RiverRock

[forgetmenot]

Hello John,

The one constant in the dream is change, however if you go back to the abstract painting…is anything really changing or do shapes/objects just appear? Do you actually go looking for these shapes/object or do they seem to ‘stand out’ on their own? (If you get what I mean?)

With respect, I don't think you've answered my point. How can you have change without time because in my definition, change is time. Nothing is changing in the abstract painting because it is static and fixed. The change happens in the minds perception of that fixed object as the viewing matures and things that didn't seem to be there appear, but that is only happening in our imagination and doesn't exist. But you are not suggesting that existence is a fixed phenomenon (like the abstract painting) and the change (and time) which we perceive is only happening in the mind(?). Or maybe you are.

My apologies if I did not understand what you were asking. I hope I have now understood what you are asking.

Experience/THIS is fluid – not static - and appears as all appearances but it does not become those appearances. If, for example, experience became a person, when that person died...then a part of experience would disappear forever...meaning that it would no longer be whole and complete!

Experience may seem to appear as 'change'. But that doesn't mean experience is changing. Just as experience may appear as 'blue', but that does not mean experience is blue. 'Blue' is experience, experience is not 'blue'. (Blue is appearing/showing up as experience but experience is not blue)



It's like looking at a lava lamp. The wax may seem to change shape, and the shapes it seems to take may seem to be present one moment, and absent the next. But all that is known is the wax. Nothing actually changed and nothing was ever born or lost, although it may have seemed to. All that is known is experience - nothing can be added to it, nor taken away.

Time and change are one of the most challenging concepts to see through clearly. We do look at time and memory, but on as an introduction to seeing what they are. This exploration is for the purpose of realising no separate self only. Once this has been realised if there is a desire to continue investigating…there is another LU forum for this purpose.

I will treat these together. Very interesting, I have been looking at this throughout the day in quiet moments.
Firstly as someone who draws a lot, the line between one thing and another, or one edge and another, is the staple of what I do. I'm looking for lines all the time. It's what you work with. And that, I guess is what I use to define separate things.

Okay, so let’s look at separation from AE. Let’s just look at sound.

Sit quietly and close your eyes and just listen to the sounds for a few minutes that can be heard both inside and outside of the room. Really hear them.

Where does sound end and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between sound and the knowing of the sound?

Another thought did occur to me. Given that the stuff we are talking about is light waves, and those light waves are hitting our cornea, at the point where experience is happening (consciousness of colour) it factually IS no distance away. Light wave hits sensors in the eye, boom!, here we go. Don't trust me, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, but the idea feels cool to me. The colour/light is no distance away from us. Even the light from distant start are hitting our cornea, touching us. Becoming us.

This is all thought story ie fantasy and is AE of thought and nothing more.
Where in AE can you find any of this?

There has never been a ‘me’ so how would not ‘feeling like a me’ feel like exactly?

You do a mean line in mind twisting riddles. And you know you do!
My guess is it would feel exactly like things have always felt. Like things feel right now.

Yes, exactly! So, now there is no need to expect that something will be different that proves you have had the realisation of no self. It is simply perception about appearances etc that changes. :)

Okay…let’s have a good look at thought. 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 it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

Ball has been lobbed back into your court :)

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Experience/THIS is fluid – not static - and appears as all appearances but it does not become those appearances. If, for example, experience became a person, when that person died...then a part of experience would disappear forever...meaning that it would no longer be whole and complete!

Experience may seem to appear as 'change'. But that doesn't mean experience is changing. Just as experience may appear as 'blue', but that does not mean experience is blue. 'Blue' is experience, experience is not 'blue'. (Blue is appearing/showing up as experience but experience is not blue)

It's like looking at a lava lamp. The wax may seem to change shape, and the shapes it seems to take may seem to be present one moment, and absent the next. But all that is known is the wax. Nothing actually changed and nothing was ever born or lost, although it may have seemed to. All that is known is experience - nothing can be added to it, nor taken away.

Thank you for that explanation which I have read a few times. I guess what I am taking from that is that Experience (AE?) can appear as change, movement, colour, sound. But it never becomes those things. And since all there is is experience, then those other things, including change (ie the appearance of time) do not actually exist. But I think we can leave it at that for the moment because we don't need to go down the Time rabbit hole at this stage and the main thrust of were our inquiry is at lies elsewhere, I sense.

Where does sound end and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between sound and the knowing of the sound?

This is very clear to me when looking. No separation between sound and the knowing of sound. Colour and the seeing of colour.

This is all thought story ie fantasy and is AE of thought and nothing more.
Where in AE can you find any of this?

That's me well and truly put in my place. And here's me thinking I had broken new ground! You know what I mean by this. About the fact there is no separation as the colour light waves hit our eye. At that point of interface, color and the seeing of colour are truly one inseparable phenomenon. But as you say this "theory" is not present in AE but only in thought (as you say, fantasy). Can I ask from your perspective anything not in AE (like, Norway) doesn't exist? I get that my poetic pontificating can be shot down as hot air, but what about other things that conventional wisdom say exists. I'm just curious.


Onto thoughts.

Where are they coming from and going to?

I'd say most people say nowhere. But that would somehow indicate there is a nowhere that thought comes (packaged) from and where they go back to. I would rather say that they arise, and fall away, and there is not a place they come from.

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

Interesting one. In normal, day to day life (I have been watching thoughts for a few days) thoughts just arise with no volition or anything you do to make them happen. They come go, fly off at tangents for no reason and are frankly all over the place. But! When I write down on a piece of paper that for the next 5 seconds I am going to think about pizza and put my pen down then I think about pizza. So in answer to your question, normally no I don't. But what about my 5 seconds of pizza contemplation? The only way of showing I didn't make that thought appear is by proving there is no me! :-)

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

No in the normal flow of thoughts it happens on its own, completely. (Except with my staged example above)

Can you predict your next thought?

Absolutely not. Like I said, it has a total life of its own which "I" have no control over. That is very clear.

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

No

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

No

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

No

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

Absolutely not.

Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

No

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

There is no logical sequence.

These points from me as by necessity brief because they all basically point to the same thing which, when you spend any time at all looking at thoughts, is very clear. Thinking is under the control of no one at all. No one is driving it and thoughts arise and fall away in a random manner. Like I said, all over the place.

A few other points on thinking, just based on my observations.

There seems to be different types of thought. Some of it verbal (ie sentences in my head), some of it is imagined scenarios (visions). So let's call it words and pictures. Some just words, some just pictures and some both. The visions are like pictures but are not clear pictures but rather a "sense" of a scene, rather than pictures with clear definition. The visions can be memories or distorted memories (directors cut of what I would have wanted to happen in the past) or visions of what I want to play out. Same for the verbal thoughts. Rehearsals of things I want to say or re-runs of what I should have said in important moments. But sometime the words and pictures have nothing directly to do with my life (or even indirectly) and are off on their own. Imagined fantasies, word speech for no one and no reason in particular. Just play.

You don't think all the time. Plenty of experience is just actual experience of colour, sound etc, without commentary. I guess one would call that pure awareness? (I bet you'll pull me up on that!)

I have noticed that thought can be about actual experience (ie something I am seeing) - "That tree's leaves are blowing in the breeze" or it can be completely made up. In which case it is made up scenarios which are not in front of me. Unfortunately, that makes up a fair percentage of thought which is not great. As an experience. Akin to day dreaming. So thought can be aligned with AE or off on its own as thought about thought.

Interestingly, it is not possible to be focused on the scene actually in front of you, thinking about it, and at the same time have in your head an imagined vision (say of a person you know). The two cannot be done simultaneously and it is very interesting, and frustrating, to try. I have noticed that what happens, and this is not volitional, that when you are about to have this visualised imagined scenario in your head, the focus comes off the scene in front of you (and I find I often move my point of view to a wall or something neutral) and it's almost like a different lens pops down (like the type you get in an optitians) and the whole focus moves from one thing to the other. Also very difficult to watch this happening but that's the way it seems to me. And it's happening throughout the day all the time in these day dreaming scenarios. But like I say, you can't be day dreaming and focused on the scene ahead. No can do. If you are looking at your garden and want to properly visualise a scene you want to think about you have to leave the garden aside (in terms of our attention/focus).

