Emptiness is the track on which the centred person moves. - Tsongkhapa.

[forgetmenot]

Lovely Iain, I will await your body responses....but I will leave you with the following! :)

Is thinking anything other than a succession of thoughts, linked by another thought?

Let’s take a look at what thought might say.

Sensation arising labelled ‘frustration’.

Thought 1: I’m feeling frustrated

Thought 2: I’m feeling frustrated because these “me” thoughts are still as thick as fog and they keep saying that there is a me!

Thought 3: I am never going to get this. I am never going to be able to see past these thoughts to see that there is no me.

Thought 4: Omg, I am so frustrated and pissed off with myself with this looking. When will I get it? What if I never get it. OMG….what then? I try so hard and I am constantly looking but I still don’t get it.



Thought 27: Wow! I see it now! I clearly see that I am not a character! It is pretty clear!"

Thought 28: I will never doubt again, I see it so clearly now and I feel such a relief.

Thought 29: I wonder what I will cook for dinner




Thought 35: Don't be stupid, you haven’t seen anything, you only think you have. See, look at all that doubt that you have. Who am I trying to kid! These thoughts are right, there is a me, so who am I trying to kid? What if this looking is just cods wallop?

Now when we look at this, do we find thought 35 has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all? Is the first thought aware of something which the other thoughts somehow don’t see? Is thought 35 aware of something which the other thoughts somehow don't see? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

So what is the AE of ‘body’?

This morning I looked at the experience of colour, sensation etc, and knowing that thought is taking place (but not the content of thought), and reflected on how it is thought that separates experience into these separate parts. I considered how even though colour, sensation and knowing thought feel or appear different, they are all experience split up by thought.

I know thought can point towards experience, and thought can point towards other thoughts. When thought labels experience appearing as colour as ‘image of body’ or experience appearing as sensation ‘body sensations’ then experience of that thought is the AE of ‘body’. Is that correct?

Do sensations themselves suggest in any way that there are many of them, and that they are different?
Are there many different thoughts? Or is there simply thought which thought says there are many of?

Just as thought splits experience into colour, sound, smell and the experience of thought (but not the content) it also suggests that there are different sensations or multiple sensations. Experience appears as sensation, then thought will label it sensation of foot, or sensation of leg, for example. Just as experience appearing as colour cannot know the label ‘red’, experience appearing as sensation cannot label or divide such an experience.

Thought splits experience, experience is known, thought points towards experience with labels and divisions, and the content of thought personalises and tells a story (thin legs, long legs, sore legs, Iain’s legs etc).

The colour labelled ‘room’ is appearing, so it isn’t imagined. If there is no colour labelled ‘room’ appearing then it is just thoughts about a room and is ‘imagined’.

This makes it clear that thought may point towards experience appearing as colour and label it ‘body’ or ‘room’. Thought may also point to other thoughts about a person, owner, or experiencer but there is nothing in actual experience to base these thought upon.

Now when we look at this, do we find thought 35 has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all?

Thoughts point towards thoughts and a story unfolds separate from experience. The comments in the story at different times are story only and know nothing of other thoughts. Thought may suggest there is a separate experiencer of thoughts who watched the previous thoughts and will see the next ones, but this is only a suggestion in thought.

Is the first thought aware of something which the other thoughts somehow don’t see? Is thought 35 aware of something which the other thoughts somehow don't see?

Story feeds into story and onto yet more story. Content of thought is story only and thought cannot reflect upon past thoughts any more than it can control the next thought.

It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

Thought has run with a story with changing imagined scenarios. Sensation arises and thought labels. Thought may then comment “this thought is compelling and true” or “that thought is mistaken” but both are just thoughts about thoughts, another layer of thought, and true or false are only suggestions in the story.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain,

So what is the AE of ‘body’?

I know thought can point towards experience, and thought can point towards other thoughts. When thought labels experience appearing as colour as ‘image of body’ or experience appearing as sensation ‘body sensations’ then experience of that thought is the AE of ‘body’. Is that correct?

