To see or not to see?

[suma]

Dear Kay,

Is the country (the land itself) called America actually divided into many different states? Are there actual divisions, like walls on the land itself? Does the map of America as a whole change if the map didn’t show the divisions? Does the map of America as whole change when the divisions are added? Is the map separate to the divisions? Or are the divisions simply the map being the map?

Ok, now it is understood.

Without thought, how is it known that those sensation are in a “kind of restricted area”?

It cannot be known. Thought was creating this construct which actually has nothing to do with the actual experience.

Are seeing and knowing separate or are they one and the same. Is seeing of colour and seeing of seeing different, or are they are one and the same ie colour?

What is the AE of “the mind”?

It is just seeing – colour.
The AE of mind doesn’t exist. It was a AE of thought.


All the best

suma

[forgetmenot]

Hello Suma,

Is the country (the land itself) called America actually divided into many different states? Are there actual divisions, like walls on the land itself? Does the map of America as a whole change if the map didn’t show the divisions? Does the map of America as whole change when the divisions are added? Is the map separate to the divisions? Or are the divisions simply the map being the map?

Ok, now it is understood.

Can you please tell me what it is you understand?

Without thought, how is it known that those sensation are in a “kind of restricted area”?

It cannot be known. Thought was creating this construct which actually has nothing to do with the actual experience.

Exactly. Experience/Knowing cannot and is not contained by anything.


Okay, let’s have a look at the idea of control/choice/decisions.

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down.
2. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

Watch like a hawk.

Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire…

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

With love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay,

Can you please tell me what it is you understand?

The experience of sense impressions is whole and one. It belongs all to the same fabric.
The divisions are included in it.

How is the movement controlled?

It can’t be explained.

Does a thought control it?

Not at all.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No.

How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

There is no decision point or any individual choosing to turn the palm over. No thoughts involved. It is a mystery.


All the best

suma

[forgetmenot]

Hi Suma,

Can you please tell me what it is you understand?

The experience of sense impressions is whole and one. It belongs all to the same fabric.
The divisions are included in it.

Yes, it is all the same fabric. There are no divisions. Without the labels sound, taste, sensation etc, all there is, is experience appearing exactly as it is.

How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

There is no decision point or any individual choosing to turn the palm over. No thoughts involved. It is a mystery.

Lovely.

The aim of the following exercise is to discover whether the function of choice can really be found or confirmed in actual experience. The idea of making ‘choices‘ is a very clear example of a function that we wrongly identify as the basis of our identity.

Here's what’s needed - A chair, a table and two different drinks. Any two drinks you like are okay for this: coffee, tea, milk, water, juices, smoothies, beer, wine, etc.

Preparation - Place the two drinks side by side on the table in front of you, sit comfortably on the chair and mentally label them as drink A and drink B.

Experiment - Finding the function of choice

Sit for a few moments, take a few relaxed breaths and let the dust settle. When you feel ready:

1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
2. Count to 5.
3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

Questions:
Remember that we’re looking for some kind of function, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

Love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay,

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

The qualities appeared by themselves. There was no preference even when it popped up by itself.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

There was no choosing and also no mental function involved.

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

There was no agency involved in the choosing. There was nobody who ‘did make’ a choice.

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

There was no sense of choosing as a feeling. It can’t be explained how and why it happened.

Actually this exercise reminds me of an event I tried to describe in the beginning of our conversation:

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.

There was nothing who decided about this issue.

The last days had been quite intense.
It started with this anxiety something.
There was just being with the sensations and any thought involved was almost instantly seen as thought.
There had been bundles of intense energy. However it was not personal. Maybe it was the energy field of my mother who is still quite traumatised of her childhood in World War II. But that was unimportant. The following day the sensations kept on changing into a maybe rage or fury kind of energy. This again was nothing personal but at the same time very familiar. These energies had been there all the time in the system and even more energy was necessary to suppress them. Having been more with AE the last days there was enough space for this energy fields to emerge. A kind of churning was going on.
There was a lot of bodily heat involved. Somehow the pali verse

' a t a pi - s a m p a j a n o - s a t i m a'

describes this ongoing quite well.' T a p o' means burning and 'a' is the negation of it. So the meaning is: In the burning there was no burning as it was witnessed with understanding in the present moment.
It is all happening in the present moment. The energies are there in the present. There is nothing like past time energy. But who is the one who is writing all this? Who is the one who to whom this experience happen? I can’t name it.

all the best

suma

[suma]

Hey Kay,

are you still with me?
Somehow the last posts had been mainly standardised text passages and once
you sent an exercise even twice.
Maybe you’re too busy at present or whatever.