All of the above, as we have said, happening with no control whatsoever.

In terms of where thought comes from. It sometimes seems as if it is prompted by the scene before you. This can start with commentary on what you are seeing (There is a man, he looks Arab..). And then a train of thought can be followed which starts based on AE and then goes off on a jolly. But as I have already said there are plenty of thoughts that regularly flair up from seemingly nowhere, totally unrelated to any information we are receiving from the senses.

What is the relation between thought and feeling/emotion? This is a hard one. They seem entwined but then maybe not. Emotion more bodily sensation closer to touch than thought(?). Thought can cause emotion (fear?) and emotion can cause thought. (I sense you'll correct me on that too). Ok thought can seem to cause emotion...You will refute the casality I know. And say emotions just arise too? Like thoughts do? Uncaused and unwished for? If we say AE is colour, sound, touch, smell, taste, thought, under these terms where does emotion fit? Is AE not also emotion? Or like I suggested before does that all come under feel/sense/touch?

That's all I have for you.

John

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

I will have to start charging you for all the extra work you give me to do! Haha! ;) :)

Thank you for that explanation which I have read a few times. I guess what I am taking from that is that Experience (AE?) can appear as change, movement, colour, sound. But it never becomes those things. And since all there is is experience, then those other things, including change (ie the appearance of time) do not actually exist. But I think we can leave it at that for the moment because we don't need to go down the Time rabbit hole at this stage and the main thrust of were our inquiry is at lies elsewhere, I sense.

Yes…experience is the appearance of change! Experience appears as every ‘thing’ that seemingly appears and not the other way round. Experience isn’t a tree, the tree is experience – there is a difference 

Coloursoundthoughtsmellsensationtaste = experience. They are one and the same ie synonymous.

Where does sound end and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between sound and the knowing of the sound?

This is very clear to me when looking. No separation between sound and the knowing of sound. Colour and the seeing of colour.

So did you actually do the exercise and sit quietly and listen to a sound to actually see that sound and knowing is one and the same? Or did you just go off previous knowledge of colour that we discussed before?

Just going on from previous experience isn’t enough. Everything that is pointed to throughout this exploration, is to be looked at…no matter if it is pointing to something you think you already know and have looked at. It is the continual seeing that insights happen and cements what is being seen and brings about the realisation of no self. This process is not just an intellectual process to get understanding. If getting it intellectually worked...then realising no self would have happened by reading the many books available on the subject.

This is all thought story ie fantasy and is AE of thought and nothing more.
Where in AE can you find any of this?

But as you say this "theory" is not present in AE but only in thought (as you say, fantasy). Can I ask from your perspective anything not in AE (like, Norway) doesn't exist? I get that my poetic pontificating can be shot down as hot air, but what about other things that conventional wisdom say exists. I'm just curious.

How about you ponder this and you tell me! If something is not appearing at this very moment, is it actually known?

What is the AE of Norway?



Thought says that the yellow, orange and green areas are you, and thought also calls these colours your body. Thought also says that the other colours are objects, and the light brown areas are animals that have their own consciousness. Thought also says that there is something behind the door. How is it known that there is something behind the door?

Where are they coming from and going to?

I'd say most people say nowhere. But that would somehow indicate there is a nowhere that thought comes (packaged) from and where they go back to. I would rather say that they arise, and fall away, and there is not a place they come from.

Yep :) You can’t find where a thought comes from for one simple reason - it’s not a thing

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

Interesting one. In normal, day to day life (I have been watching thoughts for a few days) thoughts just arise with no volition or anything you do to make them happen. They come go, fly off at tangents for no reason and are frankly all over the place. But! When I write down on a piece of paper that for the next 5 seconds I am going to think about pizza and put my pen down then I think about pizza. So in answer to your question, normally no I don't. But what about my 5 seconds of pizza contemplation? The only way of showing I didn't make that thought appear is by proving there is no me! :-)

Describe in detail, the process by which you create a thought, or make a choice. You have been doing it all your life apparently - so you must know exactly how you do it. So how do you do it? How do you create a thought? How do you think?

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

No in the normal flow of thoughts it happens on its own, completely. (Except with my staged example above)

Thought A – “I am going to write down on a piece of paper that for 5 seconds I am going to think about pizza”

Thought B – “I put my pen down and think about pizza”

Thought C – “Mmmmm, I love pizza, it is my favourite food”

Thought D – “The flavours of all the different toppings are delicious”

Now when we look at this, do we find thought D has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone all of them? Does thought B know anything about thought A or C? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

Can you predict your next thought?

Absolutely not. Like I said, it has a total life of its own which "I" have no control over. That is very clear.

If you can’t predict your next thought, then how did you think to think about pizza and how can you know what thoughts will appear about a pizza? Did you actually think the thought about wanting to write about pizza and the ensuing thoughts? Or was there a thought that said “I did this”?

There seems to be different types of thought. Some of it verbal (ie sentences in my head), some of it is imagined scenarios (visions). So let's call it words and pictures. Some just words, some just pictures and some both

Yes, thoughts appear as words or ‘mental’ images.

The visions are like pictures but are not clear pictures but rather a "sense" of a scene, rather than pictures with clear definition.

Yes…this is what I was saying when I was referring to the mental image or ‘impression’ of a body.

You don't think all the time. Plenty of experience is just actual experience of colour, sound etc, without commentary. I guess one would call that pure awareness? (I bet you'll pull me up on that!)

Every thing is ‘made of’ experience (awareness)…how can thought not be experience itself? How is thought any different to other phenomenon labelled as colour, sound, smell, taste and sensation? If thoughts were expressed via the tweeting of birds or an unknown language, how would you know what they meant? What meaning is given to thoughts are only just thoughts about thoughts.

In actual experience, is there a border where a thought stops, and the "knowing" of it starts?

I have noticed that thought can be about actual experience (ie something I am seeing) - "That tree's leaves are blowing in the breeze" or it can be completely made up.

Okay so let’s say that at this very moment “that trees leaves are blowing in the breeze”. What is the actual experience?

Interestingly, it is not possible to be focused on the scene actually in front of you, thinking about it, and at the same time have in your head an imagined vision (say of a person you know). The two cannot be done simultaneously and it is very interesting, and frustrating, to try.

Yes…you cannot hold more than one experience in awareness at a time. Can you think 2 thoughts at the same time?

What is the relation between thought and feeling/emotion? If we say AE is colour, sound, touch, smell, taste, thought, under these terms where does emotion fit? Is AE not also emotion? Or like I suggested before does that all come under feel/sense/touch?

There are no such things as emotions. Emotions are labels + sensations + thoughts about the sensation being an emotion.

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with. Notice how the sports commentator is like the 'inner narrator' labelled 'my thoughts'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice, seems to feel as though they can influence somehow what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome, the commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?

Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?

And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

Kay

[Drumps]

Dear Kay,

As we get deeper into this inquiry I have to say I am astonished at the commitment you show to helping people like me. I do not read other posts (or really much of anything) while I am following and responding to your notes. But I am aware of the fact that you help another group of people at the same time and also that you have done so for several years and the process with individuals can sometimes go on for a very long time. How you manage to keep all this going amazes me. It takes me pretty much all of my spare time to process and respond to my guiding notes from you, so how you manage to juggle 3 or 4 people and respond every day is quite something. I know there is a ways to go, but the process so far I have found enormously rewarding (and fun!) and it feels a very important journey to me. Taking me to places which can be confusing and give me headaches and turn me on my head but slowly, slowly I think perceptions are changing and things which have been taken for granted, whilst not necessarily caste aside, then at least questioned. Looking for myself with your helping hand and seeing what I can actually see. I just really wanted to say how much I appreciate your time and wisdom and guidance. It means a lot to me. I can't say this with every post otherwise we won't make up much ground but you can take it as read.

Yes…experience is the appearance of change! Experience appears as every ‘thing’ that seemingly appears and not the other way round. Experience isn’t a tree, the tree is experience – there is a difference 

Coloursoundthoughtsmellsensationtaste = experience. They are one and the same ie synonymous.

