To see or not to see?

[suma]

There it is again, so one more trial.

Dear Kay,

the text was just ready and beautifully layout with nice quotes and then the page collapsed.
Good to have a copy in word jet the quotation thing needs to be done again. Here we go:

A meaning is given to both the expectation and the current experience which are then compared and labelled as “liberation” or “not liberation” because of how it is being perceived, and for the desire for liberation to look the way we want it to look/feel.

Yes, this point seems to be very important to me. There is a gap or a felt gap. I’ve read this passage several times.

Yes, eventually the seeming identification with thought dissipates. However, there is no one/no thing that is identifying with the “flow of thoughts”. Not identifying with all thoughts won’t happen during this exploration. There are many beliefs that will still need to be looked at after ‘gating’, as not all beliefs are seen through in one foul swoop. Seeing through the illusion of a separate self is an important first step in the greater journey of awakening to reality. It’s a necessary step, but is by no means the end of the ride.

“Yes, eventually the seeming identification with thought dissipates. However, there is no one/no thing that is identifying with the “flow of thoughts”. Not identifying with all thoughts won’t happen during this exploration. There are many beliefs that will still need to be looked at after ‘gating’, as not all beliefs are seen through in one foul swoop. Seeing through the illusion of a separate self is an important first step in the greater journey of awakening to reality. It’s a necessary step, but is by no means the end of the ride.”

Ok.

There has NEVER been a separate self. Not yesterday, not now, not tomorrow. There is no ‘you’ to be the thinker, doer, feeler or sayer. Love and kindness may or may not become more prevalent. Since there is no ‘you/Suma’, to what exactly would that matter? Tension is simply the appearance of a sensation and in and of itself has no meaning, it is only thoughts that give it meaning and thoughts know nothing.

That is very relieving. When there is no dog no dog can be kicked.

“There has NEVER been a separate self. Not yesterday, not now, not tomorrow. There is no ‘you’ to be the thinker, doer, feeler or sayer. Love and kindness may or may not become more prevalent. Since there is no ‘you/Suma’, to what exactly would that matter? Tension is simply the appearance of a sensation and in and of itself has no meaning, it is only thoughts that give it meaning and thoughts know nothing.

Yes, they know nothing. I’ve seen it so many times. Beingt exited about something wich later turnes out to be totally mistaken. Yet they trap me again and again

There was never a ‘you’ doing anything. Life happens but it is happening to no one…life is simply lifing. You are not the author of thought. Thoughts simply arise and subside. Everything is already functioning properly without a self. It was never more than an illusion in the first place. In this sense, nothing changes after awakening.

There was never a ‘you’ doing anything. Life happens but it is happening to no one…life is simply lifing. You are not the author of thought. Thoughts simply arise and subside. Everything is already functioning properly without a self. It was never more than an illusion in the first place. In this sense, nothing changes after awakening.

When I’m not the author of my thoughts than they have as much meaning as listening to a radio broadcast.

There is never anything missing. Experience is seamless, whole and complete. You (not Suma) are always aware of what is, and you are always here! Where else could you be? Just because many thoughts are appearing and it seems like you are ‘lost in thought’, doesn’t mean that that is so. You are always aware of when thoughts are appearing, even the thought “I am lost in thought”, or “my mind is busy”.

"There is never anything missing. Experience is seamless, whole and complete. You (not Petra) are always aware of what is, and you are always here! Where else could you be? Just because many thoughts are appearing and it seems like you are ‘lost in thought’, doesn’t mean that that is so. You are always aware of when thoughts are appearing, even the thought “I am lost in thought”, or “my mind is busy”.

Yes. like a radio playing all the time in full volume that has nothing to do with to what’s actually going on. Sitting here is sitting here.
You know, when starting into the LU I was sitting on the toilet and the mind was totally blank.
There was just sitting there and looking at the wall and then suddenly out of nowhere into the total silence my voice was telling loudly to my daughter in the kitchen nearby: “Please go and brush your teeth. It is important to do that.” and then again blank silence.
This experience was revealing as there was no prior thought about the issue and this talking just happened. It came out of nowhere. Yet it was totally normal. It would have also happened the same way when my mind was busy thinking something. But it was the first time this came into awareness. So what you are writing resonates totally with a big YES
inside me or how to say it.