Is there an AE of ‘body’? Or is there simply AE of label ‘body’ which points to sensation, colour, smell etc and overlays those raw experience with a further thoughts ie story ABOUT a body?

The label ‘body’ is AE, however, does the content of the thought actually contain the experience of a body?

Label ‘body’ is known (as AE of thought, not as AE of body)
Sensation labelled ‘body’ is known (as AE sensation and not as AE of body)
Colour/image labelled ‘body’ is known (as AE of colour not as AE of body)
Taste labelled ‘body’ is known (as AE of taste not as AE of body)
Smell labelled ‘body’ is known (as AE of smell not as AE of body)
Sound labelled ‘body’ is known (as AE of sound not as AE of body)
Thoughts ABOUT a ‘body’ are known (as AE of thought not as AE of body)

So is a ‘body’ actually known?

Thoughts layer concepts over actual experience. A thought (concept or label) is never the actual. Some thoughts point to the actual, and some point to other thoughts, but the content of every single thought is just a story.

Do sensations themselves suggest in any way that there are many of them, and that they are different?
Are there many different thoughts? Or is there simply thought which thought says there are many of?

Just as thought splits experience into colour, sound, smell and the experience of thought (but not the content) it also suggests that there are different sensations or multiple sensations. Experience appears as sensation, then thought will label it sensation of foot, or sensation of leg, for example. Just as experience appearing as colour cannot know the label ‘red’, experience appearing as sensation cannot label or divide such an experience.

Yes, exactly. Thought can say many things, even that there are many different sensations, thoughts, colours etc, however thought knows nothing.

Using ‘fear’ as an example. If you don’t think about it, do you know that the sensation is something called ‘fear’?
Is there any inherent fear in the sensation itself?

Go to the sensation at the soles of the feet. Would you label that sensation ‘fear’? 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 your chest (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them?
A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?

The colour labelled ‘room’ is appearing, so it isn’t imagined. If there is no colour labelled ‘room’ appearing then it is just thoughts about a room and is ‘imagined’.

This makes it clear that thought may point towards experience appearing as colour and label it ‘body’ or ‘room’. Thought may also point to other thoughts about a person, owner, or experiencer but there is nothing in actual experience to base these thought upon.

If thought says that you saw a spectacular sunrise yesterday…is that sunrise experience as you presently find it? No…so it is just thought story ie ‘imagination’. If however, the colours labelled ‘spectacular sunrise’ is experience as you presently find it (ie now), then thought is pointing to actual experience as you presently find it; ie the colours thought refers to as a 'sunrise' are what are actually appearing now. Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to thoughts about actual experience which is not the current experience which then equates to just story...thought fluff/imagination.
Can you see the difference?

Now when we look at this, do we find thought 35 has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all?

Thoughts point towards thoughts and a story unfolds separate from experience. The comments in the story at different times are story only and know nothing of other thoughts. Thought may suggest there is a separate experiencer of thoughts who watched the previous thoughts and will see the next ones, but this is only a suggestion in thought.

What I was pointing to was how thoughts just appear and seem to point to clarity and then confusion etc. One moment they appear saying…yes, I am not the character and it’s all clear. And a couple of thoughts later another thought appears saying the opposite, and inbetween those thoughts there are thoughts about cooking dinner, or some other inane thought. However, thoughts aren’t aware of thought 1 or thought 67754!

Another thought appears saying “I am believing a thought that says I am confused”. Does the content of that thought actually contain the experience of an “I” who is believing and confused”? No. “I am believing a thought that says I am confused” is just a random thought appearing, and you are totally aware of that thought and the idea of confusion and doubt. However are you ever confused or in doubt that what is appearing is a thought?

Is the first thought aware of something which the other thoughts somehow don’t see? Is thought 35 aware of something which the other thoughts somehow don't see?

Story feeds into story and onto yet more story. Content of thought is story only and thought cannot reflect upon past thoughts any more than it can control the next thought.

Yes. Can anyone/anything “reflect upon past thoughts any more than control the next thought”? Or is that also a thought?