I know this is not the main subject of your post, but I have been spending quite a bit of time with this this morning (Sunday), sat in my garden. I live in a tropical country so sitting in the garden surrounded by trees (lots of them!) and birds is something I do every day. Your phrase "Experience isn’t a tree, the tree is experience – there is a difference" puzzled and intrigued me. On first reading I thought I got it but then realised I was just kidding myself and skirting over it. I went back over your example of the lava lamp and gave it a lot of thought.

Lots of thoughts such as: Experience appears AS a person, AS blue, AS change. But Experience isn't the person, isn't blue, isn't change (or changing). ?? But is it really that way? Why?

So I went back to your lava lamp example.

The lamp is a container of wax and in that, there is the appearance of changing shapes and colour within it.

Wax=Experience=The stuff everything's made of.

Globules of coloured wax shape=Trees=What is arising.


In this sense I can understand that the wax appears as the shapes but is not those shapes. But those shapes are made of wax (they are wax) and everything is changing all the time despite the fact the wax container remains full and complete and whole and unchanging.

Experience can appear as a tree but is not a tree. The tree is experience and the stuff it is made of is experience.
Experience appears as what is arising but is not those things. Those things are made of experience, are experience.

This is a bit clumsy but I know what I think I get and as I sit in the garden and look out at the trees, birds and sounds I can see..Experience is appearing as these things, but is not these things. These things are, and are made from, experience.
Kay, this is a bit heavy because, if true, and ultimately all I want to KNOW is what is (truth) this means that there is no separate existence of those things except in experience. It means they are not real, they just appear to be real. (??!%$&*!). I mean, really. Am I off piste?

So did you actually do the exercise and sit quietly and listen to a sound to actually see that sound and knowing is one and the same? Or did you just go off previous knowledge of colour that we discussed before?

No sorry Kay maybe my post didn't make clear, I definitely did the exercise, several times, and continue to do it during the day, not necessarily with my eyes closed. To me it just seems so obvious. The knowing of the sound and the sound cannot be separated. Same with colour. When I listen to the sound I am the sound. The sound, listening and me are inseparable. There is no sound over there, that is being listened to, that then is heard by me. But this related to a comment I made previously, much as I can feel the inseparableness, unity, of that process, I am taking ownership of it which is ultimately the problem. But no, I have done the exercise and get that "sound and knowing is one and the same". But I guess you would say there is just sound, experienced - no me. I still got me.

How about you ponder this and you tell me! If something is not appearing at this very moment, is it actually known?

What is the AE of Norway?

Clearly if something is not appearing at this very moment it is not known. But that related to my point above, just because it is not known, by me, does that mean it doesn't exist? If the prognosis set out above, that all appearances are made of experience and have no separate existence, then it means Norway doesn't exists. I'm laughing a lot as I write this but it's sort of a nervous laughter. :-O.
The other related issue is. I watched a bird fly past me quickly and disappear. What tells me it flew past? Memory. AE of a thought. Is the bird in AE now? No. If AE of what is happening is in this moment is All, then not only doesn't the bird exist, but time doesn't exist. Because the only thing that creates time is my AE of thought (a memory thought), now.

AE of Norway is AE of thought.

Thought says that the yellow, orange and green areas are you, and thought also calls these colours your body. Thought also says that the other colours are objects, and the light brown areas are animals that have their own consciousness. Thought also says that there is something behind the door. How is it known that there is something behind the door?

It isn't known that there is something behind the door. All this is, is AE of thought. Only thought is known. The content, is just stories. My thought is saying there is snow behind the door. All that is known is thought and thought is made of experience.

Describe in detail, the process by which you create a thought, or make a choice. You have been doing it all your life apparently - so you must know exactly how you do it. So how do you do it? How do you create a thought? How do you think?

I don't create thought. That's for sure. Choice is a slightly more challenging one. Because unlike thought, which flickers and comes and goes, choice for me seems (perhaps mistakenly) to be a process. If I want to make an important decision I will write down options, go over them in my head, analyse the pros and cons and then come to a decision. So it seems more organised and less random than thoughts. But of course, all it is made up of, is AE of thought. Thoughts happening on their own (and which aren't things), which I have no control over.

Now when we look at this, do we find thought D has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone all of them? Does thought B know anything about thought A or C? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

A thought doesn't know anything about anything. A thought can't think. So a thought can't have knowledge, or know, other thoughts or anything. Which would indicate, that what seems as arising happening though cause and effect (out there), and actually instigated by thought and choice, given that one thought doesn't know what the previous thoughts were all about, then all the stuff that is happening irrelevant of thought. And maybe thought is just arising to tell us stories about what we see. I'm writing that but I can't believe it, forgive me. I get that thought is not in any way caused by me (and I even get on some level that there isn't a me) but I don't get that what goes on in my head has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on what happens and what I experience. I really struggle with that. That also goes to the main fear that I have. That if I "let go" and just go and watch my thoughts for some kind of meaningless entertainment, without bothering about it, then I will very quickly go off the tracks and end up tapping people for money for a cup of tea. Cause and effect. I try therefore I succeed. I don't try...welcome to the homeless hostel(?). It goes pretty deep that.

If you can’t predict your next thought, then how did you think to think about pizza and how can you know what thoughts will appear about a pizza? Did you actually think the thought about wanting to write about pizza and the ensuing thoughts? Or was there a thought that said “I did this”?

No none of the thoughts were created by me. They ping up. And yes, what tells me that there was a logical sequence to that, is just another thought pinging up. It is not my AE. What tells me that "I did that" is a thought. Same as what tells me there is a me. A thought. But I'm sure we'll get there.

In actual experience, is there a border where a thought stops, and the "knowing" of it starts?

No. When an actual experience of a thought stops, the knowing of it stops. After that, you are having an actual experience of another thought.

Okay so let’s say that at this very moment “that trees leaves are blowing in the breeze”. What is the actual experience?

It depends on what you mean. It is either the Actual Experience of the tree (colour/sounds) or it is the AE of the thought.
They can both happen, but not at the same time. Which is kind of what I was trying to say.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?

Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?

And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

Very interesting exercise.

1. Without sound the action just happening. Seems to happen naturally and have a flow, energy and somehow logic of its own. Having said this, as someone who watches football (soccer) it is difficult for me to watch impassionately, eg as just the flow of shapes. Very clear as the team gets close to goal I get edgy like I would with the commentary on. So I guess there is a tendency for me to overlay my own commentary although that can be suppressed.
2. With commentary yes, it is earily close to the thought process - indeed that is what the commentator is doing which is vocalising his thought process. Which is describing what is basically happening, in some cases the blatantly obvious, analysing the action and suggesting tactics/how to improve things. But a very interesting to watch this all unfold.
3. Back to 1.
4. I see where you're coming here and to some extent I can do this and feel as noise over the action without getting caught in the words. But it is very difficult. I try and imagine the guys voice as bird song but because of my history watching football matches it is difficult not to get pulled in.

By the way, Australia are GOOOOD!

Without thought what is appearing/happening is AE of colour (appearing to move) and sound.
The commentary is obviously not necessary for the game to happen. That would be a bit weird!

And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

For me as noted before, this is a jump. The way it feels kind of is... I accept that thought happens in a way that I have no control over. I even accept no me, somehow. But I struggle to feel properly that there is no connection between thought and action. That doesn't mean to say I believe in doership. Just that thought and action are connected. And that creates an impulse to at least try and control thought, for desired outcomes. It's hard to let that go. We know as we switch off (or totally change) the commentary that the action will continue unaffected. But my life...?... has nothing to do with thought? Thought in my head doesn't result in action? Thought comes after events, not before? I'm not there. You know what I mean, I can understand it, and possibly on an intellectual level even believe it, but I don't feel it, really. Which is I guess the pull of impulses learned over a lifetime. A very big leap to all of a sudden say don't bother what you think at all, it doesn't make any difference.

Am am through now. Sorry this has gone on so long. It is a Sunday. During the week I will try and make my answers more concise.

Big hugs for all your kind patience,

John

[forgetmenot]

Good Monday morning, John!

This is a long post....I suggest you take a couple of days to read it through several time and to do the exercises given.

I just really wanted to say how much I appreciate your time and wisdom and guidance. It means a lot to me. I can't say this with every post otherwise we won't make up much ground but you can take it as read.