[forgetmenot]

Hey Suma,

the text was just ready and beautifully layout with nice quotes and then the page collapsed.
Good to have a copy in word jet the quotation thing needs to be done again. Here we go:

Thank-you for getting to know and using the quote function :) The IT team are still working hard on resolving the logging in problem.

it is only thoughts that give it meaning and thoughts know nothing.

Yes, they know nothing. I’ve seen it so many times. Being exited about something wich later turnes out to be totally mistaken. Yet they trap me again and again

Thought is often made out to be your enemy, in the search for truth. It is not. But, if you don't notice the difference between what thought says about reality, and how you find reality to actually be, you won't notice your innate peace and freedom. In order to notice that difference, the very first thing you have to notice is whether, or not you are the author of thoughts, or whether ANYTHING is authoring thoughts. The second thing you need to notice is whether thought is aware of what it says, or not. Once you are sure of the answers to those questions, the differences between what thought says about reality, and how you find reality to ACTUALLY be, will reveal themselves. And this is what will be looking at in this exploration.

You are not the author of thought. Thoughts simply arise and subside.

When I’m not the author of my thoughts than they have as much meaning as listening to a radio broadcast.

There is no ‘you’ authoring thought…ever!

There was just sitting there and looking at the wall and then suddenly out of nowhere into the total silence my voice was telling loudly to my daughter in the kitchen nearby: “Please go and brush your teeth. It is important to do that.” and then again blank silence.
This experience was revealing as there was no prior thought about the issue and this talking just happened. It came out of nowhere. Yet it was totally normal. It would have also happened the same way when my mind was busy thinking something. But it was the first time this came into awareness. So what you are writing resonates totally with a big YES inside me or how to say it.

Lovely observation and a great start! :)

Let’s start by learning how become aware of actual experience (AE)

Actual Experience (AE) is used to refer to experience that is appearing/happening ‘right now,’ minus the thought stories. ‘’LOOKING’ is just plain looking at actual experience (AE) in this moment. So, actual experience (AE) is image/colour, sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought at face value. What thought says ie, the content of thought is NOT experience. This is evidenced by the fact that you cannot taste the word 'sweet'. So, when looking at actual experience (AE), you are looking at raw experience WITHOUT what thought says ABOUT the raw experience. Thought layers concepts over actual experience. A thought (concept, idea, 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.

Here is an exercise to get the ball rolling.

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?

With love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay

the very first thing you have to notice is whether, or not you are the author of thoughts, or whether ANYTHING is authoring thoughts. The second thing you need to notice is whether thought is aware of what it says, or not. Once you are sure of the answers to those questions, the differences between what thought says about reality, and how you find reality to ACTUALLY be, will reveal themselves.

I can’t say where thoughts come from and therefore there’s also no known author.
Thought is not aware of what it says; it’s like a child just talking for the sake of talking.

This is really amazing. There’s quite a constant buzz in the head – how to put it into words –
there’s a subtle energy taking the space where all the thoughts used to be widespread.
Yet thinking is still happening in the sense of commenting what’s going on in the present.
But it’s mainly in a rather childish manner to make oneself known, to say: I’m here, listen to me.

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

I took an apricot as that was available:
There is a round 3dimensional object. The colour is light orange. The outside surface feels soft and hairy. It has a very weak smell maybe like flowers. When I open the object it is white orange and a bit wet and a dark brown hard oval piece with a cold touch comes into sight.

[However, is an apple actually known?
/quote]


Here it is really clear how difficult it is to put such a thing like apple or apricot
into words without using synonyms. When described as ‘smells like flowers’ it is already something put in from memory. So the object apple or apricot actually doesn’t exist. This term has been given for conventional purpose, to classify objects coming into the sense sphere. Here the tricky thing starts. It is so convenient just to use the label rather than starting everything fresh again. Instead of looking at an apple one might think: ‘I know what an apple is’, no need to bother any further. So knowing proceeds the actual looking and now I see that it’s not knowing at all.


greeting

suma

[forgetmenot]

Hello Suma,

Lovely post to read :)

the very first thing you have to notice is whether, or not you are the author of thoughts, or whether ANYTHING is authoring thoughts. The second thing you need to notice is whether thought is aware of what it says, or not. Once you are sure of the answers to those questions, the differences between what thought says about reality, and how you find reality to ACTUALLY be, will reveal themselves.

