Long time seeker - No-one-wannabe

[Rayd8]

Hey Kay,

So, is there a body with a someone in the body that is doing any of this?

In reality (raw experience), I cannot find an "I" inside a body doing anything. Thoughts and events appear and disappear like flowers on the plant that are always appearing and dissappearing (falling off). This is very strange to me, but if I honestly look I cannot see "I" doing anything.

You did not answer the following question. Can you redo the exercise and answer it for me please.

Let me know how you feel and what you notice when the sound is on and when the sound is off.

When the sound is on, the commentator is always injecting emotion and excitement [labels] into the experience. It adds hundreds of labels - who is playing (characters), nationality - all these little details that don't really exist in actual experience.

With the sound off everything is boring. There is no differentiation between players colors and the ball is hardly noticeable among all the other colors and "motion." There is emotion on their faces but there are no labels to attach to the faces or emotions. Like seeing a picture without knowing who is in the photograph and afterwards somebody telling you the whole story of this face in the photograph.

Also, when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?

Without thought, the voice of the narrator is only a of sound. It does not ad emotion, meaning, or any other extra information. It is only actual experience of sound in the "background."

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

Not necessary at all. It actually doesn't add any "value" to the right experience.

What do you mean "to the right experience"?

I meant to write the "REAL experience." There is no right or wrong experience. Experience simply IS.

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

It is not necessary at all. The experience just IS.

Exactly. The narrator inside the head is as useless as a narrator in the soccer game. I have been meditating for many years now, and I actually hardly ever hear the narrator in my head. I do get mental pictures, mental movies, emotions, that type of thought, but the talking voice in the head is hardly ever there, thankfully. This is a rather new situation that has been like this for the last few years only.

We are not talking about what just IS, here. We are not denying that stories are appearing of a character called Rayself who seems thinks thoughts and then seems to actions those thoughts. We are looking to see if this assumption is correct. We are looking at how it SEEMS that thoughts are needed for the character to do things, for life to happen.

Does inner narration need to happen for ‘things’ to happen in life? Or is everything just happening?

Everything is just happening, like flowers appearing on a plant out of nowhere, falling off, as new flowers appear can fall off, constantly without and Observer having to do anything. Or like clouds forming in the Sky by themselves. No one has to do anyting they just appear and disappear.

Do you need a thought to tell you to pick up a sock up off the floor, or to drink water etc?

Not at all. Thoughts seem to be an added layer to Raw experience. When I am experiencing raw experience, everything just is without commentary from any thought, there is no observation or judgment, there is only experience. In the last couple of days it's almost completely gone and when it does come it is like the soccer narrator without thought - although mostly images. Thought is like watching a movie with subtitles in the same language - it is just redundant and unnecessary.

😎

[forgetmenot]

Hello Ray,

So, is there a body with a someone in the body that is doing any of this?

In reality (raw experience), I cannot find an "I" inside a body doing anything. Thoughts and events appear and disappear like flowers on the plant that are always appearing and dissappearing (falling off). This is very strange to me, but if I honestly look I cannot see "I" doing anything.

Sit in a chair somewhere quiet and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust, and start to notice just the ‘body’, the chair, floor, rugs, furniture and walls. Without thought, all there is, is colour which thought then labels as clothes, or body, chair, wall etc (we are only looking at colour for this exercise).

Now look carefully.
1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?
2. Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniturel’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug and furniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’, ‘furniture’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just simply colour?
What do you find?

Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply seamless colour which thought divides into ‘things’ and further divides in into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?

Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

Let me know how you feel and what you notice when the sound is on and when the sound is off.

When the sound is on, the commentator is always injecting emotion and excitement [labels] into the experience. It adds hundreds of labels - who is playing (characters), nationality - all these little details that don't really exist in actual experience.

With the sound off everything is boring. There is no differentiation between players colors and the ball is hardly noticeable among all the other colors and "motion." There is emotion on their faces but there are no labels to attach to the faces or emotions. Like seeing a picture without knowing who is in the photograph and afterwards somebody telling you the whole story of this face in the photograph.