It is my pleasure…believe you me! I enjoy and have a love for guiding. Being able to give back what was given to me, is a gift. When you become clearer…when the doubt, confusion and resistance to what is falls away, you too will no longer need process and effort any responses. But yes, it doesn’t happen overnight :)

Coloursoundthoughtsmellsensationtaste = experience. They are one and the same ie synonymous.

I know this is not the main subject of your post, but I have been spending quite a bit of time with this this morning (Sunday), sat in my garden. I live in a tropical country so sitting in the garden surrounded by trees (lots of them!) and birds is something I do every day. Your phrase "Experience isn’t a tree, the tree is experience – there is a difference" puzzled and intrigued me. On first reading I thought I got it but then realised I was just kidding myself and skirting over it. I went back over your example of the lava lamp and gave it a lot of thought.

Going back to the abstract painting and the painting of the tree would also be helpful

The lamp is a container of wax and in that, there is the appearance of changing shapes and colour within it.
Wax=Experience=The stuff everything's made of.
Globules of coloured wax shape=Trees=What is arising.

Yes!

In this sense I can understand that the wax appears as the shapes but is not those shapes. But those shapes are made of wax (they are wax) and everything is changing all the time despite the fact the wax container remains full and complete and whole and unchanging.

The wax SEEMS to appear as the shapes. Wax is simply wax. It is thought that points to the wax and says that it has colour and shapes. If you look all that is there is the lava lamp appearing exactly as it is. Same goes for experience itself.

Experience can appear as a tree but is not a tree. The tree is experience and the stuff it is made of is experience.
Experience appears as what is arising but is not those things. Those things are made of experience, are experience.

ARE experience…exactly. All ‘appearances’ are appearances of THIS/experience, but THIS is not an ‘appearance ‘ of anything, as there is no thing for THIS to be an appearance of.

Regardless of whether thought calls experience "multiple things", or "awareness", or "experience", the most important thing to check is whether there is any border between "knowing" and "known". And what is known is soundthoughtcoloursmelltastesensation

Let’s look at this by only using colour for now, so you can see it for yourself.

Look at a table and let’s say the table is the colour ‘brown’.
Drop the label ‘table’ and all that is left is the label ‘brown’
Drop the label ‘brown’ and all that is left is the label ‘colour’
Now drop the label ‘colour’ and all that is left is experience, exactly as it is.
How did you go? What did you notice?

So did you actually do the exercise and sit quietly and listen to a sound to actually see that sound and knowing is one and the same? Or did you just go off previous knowledge of colour that we discussed before?

I am taking ownership of it which is ultimately the problem. But no, I have done the exercise and get that "sound and knowing is one and the same". But I guess you would say there is just sound, experienced - no me. I still got me.

Is “I” a place where thoughts appear, or is “I” a thought that arises and subsides by itself?

“I am taking ownership” is an arising thought. Are you the thinker of thought? Can you control what thought appears when or what it will ‘say’?

Looking is a nice simple thing - there is no need to over-complicate it.

Just look now...a thought can be found, but can a thinker of thought be found?
Can an “I” be found in thought itself?

Sound can be found, but can a hearer of sounds be found?
Can an “I” be found in sound itself?

Colour can be found, but can a see-er of colour be found?
Can an “I” be found in colour itself?

Sensation can be found, but can a feeler of sensation be found?
Can an “I” be found in sensation itself?

Smell can be found, but can a smeller of smell be found?
Can an “I” be found in smell itself?

Taste can be found, but can a taster of taste be found?
Can an “I” be found in taste itself?

Experience can be found, but can an experiencer of experience be found?
It's as simple as that. Just look and see what is actually present - and what is only imaginary.

Clearly if something is not appearing at this very moment it is not known. But that related to my point above, just because it is not known, by me, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Experience doesn’t play peek a boo with itself and pretend to hide part of itself out side of itself (how would it do that?) so as to find itself! Can you see how that is a concept, an idea that comes from believing one is a separate self and there is a world ‘out there’ that one is unaware of!

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

Can there be experience outside of what is unfolding?
How can anything be hidden or unknown? That would make separation real.

If the prognosis set out above, that all appearances are made of experience and have no separate existence, then it means Norway doesn't exists. I'm laughing a lot as I write this but it's sort of a nervous laughter. :-O.

So, what is arising for you? Is fear appearing? Resistance? Anger? Please let me know so that we can look at these together.

AE of Norway is AE of thought.

Yes, exactly.

It isn't known that there is something behind the door. All this is, is AE of thought. Only thought is known. The content, is just stories. My thought is saying there is snow behind the door. All that is known is thought and thought is made of experience.

How it is known that the door is a door?

Now when we look at this, do we find thought D has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone all of them? Does thought B know anything about thought A or C? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

And maybe thought is just arising to tell us stories about what we see. I'm writing that but I can't believe it, forgive me. I get that thought is not in any way caused by me (and I even get on some level that there isn't a me) but I don't get that what goes on in my head has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on what happens and what I experience.

I am not asking you to believe anything. I am not trying to convince you of anything. All I am doing is pointing so that you look for yourself and find your own answers. What is a belief? A belief is a thought, just a plain old thought, but it is a thought that is supported by only other thoughts.

Let's look at the 'head'

Please IGNORE all thoughts and images of ‘head’ and ‘fingers’ and just answer from actual experience. Close your eyes and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and keeping your eyes closed...

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 thoughts 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 are there just thoughts about something being in between them

Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
Without thought, does it have a location?

I really struggle with that. That also goes to the main fear that I have. That if I "let go" and just go and watch my thoughts for some kind of meaningless entertainment, without bothering about it, then I will very quickly go off the tracks and end up tapping people for money for a cup of tea. Cause and effect. I try therefore I succeed. I don't try...welcome to the homeless hostel(?). It goes pretty deep that.

There has NEVER been a separate self…EVER who is thinking, doing, saying or feeling. Seeing through the illusion of “I” doesn’t mean you will lose the “I” and with it your whole identity. The “I” doesn’t exist, not even now as you are reading these lines

In actual experience, is there a border where a thought stops, and the "knowing" of it starts?

No. When an actual experience of a thought stops, the knowing of it stops. After that, you are having an actual experience of another thought.

Yes…do you get the significance of this?

Okay so let’s say that at this very moment “that trees leaves are blowing in the breeze”. What is the actual experience?

It depends on what you mean. It is either the Actual Experience of the tree (colour/sounds) or it is the AE of the thought.
They can both happen, but not at the same time. Which is kind of what I was trying to say.

There is no actual experience of a tree. There is only actual experience of colour that is labelled as a ‘tree’.

The label ‘tree’ is AE of thought and not AE of a tree
The sound labelled as “leaves blowing” is AE of sound and not AE of leaves blowing
The image labelled ‘tree’ is AE of colour and NOT AE of a tree
The thoughts about “tree”, “leaves”, “breeze”, “tree leaves blowing in the breeze” are AE of thought and not AE of tree leaves blowing in the breeze.

So AE of “tree leaves blowing in the breeze” is AE of thought

What is actually appearing (what is known) is colour, sound + label/thoughts. Is “tree leaves blowing in the breeze” actually known?

1. Without sound the action just happening. Seems to happen naturally and have a flow, energy and somehow logic of its own. Having said this, as someone who watches football (soccer) it is difficult for me to watch impassionately, eg as just the flow of shapes. Very clear as the team gets close to goal I get edgy like I would with the commentary on. So I guess there is a tendency for me to overlay my own commentary although that can be suppressed.

How do you go about suppressing thoughts/commentary exactly? Or is it a thought that appears saying “I suppressed that thought/commentary”?

2. With commentary yes, it is earily close to the thought process - indeed that is what the commentator is doing which is vocalising his thought process. Which is describing what is basically happening, in some cases the blatantly obvious, analysing the action and suggesting tactics/how to improve things. But a very interesting to watch this all unfold.

It is not eerily close to the through process…that is how the thought process happens! Thought seems to be the predominant experience, however, if you just allow (watch/observe) thought without actually following thought, you see that thought is just a constant stream of commentary that has a story about everything, and overlays actual experience continuously with stories.

Do you think that the commentator is thinking these thoughts and then verbalising them? If there is no separate self…how can there be separate ‘others’?

4. I see where you're coming here and to some extent I can do this and feel as noise over the action without getting caught in the words. But it is very difficult. I try and imagine the guys voice as bird song but because of my history watching football matches it is difficult not to get pulled in.