I can’t say where thoughts come from and therefore there’s also no known author.
Thought is not aware of what it says; it’s like a child just talking for the sake of talking.

Yes! Wonderful! Thoughts are an appearance that arise and subside just like sound, sensation, smell etc. We will take a look at the nature of thought shortly, although it seems you already have a handle on thought!

This is really amazing. There’s quite a constant buzz in the head – how to put it into words –
there’s a subtle energy taking the space where all the thoughts used to be widespread.

Nice! And it is this “constant buzzing” that thought points to and suggests that thoughts are authored and come from a place called a ‘brain/head’.

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

I took an apricot as that was available:
There is a round 3dimensional object. The colour is light orange. The outside surface feels soft and hairy. It has a very weak smell maybe like flowers. When I open the object it is white orange and a bit wet and a dark brown hard oval piece with a cold touch comes into sight.

Thank you for the description of the apricot which are all thoughts ABOUT an apricot, but you didn’t answer the questions.

Is there really an ‘apricot’, or only colour and thoughts ABOUT ‘apricot’?
Can ‘apricot’ be found in actual experience?

“There is a round 3 dimensional object” is thoughts ABOUT colour labelled ‘apricot’.
Without thought, how is it known that it is a “round 3 dimensional object”?

The label ‘apricot’ is AE of thought and not AE of an apricot
The sensation labelled as “soft and hairy” and “cold” are AE of sensation and not AE of an apricot
The image/colour labelled as “apricot” and white orange, dark brown are AE of colour and not AE of an apricot.
The smell labelled as “flowers/apricot” is AE of smell and not AE of an apricot
The thoughts ABOUT an apricot, what an apricot is and the descriptions you provided (wet, 3 dimensional, oval, outside surface etc) are AE of thought and not AE of an apricot.

So what is actually appearing (known) is label + sensation + colour + smell + thoughts ABOUT all of these being an apricot. But is there really and apricot?

However, is an apple actually known?

Here it is really clear how difficult it is to put such a thing like apple or apricot
into words without using synonyms. When described as ‘smells like flowers’ it is already something put in from memory. So the object apple or apricot actually doesn’t exist. This term has been given for conventional purpose, to classify objects coming into the sense sphere. Here the tricky thing starts. It is so convenient just to use the label rather than starting everything fresh again. Instead of looking at an apple one might think: ‘I know what an apple is’, no need to bother any further. So knowing proceeds the actual looking and now I see that it’s not knowing at all.

Lovely looking with insights, Suma, however you didn’t answer the question.
Is an apricot actually known?

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 some examples please.

Love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay,

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

“Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go, giving some examples please.”

Somehow I’m having a hard time, no not really hard. The most amazing thing is looking at the leaves of plants. The way they spread their leaves into the sunlight is so touching that hot showers run through my body. It touches through the heart right down to the gut. What’s so amazing about the feeling (is it a feeling?) is that it is all me, that’s why it is so touching. It is something like looking at the leave as a leave but that doesn’t hit the point. The roses and other flowers are also that.

Yes, today and also the days before I exercised to just to be with the experience.
We had been swimming yesterday and there was sound from the neighbouring guests, the feel of hot sun on the skin; then swimming was interesting: The feeling of cold to the skin, the fluidity of water, the sparkling light in the little waves that happened due to the swimming movement.

And then there was this big tree, a big lime tree. It was special to be with this tree. It was utterly alive, ready to flower all over and of a very lush and delicious green. It was like a living being standing there, giving lovely shade to the guest of the lake, unintentionally, totally devoted to it’s standing there.

And yes, I was drinking a cup of tea. The feel of the warm cup, the hot liquid touching the lips, the somewhat furry sensation in the mouth, the feeling of the warm liquid going down the gullet, gazing at the white jar filled with the light brown fluid.

Then going through a city, no not city, a small town. There are so many impressions happening at the same time, people of all sorts walking by, cars moving, each one in a different manner, smell of exhaust gas, feeling of hot sun on the skin, listening to conversations of by passers. Then eating ice-cream. The cold feeling on the tongue, the peculiar taste in the mouth. It was neither pleasant nor unpleasant. All this was just happening.