Please let me know.

All the best
suma

[forgetmenot]

Hello Suma,

Yes, I am still with you. I was busy this morning and was unable to reply then. It is now evening and I am replying to you. If I am unable to reply in a day, don’t stress, I will reply the next day. As for sending the same exercise twice, it doesn’t do you any harm to redo them. Actually it is beneficial to do the exercises again a few days later to see what else is noticed compared to the first time round of doing the exercise.

Actually this exercise reminds me of an event I tried to describe in the beginning of our conversation:
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.

Yes, that is a great example. Next time you are talking to someone, just notice how talking is just happening. Notice if there are any thoughts actually appearing that are prompting what is being said.

Even science has caught up with the idea that decisions are made 6 seconds before they come to the forefront of the mind. You may or may not have seen the following video.

https://vimeo.com/90101368

The following day the sensations kept on changing into a maybe rage or fury kind of energy. This again was nothing personal but at the same time very familiar. These energies had been there all the time in the system and even more energy was necessary to suppress them. Having been more with AE the last days there was enough space for this energy fields to emerge. A kind of churning was going on.
There was a lot of bodily heat involved. Somehow the pali verse

The clearing of beliefs/patterns/conditioning will begin a phase of mixed emotions and intensified sensations. A sense of loss (sadness/tears), anxiety, fear and anger may appear and is natural when old beliefs start falling away. This is how the process works - old conditioning is falling away and the new ‘conditioning’ is not yet in place.

It is all happening in the present moment. The energies are there in the present. There is nothing like past time energy. But who is the one who is writing all this? Who is the one who to whom this experience happen? I can’t name it.

What is the AE of these ‘typewritten words’?

For there to be someone/something experiencing anything, means they would have to be outside of experience/source itself…so that is impossible.

Is there a dividing line between ‘experience/knowing’ and the known? If not, then is there anything experiencing anything?

When you did the seeing of ‘blackness’ exercise did you find an INHERENT SEE-ER? Is there ‘blackness’ AND ‘seeing’ or are they one and the same thing?

Let’s have a look if we can find anyone or anything that is the doer. We’ll do a little exercise on this topic. It has to do with the sense of seeing as well.

Take a few relaxed breaths to let the dust settle, and then:
Look on your right.
Then look on your left.
Finally, bring your head back to centre, close your eyes and look in front.

Okay, so when you look on the right, the view on the right is seen (whatever that is).
When you look on the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).
And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the view in front is seen (ie ‘black space’).

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?

Can you turn off seeing?

What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?

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

Love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay,

Yes, I am still with you. I was busy this morning and was unable to reply then. It is now evening and I am replying to you. If I am unable to reply in a day, don’t stress, I will reply the next day. As for sending the same exercise twice, it doesn’t do you any harm to redo them. Actually it is beneficial to do the exercises again a few days later to see what else is noticed compared to the first time round of doing the exercise.

Ok.

https://vimeo.com/90101368

Thank you, that was interesting. (I’ve been in such a machine twice for scientific research reasons)

The clearing of beliefs/patterns/conditioning will begin a phase of mixed emotions and intensified sensations. A sense of loss (sadness/tears), anxiety, fear and anger may appear and is natural when old beliefs start falling away. This is how the process works - old conditioning is falling away and the new ‘conditioning’ is not yet in place.

Ok, so it’s fine.

What is the AE of these ‘typewritten words’?

AE of vision/ sight/ colour (The screen)
AE of sensations (fingers hitting the keys)
AE of sound
AE of thought

Is there a dividing line between ‘experience/knowing’ and the known? If not, then is there anything experiencing anything?

No, there is no dividing line between knowing and known. Uh, no, nothing is there experiencing.
All there is - is experience. It is so obvious and jet astonishing.

When you did the seeing of ‘blackness’ exercise did you find an INHERENT SEE-ER? Is there ‘blackness’ AND ‘seeing’ or are they one and the same thing?

There is only the experience of blackness. This exercise was very revealing.

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

No, there is no choice. Seeing is there as such.

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?

Not possible.

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?

No.

Can you turn off seeing?

No, nothing like that.

What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?

No chooser or choice involved in this. It is not possible to choose what sight appears.

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

Yeah, whow, no, there’s nothing to choose. This is really humiliating.

All the best

suma

[forgetmenot]

Good morning Suma,

The clearing of beliefs/patterns/conditioning will begin a phase of mixed emotions and intensified sensations. A sense of loss (sadness/tears), anxiety, fear and anger may appear and is natural when old beliefs start falling away. This is how the process works - old conditioning is falling away and the new ‘conditioning’ is not yet in place.