It is only the commentary that overlays what is appearing that seemingly gives meaning to what is happening and draws ‘you’ into the story of being a separate self. The commentary is usually about what has happened or it goes on about what should happen (in the future) and what should or should not have happened, or did happen in the past. This is how it goes with the story about a character called ‘John’!

Without thought what is appearing/happening is AE of colour (appearing to move) and sound.
The commentary is obviously not necessary for the game to happen. That would be a bit weird!

So why is thought commentary necessary then for the seeming character to do what is needed?

The following clip is a humourous look at the commentator ‘in the head’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qc34kYHdM

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

I will do as you suggest and go over the exercises and come back to you when I have completed them, in a couple of days or so.

Thanks,

John

[Drumps]

Kay,
Just to check in. I am going to come back to you tomorrow in your last post. I had hoped to do it today but I had a minor operation yesterday that’s thrown my schedule a bit. I’ve gone over about half of it but I don’t want to rush it so tomorrow is better.
Talk soon.
John

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

Take all the time you need - absolutely no rush! It was a long post. I hope your minor operation heals well.

Love, Kay

[Drumps]

HI Kay,

I've had a few issues. Won't go into it but partly to do with the operation. Should be back up and running from now. But thanks for your patience anyway.

Look at a table and let’s say the table is the colour ‘brown’.
Drop the label ‘table’ and all that is left is the label ‘brown’
Drop the label ‘brown’ and all that is left is the label ‘colour’
Now drop the label ‘colour’ and all that is left is experience, exactly as it is.
How did you go? What did you notice?

The main change is firstly when moving from brown to just colour, the object seems to blend into the surrounding colours. because I am reading colour and not just the brown colour of the table. So my vision becomes like a wall of colour and I have to focus to bring the table back, somehow. That's an over simplification but it feels a bit like that. Then when moving from colour to just experience I find it enjoyable and things lose their meaning, which keeps the experience light. And also somehow becomes clearer and sharper. And I would also say that whatever boundary exists between seeing and seen seems to weaken further than is my normal experience.

Is “I” a place where thoughts appear, or is “I” a thought that arises and subsides by itself?

I find this a very fruitful area to dwell on for a bit. This notion of I being a place, where we are, a location. Which of course we are not. Whenever you look for it, it isn't there and instead all you find are thoughts about me. Are thoughts in me or me just in thought(?), might be a shorter way of putting it. Is experience in me? Or me just in AE of thought? So in direct response to your question I is not a place where thought appears, and thoughts come and go by themselves. Thoughts are not being made and shaped by me.

“I am taking ownership” is an arising thought. Are you the thinker of thought? Can you control what thought appears when or what it will ‘say’?

I guess what I was trying to say, was that it "seems like" I am taking ownership of this process. In that there is a strong feeling of the unity of seeing/seen and hearing/heard etc but the feeling exists that there is a me in that somewhere, and the experience of that unity is in a me. But as we have discussed above, that place of me doesn't exist, which somewhat takes me round in circles.

Just look now...a thought can be found, but can a thinker of thought be found?
Can an “I” be found in thought itself?

Sound can be found, but can a hearer of sounds be found?
Can an “I” be found in sound itself?

Colour can be found, but can a see-er of colour be found?
Can an “I” be found in colour itself?

Sensation can be found, but can a feeler of sensation be found?
Can an “I” be found in sensation itself?

Smell can be found, but can a smeller of smell be found?
Can an “I” be found in smell itself?

Taste can be found, but can a taster of taste be found?
Can an “I” be found in taste itself?

Experience can be found, but can an experiencer of experience be found?
It's as simple as that. Just look and see what is actually present - and what is only imaginary.

I carried out all of these exercises and found them very useful and interesting. Particularly where they directly relate to my last point about getting the oneness of (eg) seeing and seen but somehow still finding me in the mix. These lead the way to understanding that is not true. The "I" cant be found in the seeing or the seen - when you look for it. Particularly if you sit with it for a while. Same for the other senses. There is sound and there is experiencing of sound, together, but when you look for a listener, you cant find anything outside sound/hearing. There is an assumption that there must be a listener but when you look where that assumption resides, it is an AE of thought.

Watching thoughts is difficult. To watch a thought when you're inside it. People keep saying "watch your thoughts". But it's not so easy most of the time because when you are having the thought you are in there and when you watch it, in my experience, what you are actually doing is looking back in time at it rather than at it while it's happening. But when we say....."a thought can be found, but can a thinker of thought be found? Can an “I” be found in thought itself?". It is interesting when you sit with a thought, maybe a small one which you repeat so you can focus on it, you firstly see that it is not you and then you can start to see it like a separate thing like a colour or a sound. As such, it doesn't need it's own place to reside (ie. in my mind, in me) any more than a colour or a sound requires its own special place. And at that point it is clear there is no thinker. But what I am asking myself is, from where am I seeing this? How do you watch thought? From where? Like while dreaming, there are times when I am fully aware that I am in a dream and yet just go along with it. As if I am viewing it from a place outside the dream. I guess what I am trying to say is, when we watch our thoughts, are we doing it from inside them (like trying to look at a house when you are inside it) or from outside, in which case from where, or, I guess, from nowhere?

On these exercises one of the most interesting for me the day before yesterday was the one on sensation. "Sensation can be found, but can a feeler of sensation be found? Can an “I” be found in sensation itself?". In many ways sensation can feel the most "personal" of the experiences. I had a sharp pain because of the operation. When focusing on it, it became clear that the feeler could not be found and an I could not be found in the pain. And as a result the pain just hung there, totally disconnected to me. It was very liberating. The way it felt was that the pain had an existence/life entirely on its own. It was felt, experienced, but it wasn't mine, at all. I don't want to over dramatise it but not only didn't the pain bother me, at that time i had the feeling that it could be very much increased and the position would have stayed the same.

Can an experiencer be found in experience? What is actually present? Sound, colour, thought, taste etc. Can a me be found in AE? No. It is just experience and experienced. That is all that is happening.

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

Well in actual fact it would be more than that, wouldn't it? Not only wouldn't it not make a sound, but it wouldn't fall in a forest, and it wouldn't exist.

If the prognosis set out above, that all appearances are made of experience and have no separate existence, then it means Norway doesn't exists. I'm laughing a lot as I write this but it's sort of a nervous laughter. :-O.

So, what is arising for you? Is fear appearing? Resistance? Anger? Please let me know so that we can look at these together.

It would be firstly disbelief. Because it's hard to believe Norway doesn't exist. But secondly there is some resistance arising because if Norway aint there then neither are my 3 kids who live far away from me. That brings a feeling of sadness and loneliness. Not anger, no. But as you say Experience doesn't hide bits of itself.

Can you see how that is a concept, an idea that comes from believing one is a separate self and there is a world ‘out there’ that one is unaware of!

Yes I can most certainly see how indeed that is a concept. In terms of where we are at in this inquiry it makes perfect sense. My assumption of a separate existence can be nothing more than a concept because it is not supported by AE, only memory, which is a concept in AE of thought. It feels like there is something inside pulling me away from this. Even thinking about it. Quite funny. I think there is part of me that worries if I buy into this (which I know you are NOT trying to get me to do) I will go nuts. I frankly at the end of the day don't give a shit if Norway exists or Donald Trump exists or elephants or anything, what I want is no me. So that whatever is left is just as it is.

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

The single point of pressure is a floating sensation. I can relax into it and there is no head or anything above or below the sensation and the sensation does not have a location.

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 are there just thoughts about something being in between them

Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
Without thought, does it have a location?

This is cool. Same as single one but double barreled. And with the add-on that I am aware of the fact that between the 2 sensations, there is nothing, just clear space, nothingness. Which is very soothing and reassuring. It also bizarrely reinforces my feeling that thoughts cannot be hosted in this void between the sensations because it is not a place at all. No head, size, inside or out. Just 2 sensations and nothing else. You can do it top and bottom as well. I like this exercise.

