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

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

To continue with sensation.

I have looked at sensation and seen how neutral it is. Avoiding the chatter of thoughts suggesting that somehow sensation is part and parcel of a self, it is clear that sensation does not hold any personal qualities. In looking at sensation, it is
as though it readily offers up the obviousness that there is no self or anything that would suggest a self within sensation.

The outline or image of the body can appear in thought. The thought of the outline / image itself does not suggest a self, even if thoughts may follow from this that comment about a self.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hello Iain,

Your determination to become clear on what Iain actually is, is truly awesome and I can see that you have doing a lot of LOOKING! Nice job!

Thank you for your guiding about the simplicity of looking.

How does this all FEEL now?

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).

Thought points to the label “Iain’” and further labels it “I/me” and then describes what those labels mean (content of the labels) with further thoughts. So it SEEMS every time the label “Iain/me/I” appears that it is pointing to something real. However, if the labels/thoughts contained any experience in and of themselves then the label ‘dog' would have an actual dog in it! Or the label ‘sweet’ would actually taste sweet. If the labels/thoughts ABOUT an “Iain/me/I” contained an actual/real Iain then you would be able to find an actual Iain within the thought itself!

As you have seen when LOOKING at thought, that thoughts contain nothing! Even the idea that thoughts contain letters and words is just another thought about thought. Do thoughts actually contain letters and words?

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 experience, or towards yet more thoughts.

YES! Thought is just an appearance and thought knows nothing! Thoughts are simply known just like colour, smell, taste, sensation and sound are known.

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.

Terrific!

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.

Exactly! So it points to an Iain…describe that Iain and describe where that Iain is located.

Thought/labels point to colour and labels it Iain, but colour is AE of colour and not AE of an Iain.
Thoughts point to sensation and labels it Iain, but sensation is AE of sensation and not AE of an Iain
Thought points to sound and labels it Iain, but sound is AE of sound and not AE of Iain.
Thoughts point to smell and labels it Iain, but smell is AE of smell and not AE of an Iain.
Thoughts point to taste and labels it Iain, but taste is AE of taste and not AE of an Iain.

Thoughts point to thoughts about colour, sensation and sound etc being an Iain who was born on a special day, is male, who did such and such for a living, who has problems and who is living a life.

So where in colour, sensation, sound, smell, taste and thought can an actual Iain be found?

I have looked at sensation and seen how neutral it is. Avoiding the chatter of thoughts suggesting that somehow sensation is part and parcel of a self, it is clear that sensation does not hold any personal qualities. In looking at sensation, it is
as though it readily offers up the obviousness that there is no self or anything that would suggest a self within sensation.

The outline or image of the body can appear in thought. The thought of the outline / image itself does not suggest a self, even if thoughts may follow from this that comment about a self.

Absolutely wonderful!


So now, I would just like you to respond to the questions in this thread and then I would like for you to read your entire thread from where we started together to now. The link below will take you to where you and I started to look at the idea of a separate self together. Please redo the exercises you feel inclined to do. This may take you several days to reread etc, but I think with your clearer understanding now and you have a clearer way of LOOKING that you will see what is being pointed to, without getting muddled up between thoughts and the actual! :)

https://www.liberationunleashed.com/nat ... 05#p233285

With love, Kay

[forgetmenot]

Hello Iain,

How have you found rereading your thread? What have you noticed and does it all feel?

With love, Kay

[forgetmenot]

Hello Iain,

How have you found rereading your thread? What have you noticed and does it all feel?

With love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

How does this all FEEL now?

It is as though until now I was submerged in a pool of entirely believed in thought. I had never questioned, or Looked, at what thought was. Of course it remains, but thought pointing towards thought really is just a veil of chattering story in sharp contrast to the colours, sounds and sensations of now. A plug has been pulled in that pool and there is some awareness poking above the water. Feelings include joy, refreshment, excitement, and gratitude, for making it this far (thanks!).

Thought points to the label “Iain’” and further labels it “I/me” and then describes what those labels mean (content of the labels) with further thoughts. So it SEEMS every time the label “Iain/me/I” appears that it is pointing to something real.

Sure, this is the hall of mirrors where thought reflects another thought and onwards and onwards creating the illusion of a self.