It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

Thought has run with a story with changing imagined scenarios. Sensation arises and thought labels. Thought may then comment “this thought is compelling and true” or “that thought is mistaken” but both are just thoughts about thoughts, another layer of thought, and true or false are only suggestions in the story.

Yes, lovely! If thought appears saying fairies are true...does that make it so?

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Is there an AE of ‘body’? Or is there simply AE of label ‘body’ which points to sensation, colour, smell etc and overlays those raw experience with a further thoughts ie story ABOUT a body?

Yes, there isn’t a body hiding in thought. The label in thought can be experienced. The label points to certain experience and is a thought about that experience. The label is About, but is not What it is pointing towards, and the label contains nothing of the experience.

There is Actual Experience of raw sensation, colour, smell etc and there is Actual Experience of thought labels about experience, but the thing the label describes cannot be found in AE.

So is a ‘body’ actually known?

There is no body to be found in Actual Experience and thought only labels experience and talks about a body, so No body to be known.

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

The sensation at the soles of the feet is indeed only a neutral, undefined tingling sensation.

Now compare the sensation of the soles of the feet – which is just neutral sensation – and the sensation in your chest (labelled ‘fear’)…what is the difference between them?

The only difference is the label given in thought. Following from the sensation being labelled, thought may continue with a further story about ‘fear is bad, Iain is in fear, what can be done about fear’ but that is a story following the labelling. Sensation itself knows nothing of feet or fear.

A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?

It’s tempting to say it’s more intense, but surely ‘intense’ or ‘gentle’ are additional layers of concepts by thought about sensation. Experience appearing as sensation doesn’t come with any built in intensity or lack of intensity, just as it does not know foot or fear or person.

Can you see the difference?

Does this goes back to the difference in thought pointing towards Actual Experience, or thought pointing towards other thought? Experience appears as colour and thought labels horizon, sun, sky. Thought knows nothing, but its labels about sunrise taking place now are known. Thoughts of yesterday’s sunrise are a story that in no way links with experience at that time, and is taking place in imagination only.

I have yet to answer your questions about thought. Ironically thoughts about a story of frustration and a character called Iain followed by a story about it being hard to look and answer clearly at this time are present. I will return to look afresh later :-)

Love, Iain

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Another thought appears saying “I am believing a thought that says I am confused”. Does the content of that thought actually contain the experience of an “I” who is believing and confused”? No.

Thoughts certainly don’t hold any awareness. They comment endlessly on what awareness is currently appearing. The thought “I am believing a thought that says I am confused” is thought story only and knows nothing of an I who is believing and confused, even if thought comments on a familiar sensation of I being present at that time. They may point inwards towards further thought but cannot know or hold within them a separate expereincer.

“I am believing a thought that says I am confused” is just a random thought appearing, and you are totally aware of that thought and the idea of confusion and doubt. However are you ever confused or in doubt that what is appearing is a thought?

It is clear that it is thought only appearing. There is no separate ‘believer’ or concept of belief (other than thought) to be found outside of the thought. There is no separate ‘confusion’ outside of the label that thought is applying at that time. Thought could equally apply labels of ‘there is clarity taking place now’ and ‘Iain or self is concept simply layered over other thoughts by thought’. Thought only.

Yes. Can anyone/anything “reflect upon past thoughts any more than control the next thought”? Or is that also a thought?

There is only the experience of the thought taking place at that time. Thought may label a current thought as similar or different to a past thought, but thought itself knows nothing of the content of previous thoughts and any suggestion of places in time where thoughts took place in the past (or may do in the future) are all supposition in thought (layers of thoughts about thoughts). Thought certainly can’t control future thoughts even if adds layers of commentary suggesting familiarity and imagined concepts of control.

Yes, lovely! If thought appears saying fairies are true...does that make it so?

If thought points towards actual experience then the knowing of the thought label and thought comments about that experience is distinct from the story of thoughts pointing towards yet more thoughts and onto more. Fairies in thought are such imagination only. Suggestions that they may be true or false are a further layer of thought within the story. Comments about a separate experiencer beyond the thought taking place, an imagined Iain or person or self are all suggestions in thought.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain,

A little bit more intense, but apart from that – any difference?