There has NEVER been a separate self…EVER who is thinking, doing, saying or feeling. The “I” doesn’t exist, not even now as you are reading these lines

You have said this before and I just wanted to comment on it. I would hazard a guess that most of the people who go through this type of inquiry all feel the same which is that I have a me and Kay is going to help me get rid of me. But you saying this points to the truth that there is no me to get rid of, now. Actually for real. And that points again to the fact that what I think is a me is just thought, arising from nowhere. I have to keep reminding myself this. No. Me. Now.

No. When an actual experience of a thought stops, the knowing of it stops. After that, you are having an actual experience of another thought.

Yes…do you get the significance of this?

Not sure that I do. I guess if you forced me to the wall I would say the significance is that there is only one AE of thought and it is now. In fact only one AE period. But that feels a bit lame.

It depends on what you mean. It is either the Actual Experience of the tree (colour/sounds) or it is the AE of the thought.
They can both happen, but not at the same time. Which is kind of what I was trying to say.

There is no actual experience of a tree. There is only actual experience of colour that is labelled as a ‘tree’.

I think that was what I meant to say - see in brackets colour/sounds. It was just the lazy way I put it. But I get there is no AE of tree.

The sound labelled as “leaves blowing” is AE of sound and not AE of leaves blowing

Point of Order. In order for something to be labelled doesn't it have to be AE of thought and not AE of sound. Sound can't label anything, thought can.

What is actually appearing (what is known) is colour, sound + label/thoughts. Is “tree leaves blowing in the breeze” actually known?

No.

By extension, everything I thought, and assumed I "know", I don't know. Like I am sat on a chair in my garden under a shade and drinking a pot of tea. I don't know that. What I know is colour, sound, sensation and thoughts that tell me stories about those inputs. Right?

How do you go about suppressing thoughts/commentary exactly? Or is it a thought that appears saying “I suppressed that thought/commentary”?

No I get you. We have already firmly established that thought comes from nowhere, and certainly not me. It's just the way we use language. And by the way the more I think about these things the more I think language is half the problem and not part of the solution.

Thought seems to be the predominant experience, however, if you just allow (watch/observe) thought without actually following thought, you see that thought is just a constant stream of commentary that has a story about everything, and overlays actual experience continuously with stories.

If you refer to my earlier comments on how do you watch thought. I think "light" thought which is just general day to day commentary of what's going on is fairly easy to watch but the deep heavy (personal fears, hatreds, loves) stuff very difficult to watch - we are immersed in it and it is like a wet blanket over us. Indeed I believe when consumed by such thought we are completely cut off from the real world. Don't even see it.

I have been trying to watch as much thought as I can over the last couple of days and, although watching thought is not as easy as some people make out, I have been able to establish that most of the thought I can nail is retrospective, even a split second after what happened. And it often says "I did that" even though I'm not entirely sure I did. The thoughts that are proactive - lead to something - tend to be the staged ones I talked about earlier ("I'm going to do this in 5 minutes"), most of the real stuff that happens seems to just happen and, as you say the is a running commentary a fraction of a second later, commenting, interpreting.

It also begs the question, if thought doesn't lead to action, what's the point in it?

So why is thought commentary necessary then for the seeming character to do what is needed?

Still struggling a bit with this, to be honest. I have a professional job which requires me to plan and think through complex problems each day. If I didn't do that (albeit we have established that thinking just happens and isn't me) would the outcomes be the same?

That's all I have time for. I did look at the video which was funny.

Bye for now.

John

PS these don't seem to be getting any shorter, sorry!

[forgetmenot]

Hello John,

To keep out posts shorter....just respond to the questions I have written in blue text. The rest are there for you to ponder and to see if you can start to bring some things together on your own from what we have looked at so far. Re-reading your thread from the beginning is always a good thing to do. Alot of the questions you have will be answered as we move through the exploration, and if you have questions at the end of each section we do...then we can look at them then.

The main change is firstly when moving from brown to just colour, the object seems to blend into the surrounding colours. because I am reading colour and not just the brown colour of the table. So my vision becomes like a wall of colour and I have to focus to bring the table back, somehow. That's an over simplification but it feels a bit like that. Then when moving from colour to just experience I find it enjoyable and things lose their meaning, which keeps the experience light. And also somehow becomes clearer and sharper. And I would also say that whatever boundary exists between seeing and seen seems to weaken further than is my normal experience.

The point of this exercise was to see that all there is, is THIS ie experience exactly as it is. When you take away all the labelling and thoughts that overlay what IS…all that remains is experience/THIS exactly as it is. Even the thoughts that continue to appear about what is appearing is still THIS appearing exactly as it is.

Can an experiencer be found in experience? What is actually present? Sound, colour, thought, taste etc. Can a me be found in AE? No. It is just experience and experienced. That is all that is happening.

How can anything be EXPERIENCED? That would mean there is an experiencer of experience. The exercise of finding the dividing line between, sound and hearer….is about seeing there is no experiencer. There is only sound.

Is there a dividing line between knowing and known? If not, then what are you?

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

Well in actual fact it would be more than that, wouldn't it? Not only wouldn't it not make a sound, but it wouldn't fall in a forest, and it wouldn't exist.

If in this very moment colour labelled ‘forest’ is not appearing, then it is simply imagination and is thoughts about a forest. No forest…then how can sound be ‘tree falling in forest’…it too is only an appearing thought in that moment and is imaginary.

Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
Without thought, does it have a location?

This is cool. Same as single one but double barreled. And with the add-on that I am aware of the fact that between the 2 sensations, there is nothing, just clear space, nothingness.

How is it known that there are two sensations and that there is ‘space’ between them?

There has NEVER been a separate self…EVER who is thinking, doing, saying or feeling. The “I” doesn’t exist, not even now as you are reading these lines

You have said this before and I just wanted to comment on it. I would hazard a guess that most of the people who go through this type of inquiry all feel the same which is that I have a me and Kay is going to help me get rid of me. But you saying this points to the truth that there is no me to get rid of, now. Actually for real. And that points again to the fact that what I think is a me is just thought, arising from nowhere. I have to keep reminding myself this. No. Me. Now.

It is not about just reminding yourself. Whenever the idea appears that there is a ‘you’, LOOK to see if you can actually find this ‘you’. It is the looking and not finding that brings the realisation of there being no separate self. I know this continual LOOKING becomes tedious, but there is no magic wand. Just telling yourself that there is no ‘you’ is not enough. That is why I gave you the steps on how to simplify LOOKING in my last post. You need to continually and constantly LOOK…no matter how tedious it becomes. When sensation labelled ‘pain’ appears…LOOK to see if you can find anyone/anything that is actually experiencing pain.

By extension, everything I thought, and assumed I "know", I don't know. Like I am sat on a chair in my garden under a shade and drinking a pot of tea. I don't know that. What I know is colour, sound, sensation and thoughts that tell me stories about those inputs. Right?

Are you not aware of/knowing the story of colour that is being thought as “I am sat on a chair in my garden under a shade and drinking a pot of tea”? Are you not aware of the thoughts appearing that make up that story and are you not aware of colours, smells, tastes appearing in that moment? You are the knowing of all of it...but you are not IN it. Just like you are not IN any of the night time dreams. You are aware of everything that is happening in the dream and it seems like you are in the dream…but are you actually in the dream?

It also begs the question, if thought doesn't lead to action, what's the point in it?

That question comes from the idea of being a separate self who is living life. You are not the separate self. You (not John) are that in/as which everything appears.

Okay…let’s look at the nature of thought.

Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts. First thing is to sit for at least 10-15 minutes quietly somewhere, several times throughout your day. Close the eyes and just notice thoughts. Don’t engage with any thought, just notice them. Looking for the gap is a way to slow the thoughts, as the objective of this exercise is to observe each and every thought as it arises and subsides.

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

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

3. Then wait for the next thought to come.

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

5. Then wait for the next thought to come.

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

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

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

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

Could you find a thinker of thought between the gaps?

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

This post is going to be by necessity short. Which is no bad thing. I was trying for a while to get through to the Forum but couldn't get past the Home Page. And now it seems to have opened up and I only have a short period before I have to go out.

To keep out posts shorter....just respond to the questions I have written in blue text.

Got it.

Is there a dividing line between knowing and known? If not, then what are you?

There is no dividing line. I want to say I am what it is happening in. The awareness of it.

How is it known that there are two sensations and that there is ‘space’ between them?

Well it isn't known. That is thought that says that. What is known is only sensation. The rest is a story.

