is no difference and actually kind of the same intensity.

Is it really a sensation? Is the body AE of sensation or AE of thought?

The body is AE of thought. Sensations are AE of sensations. That wich is called "body" is an image.

Is the “I” AE of sensation or AE of thought?

Thought.
Thought sometimes points to sensations saying that they indicate an I, or just calling them "i", but that experience is a thought experience. Also the word "I", is a thought. And the image of an I is also a thought. Every thought about "my" things or life is a thought also. Every argument of why an I exists althought it can not be seen is a thought. And that idea is persistent, "Okay, can not find an I, just looking harder will find it, it has to be here".


Big hug Kay

[forgetmenot]

Good morning Julian,

Is a voice known or are the thoughts ABOUT sound labelled as ‘voice’ known?

This was a bit confusing at first to look at.....
The experience labelled as "voice" or "mental voice" is a thought being known.

Yes…it has no sound. There are thoughts about thoughts being sound, but thoughts are known, not heard.

Want to clarify what you mean with image. If I would to ask you, right now imagine an apple in your desk, and you imagine it there, that kind of experience is what you are calling "image"?

Yes, it is generally referred to as a ‘mental image’. But a mental image supposedly occurs in the mind….there is no mind.

There is no distinction between 'mental image' and 'visual sight'.
Visual sight = the image of the outside world seen by this human body through the eyes
Mental image = images that appears in the mind that is not the image of the current picture seen by the eyes, but rather just a reappearing image from ‘memory’
Since both definitions are about the body seeing and having experiences, neither of the definitions are true, as they are both about time and space.
So, in reality, there are no such things as 'mental image' and 'visual sight'. There is only image/colour. Only thought labels them as 'visual' or 'mental'.

Going even further, there isn't a stand-alone image either. Experience doesn't have parts. Only thought says that experience can be divided into parts, like image + thought, and that the thought which is 'saying' this, is also not a stand-alone thought (meaning existing on its own). There is only experience. Without any division or parts.

Look at this doodle. It looks like there are a lot of things?



Life seems to be a gigantic soup of experience that is grouped, categorised and labelled as things. There seems to be a ‘me’ that is ‘here’ that is experiencing things that are ‘out there’. And all those things ‘out there’ are all individual separate things.

None of it is separated except through thought because all of the images present are just one big canvas. Sounds overlap and intrude on each other, and there is a thought that says “I can separate bird song from car horns. Look! See? I've just named them!” But what is actually appearing is sound, with perhaps an image of a bird and an image of a car, and thoughts ABOUT sound appearing as a bird and car!

And thought appears saying “I can separate a cat from a book. See, I’ve just named them!” But what is actually appearing is colour and thoughts ABOUT colour appearing as shapes/images labelled ‘cat’ and ‘book’.

‘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?

Is the “I” AE of sensation or AE of thought?

Thought.
Thought sometimes points to sensations saying that they indicate an I, or just calling them "i", but that experience is a thought experience. Also the word "I", is a thought. And the image of an I is also a thought. Every thought about "my" things or life is a thought also. Every argument of why an I exists althought it can not be seen is a thought. And that idea is persistent, "Okay, can not find an I, just looking harder will find it, it has to be here".

“And the idea is persistent” is also a thought. So yes, the story about there being a ‘sense of self’ will continue to persistently appear, but as you have seen that doesn’t make it true!

So is it 100% clear that there is no ‘you’ as a separate self?

Love, Kay

[JulianS]

Hi Kay,
good afternoon

Just to be clear, i am answering the blue questions as you instructed earlier...

What separates things?

Nothing.
It seemed that there is a "space" "between" things, but recognized that it is a thought what is saying that , it is a thought that says "look, there is space between things" and an image appearing of a "distance" or a "line" in between "things". So thought and images appear in the midst of experience, but they do not separate things. They can not.

What makes up the borders?

Images and labells.
As you say, there is a variation on colourness of colour experience, or as you put it, on observed qualities, but that does not make a "border". AE of colour is a 2D display of colour.
Images of "things" appear in the midst of this display.
AE experience of "borders" is image.

Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us?

No. Don´t think I got this....

If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

Thoughts about variations observed qualities is a constant labelling of experience ocurring, it can not be stopped and it is what makes it seems like there are lots of "things", but actually, as you beautifully puted with the bird example, there is AE of sound and colour, and images of "things" and thoughts naming things.

So is it 100% clear that there is no ‘you’ as a separate self?

O K A Y K A Y, being honest....