It’s tempting to say it’s more intense, but surely ‘intense’ or ‘gentle’ are additional layers of concepts by thought about sensation. Experience appearing as sensation doesn’t come with any built in intensity or lack of intensity, just as it does not know foot or fear or person.

Yes, exactly….’intense’ is just thought trying to describe experience! Experience itself is indescribable.

Can you see the difference?

Does this goes back to the difference in thought pointing towards Actual Experience, or thought pointing towards other thought? Experience appears as colour and thought labels horizon, sun, sky. Thought knows nothing, but its labels about sunrise taking place now are known. Thoughts of yesterday’s sunrise are a story that in no way links with experience at that time, and is taking place in imagination only.

Well this example goes towards both! Thought pointing to actual experience and not imagination/fantasy! If the colours labelled ‘sunrise’ are experience as you find it in this moment, then thought is pointing to actual experience of colour labelled ‘sunrise’in that moment. The story about it being a beautiful sunrise is a thought story and is pointing to thought! Taste labelled "sweet" isn't a story, but story can be, "I love chocolate ice cream."

I have yet to answer your questions about thought. Ironically thoughts about a story of frustration and a character called Iain followed by a story about it being hard to look and answer clearly at this time are present. I will return to look afresh later :-)

Sometimes frustration and resistance are a good sign!

Thoughts certainly don’t hold any awareness. They comment endlessly on what awareness is currently appearing. The thought “I am believing a thought that says I am confused” is thought story only and knows nothing of an I who is believing and confused, even if thought comments on a familiar sensation of I being present at that time. They may point inwards towards further thought but cannot know or hold within them a separate expereincer.

Does that sensation actually point to an illusory “I”, or does it point to ‘beingness’?

“I am believing a thought that says I am confused” is just a random thought appearing, and you are totally aware of that thought and the idea of confusion and doubt. However are you ever confused or in doubt that what is appearing is a thought?

It is clear that it is thought only appearing. There is no separate ‘believer’ or concept of belief (other than thought) to be found outside of the thought. There is no separate ‘confusion’ outside of the label that thought is applying at that time. Thought could equally apply labels of ‘there is clarity taking place now’ and ‘Iain or self is concept simply layered over other thoughts by thought’. Thought only.

There is no ‘this’ or ‘that’, for example confusion or clarity. There are apparent stories appearing about confusion and clarity (duality), but in AE can confusion and clarity be found, other than as a story about an illusory character being confused or clear!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoIHv6a_ID8

Does the following video sound familiar!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqALm_rmM1g

Yes, lovely! If thought appears saying fairies are true...does that make it so?

If thought points towards actual experience then the knowing of the thought label and thought comments about that experience is distinct from the story of thoughts pointing towards yet more thoughts and onto more. Fairies in thought are such imagination only. Suggestions that they may be true or false are a further layer of thought within the story. Comments about a separate experiencer beyond the thought taking place, an imagined Iain or person or self are all suggestions in thought.

Yep! Thought thought it fell out of bed, so it got up and had a look! ;)

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’?

With love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Sometimes frustration and resistance are a good sign!

I’m keen to make use of all varieties of thought, those that comment on how easy and peaceful and pleasant it is to look, and those that comment me me me and self self self and pain pain pain. It will certainly help in this journey if they can be used skilfully and seen for what they simply are, rather than what the content might suggest.

Does that sensation actually point to an illusory “I”, or does it point to ‘beingness’?

There are sensations. Thought applies a label which points towards the sensation and is about the sensation (excited, angry, happy, sad). When thought labels sensation in this way is that pointing towards ‘beingness’? Experience appears as sensation and thought labels and comments about, and that labeling and commenting is different for you as it is for me. In that way can we be said to be different beings?

Thought may then tell a story about an Iain who has emotions, and is able to perform actions or alter thought to try to influence emotions, or who comes across people or objects that influence how he feels. When thought branches off into an imagination/fluff story then it has split off from pointing to ‘beingness’ and is instead running an inwards pointing story. Is that right?