As you have seen when LOOKING at thought, that thoughts contain nothing! Even the idea that thoughts contain letters and words is just another thought about thought. Do thoughts actually contain letters and words?

Thought comments that it is a real, valid ongoing guiding or reflective narrative that hangs in the ether, belonging to and between a person called Iain and an external world, where he has control. The reality is that's all nonsense, thought is none of those things. There is awareness of thought, but no substance to thought, and no letters or words.

So where in colour, sensation, sound, smell, taste and thought can an actual Iain be found?

No Iain in the experience of colour, sensation, sound, smell or taste. No Iain in the thoughts that point to colour, sensation, sound, smell and taste. Lots of chatter About an apparently real Iain as thought branches off to describe the content of labels and does its ‘thoughts about thoughts’ thing, but there is no substance to this ‘imagination/froth’, so no Iain there.

So now, I would just like you to respond to the questions in this thread and then I would like for you to read your entire thread from where we started together to now.

I’ll get on with doing this. I will Look with that clarity of difference between actual experience, and thought story. Thank you for your endless patience and dedication.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain,

Lovely post to read about getting your “head” above thoughts, so to speak!

How does this all FEEL now?

It is as though until now I was submerged in a pool of entirely believed in thought. I had never questioned, or Looked, at what thought was. Of course it remains, but thought pointing towards thought really is just a veil of chattering story in sharp contrast to the colours, sounds and sensations of now. A plug has been pulled in that pool and there is some awareness poking above the water. Feelings include joy, refreshment, excitement, and gratitude, for making it this far (thanks!).

Absolutely wonderful! I can read the difference in your writing that there is a difference! :)

As you have seen when LOOKING at thought, that thoughts contain nothing! Even the idea that thoughts contain letters and words is just another thought about thought. Do thoughts actually contain letters and words?

Thought comments that it is a real, valid ongoing guiding or reflective narrative that hangs in the ether, belonging to and between a person called Iain and an external world, where he has control. The reality is that's all nonsense, thought is none of those things. There is awareness of thought, but no substance to thought, and no letters or words.

Nice! If you have another look at the sports exercise, where you watch the soccer game and are turning the volume off and on….this show beautifully the nature and narrative of thought!

So where in colour, sensation, sound, smell, taste and thought can an actual Iain be found?

No Iain in the experience of colour, sensation, sound, smell or taste. No Iain in the thoughts that point to colour, sensation, sound, smell and taste. Lots of chatter About an apparently real Iain as thought branches off to describe the content of labels and does its ‘thoughts about thoughts’ thing, but there is no substance to this ‘imagination/froth’, so no Iain there.

YES! And how does this feel when you see this now?

So now, I would just like you to respond to the questions in this thread and then I would like for you to read your entire thread from where we started together to now.

I’ll get on with doing this. I will Look with that clarity of difference between actual experience, and thought story. Thank you for your endless patience and dedication.

You are most welcome, I am really happy that you are seeing through thoughts….YAY! Take your time rereading your thread and jot down anything you are not clear about, or any questions that appear. Let me know what you notice as you read through it.

With love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

I started working through the posts and have some points I would be grateful if you could comment on.

Actual experience (AE) is image/colour, sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought, at face value

Knowing, or looking at thought is possible now. Prior to now there was firm belief that thought was a tangible and valid guide to the past, what to do now, and how to prepare for the future. It was after all Iain’s internal guiding voice at the centre of everything. In Looking, it is seen that thought has none of the substance it seemed to claim. Looking at thought shows its chatter, concepts and commentary filled with Knowing that has complete lack of substance. Thoughts are like an intangible mist drifting in front of experience, sometimes commenting about experience, at other times passing into a cycle of fantasy.

How will life change?

I believe there will be a lot more truth and freedom.

Aren’t you already free? You are the freedom to show up as everything that is seemingly experienced, including the idea that you are a person. [Santa] certainly didn’t disappear when it was seen that he was just a make believe character.