Also, when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?

Without thought, the voice of the narrator is only a of sound. It does not ad emotion, meaning, or any other extra information. It is only actual experience of sound in the "background."

Great observations, Ray!
Without sound…it is actually boring…or is there neutrality to what is seemingly happening?

Does inner narration need to happen for ‘things’ to happen in life? Or is everything just happening?

Everything is just happening, like flowers appearing on a plant out of nowhere, falling off, as new flowers appear can fall off, constantly without and Observer having to do anything. Or like clouds forming in the Sky by themselves. No one has to do anyting they just appear and disappear.

Yes :)

Do you need a thought to tell you to pick up a sock up off the floor, or to drink water etc?

Not at all. Thoughts seem to be an added layer to Raw experience. When I am experiencing raw experience, everything just is without commentary from any thought, there is no observation or judgment, there is only experience. In the last couple of days it's almost completely gone and when it does come it is like the soccer narrator without thought - although mostly images. Thought is like watching a movie with subtitles in the same language - it is just redundant and unnecessary.

Love the movies with subtitle analogy!

Just for a laugh :)

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

Kay

[Rayd8]

That was a good video. 😁

It's almost time for bed here so I'll do the exercise tomorrow and answer your questions.

Thanks for your help Kay. I feel I'm making more progress with you than I have in a long time.

Thanks!

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ray,

Thanks for your help Kay. I feel I'm making more progress with you than I have in a long time.

It is my pleasure! You are doing all the hard yards by looking...and it makes guiding so much easier when there is a willingness to be open and to look. So..thank you :)

Sending love,
Kay

[Rayd8]

1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?

No. Not between "body" and "chair" because they are both though/labels. There is different actual colors (AE of color).

2. Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?

No. For the same reason.

3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniture’ be found?

No.

4. Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply color?

No. This is what I found since the day I told you that there was a big change in my experience. It's what I meant when I said that the seen was right on my eyeballs... Everything was Flat. No space. Space is interpreted by thought. Just as in a picture, a painting, or even a crude drawing - thought interprets 3D Space from the flat image.

5. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug and furniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’, ‘furniture’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just simply color? What do you find?

No. Same as #5 above.

Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply seamless colour which thought divides into ‘things’ and further divides in into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?

Exactly. It's like thought is a layer over Raw Experience. It labels every thing. It gives meaning to each and every thing.
"Different" colors are just like pixels in a coputer/digital image. Thought gives blobs a meaning - a separation...

Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?

It's only an interpretation of "space" and "distance".

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

I would have to say only color.
...

Without sound…it is actually boring…or is there neutrality to what is seemingly happening?

Right. "Boring" is a label/thought. It really is neutral. The commentator - both in the video and in my head - add emition and meaning to the scene (the seen).

[Rayd8]

By the way, here's an example of a flat image that looks like it has depth. And even it changes from protruding outward to being hollow depending on on thought for interpretation of the scene.

http://www.excelhero.com/blog/images/op ... n_cube.png

[Rayd8]

Thanks for your help Kay. I feel I'm making more progress with you than I have in a long time.

It is my pleasure! You are doing all the hard yards by looking...and it makes guiding so much easier when there is a willingness to be open and to look. So..thank you :)

Awesome! I'm jumping in there and taking a hard, honest look, no matter how strange or how contrary to what I "believe" it is.

And I see great progress. Right now life is so easy... It's living itself. Nothing to try to control...

I can't imagine how much better/easier it could get!

😎

[forgetmenot]

Hello Ray,

Thank you for the optical illusion! Yep…it is thought that seemingly creates the idea of 3D, when everything is 2D. I understood 2D better than the word ‘flat’ haha!

Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?

No. Not between "body" and "chair" because they are both though/labels. There is different actual colors (AE of color).

When looking at this picture, thought automatically divides colour into colours and then names colour as specific objects.

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels:-
How is it known that there are many different colours?
Is there a gap between the ‘trees’?
Where does colour begin and end?

