Unsure

[Fatburger100]

So…where does the known (ie thought) end and the knowing of it begin? Can a dividing line between the known and the knowing be found?

No, there is no experience of thinking without a thought.

Okay...so the sensation labelled 'head' is AE of sensation. So there is an appearance of sensation...then how it that 'space' empty?

"Pure emptiness" is a concept meaning non-conceptual. There is no name for that sensation, so I chose a name without characteristic.

What is the forehead in the actual experience? A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead), right?

Yes.

So, can a thought come from a sensation? Can a thought come from a mental image?

No, thoughts cannot come from sensation. A thought cannot come from a mental image.

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image, right?

Yes, same with forehead, same with entire body as a whole.

Can sight come from a sensation? Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

Sight cannot come from a sensation. Sight cannot come from a mental image. Sound cannot come from a sensation. Sound cannot come from an image. Smell cannot come from a sensation, smell cannot come from an image. Sight, sound, thought, cannot come from a sensation or an image. They manifest dependent seeing, hearing, thinking, sensing, knowing, awareness.

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation? Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)?

An mental image manifests from thinking, not sensation. A mental image cannot come from another. A thought cannot come from a thought, as with a sound a sound, sight a sight.

[forgetmenot]

Hello Anthony,

So…where does the known (ie thought) end and the knowing of it begin? Can a dividing line between the known and the knowing be found?

No, there is no experience of thinking without a thought.

I must not be pointing clearly, as you are not seeing what I am pointing at..so let’s try it this way.

Is thinking anything other than a succession of thoughts, linked by another thought?
I will give you an example and you let me know what you notice.

Let’s say that sensation labelled ‘hunger’ is arising

Thought 1: I’m hungry
Thought 2: I think there’s some bread and cheese in the fridge (possible mental image of bread and cheese may appear along with the metal image of the fridge)
Thought 3: No there isn’t, I ate it last night
Thought 4: I could go to the shops (possible mental image of shops)
…
Thought 27: I have been thinking about food.

Now when we look at this, do we find thought 27 has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all?

Without a thought inferring that all these thoughts are linked, how is it known that these thoughts are linked and are a part of some process labelled ‘thinking’?

Okay...so the sensation labelled 'head' is AE of sensation. So there is an appearance of sensation...then how it that 'space' empty?

"Pure emptiness" is a concept meaning non-conceptual. There is no name for that sensation, so I chose a name without characteristic.

Compare these two sensations. One being a pinch and the other being a stubbing.
What is it that makes one sensation different to another?
Does the sensation labelled 'pinch on back of hand' suggest in any way that it is a pinch on the back of hand or knows anything about a pinch or a hand?
Is there any inherent pinching/pain in the sensation itself?

Does the sensation labelled "stubbed toe" suggest in any way that it is a stubbed toe or that it know anything about a stubbed toe or what a toe is?
Is there any inherent stubbing/pain in the sensation itself?

Without thought, how could it be known that one sensation is different to another? Or is it thought that labels sensations and then describes what the sensation is, where it is located and the reason for it?

So, can a thought come from a sensation? Can a thought come from a mental image?

No, thoughts cannot come from sensation. A thought cannot come from a mental image.

Great! So can a thought be seen, felt, smelled, tasted or heard...or is it simply known?
I want you to look and 'find' a thought. You may see the label 'thought' and some mirage-like arisings, but can a thought be actually seen? Can you see that even the label 'thought' is also a mirage-like arising!

Can sight come from a sensation? Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

Sight cannot come from a sensation. Sight cannot come from a mental image. Sound cannot come from a sensation. Sound cannot come from an image. Smell cannot come from a sensation, smell cannot come from an image. Sight, sound, thought, cannot come from a sensation or an image. They manifest dependent seeing, hearing, thinking, sensing, knowing, awareness.

And how is it known that sound is different to smell? Or that smell is different to colour? Without thought how is this known?

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation? Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)?

An mental image manifests from thinking, not sensation. A mental image cannot come from another. A thought cannot come from a thought, as with a sound a sound, sight a sight.

What is it exactly that is thinking? Describe this thinker to me in precise details and describe where it is located.

Kay

[Fatburger100]

Now when we look at this, do we find thought 27 has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all? Without a thought inferring that all these thoughts are linked, how is it known that these thoughts are linked and are a part of some process labelled ‘thinking’?

No, there is only thought 27. There is way to link thoughts together without thought. Similar to linking events together through time.