No, it is not 100% clear.
It is as if I am a sort of "experiencer".....
Kind of, don´t see how the "I" can be JUST a thought.



So, that is it.

:)

[forgetmenot]

Hey Julian

Just to be clear, i am answering the blue questions as you instructed earlier...

Yes, correct. You can respond to more in anything I post if you so wish.

What separates things?

Nothing.
It seemed that there is a "space" "between" things, but recognized that it is a thought what is saying that , it is a thought that says "look, there is space between things" and an image appearing of a "distance" or a "line" in between "things". So thought and images appear in the midst of experience, but they do not separate things. They can not.

Nice observations. Thought and images do not “appear in the midst of experience”, if they did, that would make experience AND thoughts AND images.

Experience appears as everything, but it is none of those things. Every ‘thing’ is ‘made up of’ experience…in other words they are all the same ‘substance’, because they are all experience. Experience does not become a thought; thought is experience and experience is always here! It is just thought that says thought is something other than experience!

So, everything is experience/THIS…so what exactly then are the “space between things”?



Here is a picture of a doughnut. Now, thought says that there is some doughnut missing, which it labels as a ‘hole/gap/space’.

Is there anything really missing?

Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us?

No. Don´t think I got this....

Since there is no separation and it is only thought that ’plucks’ or puts borders around things and then labels them as cat, book, tree. But would you actually be able to pluck those seeming separate objects out of the wholeness of the picture?

If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

Thoughts about variations observed qualities is a constant labelling of experience ocurring, it can not be stopped and it is what makes it seems like there are lots of "things", but actually, as you beautifully puted with the bird example, there is AE of sound and colour, and images of "things" and thoughts naming things.

Yes…so are there many things or is there just one seamless whole which thought divides into many things and then labels them, including colour, sound, smell, taste, thought and sensation?

Experience is not made up of sound AND smell AND thought AND taste AND sensation AND colour. They are ‘made from’ experience, so they are one and the same. In other words soundsmellthoughttastesensatoncolour = experience. It is only though divides experience into these categories.

So is it 100% clear that there is no ‘you’ as a separate self?

O K A Y K A Y, being honest....
No, it is not 100% clear.
It is as if I am a sort of "experiencer".....
Kind of, don´t see how the "I" can be JUST a thought.

LOL…yes, You are certainly not a thought! The character called Julian is a thought, but You are not a thought.

Thought does not know what 'blue sky' refer to...only you know 'Blue sky' may refer to actual experience of what is labelled 'blue sky' or to pure fantasy about 'blue sky'.

That is why I have asked in our exploration if you can find a border between sound and ‘hearer’, between colour and ‘see-er’ and where do you end and a thought begin and so on.

Where does hearing end and sound begin? Where does thought end and you begin? Is there a border between see-er and seen? Or are they all one and the same – knowingknown?

So let’s explore if sound is actually heard. For sound to be heard means that there must be a hearer AND sound, which points to separation.

For this exercise you will need to sit yourself near a clock that has an audible second hand.

Allow your eyes to close gently.

Listen to the sound. “Tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock”

Focus on the tick tock. Attune to the sound itself. IGNORE any explanatory thoughts about what must be creating the sound.

Try to find the clock.

1. Going just by the tick tock sound, do you find a clock present?
2. Is there any direct/actual experience of a clock in the sound?
3. Does the sound come self-labelled as originating from the clock?
4. Do you find a clock hidden in the sound?
5. Do you find a clock beyond the sound?
6. In your direct/actual experience of the sound, do you find any evidence that the sound is caused by a clock?
7. In your direct experience is there any evidence of a hearer of the sound?

Allow your eyes to open.

Were you able to establish that in your direct/actual experience of the tick tock sound, that there was a clock?

Were you able to find a division between hearing and sound?
Were you able to establish where hearing ended and sound begin, or was there just pure experience labelled as sound?

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

Love, Kay

[JulianS]

Hi Kay
Good evening

Thank you for your quick response
Just wanted to ask

In your post you quoted

Where does hearing end and sound begin? Where does thought end and you begin? Is there a border between see-er and seen? Or are they all one and the same – knowingknown?

Were you trying to put it blue???

Big huh

[forgetmenot]

Hey Julian....yes, it was meant to be in blue and not in quotes! :)

K

[JulianS]

Hi Kay,
Busy busy.
Tomorrow will probably deliver some more of this tiny black things

Big hug

[JulianS]

Hi Kay!!! Good afternoon

So.... couple of shoking emotionally days....
And busy ones,
but kept the looking...