This feels like an important point. Looking at experience and knowing it to be what is real, in contrast to immersion in belief in what thought says, goes to the heart of Looking. There never was an Iain to change. The change is simply knowing that there is Now, there is no Iain to be found in the Now. Thought can and will continue to throw up all sorts of stories of an Iain, in all sorts of guises with other characters and scenarios, but freedom comes in stepping away from conviction in this.

Realising ‘no self’ is just the beginning and not an ending...But if you know that the ‘conditioning’ is not something that you own then it is easier to clear...continuing to LOOK after the realisation is very much the key.

If there is no self, as clear in it not being findable in experience, then all the patterns, hopes, fears, needs and plans that leapt from that thought of self and appearing in thought must be knowable as being empty of substance and validity also. All these will arise in thought, but as you guide, they are ‘ownerless’ thoughts and can be Looked at in the same way that Iain was Looked at.

Everything already simply IS. It is only a thought that says it isn’t and thoughts know nothing...there is no bringing that [ahah moments] about, it happens on its own just like everything else.

This triggered looking at experience and reflection that there is no bringing anything about. Experience manifests as what it manifests as. Beliefs in an experiencer who may experience one thing in one moment, and something different in another, are simply thoughts of something separate to experience.

The moment of now is clear. It would seem that the only thing that can be pinned down is the flow of experience in the now. Ideas that I am experiencing, can control experience, or choose particular experiences, are all things separate from experience.

All life is now, in this moment. There is no control or prediction possible because all is now. The experience of now is all there is. How could you predict what is now, now is already here. How could there be control of now, as now is present. Experience manifests as colour, sound, sensation, taste and knowing thought is layering. There is no experiencer, or previous or future different experiences, there is only Now.

Thought suggests a person who will decide what could or should be done next. Thought suggests a time line in which things happened, a now to participate in, and preparations to make for a future. Thought comments that of course there is more to experience than now. However, all of that sits in thought. There is nothing outside of the now. Everything and anything other than experience is a layer on top.

Surrendering control seemed like a nice idea, with attendant expectations, but it would seem that any form of control, prediction or individual agency all just sat in layers of obvious and more subtle thought, and is blown away by looking at experience.

It’s as though I’ve had to approach all this work through a deep haze of preconceptions and expectations. You really have to be ready to let all and every old concept of self and experience drop away. No I, no control of the flow of experience, no personal and no Iain with his compelling own bit of experience, despite concrete ideas of how there is perpetuated by thought that seem so real and can be so slow to see through.

I will continue going through the posts and commenting and asking questions, unless you guide otherwise.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain,

What a read your post was…..bloody marvellous! You have expressed everything so beautifully and so clearly.

When you wrote it and saw what you have seen, how did it feel? How do you feel now, to when you started the exploration? What changes have you noticed?

In Looking, it is seen that thought has none of the substance it seemed to claim. Looking at thought shows its chatter, concepts and commentary filled with Knowing that has complete lack of substance. Thoughts are like an intangible mist drifting in front of experience, sometimes commenting about experience, at other times passing into a cycle of fantasy.

So beautifully expressed and so clearly expressed!
Without thought describing thought, there is only Knowing/experience/THIS! It is only thought that divides Knowing into many ‘pie pieces’ and then calls one pie “Thought”! And the thought "I" is no more significant than the thought "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"!

How will life change?

I believe there will be a lot more truth and freedom.

Aren’t you already free? You are the freedom to show up as everything that is seemingly experienced, including the idea that you are a person. [Santa] certainly didn’t disappear when it was seen that he was just a make believe character.

This feels like an important point. Looking at experience and knowing it to be what is real, in contrast to immersion in belief in what thought says, goes to the heart of Looking. There never was an Iain to change. The change is simply knowing that there is Now, there is no Iain to be found in the Now. Thought can and will continue to throw up all sorts of stories of an Iain, in all sorts of guises with other characters and scenarios, but freedom comes in stepping away from conviction in this.

Yes…"freedom comes in stepping away from conviction in this”! So thought will continue to tell stories about an Iain, just as it continues to tell stories about a Santa Claus! It is only thought that says “but Iain feels so real” and “Iain/I am feeling really sad right now and it feels so real”! Thought also says that God, the bearded man who sits in heaven watching everyone from his heavenly throne is real also…does that make it so?