Does the sensation labelled 'pinch on back of hand' suggest in any way that it is a pinch on the back of hand or knows anything about a pinch or a hand?

No, it is just a sensation.

Is there any inherent pinching/pain in the sensation itself?

No, there is just the sensation as it is sensed or manifested in actual experience.

Does the sensation labelled "stubbed toe" suggest in any way that it is a stubbed toe or that it know anything about a stubbed toe or what a toe is?Is there any inherent stubbing/pain in the sensation itself?

No it does not. No, there is no inherent stubbing of pain in sensation

Without thought, how could it be known that one sensation is different to another? Or is it thought that labels sensations and then describes what the sensation is, where it is located and the reason for it?

It would not be differentiated without thought. Thought labels sensations, descriptions, reasons.

So can a thought be seen, felt, smelled, tasted or heard...or is it simply known?I want you to look and 'find' a thought. You may see the label 'thought' and some mirage-like arisings, but can a thought be actually seen?

A thought can only be thought, as a sight can only be seen.

Ill finish the rest later on.

[forgetmenot]

Waiting on the rest until I respond :)

Kay

[Fatburger100]

Ah! Again, I always think its only been a day or two but time slips past me, I'm sorry for this late reply. Thank you for your patience.

Can you see that even the label 'thought' is also a mirage-like arising!

Yes, "thought" and "thinking" are just impermanent labels that cannot been seen or sensed in AE.

And how is it known that sound is different to smell? Or that smell is different to colour? Without thought how is this known?

All attributes and qualities are thoughts, including likeness and differences. Without the thought, there would be no to know differences.... maybe? Its from when a sense is named in the first place, thus setting 1 against two. Without a name, all sensations wouldn't be the same sensation, actually there wouldn't be "same" if nothing is differentiated.

What is it exactly that is thinking? Describe this thinker to me in precise details and describe where it is located

There is nothing that is thinking, there is just thinking manifesting in AE. There is no location, color, shape, sound, texture to something that does not exist. It is neither inside nor outside, nor both. A thinker cannot be described or found, only another thought can be named. Descriptions, attributes, location are all thoughts. When the object of the thought doesn't exist, there can be no true attributes to it, not even not existing, as it never has! You do not find a non-existent santa, you find what is actually here!

[forgetmenot]

Hi Anthony,

And how is it known that sound is different to smell? Or that smell is different to colour? Without thought how is this known?

All attributes and qualities are thoughts, including likeness and differences. Without the thought, there would be no to know differences.... maybe? Its from when a sense is named in the first place, thus setting 1 against two. Without a name, all sensations wouldn't be the same sensation, actually there wouldn't be "same" if nothing is differentiated.

Lovely! You can see why it is simply said that everything IS.

Okay..moving onto looking at the body

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.

Kay

[Fatburger100]

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No, it is just a thought about a sensation. Sensations do not have size or location.

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

No, a thought cannot have weight or size or location. There is no shape or form, only seeing has shape and form. A mental image of the body is only a thought.

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

No, a boundary is a mental division, just as an "image" is a mental division upon seeing. There is no seperation, that is just a thought.

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, inside and outside are thoughts about sensations. There is no inner and outer to be seen, heard, or sensed, only mentally labelled.

I'm going to spend a while contemplating the last two questions just to be absolutely sure, I'll get back to you later on with those! Thank you!

[Fatburger100]

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

"Body" is a thought of a location of a receiver of sensations. It seems to generally refer to overall sensations but there is no actual experience of "overall" sensation, just the ones that occur. There is no actual experience of a total body, or even part of a body. There is no actual experience of arm, leg, chest, ear, eye, brain, mind, etc, just sensations which are then labelled as occurring within that set conceptual boundary of a leg or what have you. There are sensations occurring in actual experience but no sensation is "body" or occurs in "body" that is just an extra concept similar to sight occurring in an "eye" or a sensation being "eye." Sensation is just sensation.

[forgetmenot]

Hi Anthony,

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

"Body" is a thought of a location of a receiver of sensations. It seems to generally refer to overall sensations but there is no actual experience of "overall" sensation, just the ones that occur. There is no actual experience of a total body, or even part of a body. There is no actual experience of arm, leg, chest, ear, eye, brain, mind, etc, just sensations which are then labelled as occurring within that set conceptual boundary of a leg or what have you. There are sensations occurring in actual experience but no sensation is "body" or occurs in "body" that is just an extra concept similar to sight occurring in an "eye" or a sensation being "eye." Sensation is just sensation.

