Looking for a guide

[forgetmenot]

Hello Val,

Thank you for your responses. We will certainly be addressing fear throughout this exploration to see what is actually appearing as opposed to what thought says is appearing.

Some housekeeping guidelines:-
1. Post at least once a day, or every second day. If you need more time, or are unable to post for several days, just write a quick post on your thread to let me know please.

2. There is no one judging answers given, so please be100% honest in your answers and inquiry.

3. ANSWER ONLY FROM ACTUAL EXPERIENCE (smell, taste, sound, sensation, colour and observed thoughts). Long-winded analytical and philosophical answers are best avoided and may even hinder progress. This is not a self-improvement process.

4. Put aside all other teachings, philosophies, rituals, practices, books/reading and so on for the remainder of this investigation. Really put all your effort and attention in to seeing this reality, as it is. If you have a daily meditation practice, it is fine to continue that but is not necessary for this exploration.

This exploration is based on questions and exercises. I will ask questions as a means of pointing, but the questions aren’t about finding something unknown. The questions refer to what is already actually known. And what is already known? Sound, smell, taste, thought, sensation and colour. So, questions are not answered through thinking/thoughts (theories) but by LOOKING. The key is that you really have to LOOK. Why? Because it’s the act of actually LOOKING and not finding an “I” that brings about the realisation of there being no separate self.

What is LOOKING? Looking isn’t difficult. It doesn’t require any special skills. ‘Looking’ is just plain looking to what is here right now. When you need your car keys and look everywhere for them – that is looking. It’s being aware of sound, taste, smell, sensation and colours (images) to see what is really present (actual experience) and always has been; as well as noticing thought/s - not thinking, but noticing all thoughts as they appear. Thoughts tend to pull you away from looking directly, as by directly looking at actual experience, you will inevitably unveil the trick they play in creating the illusion of an "I".


Okay, so let's become aware of actual experience (AE)

If you have a ‘real’ apple then you can use that for this exercise.




Have a look at an apple. When ‘looking at an apple’, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."
What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought. Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?

Throughout our exploration, what is highlighted in blue text is what I would like you to answer please. Don't forget to use the quote function.

With love, Kay

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Kay,

Thanks for the guidelines.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

The direct experience is of something that is different from the table it's sitting on. Different through the eye, which sees the colour and the shape, the touch (slightly rough compared to smoothness of the wood), the nose which gets the musty smell. So the thought 'apple' aggregates all these sense sensations together. So yes, it's a thought about 'apple'.

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

If the thought 'apple' wasn't known than no. It's a second layer, the first layer being the sensations.

However, is an apple actually known?

Can you expand on this a bit? The thought that came up was, 'it is not known intrinsically, but it's nevertheless real. The apple is an entity in itself, growing from a seed etc...'

Love,

Val

[forgetmenot]

Hey Val,

I want you to keep it really simple, because actual experience is very simple.

If you have an ‘apple’ or any other piece of fruit or even a piece of cheese or chocolate will do….go get it and then place it in front of you on the table.

Now LOOK carefully.

1. The image of the ‘apple’ is the actual experience of colour and NOT the AE of an apple. The shape referred to as ‘apple’ is just different shades and patterns of colour. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the colour.

Does the colour itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of colour?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that the colour appearing is that of an ‘apple’?

2. Now, pick up the ‘apple’ and close the eyes. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and of ‘hands’ and just focus on the sensation.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is an apple, and that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of sensation?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the sensation has anything to do with an ‘apple’?

3. Now, take a bite of the ‘apple’. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the taste.

Does taste itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simply AE of taste?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the taste of an ‘apple’?

4. Now, have a smell of the ‘apple’. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the smell.

Does smell itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simple AE of smell?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the smell of an ‘apple’?

5. Now, listen to the sound of the ‘crunch of an apple’. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the sound.

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simple AE of sound?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the sound is that of an ‘apple’?