I’m a bit concerned about my family, or rather, they are concerned about me.
Sometimes I’m just awestruck and unable to talk. “What’s wrong with you?” my daughter asks and behaves as if I’m sick and tries to comfort me. My husband somehow supports the whole thing but he’s also a bit irritated. When I try to talk about what’s going on he makes jokes about it.

Is there really an ‘apricot’, or only colour and thoughts ABOUT ‘apricot’?
Can ‘apricot’ be found in actual experience?

“There is a round 3 dimensional object” is thoughts ABOUT colour labelled ‘apricot’.
Without thought, how is it known that it is a “round 3 dimensional object”?

So what is actually appearing (known) is label + sensation + colour + smell + thoughts ABOUT all of these being an apricot. But is there really and apricot?

Is an apricot actually known?

No, it cannot be known as a thing because it doesn’t exist as that. It can be experienced in its different qualities but there’s not the one thing. I can’t say and don’t know what that is.

greetings and all the best

suma

[forgetmenot]

Hello Suma,

I’m a bit concerned about my family, or rather, they are concerned about me.
Sometimes I’m just awestruck and unable to talk. “What’s wrong with you?” my daughter asks and behaves as if I’m sick and tries to comfort me. My husband somehow supports the whole thing but he’s also a bit irritated. When I try to talk about what’s going on he makes jokes about it.

You can just say that you are awestruck by the beauty of the world. There is no need to go into further explanations. For those who are not yet ready to see through the illusory self, the idea of this can feel threatening. I know that we like to have others to talk to about our experiences, but sometimes family are the not the best people to discuss it with. You can share those experiences with me, if you like.

Can you break down what you wrote into AE for me please, - like the example I gave in the exercise.


And then there was this big tree, a big lime tree. It was special to be with this tree. It was utterly alive, ready to flower all over and of a very lush and delicious green. It was like a living being standing there, giving lovely shade to the guest of the lake, unintentionally, totally devoted to it’s standing there.

And yes, I was drinking a cup of tea. The feel of the warm cup, the hot liquid touching the lips, the somewhat furry sensation in the mouth, the feeling of the warm liquid going down the gullet, gazing at the white jar filled with the light brown fluid.

Then going through a city, no not city, a small town. There are so many impressions happening at the same time, people of all sorts walking by, cars moving, each one in a different manner, smell of exhaust gas, feeling of hot sun on the skin, listening to conversations of by passers. Then eating ice-cream. The cold feeling on the tongue, the peculiar taste in the mouth. It was neither pleasant nor unpleasant. All this was just happening.

No, it cannot be known as a thing because it doesn’t exist as that. It can be experienced in its different qualities but there’s not the one thing. I can’t say and don’t know what that is.

Wonderful!

Please remember to answer each question individually and not in one lump. Thanks :)

Love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay,

Can you break down what you wrote into AE for me please, - like the example I gave in the exercise.

well, OK, I’ll try. It was just so overwhelming that I forgot to break it down. Or, to be honest, it was laziness; I didn’t really know how to keep it all separate. But I see the point. In combination there seems to be something somewhere, separate distinct objects. By breaking this down only bare sense perception remains:

Seeing the tree- colour/ image
Smelling the air – smell
Feeling the shade or the warmth of the sun on the skin – sensation
Feeling the warm mug of tea, the cold feeling of ice-cream on the tongue – sensation
Taste of tea or ice-cream in the mouth – taste
Hearing the neighbours talking – sound
Seeing the white mug of tea – seeing
Sensation inside the body – just sensation
Sitting here typing, fingers touching the keys – sensation
Wondering what to write – thoughts
Seeing the screen – image
Listening to the sound of the fingers hitting the keys - sound
Smell of exhaust gas – smell
Hearing the birds outside- sound
Cramping in the gut - sensation
Seeing the flowers – image/colour
Seeing the dust on the window sill – image
Seeing the insect on the window pane – image
Seeing the cloudy sky – image/ colour

[quote...]For those who are not yet ready to see through the illusory self, the idea of this can feel threatening. I know that we like to have others to talk to about our experiences, but sometimes family are the not the best people to discuss it with. [/quote]



I’m not talking to anybody about experience or start any discussions without being asked for. There are only one or two people in my friend’s circle where we talk about these issues. Mainly they ask me questions about their experience and I try to answer. One of these friends reported to be at LU now and recommend the page warmly. That’s how I came here.