Realising ‘no self’ is just the beginning and not an ending...But if you know that the ‘conditioning’ is not something that you own then it is easier to clear...continuing to LOOK after the realisation is very much the key.

If there is no self, as clear in it not being findable in experience, then all the patterns, hopes, fears, needs and plans that leapt from that thought of self and appearing in thought must be knowable as being empty of substance and validity also. All these will arise in thought, but as you guide, they are ‘ownerless’ thoughts and can be Looked at in the same way that Iain was Looked at.

YES! YES! YES! Pointing towards ‘conditioning’ is a concession when guiding. For some it is good in dispelling expectations that once ‘conditioning’ changes or completely falls away then they will know that they have clearly seen that there is no separate self. This expectation is a big obstacle that really hinders the recognition of no separate self when it is seen, as the expectation is that conditioning should and will fall away in that very moment. But what exactly is it that needs conditioning to fall away or not? When you look at what is appearing, let’s say, anger, for example, when you really look where is the anger? What is appearing is sensation which thought points to and says is anger. Look and see if you can actually find the anger or find the ‘self’ that is supposedly angry!

Everything already simply IS. It is only a thought that says it isn’t and thoughts know nothing...there is no bringing that [ahah moments] about, it happens on its own just like everything else.

This triggered looking at experience and reflection that there is no bringing anything about. Experience manifests as what it manifests as. Beliefs in an experiencer who may experience one thing in one moment, and something different in another, are simply thoughts of something separate to experience.

Lovely, Iain! Saying that life (experience itself) is happening ‘to’ or ‘through’ anyone or anything, assumes that something is outside of life (experience itself)!

The moment of now is clear. It would seem that the only thing that can be pinned down is the flow of experience in the now. Ideas that I am experiencing, can control experience, or choose particular experiences, are all things separate from experience.

Yes! And that is why there is the notion that there is something happening to a ‘me’ who resides in a ‘body’. And that notion even goes further! That this ‘me’ has a mind, which can decide to do its own thing, against the ‘me’s’ desires, and that the body also decides what it wants to do, against the express wishes of what ‘me’ prefers. So, now there is a ‘me’ a ‘mind’ and a ‘body’, and of course in amongst all of that, ‘my soul’ also needs to be considered! So there are 4 parts to a ‘me’, plus all the personality and behavioural traits and so on! What a story! All there simply is, is experience, and experience is aware of what it appears as, but only knows itself as itself. Experience is not aware of itself as lots of little pieces knowing themselves

All life is now, in this moment. There is no control or prediction possible because all is now. The experience of now is all there is. How could you predict what is now, now is already here. How could there be control of now, as now is present. Experience manifests as colour, sound, sensation, taste and knowing thought is layering. There is no experiencer, or previous or future different experiences, there is only Now.

Yes, there is no knowing and known. 'Things' cannot exist without knowing, as 'things' are nothing other than the shape knowing takes. A known can't know and knowing can't be a known. Known IS knowing. Knowing IS known. Not two.

Thought suggests a person who will decide what could or should be done next. Thought suggests a time line in which things happened, a now to participate in, and preparations to make for a future. Thought comments that of course there is more to experience than now. However, all of that sits in thought. There is nothing outside of the now. Everything and anything other than experience is a layer on top.

Right on!

Surrendering control seemed like a nice idea, with attendant expectations, but it would seem that any form of control, prediction or individual agency all just sat in layers of obvious and more subtle thought, and is blown away by looking at experience.

Yes! Why believe anything thought says, without checking its claims against actual experience?

It’s as though I’ve had to approach all this work through a deep haze of preconceptions and expectations. You really have to be ready to let all and every old concept of self and experience drop away. No I, no control of the flow of experience, no personal and no Iain with his compelling own bit of experience, despite concrete ideas of how there is perpetuated by thought that seem so real and can be so slow to see through.

As Adyshanti put it:-
“Enlightenment is a destructive process. It has nothing to do with becoming better or being happier. Enlightenment is the crumbling away of untruth. It's seeing through the facade of pretence. It's the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true.”

I will continue going through the posts and commenting and asking questions, unless you guide otherwise.