Does the following video sound familiar!

Great youtube clips. Yes, very much like cyclical thought stories this being is experiencing.

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

Experience surely isn’t bound by time in such a way. There is experience, and thought interjects with ‘nows’ and ‘thens’ and ‘laters’. A moment called now cannot be found in experience.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Any actual experience of one event following another?

Experience may appear as colour, and ‘later’ experience may appear as sound or sensation. The splitting of experience is in thought, and only in thought can moments be suggested and in thought one event cease and another begin.

Thoughts about time seem to go to the core of the way thought tells a story, narrates, and suggests past, present and future. Is there a similarity here with how thought splits Experience into colour/sound/sensation/knowing thought?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Only as fast as thought comments it is. It might appear brief, or last a long time. Experience appears in different ways, but experience never appears as fast moments or slow moments.

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

Thought may feel like it is ‘organising’ in the way it comments, and split up ‘events’, but there is no start or end to moments in experience.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Any attempt to look towards a now means it simply slips out of view. This must indicate it is just an idea in thought. Experience is happening, and thoughts may point towards current experience, but experience isn’t bound by ideas of time.

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

Thoughts of a past that is over, a future coming, and a present ‘now’ cannot be found in experience.

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

Such an exact point or any point is unfindable.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

Thoughts labeling and commenting about experience are known. Thoughts commenting about the past are known too. The ‘past’ itself is a concept but a thought image (‘memory’) of a holiday last year can be known. Is it correct to say that knowing thoughts of a story involving thoughts pointing towards an imagined past taking place is the AE of the past? Or does such a thoughts pointing towards thoughts story have no link to AE even if thought suggests the story is about experiences that took place.

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

Again, time is clear as a thought up concept. There are experiences, but these are not covered in layers of time any more than they are in layers of a self. Thought may comment about ‘times’ and characters, but this is imagination/fluff.

It feels like there is a link between a self, and time. It feels as though a self needs ideas of a past, present and future in order to be the ‘owner’ of past events, the experiencer of now, and to anticipate whatever the future may hold. Both the self and time are made up in thought.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hello Iain,

There is a lot here, so please read it several times and read it thoroughly. Take a couple of days if you need it.

Sometimes frustration and resistance are a good sign!

I’m keen to make use of all varieties of thought, those that comment on how easy and peaceful and pleasant it is to look, and those that comment me me me and self self self and pain pain pain. It will certainly help in this journey if they can be used skilfully and seen for what they simply are, rather than what the content might suggest.

The content of thought is further thought. “I am not good enough" is the thought. The ensuing thoughts of what that means is the content and is made up of thoughts!

I have already given you a way to look at thought to see if it pointing to actual experience or if it is pointing to thought stories...the blahblahblah exercise. You can use this on thoughts that appear saying that the sensation appearing is happiness or excitement, confusion or peace even!

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

A thought is much like a piece of graffiti scribbled on a wall. Graffiti doesn't know the wall exists. It doesn't know it is appearing on the wall. It doesn't know whether its words are true or not. It doesn't know that it is saying anything. It doesn't know anything *whatsoever*. Similarly, a thought is just a bit of decoration appearing in THIS. It appears. You are aware of it. But it knows nothing whatsoever about reality. And that is all there is to thought

Does that sensation actually point to an illusory “I”, or does it point to ‘beingness’?

There are sensations. Thought applies a label which points towards the sensation and is about the sensation (excited, angry, happy, sad). When thought labels sensation in this way is that pointing towards ‘beingness’? Experience appears as sensation and thought labels and comments about, and that labeling and commenting is different for you as it is for me. In that way can we be said to be different beings?

I don’t mean beingness as being a being which points to an entity/person! I mean as THIS/experience itself! THIS/experience is appearing as smell, taste, thought etc, that is what I am referring to. Experience is not made up of smell, taste, thought, etc. Smell, taste, thought etc are made of THIS/experience!