6. So now look at the label ‘apple and the thought “I am looking at, and eating an apple”.

Does the label itself or the thought itself know anything about an ‘apple’? Or are they just simply AE of label/thought?

The label ‘apple’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of an apple
The image labelled ‘apple’ is AE of colour and not the AE of an apple
The smell labelled ‘apple’ is AE of smell and not the AE of an apple
The taste labelled ‘apple’ is AE of taste and not the AE of an apple
The sound labelled ‘crunchy apple’ is AE of sound and not the AE of an apple
The sensation labelled as ‘hard, round apple’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of an apple

Thought overlays actual experience with concepts. An example being the AE of colour is being labelled as an 'apple'.

So is there really actual experience of an ‘apple’, or what is actually appearing, what the actual experience is, is colour, sensation, taste, smell, sound, which thought then labels and describes as an 'apple'?
In other words, is an apple actually known or only thoughts about an apple are known?

With love, Kay

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Kay,

Does the colour itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of colour?

It's just a colour. Red (though without thought, 'red' wouldn't come to mind, it's the label associated with that perception of colour).

Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that the colour appearing is that of an ‘apple’?

It is not known.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is an apple, and that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of sensation?

No, the sensation doesn't say anything re. 'apple'. There's a sensation of being in contact with something smooth.

Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the sensation has anything to do with an ‘apple’?

It is not known.

Does taste itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simply AE of taste?

No, it's just a taste. Bitter-sweet.

Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the taste of an ‘apple’?

It is not known, again.

Does smell itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simple AE of smell?

No, the smell is freshness.

Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the smell of an ‘apple’?

It is not known.

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simple AE of sound?

Nope, it's a loudish sound of the teeth crunching.

Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the sound is that of an ‘apple’?

It is not known.

Does the label itself or the thought itself know anything about an ‘apple’? Or are they just simply AE of label/thought?

It's a thought. Without previous experience that puts together the sensations into 'apple', that thought would not occur. But learnt that association, every-time I encounter the apple, the thought 'apple' occurs.

So is there really actual experience of an ‘apple’, or what is actually appearing, what the actual experience is, is colour, sensation, taste, smell, sound, which thought then labels and describes as an 'apple'?
In other words, is an apple actually known or only thoughts about an apple are known?

In that sense, no the apple is not known, but what is known are the sensations associated with the apple and the thought puts them all together into 'apple'.

Love,

Val

[forgetmenot]

Hi Val,

Great job with the 'apple'.

Does the colour itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of colour?

It's just a colour. Red (though without thought, 'red' wouldn't come to mind, it's the label associated with that perception of colour).

What exactly is it that “associates the label with that perception of colour”?

No, the sensation doesn't say anything re. 'apple'. There's a sensation of being in contact with something smooth.

How is it known that the sensation is “of being in contact with something smooth”? Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is “smooth” or that there is an “apple” or “something in contact”? Or is it simply sensation, which thought then adds further thought with the description of “smooth” and “something being in contact”?

No, it's just a taste. Bitter-sweet.

How is it known that the taste is “bitter-sweet”? Does taste itself suggest in any way that it is bittersweet?

No, the smell is freshness.

How is it known that the smell is “freshness”? Does the smell suggest in any way that it is “freshness”?

Nope, it's a loudish sound of the teeth crunching.

How is it known that it is a “loudish sound” which is “teeth crunching”? Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is "loud" or “teeth crunching”?

Does the label itself or the thought itself know anything about an ‘apple’? Or are they just simply AE of label/thought?

It's a thought. Without previous experience that puts together the sensations into 'apple', that thought would not occur. But learnt that association, every-time I encounter the apple, the thought 'apple' occurs.

Yes, it’s a thought and thought knows nothing. There would have to be a separate self to “encounter the apple” and to have “learned associations”. There is no ‘past’ experiences…there is no such thing as time.

So is there really actual experience of an ‘apple’, or what is actually appearing, what the actual experience is, is colour, sensation, taste, smell, sound, which thought then labels and describes as an 'apple'?
In other words, is an apple actually known or only thoughts about an apple are known?