Ok, so it’s fine.

Absolutely. There will also come a time when you are feeling discombobulated because there is nowhere to ‘land’ anymore. The old is gone but the new isn’t yet in place, so everything feels shaky, so to speak.

What is the AE of these ‘typewritten words’?

AE of vision/ sight/ colour (The screen)

Yes, it is simply AE of colour. It is thought that points to colour (black squiggly lines) and calls it ‘typewritten words’.
Are typewritten words actually known, or are they only thoughts about colour being typewritten words? Without thought, how would it be known that they are words?

Is there a dividing line between ‘experience/knowing’ and the known? If not, then is there anything experiencing anything?

No, there is no dividing line between knowing and known. Uh, no, nothing is there experiencing.
All there is - is experience. It is so obvious and jet astonishing.

Nice. There is no experience of X as X IS experience! Soundsmelltastecoloursensationthought (experience/source) is aware. It is aware of itself no matter what it SEEMS to appear as.

Let’s use the painting of the Mona Lisa as an analogy - the paint being experience/THIS/source. Is there a division between the paint and what is showing up in/as paint ie the Mona Lisa? Is not the paint and the image one and the same? Is not the paint ‘knowing’ of the ‘mona lisa’ (the known ie image/colour) as itself? There would be no Mona Lisa without paint but the paint itself exists without the Mona Lisa.

When you did the seeing of ‘blackness’ exercise did you find an INHERENT SEE-ER? Is there ‘blackness’ AND ‘seeing’ or are they one and the same thing?

There is only the experience of blackness. This exercise was very revealing.

Right. So, is there anyone or anything “who is the one who is writing all this” or “who is the one who to whom this experience happen”?

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

No, there is no choice. Seeing is there as such.

Yes, so what appears (ie what colours) appears are appearing. There is no choice in what those colours are or what thought says those colours are.

Can you turn off seeing?

No, nothing like that.

Exactly, with ‘eyes open or closed’ there is simply THIS/source which thought is labelling as colour, be it further labelled as ‘black’, ‘pink’, ‘green’ or whatever.

Look at a table or a chair in the room you are in. Now let’s say that the table is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’, you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what are you left with, what actually is?

What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?

No chooser or choice involved in this. It is not possible to choose what sight appears.

Yes. Can sound, sensation, taste, smell or thought be chosen? Or do they freely arise and subside?

Yeah, whow, no, there’s nothing to choose. This is really humiliating.

Did you mean humbling? Why would it be humiliating?

Love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay,

Yes, it is simply AE of colour. It is thought that points to colour (black squiggly lines) and calls it ‘typewritten words’.
Are typewritten words actually known, or are they only thoughts about colour being typewritten words? Without thought, how would it be known that they are words?

Yes, without naming by thought it is just looking like a baby.
There’s no way to describe what is seen, no words are there to grasp, it is just – that.

Let’s use the painting of the Mona Lisa as an analogy - the paint being experience/THIS/source. Is there a division between the paint and what is showing up in/as paint ie the Mona Lisa? Is not the paint and the image one and the same? Is not the paint ‘knowing’ of the ‘mona lisa’ (the known ie image/colour) as itself? There would be no Mona Lisa without paint but the paint itself exists without the Mona Lisa.

Yes, the paint is there as colour no matter how one calls it. Thought is naming the image in such and such way. Without naming the paint is just the paint and in either way or the other it doesn’t make any difference to the picture. It is not affected whether it is named or not.

Right. So, is there anyone or anything “who is the one who is writing all this” or “who is the one who to whom this experience happen”?

Ähm, no.

Look at a table or a chair in the room you are in. Now let’s say that the table is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’, you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what are you left with, what actually is?

It’s not possible to put this into words. Maybe something like: The sight is the seen.
Or the seen sight is the seeing.

This is really odd. This does not only refer to rather static things like a table but also to the sight of my daughter or husband. There is seeing, I mean looking at them and seeing them and they are there just as such. At the same time conversations are running freely. Words coming out of my mouth and somehow they make sense although there’s nobody who takes care about the talking.

Yesterday I took a longer walk with my husband through the forests. Coming out of the forest reaching the first building two big German shepherd dogs ran in full speed towards us, maybe from a 50 meter distance. My voice was yelling to the lady far away: “Could you please call your dogs back?” But she didn’t react and the dogs reached us. My voice kept on talking to the lady but she was only smiling. “You may know they do no harm but still you should not let them run freely. They don’t even seem to listen to you…etc etc..”
My husband was trying to stop me as the whole situation was kind of embarrassing to him.
The most astonishing about this situation was that not even a trace of agitation was involved in it. There was this voice talking and when it was over is was just it.