Gold comes in many forms. Nuggets, rings, bracelets, cuffs, earrings, necklaces, coins, object and so on.
However, does the gold change when it appears as these ‘things’ or does gold remain gold no matter what form it comes in? Does the gold know itself as these ‘things’ or does it know itself as gold only?

There is no Iain who is a separate self, so why would there be others who have their own separate selves?

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

Experience surely isn’t bound by time in such a way. There is experience, and thought interjects with ‘nows’ and ‘thens’ and ‘laters’. A moment called now cannot be found in experience.

What does ‘here and now’ actually point to? Does it point to a location and time or does it point to experience (THIS) that is always here now and is the ‘herenow’?

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Any actual experience of one event following another?

Experience may appear as colour, and ‘later’ experience may appear as sound or sensation. The splitting of experience is in thought, and only in thought can moments be suggested and in thought one event cease and another begin.

Yes, exactly. Where does colour end and sound begin? Where does thought end and smell begin? Where does smell end and sensation begin?

Thoughts about time seem to go to the core of the way thought tells a story, narrates, and suggests past, present and future. Is there a similarity here with how thought splits Experience into colour/sound/sensation/knowing thought?

This is an analogy of how all time is contained in an instant.
In the opening instant of a dream you find the 1st person dream character speeding along a highway towards the airport, because he is late for his holiday flight, because his wife couldn't find her passport.

Now you will notice that this is just the opening instant of the dream, yet it contains a whole "history" of being a person who is an adult and is married to a woman who left her passport behind, etc. It contains "memories" of having the drama with the lost passport, and it has a whole imaginary future too, in the flight and the holiday.
Do you see the analogy that is being drawn?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Only as fast as thought comments it is. It might appear brief, or last a long time. Experience appears in different ways, but experience never appears as fast moments or slow moments.

What is the AE of ‘present moment’?

Experience never changes, it SEEM to appear as many things, but it is not those things.

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

Thought may feel like it is ‘organising’ in the way it comments, and split up ‘events’, but there is no start or end to moments in experience.

Are there even moments?

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Any attempt to look towards a now means it simply slips out of view. This must indicate it is just an idea in thought. Experience is happening, and thoughts may point towards current experience, but experience isn’t bound by ideas of time.

You’re not LOOKING Iain,

If you are not ‘in’ the Now…then where are you exactly?
You are always ‘in’ the Now! Where else could you be?
You are always ‘seeing’ the now….are you not aware of colour, sound, smell, taste etc? Then how could the Now slip out of view?

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

Thoughts of a past that is over, a future coming, and a present ‘now’ cannot be found in experience.

The Now always IS. It can never be anything else.

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

Such an exact point or any point is unfindable.

There is no past. The AE of past is thought.

Have a look at the second hand on a clock. It seems to be changing. But can you find 10 seconds ago in actual experience? 5 seconds? 1 second? Keep noticing that change is always only a story about some experience "prior to this". But only THIS can be found. How could there have been another experience at all? Where has it gone to?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

Thoughts labeling and commenting about experience are known. Thoughts commenting about the past are known too. The ‘past’ itself is a concept but a thought image (‘memory’) of a holiday last year can be known.

The 'past' in actual experience is thought.
The thought appearing about a holiday “last year” is appearing now and is known, but is the “holiday last year” known?

Is it correct to say that knowing thoughts of a story involving thoughts pointing towards an imagined past taking place is the AE of the past? Or does such a thoughts pointing towards thoughts story have no link to AE even if thought suggests the story is about experiences that took place.

Does colour know anything about a past?
Does sound know anything about a past?
Does thought know anything about a past?
Does sensation know anything about a past?
Does smell know anything about a past?
Does taste know anything about a past?

If not…then is a past known or only thoughts about a past. So what is the AE of past?

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

Again, time is clear as a thought up concept. There are experiences, but these are not covered in layers of time any more than they are in layers of a self. Thought may comment about ‘times’ and characters, but this is imagination/fluff.

What experiences exactly?