Greetings and all the best

suma

[forgetmenot]

Hey Suma,

Thank you for all those lovely breakdowns! You have a good grasp on AE, so now you know how to look at AE and notice how thoughts overlay AE with stories. Always check with AE, and not just go with what thought says.

So, no we look at the nature of thought.

Here is a thought exercise. Look carefully when doing this exercise and do it several times if necessary. Please answer each question individually.

Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Where are they coming from and going to?

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
Can you predict your next thought?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?
Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay

[You have a good grasp on AE, so now you know how to look at AE and notice how thoughts overlay AE with stories. /quote]

At times I got really frustrated, frustrated because it wasn’t possible to just look. Why is it so difficult?
And then I realized: ‘OK, thought’.
But still. As everything is happening simultaneously it is really difficult to keep track. Listening and feeling and seeing at the same time and still marking the difference…
I mean this is not a hobby I’m doing when there is time. If something is true and working it has to be practiced now and always. That’s what I appreciate so much about this teaching. It is possible to practice it now and anytime.
Driving a car, doing any work - the biggest challenge is still to be with other people. While in a conversation it is difficult to keep the head above the water or how to call it.
Now to the questions:

Where are they coming from and going to?

I don’t know.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

No. Even to try that is not possible.

Can you predict your next thought?

No.

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

No.

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

No, definitely not.

[Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?/quote]

No. My mother was by the way quite involved into so called positive thinking. I found this very destructive.

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

No.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

Well, it is possible to turn up the volume of AE and keep thoughts in the background or at times they might also subside, however it is not possible to have any direct access on thought and prevent its appearing.

Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

Yes, I’ve tried that. However a thought stopped intentionally soon comes back to repeat itself in endless loops.
So no, it is not possible.

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Actually looking at ones thoughts is realizing its insanity. No order, no organized sequence, it is just one thought following another thought without any connection or relation.


Ok.

Greetings and all the best

suma

[forgetmenot]

Hello Suma,

If you hit the "preview" button you will see how your post is looking and make any edits etc before hitting the "submit' button.

You have a good grasp on AE, so now you know how to look at AE and notice how thoughts overlay AE with stories.

At times I got really frustrated, frustrated because it wasn’t possible to just look. Why is it so difficult?
And then I realized: ‘OK, thought’.

Great realisation!

But still. As everything is happening simultaneously it is really difficult to keep track. Listening and feeling and seeing at the same time and still marking the difference…

Okay, let’s look at this. Listen for a sound...a loudish sound if possible. Now start to count to 5. What became the focus? Were you able to hold both in equal focus, or did one go to the background while the other was more in forefront?

I mean this is not a hobby I’m doing when there is time. If something is true and working it has to be practiced now and always. That’s what I appreciate so much about this teaching. It is possible to practice it now and anytime.
Driving a car, doing any work - the biggest challenge is still to be with other people. While in a conversation it is difficult to keep the head above the water or how to call it.

This is all perfectly normal. Eventually the looking will become automatic. Attention goes where attention goes, there is no controller of what is being 'awared'. We will look at this shortly.

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

No. My mother was by the way quite involved into so called positive thinking. I found this very destructive.

Yes, positive thinking makes an enemy out of thoughts, and thoughts are just an appearance, and in and of themselves are meaningless. If we could choose to have a specific range of thoughts, who would actually choose to have negative, painful or fearful thoughts!

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

Well, it is possible to turn up the volume of AE and keep thoughts in the background or at times they might also subside, however it is not possible to have any direct access on thought and prevent its appearing.

And where did you go to get the idea/thought to “turn up the volume of AE”. Where are thoughts stored for you to retrieve this thought and then bring it to the forefront to be ‘awared’? In other words, how did you think this thought?

And is not “Well, it is possible to turn up the volume of AE and keep thoughts in the background or at times they might also subside”, just another thought?

And where is this thinker of thought that was able to do this?

Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

Yes, I’ve tried that. However a thought stopped intentionally soon comes back to repeat itself in endless loops.
So no, it is not possible.

And where does one thought end and another begin? How long is a piece of string?
Where is this controller of thought that can stop a thought in the middle? Please describe them to me in precise detail and where they are located.
And how is it known it is the middle of a thought without a thought saying so?

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Actually looking at ones thoughts is realizing its insanity. No order, no organized sequence, it is just one thought following another thought without any connection or relation.