In that sense, no the apple is not known, but what is known are the sensations associated with the apple and the thought puts them all together into 'apple'.

Yes, so in actual experience an apple is not known. Thoughts about an apple are known, but an apple is not known.

Throughout this exploration please don’t lump sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought and colour under “sensations”. It is important that actual experience is, for the purpose of this exploration, categorised.

With love, Kay

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Kay,

What exactly is it that “associates the label with that perception of colour”?

The first response that came to mind was “consciousness”. The association is stored in my brain.
The direct experience of the “what” is I don’t know. The label seems to come up, to arise, automatically, whenever there’s an apple in sight. So who or what thinks that thought “apple” is unknown.

How is it known that the sensation is “of being in contact with something smooth”? Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is “smooth” or that there is an “apple” or “something in contact”? Or is it simply sensation, which thought then adds further thought with the description of “smooth” and “something being in contact”?

It’s the latter, so again, through experience there’s a thought that arises of smoothness. However, on the subject of something being in contact, there’s a difference between being in contact with something outside the body and inside the body. The immediate experience is different.

How is it known that the taste is “bitter-sweet”? Does taste itself suggest in any way that it is bittersweet?

No, again, it’s a learnt label. But if I eat chocolate, the sensation of taste is different. So the labels are learnt, but the taste sensations are nevertheless different from each other.

How is it known that the smell is “freshness”? Does the smell suggest in any way that it is “freshness”?

As above. If the apple is mouldy, the label is mouldy, but nevertheless the smell will make one’s nose turn.

How is it known that it is a “loudish sound” which is “teeth crunching”? Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is "loud" or “teeth crunching”?

So “loud” is again a label. But even in the absence of a label, a sound that is “loud” will make, in the extreme, cover the ears or even damage them. So there’s a physical sound sensation of loudness.

Throughout this exploration please don’t lump sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought and colour under “sensations”. It is important that actual experience is, for the purpose of this exploration, categorised.

I understand they are separate, but it’s a convenience in language, the same as I use “I” or “my” above - how should I refer them to?

I am travelling tomorrow, so I may be delayed in my response.

Love,
Val

[forgetmenot]

Hello Val,

What exactly is it that “associates the label with that perception of colour”?

The first response that came to mind was “consciousness”. The association is stored in my brain.

There is no brain in actual experience. The AE of ‘brain’ is thought. We will delve into this a little later on.

The direct experience of the “what” is I don’t know. The label seems to come up, to arise, automatically, whenever there’s an apple in sight. So who or what thinks that thought “apple” is unknown.

Yes labels/thoughts just arise.

How is it known that the sensation is “of being in contact with something smooth”? Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is “smooth” or that there is an “apple” or “something in contact”? Or is it simply sensation, which thought then adds further thought with the description of “smooth” and “something being in contact”?

It’s the latter, so again, through experience there’s a thought that arises of smoothness. However, on the subject of something being in contact, there’s a difference between being in contact with something outside the body and inside the body. The immediate experience is different.

Yes, a thought arises that seems to point to the apple and then further describes it as ‘smooth’.

“However, on the subject of something being in contact, there’s a difference between being in contact with something outside the body and inside the body. The immediate experience is different” is just a thought story and points to nothing in actual experience, other than the AE of thought.

How is it known that the taste is “bitter-sweet”? Does taste itself suggest in any way that it is bittersweet?

No, again, it’s a learnt label. But if I eat chocolate, the sensation of taste is different. So the labels are learnt, but the taste sensations are nevertheless different from each other.

Without thought how is it known that tastes are “nevertheless different from each other”?


There would have to be a someone/person/entity to have learned labels. There has never been a separate self, ever. There was not one yesterday, there isn’t one reading this now and there won’t be one tomorrow.

How is it known that the smell is “freshness”? Does the smell suggest in any way that it is “freshness”?

As above. If the apple is mouldy, the label is mouldy, but nevertheless the smell will make one’s nose turn.