It feels like there is a link between a self, and time. It feels as though a self needs ideas of a past, present and future in order to be the ‘owner’ of past events, the experiencer of now, and to anticipate whatever the future may hold. Both the self and time are made up in thought.

It ‘feels’ like points to imagination. Did you look at actual experience?
Can you find time in actual experience?

With love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

I'm keen to respond to your questions but I've felt confused in recent days. I will try to answer some and then gradually move onto the others in coming days.

However, does the gold change when it appears as these ‘things’ or does gold remain gold no matter what form it comes in? Does the gold know itself as these ‘things’ or does it know itself as gold only?

The gold does not change regardless of what form it takes. Gold does not know it has been made into a ring or a coin. It is gold only. In the same way experience may appear as smell, taste or thought but it is always experience appearing in different ways that are known.

There is no Iain who is a separate self, so why would there be others who have their own separate selves?

There are no separate selves. THIS/experience appears as smell, taste and thought etc. Is it correct to say ‘that which is aware of thought, taste, smell etc’ is beingness?

What does ‘here and now’ actually point to? Does it point to a location and time or does it point to experience (THIS) that is always here now and is the ‘herenow’?

I need some help with this one. I’m not clear on what ‘here and now’ means here. Is it a thought that points towards experience taking place (as distinct from a thought story about the past or future)?

Do you see the analogy that is being drawn?

This is going right over my head. I can return to look at this later though.

[IainB]

I feel a like a child who tries to answer your questions, but isn't really clear on what the questions are actually asking, or a person with dementia, who thinks a question is being asked and is motivated to respond, but without conviction that their answer is suitable. After an hour or two thoughts of 'fury' about an inability to clearly see and answer dissipates...so I'll continue.

What is the AE of ‘present moment’?

I’m not sure. I can see colour, sensation and I know thoughts are taking place but I’m not clear on what ‘present moment’ means. Is it the experience of the thought ‘the present moment is taking place’?

Are there even moments?

I’m not clear on what a moment is.

If you are not ‘in’ the Now…then where are you exactly?

I am aware of experience. Is it correct to say that experience is now? If so, then it’s only possible to be in experience/now. I can’t be in the past or future.

You are always ‘in’ the Now! Where else could you be?

Ok

You are always ‘seeing’ the now….are you not aware of colour, sound, smell, taste etc? Then how could the Now slip out of view?

The only thing that ‘can slip out of view’ is a thought saying there is an imagined moment in time.

Have a look at the second hand on a clock. It seems to be changing. But can you find 10 seconds ago in actual experience? 5 seconds? 1 second? Keep noticing that change is always only a story about some experience "prior to this". But only THIS can be found.

Only the current experience (this) can be found.

But only THIS can be found. How could there have been another experience at all? Where has it gone to?

I don’t know.

The thought appearing about a holiday “last year” is appearing now and is known, but is the “holiday last year” known?

There can't be any 'holiday last year', only a thought story about such an idea that is known.

Does colour know anything about a past?
Does sound know anything about a past?
Does thought know anything about a past?
Does sensation know anything about a past?
Does smell know anything about a past?
Does taste know anything about a past?

It has to be a no to all of these.

If not…then is a past known or only thoughts about a past. So what is the AE of past?

Only thoughts about a past can be known. There is no 'past' outside of thought that can be known. The AE of the past must be knowing thought is taking place with a story of the past.

What experiences exactly?

I think when I wrote this original answer that I meant I know experience (sound / colour / sensation) but time is only in thought.

Can you find time in actual experience?

Time cannot be found in actual experience.

I'm very grateful for your dedication and patience with your questions. I've spent three hours attempting to look and answer them but it's all confusing and frustrating today...oh well.

Love, Iain

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

I spent a couple of hours going back over your previous post.

What does ‘here and now’ actually point to? Does it point to a location and time or does it point to experience (THIS) that is always here now and is the ‘herenow’?

‘Locations’ and ‘times’ are labels applied by thought. A location and a time cannot be found in experience. The thought ‘here and now’ can only point to experience. Any linear passage of time is a suggestion in thought.

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

There is no beginning and end to experience. Colour, sound, smell and thought begin and end as the thoughts applying those labels are experienced.