The WORD/LABEL ‘body’ is AE of thought and not AE of a body. The AE of the ‘body’ is thought. Thought points to sensation and suggests it is a body, but does the sensation in any way suggest that it is a body…isn’t it only thought that suggests this?

The label ‘body’ is AE of thought and not AE of a body
Sensation labelled as ‘body’ is AE of sensation and not AE of a body
Image labelled as ‘body’ is AE of colour and not AE of a body
Smell labelled ‘body’ is AE of smell and not AE of a body
Taste labelled ‘body’ is AE of taste and not AE of a body
Sounds labelled ‘body’ are AE of sound and not AE of a body
Thoughts about a body are AE of thought and not AE of a body

Label + sensation + colour + smell + taste + sound + thoughts are known, however is a body actually known?

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?


(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Kay

[Fatburger100]

Label + sensation + colour + smell + taste + sound + thoughts are known, however is a body actually known?

No, body is not known.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

No, there isnt any connection. Only thought suggest so.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror

No connection

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

No connection outside of thinking.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

Images suggest nothing, not a body or my body. There is just sight.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

There is only thoughts suggesting so, sights themselves cannot suggest things.

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

Only sensation.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

No actual experience of walking, only actual experience of sensation and actual experience of a thought about walking. There is no body in actual experience of sensation and AE of thought about body.

Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Actual experience of sensation of body, sight, sound, thought, have no location. There is only the sight mentally labeled room, not experience of a room.

[forgetmenot]

Hi Anthony,

Nice looking with the body exercises. Moving on unless you have questions about the body?

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.

Kay

[Fatburger100]

I'm quite certain there is no self in the body, controlling the body, moving the body, being the body. "Body" itself is a concept. No "I" can control, move, or be a concept beside a thought itself.

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

Memory is only AE of thought. It is made of nothing but labels, generalizations, concepts.

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

Nothing, only another thought claims it is "remembering" but it can only be AE of thought

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

Memory thoughts are actual present experience of thought. It is not exactly known that a memory thought is references a previous situation, it is believed to be so.

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

Its is made of nothing besides labels, concepts, thoughts.

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?

It appears in present AE. There is no difference between a "general" labelling thought and a "future" labelling thought. Future thoughts are not thoughts that refer to something that will happen, they are only believed to be 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?

A memory and a future expectation have no difference in AE, they are both the AE of thought. There is no real difference, so it must be a believed conceptual difference, not an actual experience of difference.

[forgetmenot]

Hey Anthony,

Nice looking with the concept of 'memory'! If you have no further questions, we will move onto the idea of separation.

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 and 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 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?

Kay

[Fatburger100]

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

There is only sensation

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

Just sensation

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

Only 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 no seperation of "hand feeling" and sensation, only sensation.

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

Not at all, not a hand feeling, or a body, or a self, there is only 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?

It must be purely conceptual, there is no essential feeler in the AE of sensation.

[forgetmenot]

Hi Anthony,

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

Not at all, not a hand feeling, or a body, or a self, there is only sensation

Here is a great clip which actually shows you that the body isn’t actually feeling sensation and that it is on a mental construct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... e=youtu.be

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?

It must be purely conceptual, there is no essential feeler in the AE of sensation.

Great! Is the experience (ie sensation in this case) and the awareness of the sensation two things? Is there experience AND awareness, or is experience self-aware without a separate thing which is aware?

With this exercise we are only focussing on the AE of sound.

Sit quietly and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust. Now listen to the sounds in the room where you are, or sounds from outside. Choose one sound and focus on that one sound.

1) In 'hearing' can anything be found other than sound?
2) Can what is doing the hearing be found? Or is there only sound?
3) Can an 'I', a 'body’, a ‘person' be found? Or are there only thoughts about these, and thoughts about a ‘something’ that is hearing sound?
What do you find?

Where does sound stop and the ‘hearing’ of it begin?
Can a 'hearer' ever be found in sound? Or is there simply sound?

If no INHERENT HEARER is found . . . so would anything suggested as the hearer be anything other than speculation / ideas / beliefs / thoughts etc?

Are you ever aware of two experiences or more at 'any given time'? When sound shows up, is there a 'sound experience' and a 'knowing of sound' experience?

Kay