That is if you had a nose to turn! Without thought, how could it possibly be known that the smell is “mouldy”? It would simply be a ‘smell’.

You starting to get the picture about thoughts/labels?

Throughout this exploration please don’t lump sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought and colour under “sensations”. It is important that actual experience is, for the purpose of this exploration, categorised.

I understand they are separate, but it’s a convenience in language, the same as I use “I” or “my” above - how should I refer them to?

Exactly as I asked, even if it is inconvenient. Please label them separately as sound or smell or sensation or colour or thought or sound.

I am travelling tomorrow, so I may be delayed in my response.

Thank you for letting me know.

So let’s have another look at actual experience. Please refrain from adding extra information/thoughts of what you think must need to be happening (preconceived ideas) or might be happening etc (still preconceived ideas). Just look at everything with fresh eyes and put aside all preconceived ideas of what thoughts says is, and just simply have a look at actual experience (AE).



What is a rose? Perhaps a nice red and green flower with a pleasant smell and some sharp thorns?

But LOOK again - all that is actually present are the colours red and green, a smell and maybe an 'ouch' sensation. The rose itself is only a story.

Notice that all things that seem to exist are just like the rose. Just fictional stories (ie thoughts, idea, concepts) about actual experience.

Beyond the story, can any of them exist at all?

Love, Kay

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Kay,

Beyond the story, can any of them exist at all?

In the way you are describing, what exists is something seen, smelt, touched etc. But without thought (is that what you mean by story), the colour, smell, sensation etc. has no label. If I look at the rose, then an apple, there are two different colours seen, two different textures at the touch, two different smells etc. The difference is perceived.
As I mentioned, I will be travelling shortly, if I don't answer this evening, I will connect again tomorrow.
Love,
Val

[forgetmenot]

Hi Val,

Beyond the story, can any of them exist at all?

In the way you are describing, what exists is something seen, smelt, touched etc. But without thought (is that what you mean by story), the colour, smell, sensation etc. has no label. If I look at the rose, then an apple, there are two different colours seen, two different textures at the touch, two different smells etc. The difference is perceived.

All stories are made up of thoughts...yes? Without thoughts there would be no stories.....yes?
There are raw/actual experiences: sound, smell, taste, colour, sensation and thought Thoughts are also actual experience; however thoughts either point to actual experience or they point to other thought (thoughts about thoughts), and the content of every single thought is just a story ie fantasy. Thoughts, in and of themselves, do not contain any experience, if they did then the word ‘hot’ would feel hot and the thought ‘sweet’ would taste sweet.

Let's try this another way.

I would like you to sit in a quiet room, where noises outside can be heard. Close your eyes and just listen to the sounds for a few minutes. Really hear them. Or if you are travelling, just close the eyes and listen to sounds in the car for a few minutes and really hear them.

Tell me one noise that you heard when doing this?

With love, Kay

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Kay,

I have arrived.

Tell me one noise that you heard when doing this?

Firstly, I just heard sound, I couldn't identify what the sound was. It was a boiler heating up in a separate room.

I am keeping answers brief, let me know if needs elaboration.
Love,

Val

[forgetmenot]

Hey Val,

Firstly, I just heard sound, I couldn't identify what the sound was. It was a boiler heating up in a separate room.

Great! Now can you repeat the exercise…

then tell me,
- How is it known there was a boiler heating up?
- What is it that says there was a boiler heating up?
- What is the actual experience of ‘hearing a boiler heating up’.

[where actual experience = what is actually happening, as opposed to thoughts about it]

Look at actual experience rather than giving an intellectual answer....

Write what you find.

With love, Kay

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Kay,

- How is it known there was a boiler heating up?

There was a thought, something like "what is this noise? Ah! It's the boiler heating up"

- What is it that says there was a boiler heating up?

Just a thought.

- What is the actual experience of ‘hearing a boiler heating up’.

I can't really describe it in words, it's a sound like a humming noise.