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

I would have to say only color.

So can an ‘experiencerself’ be found anywhere at all as the centre of experience?
Do the body’s eyes see?
Can an inside and an outside of a ‘me’ be found?
Is the body the integral ‘thing’ that is experiencing anything, including seeing colour?

We have looked at what AE is and the nature of thought. You seem to be clear about these.

Let’s move on and look at the idea of control, choice and decisions and the idea of a doer.

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

Watch like a hawk.

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

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

Kay

[Rayd8]

Thank you for the optical illusion! Yep…it is thought that seemingly creates the idea of 3D, when everything is 2D. I understood 2D better than the word ‘flat’ haha!

Yes 2D. "Flat" came to mind because it felt like the scene was flattened like a picture.

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels:
How is it known that there are many different colours?

Just different "intensities," "types," - just "different" between each and them.

Is there a gap between the ‘trees’?

No, just "different colors." but we're ignoring color so, No.

Where does colour begin and end?

Color pervades everything (ALL).

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

I would have to say only color.


So can an ‘experiencerself’ be found anywhere at all as the centre of experience?

No. There is no way to know this experiencer.

Do the body’s eyes see?

This is a tough one. There is still the strong sense of a movie screen "in front." I get the sense that everything is just happening - just arising - as the thoughts arise, but to be honest, there is still a sense of that bloody movie screen in front...

Can an inside and an outside of a ‘me’ be found?

No. This is clear. There is no inside and outside.

Is the body the integral ‘thing’ that is experiencing anything, including seeing colour?

I cannot identify as seeing/experiencing from within a body.

We have looked at what AE is and the nature of thought. You seem to be clear about these.

OK. I don't want to stop the flow of things, but I have one question about thought and that question is:

Every now and then, some flashes of very old memories/thought pop up out of nowhere, ental pictures or mental movies like when I was a little kid from a long time ago. How come these are still popping up? Where are they stored? Where are they coming from? There seems to be some kind of storage and retreavel system... I believe that ALL THOUGHT is stored in the IS/ALL somehow, but I'm not so sure of this right now.

My other question is why this tiny piece of the ALL focusing on this "Ray character"? Why not focus on Elvis Presley's life instead of this boring one (Ray's life)?

Are these questions going to answer themselves as we go on with the process, or should I have this clear before going on?

Let’s move on and look at the idea of control, choice and decisions and the idea of a doer.

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

Watch like a hawk.

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

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?

I don't know what controls it, but it's not thought. It's not motivated by thought at all. No idea what causes this.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No. I cannot.

How is the decision made to turn the hand over?

No idea. Weird. It's outside of thought somehow.

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

I cannot find one. Weird, but true. It's not there...

Hit me again!

[Rayd8]

Do the body’s eyes see?

This is a tough one. There is still the strong sense of a movie screen "in front." I get the sense that everything is just happening - just arising - as the thoughts arise, but to be honest, there is still a sense of that bloody movie screen in front...

It's like no matter what I've discovered (or lost) I'm still stuck as the Observer.... Help!? Haha

[forgetmenot]

Hello Ray,

You didn't really do any LOOKING with the 'tree' exercise.

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels:
How is it known that there are many different colours?

Just different "intensities," "types," - just "different" between each and them.

How is it known that there are different intensities, types, and that there are different colours?

Is there a gap between the ‘trees’?

No, just "different colors." but we're ignoring color so, No.

We are NOT ignoring colour! The exercise is about colour!! Please read the exercise thoroughly. Racing through exercises is of no benefit to you.

What says that colours are different? Without thought how can it be known that colours are different?

Where does colour begin and end?

Color pervades everything (ALL).

No, you aren’t LOOKING Ray. Does colour have a beginning and an ending?

So can an ‘experiencerself’ be found anywhere at all as the centre of experience?

No. There is no way to know this experiencer.

Exactly. Colour does not experience itself, nor does sound, smell, taste, thought or sensation. Experience would need to be outside of itself to experience itself!