Lovely. It is only another thought that says that thoughts are in a logical ordered appearance.

Love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay,

I’m so grateful for this conversation. These questions are of such a great help. It is really something different then just reading a book.

Okay, let’s look at this. Listen for a sound...a loudish sound if possible. Now start to count to 5. What became the focus? Were you able to hold both in equal focus, or did one go to the background while the other was more in forefront?

No, only one sense impression can be noted at a single moment. But each moment can be extremely short and so the assumption appears that it’s all in a lump, as if it comes all in a bundle. As if it is something combined. However, by looking closely it is one after another. Unrelated.

And where did you go to get the idea/thought to “turn up the volume of AE”. Where are thoughts stored for you to retrieve this thought and then bring it to the forefront to be ‘awared’? In other words, how did you think this thought?

Wonderful, what a great question. Who is the central scrutinizer? Where does it sit? To whom is all that happening? In the case mentioned above it came out of memory and memory is just a synonym for thought. So thought thought that thought.

And is not “Well, it is possible to turn up the volume of AE and keep thoughts in the background or at times they might also subside”, just another thought?

Yes, thought pretending to be the doer.

And where is this thinker of thought that was able to do this?

Where is the central scrutinizer? There are thoughts, there are sensations in the body, there are sounds to be heard, but where is the thinker who is supposed to be me? Yet it feels so real as if there’s something. Is it in the heart? No. Sensations. Is it in the stomach or in the gut? There are sensations only, subtle or gross. Maybe the thinker is just placed out of habit; one is so used to think in these categories. Looking at it closely the question above can’t be answered.

And where does one thought end and another begin? How long is a piece of string?

There is actually no beginning and no end. It is flimsy, like a piece of dust in a breeze. Sometimes it is more dominant, sometimes less. When trying to stop it intentionally it becomes more dominant. It is thought trying not to think itself and that is a fallacy.

Where is this controller of thought that can stop a thought in the middle? Please describe them to me in precise detail and where they are located.
And how is it known it is the middle of a thought without a thought saying so?

There’s only blank emptiness. Presently it can’t be said in another way. Thought has been telling all that.

All the best
greetings
suma

[forgetmenot]

Hey Suma,

Lovely looking, Suma!

I’m so grateful for this conversation. These questions are of such a great help. It is really something different then just reading a book.

Glad you are finding the conversation helpful.

Okay, let’s look at this. Listen for a sound...a loudish sound if possible. Now start to count to 5. What became the focus? Were you able to hold both in equal focus, or did one go to the background while the other was more in forefront?

No, only one sense impression can be noted at a single moment. But each moment can be extremely short and so the assumption appears that it’s all in a lump, as if it comes all in a bundle. As if it is something combined. However, by looking closely it is one after another. Unrelated.

Lovely! So now you can relax and not try to “mark differences” or feel that you are “not able to keep track”! If you sit and focus you could probably do that…but that doesn’t mean anything!

Let’s have a look to see if you have any choice, whatsoever, about what you're aware of? If you think that you do, think about this:

If thoughts say, "I can change what I'm aware of by closing my eyes", and suddenly eyes seem to close, and you are aware of only colour black.
Did you REALLY have any choice about being aware of all of that?
Did you have any choice about being aware of the thoughts, or the apparent closing of eyes, or the colour black?
Could you have chosen not to have thoughts about closing eyes?
Could you have chosen for the colour to be green instead?
If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

And where did you go to get the idea/thought to “turn up the volume of AE”. Where are thoughts stored for you to retrieve this thought and then bring it to the forefront to be ‘awared’? In other words, how did you think this thought?

Wonderful, what a great question. Who is the central scrutinizer? Where does it sit? To whom is all that happening? In the case mentioned above it came out of memory and memory is just a synonym for thought. So thought thought that thought.

Nice…however thought can’t think thought. That would make thought an entity. We will have a look at memory a little later. I don’t want to overwhelm you with too many different things to look at.

Generally we think that we reside in the head because that is where it is thought that thoughts come from.

Let’s examine the solidity of the head.

Press a finger down onto the top of the ‘head’.
Notice what is actually present.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation labelled ‘pressure’ and a story ABOUT a head?

Do the same with a finger on each side of the head.
Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
And is there anything between the pressure points, or is it just a thought that says there must be something between them?