Love,

Val

[forgetmenot]

Hi Val,

How is it known there was a boiler heating up?

There was a thought, something like "what is this noise? Ah! It's the boiler heating up"

Yes, exactly it is only an appearing thought that overlays the raw/actual experience of sound with the story of the sound being a “boiler heating up”.
Without thought, all there is, is the AE of sound.
Is this clear?

- What is it that says there was a boiler heating up?

Just a thought.

Lovely, yes, just the AE of thought.
So the actual experience of "boiler heating up" is the AE of thought.
Can "boiler heating up" be found in the sound itself, or is that simply a story about the appearing sound?

- What is the actual experience of ‘hearing a boiler heating up’.

I can't really describe it in words, it's a sound like a humming noise.

Actual experience is simply sound, colour, sensation, smell, taste and the face value of thought.
So the actual experience (AE) of what thought describes as "hearing a boiler heating up" is simply the AE of sound.
Can you see this?

It is only thought that tries to describe what the sound is. Sound is simply the AE of sound. The description is AE of thought and not the AE of sound.

Actual experience is indescribable. If you tried to describe the "humming noise" which thought says is a “boiler heating up” to someone who is deaf, how could you possibly do that?
Can you see that it is only thoughts that overlays raw/actual experience of sound with a story ABOUT what the sound is? Can a "humming noise" or "boiler heating up" be found/known in the AE of sound?

Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities simply colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

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

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

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go giving me a couple of examples please.

With love, Kay

[elliphantmoo]

Hi Kay,

Without thought, all there is, is the AE of sound.
Is this clear?

Yes, it is!

Can "boiler heating up" be found in the sound itself, or is that simply a story about the appearing sound?

Just a story!

So the actual experience (AE) of what thought describes as "hearing a boiler heating up" is simply the AE of sound.
Can you see this?

Yes, this is clear.

Can you see that it is only thoughts that overlays raw/actual experience of sound with a story ABOUT what the sound is? Can a "humming noise" or "boiler heating up" be found/known in the AE of sound?

I can see that thoughts come up to label and describe. But re. your example of deafness, I would say that language is insufficient to express the experience.

Seeing my face in the mirror = image
Touching the glass = touch
Thought of "that is me on that mirror" = thought

Seeing the keys on the computer = image
Thought "this is a screen and this is a keyboard" = thought
Feeling the smoothness of the keys on the keyboard = touch
Thought "I am typing words"

Seeing an egg = colour
Smelling the egg = smell
Feeling the rough shell = touch
Hearing the crack of the shell opening = sound
Tasting the egg = taste
Thought about eating the egg = thought

With love,

Val

[forgetmenot]

Hey Val,

Wonderful noticing of actual experience….thank you! :)

Can you see that it is only thoughts that overlays raw/actual experience of sound with a story ABOUT what the sound is? Can a "humming noise" or "boiler heating up" be found/known in the AE of sound?

I can see that thoughts come up to label and describe. But re. your example of deafness, I would say that language is insufficient to express the experience.

Exactly, there is no way of expressing/describing (actual) experience itself. That is how simple it is to see how thought overlays AE with stories. Thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about thought!

For example, if *brrrrr brrrrr* is showing up, and thought is saying, "this is cold", you didn't need thought to say, "this is cold", in order to be aware of the "brrrr brrrr*, to which thought is referring. Thought is a commentator you have no need of, in order to be aware of *brrrr brrrrr*. But you know that the thought/concept "cold" is referring to ACTUAL experience of sensation *brrrr brrrr*. If *brrrr brrrr* is not appearing at all in that moment, then thought is pointing to story/fantasy.

Okay, so let's take a closer look at thoughts. Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts. First thing is to sit for at least 10-15 minutes quietly somewhere, several times throughout your day. Close the eyes and just notice thoughts. Don’t engage with any thought, just notice them.

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

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

3. Then wait for the next thought to come.

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

5. Then wait for the next thought to come.

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

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

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

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

With love, Kay