So the doughnut...

Is there anything really missing?

.No!!! Even the labell "hole/gap" points to AE of colour.
How can anything be missing????

Yes…so are there many things or is there just one seamless whole which thought divides into many things and then labels them, including colour, sound, smell, taste, thought and sensation?

Looking at this, found this.
For sure thought is what apparently separates things.
Strange indeed, in order to tell if thoughts are somehow separate of sounds, or if sounds are separate from colour and in wich sense, only a thought can say that they are.
Experience is constantly here, yes, and is known.
The concept of "one seamless whole" seems however strange too..... what could say that there is just "one" or even "experience" but a thought?
So, without thought, can not say that colour is separate from smell from sound, but can not say "everything is a whole" either....

Where does hearing end and sound begin? Where does thought end and you begin? Is there a border between see-er and seen? Or are they all one and the same – knowingknown?

Wow....
In hearing just found the sound.
Thought is just thought.

In the seen question.....
Thought kept saying "okay but i am back here!!!"
So, that is a thought experience.
Looking really hard to find that "back here" thought is talking about. Can not find it.
Just the colours, just the seen.
Sometimes thought points to sensations as if they were some kind of a seer, but they are not. Sensation can not see.

Just experience of the seen, the thought saying something more is here, the sensations, some images. Everything is an experience known.




The clock!!!!!!!!!!

1. Going just by the tick tock sound, do you find a clock present?

Nope. Just sound.

2. Is there any direct/actual experience of a clock in the sound?

No

3. Does the sound come self-labelled as originating from the clock?

No, it does not even come self-labelled as tick-tack

4. Do you find a clock hidden in the sound?

No

5. Do you find a clock beyond the sound?

No

6. In your direct/actual experience of the sound, do you find any evidence that the sound is caused by a clock?

No

7. In your direct experience is there any evidence of a hearer of the sound?

No.

Were you able to establish that in your direct/actual experience of the tick tock sound, that there was a clock?

No.

Were you able to find a division between hearing and sound?

No.

Were you able to establish where hearing ended and sound begin, or was there just pure experience labelled as sound?

Just tick-tack-

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

No dividing line can be found. The knowing of the sound is the sound. The sound is the knowing of the sound.



So, that is :)

Big hug Kay
Thank you for your pattience :)

[forgetmenot]

Hey Julian,

Excellent LOOKING once again!

So.... couple of shoking emotionally days....

Would you care to share a little more about this please?

So the doughnut...
Is there anything really missing?

.No!!! Even the labell "hole/gap" points to AE of colour.
How can anything be missing????

Lovely! Yes, there is never anything missing ever and the hole is AE of colour!

Yes…so are there many things or is there just one seamless whole which thought divides into many things and then labels them, including colour, sound, smell, taste, thought and sensation?

The concept of "one seamless whole" seems however strange too..... what could say that there is just "one" or even "experience" but a thought?
So, without thought, can not say that colour is separate from smell from sound, but can not say "everything is a whole" either....

You got it! It is only for sake of communication that it is called a ‘seamless whole’.

Where does hearing end and sound begin? Where does thought end and you begin? Is there a border between see-er and seen? Or are they all one and the same – knowingknown?

Wow....
In hearing just found the sound.
Thought is just thought.

Brilliant!

In the seen question.....
Thought kept saying "okay but i am back here!!!"
So, that is a thought experience.
Looking really hard to find that "back here" thought is talking about. Can not find it.
Just the colours, just the seen.
Sometimes thought points to sensations as if they were some kind of a seer, but they are not. Sensation can not see.

You got it!

Just experience of the seen, the thought saying something more is here, the sensations, some images. Everything is an experience known.

Yes, so can you see that the ‘experiencer’ and the ‘experience’ is one and the same? Therefore there is no experiencer of experience, knowing of known, awareness of awared? That they are all one and same?

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

No dividing line can be found. The knowing of the sound is the sound. The sound is the knowing of the sound.

YES!

So, do you have any questions you would like to ask about anything we have explored from beginning to now?

Love, Kay

[JulianS]

Kay

Just suddenly broke up with my gf.... 5 years together.. Her choice, really unexpected
Some tears

[forgetmenot]

Hello Julian....this is a difficult time for you. I am thinking of you and sending you love.

Love, Kay

[JulianS]

Hi Kay....
Difficult times indeed

....

There is really little energy now invested in exploring what experience is
Just listening the feelings, watching all these moods changing... Crying...
Feel like quiting.... Or waiting....