And where is this thinker of thought that was able to do this?

Where is the central scrutinizer? There are thoughts, there are sensations in the body, there are sounds to be heard, but where is the thinker who is supposed to be me? Yet it feels so real as if there’s something. Is it in the heart? No. Sensations. Is it in the stomach or in the gut? There are sensations only, subtle or gross. Maybe the thinker is just placed out of habit; one is so used to think in these categories. Looking at it closely the question above can’t be answered.

Nice looking and finding only sensations and thoughts about the sensations perhaps being a ‘me’! So what was actually appearing was sensation and thoughts about a ‘me’.

And where does one thought end and another begin? How long is a piece of string?

There is actually no beginning and no end. It is flimsy, like a piece of dust in a breeze. Sometimes it is more dominant, sometimes less. When trying to stop it intentionally it becomes more dominant. It is thought trying not to think itself and that is a fallacy.

And without thought, how is it known that there are ‘dominant’ and “less dominant” thoughts?

Where is this controller of thought that can stop a thought in the middle? Please describe them to me in precise detail and where they are located.
And how is it known it is the middle of a thought without a thought saying so?

There’s only blank emptiness. Presently it can’t be said in another way. Thought has been telling all that.

Yes, it is simply an appearing story about there being a ‘me’ who is the controller.

Love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay,

this post was causing quite some resistance. I can’t say why, maybe because it is really pointing towards something always avoided to look at. The wish to control! How dear it is to believe to be able to control everything. But the controller gets threatened now.

If thoughts say, "I can change what I'm aware of by closing my eyes", and suddenly eyes seem to close, and you are aware of only colour black.
Did you REALLY have any choice about being aware of all of that?
Did you have any choice about being aware of the thoughts, or the apparent closing of eyes, or the colour black?
Could you have chosen not to have thoughts about closing eyes?
Could you have chosen for the colour to be green instead?
If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

If thought says that then actually nothing happens. Thought cannot close the eyes. What is it then closing the eyes intentionally? Is there a choice of awareness? Obviously not. It is not possible to create a sensation, like feeling hot when it’s cold. The colour of sight can’t be changed. A bitter taste cannot be changed into a sweet one. The sense doors cannot be closed by intention, only in deep sleep, but that's not intentionally. What is then there to choose? Maybe to stop resistance?
The constant resistance about what is happening right now?

Is it a head, or is it just a sensation labelled ‘pressure’ and a story ABOUT a head?

This was really a revealing exercise. First thought said: Of course, it is a round hard skull that is felt. But nothing like that. There was no skull or anything hard or round. There was no head at all.

Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
And is there anything between the pressure points, or is it just a thought that says there must be something between them?

Here again, thought said: There is a round skull. But no! There is nothing like round skull in between. There was only, how to call it properly; nothing. There was the sensation of touching of the hands but nothing more.

Thank you so much
suma

[forgetmenot]

Hello Suma,

this post was causing quite some resistance. I can’t say why, maybe because it is really pointing towards something always avoided to look at. The wish to control! How dear it is to believe to be able to control everything. But the controller gets threatened now.

Yes, resistance, anger and fear do appear as everything you thought you were and knew is being threatened, however resistance is impossible, how can what already is be resisted? It is only an appearing thought that says “I am resisting ………”. Thoughts are actual experience (AE) and either point to actual experience or to thought stories. Can a sensation or thought be resisted? What is it exactly that is resisting?

When you think you find "resistance", try to define (look what AE is) what it is that is being "resisted", and what it is that is doing the "resisting"

The label ‘resistance’ is AE of thought and not AE of resistance
The sensation labelled ‘resistance’ is AE of sensation and not AE of resistance
The image labelled ‘me/body/I’ is AE of colour and not AE of person in resistance
The thoughts ABOUT resistance and what it means is AE of thought and not AE of someone resisting.

So what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT resistance. Is resistance actually known?

If thoughts say, "I can change what I'm aware of by closing my eyes", and suddenly eyes seem to close, and you are aware of only colour black.
Did you REALLY have any choice about being aware of all of that?
Did you have any choice about being aware of the thoughts, or the apparent closing of eyes, or the colour black?
Could you have chosen not to have thoughts about closing eyes?
Could you have chosen for the colour to be green instead?
If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

If thought says that then actually nothing happens. Thought cannot close the eyes. What is it then closing the eyes intentionally? Is there a choice of awareness? Obviously not. It is not possible to create a sensation, like feeling hot when it’s cold. The colour of sight can’t be changed. A bitter taste cannot be changed into a sweet one. The sense doors cannot be closed by intention, only in deep sleep, but that's not intentionally. What is then there to choose? Maybe to stop resistance?
The constant resistance about what is happening right now?