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

I have tried this exercise in 15 minute blocks 3 times throughout today. It is clear to me that this is something that needs to be done regularly and repeatedly over a period and that my 3 little sessions is just a taster. Focusing on the gaps between the thoughts is a very useful tip and makes the exercise much more manageable than my previous efforts at watching thought. It is a different perspective on thought entirely. Very clear they don't come from me but the other thing is just how random and scattered they are. I am going to continue this exercise into tomorrow and then will report back more fully.

I also plan to go over the entire thread over the weekend as you suggest. Been meaning to do that for a while because we have covered quite a lot ground already, at least for me.

I have time on my hands over the weekend so if you want to throw any more exercises at me feel free.

Time's up.

John

[forgetmenot]

Hello John,

This post is going to be by necessity short. Which is no bad thing. I was trying for a while to get through to the Forum but couldn't get past the Home Page. And now it seems to have opened up and I only have a short period before I have to go out.

Yes, I noticed that this morning! Our IT team is on it.

Is there a dividing line between knowing and known? If not, then what are you?

There is no dividing line. I want to say I am what it is happening in. The awareness of it.

For there to be an awareness OF something means that there is a something that is aware of something else…which = separation. There is a difference between being aware OF something and being aware AS something. So, if there is no dividing line between knowing and known (knowingknown), then they must be one and the same.

How is it known that there are two sensations and that there is ‘space’ between them?

Well it isn't known. That is thought that says that. What is known is only sensation. The rest is a story.

Lovely…yes! :)

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

I have tried this exercise in 15 minute blocks 3 times throughout today. It is clear to me that this is something that needs to be done regularly and repeatedly over a period and that my 3 little sessions is just a taster. Focusing on the gaps between the thoughts is a very useful tip and makes the exercise much more manageable than my previous efforts at watching thought. It is a different perspective on thought entirely. Very clear they don't come from me but the other thing is just how random and scattered they are. I am going to continue this exercise into tomorrow and then will report back more fully.

Wonderful observations! All I wanted was for you to see how thoughts just appeared, and to see each thought as it appeared. and you surpassed that by also observing that they are random and that you are not the thinker of thought! Nice job!

Here is a tickler for you. Without thought, how is it known that there is a gap? ;)
And if there is no gap…is there an actual difference between what is labelled as ‘thought’ and what is labelled as ‘gap’?

I also plan to go over the entire thread over the weekend as you suggest. Been meaning to do that for a while because we have covered quite a lot ground already, at least for me.

Great! Take your time and if the weekend isn’t long enough…then just drop me a post and let me know you need more time.

I have time on my hands over the weekend so if you want to throw any more exercises at me feel free.

I think rereading your thread is quite a lot already and LOOKING to see if you can see what is being pointed at with the tickler I left you above! :) You might want to redo some of the exercises already given as you reread…so I won’t add anymore exercises. Let’s see what happens when you reread your thread.

Sending love….
Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Still seem to be some issues accessing and navigating the forum again today, and saving drafts etc. I'm a pen and paper man myself but not sure we could do this by letter(!?).

Anyway, firstly I have been doing a bit more of the 15 minute looking at thoughts and gaps exercise. I find it very useful. Never really done that in an organised way before. General comments for the time being.
1. Have already said they come from nowhere and go to nowhere and are random and scattered. And are not done by me.
2. When they go they leave no trace. That goes against conventional thinking. It's like they launch out of nowhere but when they're gone, they're gone. Would previously have thought there was more continuity in thought. There are some themes which go on for a bit but the type of actual thoughts which rear up within that theme (subject) often bears no relation to what has gone before. Zig zagging all over the place.
3. When you sit and watch, the relation between thought and emotion (feeling in the body) is very interesting, although I don't profess to understand it. In the gaps between thought there is often emotion (sadness, fear, embarrassment) which can often relate (although not necessarily) to the previous thought, but just hangs there, after the thought has passed. There's always feeling in the body. But I do also get that what we call embarrassment is just a feeling which thought calls embarrassment. It is the naming of feelings which makes them pleasant or unpleasant, nothing else.
4. The more you look at thought, the more you can start to see them as separate things. By which I mean to say not me. They don't need a me to cause them to happen. Like a colour doesn't need me to happen. Although they both need an awareness to happen in (as?).

Here is a tickler for you. Without thought, how is it known that there is a gap? ;)
And if there is no gap…is there an actual difference between what is labelled as ‘thought’ and what is labelled as ‘gap’?

Oh, don't take away my gaps Kay! For me the gaps (no thought) are my little oases. And when I sit watching thought I can watch the "bad" (;-)) thoughts come and go and then rest in the calm tranquility of the gaps. I do it every morning in my garden. Keeps me sane. I don't want to hear anything about gaps and thoughts being the same. I want ALL GAPS! I guess the often stated way of looking at this is the gap/space/no-thought is clear blue sky and the (nasty little grey) thoughts are clouds passing over. Sometimes just a few puffy ones, sometimes covering the whole sky and staying for a long time. No-thought to me feels like the space that thought happens in. In the same way that silence is what sound happens in. Emptiness, what form happens in. So, I don't know if I get you when you say "Without thought, how is it known that there is a gap?" Depends which thought you mean. If you mean the thoughts between the gaps then yes I can get we need the thought to see the gaps between them. But if you're saying we need to think "about" the gaps in order to somehow know them, then you've left me behind.

In addition, I have been going over the previous thread from the beginning. And doing so slowly which is good. Sort of gone over around half of it now and will continue tomorrow. The main thing to report is how surprised I am at how my perception is already changing on many of these issues. Which I guess is not a bad thing.

Talk soon,
John

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

Still seem to be some issues accessing and navigating the forum again today, and saving drafts etc. I'm a pen and paper man myself but not sure we could do this by letter(!?).

Haha…no I think not! But yes, the forum can be frustrating when it is playing up. I hope it will be fixed soon.

Absolutely loved your observations with thoughts and how thoroughly you have done it. I am amazed and thankful for your diligence and determination.

3. When you sit and watch, the relation between thought and emotion (feeling in the body) is very interesting, although I don't profess to understand it. In the gaps between thought there is often emotion (sadness, fear, embarrassment) which can often relate (although not necessarily) to the previous thought, but just hangs there, after the thought has passed. There's always feeling in the body. But I do also get that what we call embarrassment is just a feeling which thought calls embarrassment.

Have a careful look and tell me what the AE of ‘emotion’ is.

It is the naming of feelings which makes them pleasant or unpleasant, nothing else.

Without thought how is it known whether a sensation is pleasant or unpleasant?

4. The more you look at thought, the more you can start to see them as separate things. By which I mean to say not me. They don't need a me to cause them to happen. Like a colour doesn't need me to happen. Although they both need an awareness to happen in (as?).

Fantastic to hear that you are starting to see that you are not the thinker of thought! That usually takes people some time to see…so you are doing great guns!

In actual experience, can you separate thought from the knowing of it?
Is there any line where one stops and the other starts?
Can you actually separate a thought from the knowing of them? Are there two things?
Is there a dividing line between the knowing of/as thought and the thought itself?
Do you ever find thought without knowing of the thought?
Do you ever find knowing of the thought without thought?

Here is a tickler for you. Without thought, how is it known that there is a gap? ;)
And if there is no gap…is there an actual difference between what is labelled as ‘thought’ and what is labelled as ‘gap’?

Oh, don't take away my gaps Kay! For me the gaps (no thought) are my little oases. And when I sit watching thought I can watch the "bad" (;-)) thoughts come and go and then rest in the calm tranquility of the gaps. I do it every morning in my garden. Keeps me sane. I don't want to hear anything about gaps and thoughts being the same. I want ALL GAPS!

Hmmm....you couldn't see what I was pointing to. I am not taking away ‘gaps’…what I am pointing to is, if you drop the label ‘gaps’ and drop the label ‘thoughts’ what remains? Go back to the tree painting which I used as an analogy for experience itself and appearances. Did the paint become the tree or is the tree experience itself which thought then labels as ‘tree’?

That being the case is there an actual difference between a gap and thought?

Let’s try it this way….keeping in mind that I am trying to point to the fact that ‘gaps’ and ‘thoughts’ are ‘made of’ the same substance…all that is different is what thought says they are. This process is about what IS and not what thought says is.