Do the body’s eyes see?
This is a tough one. There is still the strong sense of a movie screen "in front." I get the sense that everything is just happening - just arising - as the thoughts arise, but to be honest, there is still a sense of that bloody movie screen in front...

Of course there is. What are you expecting here…that you become one with the computer screen? It’s an illusion and a very clever illusion…a brilliant illusion.

What is this ‘sense’ exactly?

It’s not about the view changing and becoming ‘flat’, it is seeing what is actually there…ie AE of colour.

Redo this exercise.

Look at the display before you.
When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, can you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses?

Can an inside and an outside of a ‘me’ be found?

No. This is clear. There is no inside and outside.

If this is clear, then it would be clear that there is no movie screen, it is only a thought that says its a movie screen. For there to be a movie screen would mean that there is a you inside the body and things outside the body. Where is this body exactly? And I don’t mean that the view will change…I am talking about perception. When you really LOOK, what is the actual experience?

Is the body the integral ‘thing’ that is experiencing anything, including seeing colour?

I cannot identify as seeing/experiencing from within a body.

So is the body ‘seeing’ colour?

Every now and then, some flashes of very old memories/thought pop up out of nowhere, ental pictures or mental movies like when I was a little kid from a long time ago. How come these are still popping up? Where are they stored? Where are they coming from? There seems to be some kind of storage and retreavel system... I believe that ALL THOUGHT is stored in the IS/ALL somehow, but I'm not so sure of this right now.

We will look at this later. But I would like you to look everywhere within colour, sound, sensation etc and tell me where this storage place is and what it looks like.

My other question is why this tiny piece of the ALL focusing on this "Ray character"? Why not focus on Elvis Presley's life instead of this boring one (Ray's life)?
Are these questions going to answer themselves as we go on with the process, or should I have this clear before going on?

What??? Who cares about Elvis. You aren’t trying to see whether Elvis is a fictional character. How is seeing that Elvis is a fictional character going to help you see through the fictional character called Ray? Are you living the life called the life of Elvis or the life called Ray?

What is the AE of Elvis/other?

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?

I don't know what controls it, but it's not thought. It's not motivated by thought at all. No idea what causes this.

I want to have a careful look at the hand. What is the AE of ‘hand’?

Do the body’s eyes see?

This is a tough one. There is still the strong sense of a movie screen "in front." I get the sense that everything is just happening - just arising - as the thoughts arise, but to be honest, there is still a sense of that bloody movie screen in front...
It's like no matter what I've discovered (or lost) I'm still stuck as the Observer.... Help!? Haha

What is the expectation here?

Kay

[Rayd8]

Ok. I have a lump on the head, but that's a good thing.

I need to work through this.

Please hold...

[forgetmenot]

Haha...no worries!

Kay

[Rayd8]

Ok, here we go.

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels:
How is it known that there are many different colours?

Just different "intensities," "types," - just "different" between each and them.

How is it known that there are different intensities, types, and that there are different colours?

OK, I see it now: Without labels/thought - without color labels or object labels - there is no way to know any difference between colors. Color and shape are AE of Thought.

Is there a gap between the ‘trees’?

No, just "different colors." but we're ignoring color so, No.

We are NOT ignoring colour! The exercise is about colour!! Please read the exercise thoroughly. Racing through exercises is of no benefit to you.

What says that colours are different? Without thought how can it be known that colours are different?

I get it. We're not ignoring color. We're looking at how experience is Without Object and Color Labels... You could say that "thought colors every thing."

Does colour have a beginning and an ending?

No, because color is a thought. It is like an "opinion" or "judgment" about what IS.

Without thought, everything would be uniform. Thought is what devides, decides, categorizes, codifies every thing... Without thought, everything would be the same... No divisions.

Of course there is [a movie screen]. What are you expecting here…that you become one with the computer screen? It’s an illusion and a very clever illusion…a brilliant illusion.

When I said that there is still a sense of the movie screen in front of me, what I mean is that although I can't find an observer anywhere, there is still a sense of an observer looking at a scene. I can't separate the seen from the seeing, from the see-er...