Suma, I want you to answer each question individually please. Can you do that please. You have asked more questions and if you had just looked at these questions one at a time and answered them one at a time, you would have been able to answer your own questions.
Please redo the exercise and answer the questions individually please.

Is it a head, or is it just a sensation labelled ‘pressure’ and a story ABOUT a head?

This was really a revealing exercise. First thought said: Of course, it is a round hard skull that is felt. But nothing like that. There was no skull or anything hard or round. There was no head at all.

Yes, there is no ‘head’. So what is the AE of ‘head’?

Is a head actually found, or are there just sensations again?
And is there anything between the pressure points, or is it just a thought that says there must be something between them?

Here again, thought said: There is a round skull. But no! There is nothing like round skull in between. There was only, how to call it properly; nothing. There was the sensation of touching of the hands but nothing more.

Okay, so let’s have a look at the idea of “hands touching”.

Please close your eyes for this exercise, just notice any ‘mental’ images or thoughts that appear about desk or hand and put them aside.

Place a hand on a desk or table (flat surface) - Close your eyes.
Now 'go to' the sensation which we would normally refer to as 'hand on desk' and answer from what you can FIND.

1) How many things do you find? Are there two things - hand and desk? Or is there simply the AE of sensation.
2) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'sensation'?
3) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'sensation'?
What do you find?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘feeling’ end and sensation begin? Can a dividing line between ‘feeling’ and sensation be found? Or is there just sensation?

Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt' – AE sensation?

If that is all, and no INHERENT FEELER is found . . . would anything that is suggested as the feeler be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Now go back to the 'head' exercise. Can a hand be found touching a head? Or there are thoughts about a hand touching the head, but what is actually appearing is simply sensation?

Love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay,

Can a sensation or thought be resisted?

No, it can’t be influenced.

What is it exactly that is resisting?

It can’t be pointed at.

So what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT resistance. Is resistance actually known?

No, it is not known. There are thoughts, there are sensations and that’s it.

If thoughts say, "I can change what I'm aware of by closing my eyes", and suddenly eyes seem to close, and you are aware of only colour black.
Did you REALLY have any choice about being aware of all of that?

No.

Did you have any choice about being aware of the thoughts, or the apparent closing of eyes, or the colour black?

No.

Could you have chosen not to have thoughts about closing eyes?

No.

Could you have chosen for the colour to be green instead?

No. Impossible.

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Nothing.

Yes, there is no ‘head’. So what is the AE of ‘head’?

There is he AE of thoughts ( „Where is the head?”),
and there is AE of sensations, they can’t be defined as this or that.

1) How many things do you find? Are there two things - hand and desk? Or is there simply the AE of sensation.

There is the AE of sensation.

2) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'sensation'?

There is just sensation. And there is AE of sensation of pressure in the head.

3) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'sensation'?
What do you find?

There is just sensation. And there is AE of sensation of pressure in the head.
There is AE of thought (saying: This can’t be)
Actually experienced is only one sensation.

Look very carefully. Where does ‘feeling’ end and sensation begin? Can a dividing line between ‘feeling’ and sensation be found? Or is there just sensation?

There is just sensation. There is no feeling. Along there is a perception of something shifting, but this can’t be labelled as thought. It’s a sensation.

Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt' – AE sensation?

No.

If that is all, and no INHERENT FEELER is found . . . would anything that is suggested as the feeler be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

No, the feeler is a concept/idea/thought. Astonishing to see that.

Now go back to the 'head' exercise. Can a hand be found touching a head? Or there are thoughts about a hand touching the head, but what is actually appearing is simply sensation?

It is actually simply sensation. I’ve done that exercise several times, yesterday, today, and it is really always so astonishing to clearly see that there is just sensation, nothing more.

Thank you very much
suma

(I'm really having a hard time doing this quote thing nicely. It is quite complicated as the gap of often mismatched. I'm doing it again and again and then I'm getting totally confused about the text passages)