To me you have two options and it is entirely up to you which one you choose (haha!). You can continue to go through your thread, just so that clarity deepens or I can give you the final questions to this exploration and if there is anything not clear then it will appear while answering those questions.
You let me know which way you would like to go.

I just want to express again that this post was absolutely awesome to read. Thank you. Thank you!

With love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Thank you. Thank you

Gratitude needs to be very much directed from this end towards your graceful and extremely skillful guiding Kay. Without it, absolutely none of this would have been possible. A huge thanks to you!

When you wrote it and saw what you have seen, how did it feel? How do you feel now, to when you started the exploration? What changes have you noticed?

It feels different now. When carefully aware of thought stories, their vacuous nature is apparent. When looking at direct experience, it has just become apparent that all is in the now (despite a clamour of thoughts suggesting ‘but what about I/me!’ ‘what about the passage of time!’ ‘what about my participation in a past, and determining a future!’).

A subtle yet profound reconfiguration sits on offer in front, so the feeling is one of a shift, and excitement in anticipation of deepening this. The change is Looking now produces clarity, whereas looking before felt uncertain.

Some prior largely intellectual knowledge (part barrier/part useful!), and many, many prompts to look at the simplicity of this finally triggered the beginning of a shift. Many times thought suggested this was not possible. What helped immensely was knowing you and my other guides were ‘there’, and lovely local friends were also there.

Concrete belief in thought pointed entirely away from truth, society/culture and ‘my’ choices / lifestyle pointed away, but you were determined to get me to Look.

it is entirely up to you which one you choose (haha!)

Another guide once indicated her lightness and grace when faced with simple choices, when you're no longer led by which thought seems to sound the loudest, or imagines first. I would love to return to the posts about time and agency and work with these a little. I'm on retreat this coming weekend and can use this opportunity.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain,

Another guide once indicated her lightness and grace when faced with simple choices, when you're no longer led by which thought seems to sound the loudest, or imagines first.

Can anyone be found that is actually making choices? Are you the author of thought? Whether the thought is the loudest or the softest, is it thought that controls choices and what exactly is it that is being controlled by anything?

I would love to return to the posts about time and agency and work with these a little. I'm on retreat this coming weekend and can use this opportunity.

No worries! I am here for the duration! :) And if you would like to revisit some exercises with my help etc...we can do that too! :) Enjoy your retreat <3

With love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Can anyone be found that is actually making choices?

In experience there is only now, there are no choices to be made that affect the experience of now. There is no chooser to be found.

Are you the author of thought?

No.

Whether the thought is the loudest or the softest, is it thought that controls choices and what exactly is it that is being controlled by anything?

Is it correct to say that experience now, is all there is to be experienced (the colours, sounds, sensations, smells, tastes and knowing of thought in the now)? And, that there is nothing outside of experience?

Thought splits experience up, then goes further to make a story of past, present and future, with separate personalities. It can do that, but nonetheless there is only experience to be known. Thought cannot control and there is no seperate ‘experiencer’ which could control or be controlled.

Looking shows experience radiating through, with no ‘experiencer’. Only in thought is experience split into parts, and then thought suggests ‘this part good’ and ‘this part bad’, and so forth. There is experience of colour and sound that thought labels other person/their name. Thought then suggests identity / personality.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain,

Whether the thought is the loudest or the softest, is it thought that controls choices and what exactly is it that is being controlled by anything?

Is it correct to say that experience now, is all there is to be experienced (the colours, sounds, sensations, smells, tastes and knowing of thought in the now)? And, that there is nothing outside of experience?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Thought splits experience up, then goes further to make a story of past, present and future, with separate personalities. It can do that, but nonetheless there is only experience to be known. Thought cannot control and there is no seperate ‘experiencer’ which could control or be controlled.

Yes, lovely. So there is no sound AND colour AND smell AND thought AND sensation AND taste. soundcoloursmellthoughtsensationtaste = experience = one and the same – whole, seamless and complete…no divisions.

Looking shows experience radiating through, with no ‘experiencer’. Only in thought is experience split into parts, and then thought suggests ‘this part good’ and ‘this part bad’, and so forth. There is experience of colour and sound that thought labels other person/their name. Thought then suggests identity / personality.