OK, I'm stuck at the moment...

Here's the experience as of now:
The seen is obviously there. The seeing is assumed to be happening, but cannot be found, and the see-er cannot be found either.

What is the expectation? Not sure. If the indivisual (Ray) doesn't exist, (Elvis doesn't exist either), and if all perception is thought/labels, there is no one to perceive - no one to see the seen - if the screen is a very clever illusion, then what IS?

Aaaahhhhh...

What IS, is Raw experience without thought/labels...

And that's the weird part. Lately, everything feels different. Everything looks sharper, more real, raw. When people talk to me, I never feel "accused." It's very hard to feel "attacked." Life is flowing so easily. Things get resolved on their own with no, or almost no input from Ray.

But on the other hand, i struggle with some of the exercises... Like I'm missing something? Like I'm expecting something completely different? I don't know...

I'll keep working on the rest of the questions and post the answers later tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience Kay!

[forgetmenot]

Hello Ray,

What says that colours are different? Without thought how can it be known that colours are different?

I get it. We're not ignoring color. We're looking at how experience is Without Object and Color Labels... You could say that "thought colors every thing."

Yes…but don’t use the word ‘colours’, it will be confusing. Thought obscures experience itself/THIS. It labels THIS with labels such as ‘colour’. When you drop the word ‘colour’…all there is, is THIS appearing exactly as it is.

Does colour have a beginning and an ending?

No, because color is a thought. It is like an "opinion" or "judgment" about what IS.

The word ‘colour’ is a thought. Thought tries to describe THIS by using the word ‘colour’. The same goes for the words sound, smell, taste, thought and sensation. However, those labels are pointing to AE. Thoughts either point to AE or they point to thoughts about thought.
Is this clear?

As soon as experience/THIS has been labelled it becomes divided. It becomes divided into 6 main categories: - sound AND smell AND thought AND colour AND taste AND sensation. If you take away the AND it is soundsmellthoughtcolourtastesensation which denotes that there is no division. However, the ‘thinking mind’ still sees even that as separate words pointing to experience having 6 different forms.
So let’s replace soundsmellthoughtcolourtastesensation with just X.
X = experience/THIS exactly as it is.

Without thought, everything would be uniform. Thought is what devides, decides, categorizes, codifies every thing... Without thought, everything would be the same... No divisions.

What do you mean when you say this?

Of course there is [a movie screen]. What are you expecting here…that you become one with the computer screen? It’s an illusion and a very clever illusion…a brilliant illusion.

When I said that there is still a sense of the movie screen in front of me, what I mean is that although I can't find an observer anywhere, there is still a sense of an observer looking at a scene. I can't separate the seen from the seeing, from the see-er...

No of course not…there is no you to do that! What would that even look like?

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

Here's the experience as of now:
The seen is obviously there.

For there to be a seen means that there would have to be an object/subject split.

The seeing is assumed to be happening, but cannot be found, and the see-er cannot be found either.

What does ‘assumed’ point to?

What is the expectation? Not sure. If the indivisual (Ray) doesn't exist, (Elvis doesn't exist either), and if all perception is thought/labels, there is no one to perceive - no one to see the seen - if the screen is a very clever illusion, then what IS?

What is, is coloursmelltastesensationsoundthought!
Coloursmelltastesensationsoundthought = experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.

There is no AND…there is no separation.

Aaaahhhhh...

What IS, is Raw experience without thought/labels...

YES! Bingo :)

And that's the weird part. Lately, everything feels different. Everything looks sharper, more real, raw. When people talk to me, I never feel "accused." It's very hard to feel "attacked." Life is flowing so easily. Things get resolved on their own with no, or almost no input from Ray.

That’s wonderful Ray…you have had a shift in perception.

But on the other hand, i struggle with some of the exercises... Like I'm missing something? Like I'm expecting something completely different? I don't know...

Yes…and the key word here is EXPECTING.

Kay