Do you see the analogy that is being drawn?

There is no ‘past’ outside the now. There is no ‘future’ outside the now. Thought may label, but there is only the experience of now. In such a way the story of now contains all there can be of ideas of past and future.

Thought tells a story of a character called Iain. The story includes a past, and ideas of a future, but all that can be known is the present moment.

What is the AE of ‘present moment’?

The AE of ‘present moment’ is knowing thought is pointing towards experience in contrast to thought pointing towards thought in a story of memories or future fantasies.

The AE of present moment is experience.

Are there even moments?

In looking for moments there is only experience to be found.

If you are not ‘in’ the Now…then where are you exactly?

There is only the now. Though may label past and future, but the knowing of those thoughts can only take place now.

You are always ‘in’ the Now! Where else could you be?

Sure.

You are always ‘seeing’ the now….are you not aware of colour, sound, smell, taste etc? Then how could the Now slip out of view?

If I was not in the now then it would be impossible to experience. Now is now. Experience is now. There is no time other than now, and any thoughts of other times can only be known in the now. As you guide: ‘the Now always IS. It can never be anything else’.

Have a look at the second hand on a clock. It seems to be changing. But can you find 10 seconds ago in actual experience? 5 seconds? 1 second? Keep noticing that change is always only a story about some experience "prior to this". But only THIS can be found. How could there have been another experience at all? Where has it gone to?

There is only Now, there is only This. Thought may suggest ‘past’, as it does ‘future’, but this is only thought pointing towards thought.

‘Prior to this’ = only a story
‘The future’ = only a story.
‘Now’ = experience

There is no ‘gone’ other than a story in thought. There is only experience.

The thought appearing about a holiday “last year” is appearing now and is known, but is the “holiday last year” known?

There is only experience. There is no ‘holiday last year’ to know. Experience may appear as a thought story titled ‘holiday last year’.

Does colour know anything about a past?
Does sound know anything about a past?
Does thought know anything about a past?
Does sensation know anything about a past?
Does smell know anything about a past?
Does taste know anything about a past?

If not…then is a past known or only thoughts about a past. So what is the AE of past?

Experience appears as colour, sound, thought, sensation, smell and taste but there is no past or future in that experience. There is only the now of experience. The AE of past is thought only.

What experiences exactly?

The AE of past or future is thought. Experience is now.

Can you find time in actual experience?

In experience there is only Now.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain,

What I would like for you to do is take a couple of days of from thinking about all of this, from looking etc. Just let it all go for a couple of days to give yourself a break from the efforting etc. When having to effort it makes this all heavy going. I am going to send you a PM (private message) via the forum, so keep an eye out for an email notification of this. I will respond to your posts in a couple of days.

With love, Kay

[forgetmenot]

Hello Iain,

How has the past week of LOOKING been? Can your share what you found/noticed.

With love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Thank you for your guiding about the simplicity of looking.

I have kept returning to looking for the self in thought, sensation, and the outline/image of the body. This is what I've seen:

I've looked for the self in thought again and again. Each time it has been clearer how thought comments and labels ABOUT something (e.g. the thought Iain).

It feels rediculous now how thought once felt so concrete and real. I used to confuse the labels and comments of thought with the Actual, as if they were mixed. Of course thought is never the actual, only a label or comment pointing towards something in inexperience, or towards yet more thoughts.

Imagining that which thought is labeling or commenting about as black and white letters on my forehead shines a bright light on this difference between the assumption that thought was the Actual, and the truth that thought has only ever been a label or comment.

When I take the thought IAIN and imagine it as black and white letters on my forehead it is clear that the thought IAIN is nothing more than a label or comment About, that is entirely different to the IAIN it suggests, whatever that is.

I hope to be able to share what I've seen about body sensation and outline/image soon too (and the relevance of watching thoughts and blahblahblah thought replacement). Thank you for your graceful patience.

Love, Iain

[IainB]

only a label or comment pointing towards something in *inexperience, or towards yet more thoughts.

*experience