Yes.

The following exercise is not only about seeing if labels actually have a one-to-one correspondence with reality, but ‘red’ can also be seen as a metaphor for experience itself.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

With love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

An experiencer would need to be there, to hear the sound that thought labels ‘crashing branch’, to see the colour that thought labels ‘branch’ and further ‘branch falling / landing’. With no being there to experience it there is no falling branch or sound. There is nothing outside the experience of now.

All is now. Others are only present now. Any further thoughts about others, or stories about who or what they might be up to, is in imagination only.

Knowing that for others a separate self with stories of past, present and future can only be in imagination supports seeing that others are only known when thought labels colour, sound or sensation as other / ‘Peter’ ‘Mary’ etc, in the now. The now is vivid. Thoughts imagining what others are thinking, or the imagined characteristics of others, are a pale mist in comparison.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?

The experience of colour remains the same regardless of the content of the word label applied in thought.

Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

Experience remains the same regardless of the content of the thought label, be it green or red or good or bad.There are no inherent attributes for thought to reveal,thought is always on top of experience. There is no two way correspondence, thought labels are only ever about experience, layered on top of experience.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Labels are simply that, layers upon experience. They can never effect experience.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hello Iain,

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

An experiencer would need to be there, to hear the sound that thought labels ‘crashing branch’, to see the colour that thought labels ‘branch’ and further ‘branch falling / landing’. With no being there to experience it there is no falling branch or sound. There is nothing outside the experience of now.
All is now. Others are only present now. Any further thoughts about others, or stories about who or what they might be up to, is in imagination only.

Yes, there is only the present moment, so if a forest with a tree falling is not appearing as the present moment, then it is a story.

So, did you get your question answered?
Is it correct to say that experience now, is all there is to be experienced (the colours, sounds, sensations, smells, tastes and knowing of thought in the now)? And, that there is nothing outside of experience?

However, where is this “experiencer” you refer to? Describe this “experiencer” in precise detail and where it is located exactly.

Knowing that for others a separate self with stories of past, present and future can only be in imagination supports seeing that others are only known when thought labels colour, sound or sensation as other / ‘Peter’ ‘Mary’ etc, in the now. The now is vivid. Thoughts imagining what others are thinking, or the imagined characteristics of others, are a pale mist in comparison.

Lovely, Iain.

Experience remains the same regardless of the content of the thought label, be it green or red or good or bad.There are no inherent attributes for thought to reveal,thought is always on top of experience. There is no two way correspondence, thought labels are only ever about experience, layered on top of experience.

Thoughts either point to actual experience or they point to thoughts about actual experience ie thoughts about thoughts.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Labels are simply that, layers upon experience. They can never effect experience.

Yes!

With love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

So, did you get your question answered?
Is it correct to say that experience now, is all there is to be experienced (the colours, sounds, sensations, smells, tastes and knowing of thought in the now)? And, that there is nothing outside of experience?

Yes, thanks! There can simply be nothing outside of experience that is real. There is experience, and thought splits experience up and thought, colour, taste, smell, sensation and sound are known. There are the imaginings of thought, including an imagined self who has control and responsibility, but this is within thought only.

However, where is this “experiencer” you refer to? Describe this “experiencer” in precise detail and where it is located exactly.

Unfindable. Experience is one, with no separate ‘experiencer’, and no different or separate experience had by others, just one experience.

There is no sound AND colour AND smell AND thought AND sensation AND taste. soundcoloursmellthoughtsensationtaste = experience = one and the same – whole, seamless and complete…no divisions.

Experience is, and just as thought is known to split up experience and further layer and comment on it, for others thought likewise splits up experience then further layers and comments about experience. All is experience radiating through, with no separate experiencer, no ‘my’ experience, and no separate ‘your’ experience. The content of my and others’ thoughts follow from experience and is about experience only.

Is the following correct?

Knowing thought is taking place is real, but of course the content of thought is never the real, or actual, of experience. The content of thought can be seen through as entirely different to experience. Thought taking place is known, but all content within thought, any suggestion that thought can know itself, or know if the object thought about is real or not, is entirely imagined within thought (graffiti scribbled on wall analogy).

Love, Iain