Yes. Can sound, sensation, taste, smell or thought be chosen? Or do they freely arise and subside?

They can’t be chosen and come and go freely.

Did you mean humbling? Why would it be humiliating?

Oh, yes, of course. This happened due to the automatic correction programme.
Sorry for that.

All the best

suma

[forgetmenot]

Hello Suma.

Yes, the paint is there as colour no matter how one calls it. Thought is naming the image in such and such way. Without naming the paint is just the paint and in either way or the other it doesn’t make any difference to the picture. It is not affected whether it is named or not.

It’s not that the picture is affected, there is no picture/image. Thought points to paint and defines the paint as the Mona Lisa. Is the paint affected by the image is the question. The paint (experience) is never affected by what it SEEMS to appear as, just as paper is not affected by what is written upon it, it still remains as paper.

Look at a table or a chair in the room you are in. Now let’s say that the table is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’, you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what are you left with, what actually is?

It’s not possible to put this into words. Maybe something like: The sight is the seen.
Or the seen sight is the seeing.

Not referring to any ‘senses’ here. Without labels and thoughts, all there is, is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.

This is really odd. This does not only refer to rather static things like a table but also to the sight of my daughter or husband. There is seeing, I mean looking at them and seeing them and they are there just as such. At the same time conversations are running freely. Words coming out of my mouth and somehow they make sense although there’s nobody who takes care about the talking.

Yes, exactly and it also refers to the idea of Suma. When you look down at the ‘body’, it is simply ‘colour’. There is no you/Suma who is the centre point of ‘seeing’ from that place/position. The body does not see. There is nothing seeing. Knowing/experience only knows itself even if thought points to it and labels it a 'red clock'.

The most astonishing about this situation was that not even a trace of agitation was involved in it. There was this voice talking and when it was over is was just it.

Yes! There is no ‘you’ in any shape or form that is doing anything, even talking! It is just what IS. Experience appearing as sound which thought says is ‘talking’. But in that moment could you find anyone/anything that was talking or was it simply happening?

Did you mean humbling? Why would it be humiliating?

Oh, yes, of course. This happened due to the automatic correction programme.
Sorry for that.

No need for apologies. I just wanted to clarify it just in case we needed to look at this.

We had a look at the body a few posts back. But let’s have a recap.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.

Love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay,

It’s not that the picture is affected, there is no picture/image. Thought points to paint and defines the paint as the Mona Lisa. Is the paint affected by the image is the question. The paint (experience) is never affected by what it SEEMS to appear as, just as paper is not affected by what is written upon it, it still remains as paper.

Yes, sure. The word wasn’t chosen with enough consideration. The point was that the paint doesn’t change.

Not referring to any ‘senses’ here. Without labels and thoughts, all there is, is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.

OK.

Yes, exactly and it also refers to the idea of Suma. When you look down at the ‘body’, it is simply ‘colour’. There is no you/Suma who is the centre point of ‘seeing’ from that place/position. The body does not see. There is nothing seeing. Knowing/experience only knows itself even if thought points to it and labels it a 'red clock'.

Good.

But in that moment could you find anyone/anything that was talking or was it simply happening?

It was simply happening.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

No.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No boundary can be found.

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

No, there is no distinction between inside or outside.
Actually there is nothing like inside or outside.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

Without thought there is nothing like a body. The word refers to an idea.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Without naming it by thought the experience can’t be really described.
It's experience as such.

All the best

suma

[forgetmenot]

Okay, so let's move onto the idea of time.

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Any actual experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

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

How long does the ‘now’ last?

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

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

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

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

Love, Kay

[suma]

Dear Kay,

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Any actual experience of one event following another?

No.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

There’s no movement at all.

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

No.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Actually it lasts forever as there’s never anything else.

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

No beginning, no end. The now is just all there is.

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

Never ever.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

It is the actual experience of thought.

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

Time is there only as a thought product.
Beyond thoughts there is nothing like time.

All the best

suma

[forgetmenot]

Good evening Suma,

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

It is the actual experience of thought.

Nice :)

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

Time is there only as a thought product.
Beyond thoughts there is nothing like time.

Yes! :)

Past and memory go hand-in-hand as almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened; that a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.

Please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

WHEN does the memory actually appear?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

Love, Kay