Gold SEEMS to appear in many forms, ie rings, ingots, bracelets, earrings, nuggets, necklaces, coins etc. Does the form make the gold or the gold is the form? In other words can a ring or bracelet etc appear on its own without the gold? Does the gold become something else just because it seems to appear as a ring, or a necklace or an ingot etc? Or does gold remains as gold no matter what it appears as?

Is gold separate from what it appears as? Is the form of a ring separate to the gold it is made from? Or are they both the same thing? Does the gold change, or does it still remain as gold…no matter if it is a ring, necklace, ear rings etc? If you melt down the ring and then make it into a bracelet…does the substance it is made from change or disappear? NO. Only the form changes…but the substance never does. So, is experience/THIS separate from what it appears as?

I guess the often stated way of looking at this is the gap/space/no-thought is clear blue sky and the (nasty little grey) thoughts are clouds passing over. Sometimes just a few puffy ones, sometimes covering the whole sky and staying for a long time. No-thought to me feels like the space that thought happens in. In the same way that silence is what sound happens in. Emptiness, what form happens in. So, I don't know if I get you when you say "Without thought, how is it known that there is a gap?" Depends which thought you mean. If you mean the thoughts between the gaps then yes I can get we need the thought to see the gaps between them. But if you're saying we need to think "about" the gaps in order to somehow know them, then you've left me behind.

I don’t want you guessing…I want you LOOKING. There is no difference between silence and sound…none whatsoever. Without thought…how would this be known?

Silence is no different to sound. Only thought says some 'thing' isn't there. Darkness is just a colour, like any other, no different from light. Thought labels darkness as the absence of some 'thing' but it is no less knowing/known than light is.
Empty space is no different to solid matter, it is still a some 'thing', not a lack of some 'thing' .

In addition, I have been going over the previous thread from the beginning. And doing so slowly which is good. Sort of gone over around half of it now and will continue tomorrow. The main thing to report is how surprised I am at how my perception is already changing on many of these issues. Which I guess is not a bad thing.

That is great! How does you feel now, compared to when we started this exploration?

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Have a careful look and tell me what the AE of ‘emotion’ is.

AE of emotion is sensation, plain and simple. I had previously thought, perhaps stupidly, that thought and emotion were intertwined and somehow the same thing. But the more you look at it you realise that is not the case at all. It is sort of as if thought is the data running over the process (interpreting, analysing, giving meaning) and emotion (i.e. sensation) is almost something mechanical, physical, corporeal happening "beneath" it. Maybe that's not a good way to put it but they are not the same thing.

Without thought how is it known whether a sensation is pleasant or unpleasant?

It isn't. Without thought it isn't known whether anything is pleasant or unpleasant, good or bad.

I have been continuing to do my 15 minute exercises to watch thought/gaps/emotion and I find it a very useful tool. Let me share with you my experience this morning.

But maybe I can give a bit of context. My life is not ideal at the moment and hasn't been for a few years. I am trying to keep a failing business afloat and while doing so am a long way from my family. So things are not great and I often have a tense, heavy feeling in my chest which I have known in the past and have always associated with anxiety. It is often there when I wake up and there throughout most of the day although I don't always notice it.

Sitting in my session I had intended to focus again on thoughts & gaps but this feeling in my chest got my attention so I decided to stay with it a while. I have found in the past when you get unpleasant feelings, even pain, when you move into it rather than resist it, it somehow can dissolve. Anyway I sat with this sensation for quite a long time. I read somewhere in one of the LU books about talking to these feelings, so I welcomed this feeling in my chest and said it could hang around for as long as it wanted. I embraced it and sat together with it. The unpleasantness of it (associated with my failure, inadequacy) seemed to soften but the feeling itself remained. I asked it why it had come to me but didn't get any kind of answer. On closer inspection the feeling wasn't a general chest feeling but rather located at the heart, although I hadn't noticed that before. I was looking, not analysing or thinking. Just being with the feeling and trying to not think too much but still asking it questions. As a feeling, just a feeling, it was inseparable from the kind of feelings I would get with depression, or love, or even elation, just a strong bodily feeling around the chest/heart area, like a kind of soft pressure. The sensation itself, without meaning, was not unpleasant. And after a while the message that it wanted to give me, although it didn't "say" anything was this. I am just a sensation, nothing more or less. I am here for as long as I will be here and then I will be gone.

Fantastic to hear that you are starting to see that you are not the thinker of thought! That usually takes people some time to see…so you are doing great guns!

Don't give me more credit than I'm due, Kay. Starting. Maybe. Most of my experience of thought day to day is total immersion. But during the quiet watching thinking exercises, that is where the process is clearer to me and I can see I am not the thinker.

In actual experience, can you separate thought from the knowing of it?

No you can't

Is there any line where one stops and the other starts?

No there isn't. They are seamless. Although my gaps suggest to me that there is a time when they start and then finish. Although hold on a minute. When you do think about it, all experiences are always there sound, colour, taste, smell, sensation, to a greater or lesser extent, whether they happen to be in our focus or not. (I guess experience is different from attention?) So, there isn't a time when sound or colour stop and then start again. So I guess the same could be said of thought. The state of thought is always there(??).

Can you actually separate a thought from the knowing of them? Are there two things?

No you can't. They are the same thing.

Is there a dividing line between the knowing of/as thought and the thought itself?

No there isn't.

Do you ever find thought without knowing of the thought?

No, thought can't exist without experience. Knowing of it.

Do you ever find knowing of the thought without thought?

No.

I guess where all this troubles me, and it is the same with your point that the gaps and the thought are the same, is that I just want to see the thoughts float by, I have spent my whole life being those thoughts and I don't want to be them any more. I want them to be foreign things that I can brush off and, I guess, dismiss. You are suggesting that the knowing of the thought and the thought are the same thing which, at least to me, sucks me back into the thoughts again.

But, at the same time, I accept your point that in AE, the knowing of something (eg a sound) and the thing are the same thing. It is just that it is easier for me to accept that for sounds, colours, tastes, etc, than thought, coz that's what I want to get away from.

Hmmm....you couldn't see what I was pointing to. I am not taking away ‘gaps’…what I am pointing to is, if you drop the label ‘gaps’ and drop the label ‘thoughts’ what remains? Go back to the tree painting which I used as an analogy for experience itself and appearances. Did the paint become the tree or is the tree experience itself which thought then labels as ‘tree’?

That being the case is there an actual difference between a gap and thought?

If you drop the labels gaps and thoughts what remains is AE of thought, or to put it more simply, Experience. And in that sense there is not a difference between gap and thought. It is all actual experience. But I'm sure you understand my point as well which is that the gap feels nice and the thought doesn't.

Going back to your example of the tree painting we got that what was appearing was a tree but that was just thought that said there was a tree. All there was, was paint, and the paint didn't become a tree. The apparent tree was just paint. And I guess with the current subject what we would derive is that all there is, is experience (paint), and it is only thought which partitions it into gaps and thought. Is that it?

Gold SEEMS to appear in many forms, ie rings, ingots, bracelets, earrings, nuggets, necklaces, coins etc. Does the form make the gold or the gold is the form? Gold is the form In other words can a ring or bracelet etc appear on its own without the gold? No Does the gold become something else just because it seems to appear as a ring, or a necklace or an ingot etc? No Or does gold remains as gold no matter what it appears as? It remains as gold

Is gold separate from what it appears as? No Is the form of a ring separate to the gold it is made from? Or are they both the same thing? Both the same Does the gold change, or does it still remain as gold…no matter if it is a ring, necklace, ear rings etc? Remains unchanged If you melt down the ring and then make it into a bracelet…does the substance it is made from change or disappear? NO ;-) NO. Only the form changes…but the substance never does. So, is experience/THIS separate from what it appears as? It is not separate from what it appears as.

Thought it was easier to answer in text in blue.

I actually did write the paragraph above before reading the following para from you on the gold. But that leads me to believe I was indeed right. It is all experience, which never changes, and yet which is not different from the forms it appears as (gap/thought).

That is great! How does you feel now, compared to when we started this exploration?

Different yes. I am still going through and will report back with other comments (revision) another time.

Thanks for everything Kay.

John