Help Me Please!!

[Brenda]

Where do thoughts come from?

Where are they going?

Can ‘you’ stop a thought in the middle?

As I look at the thoughts to see where they come from it cannot be determined.
Thoughts don't come from anywhere. They just appear and they disappear, and then reappear again.I cannot find a location where they come from or where they go.
Thoughts also cannot be stopped in the middle as they appear as a complete thought. Another thought can appear but the initial thought is complete. When a story develops as a result of thoughts, another thought can interrupt the story with a new topic, but this just happens and it cannot be controlled. It just happens.

As I continue to look for where thoughts come from, I re-look for the "I", but still can find no location for the "I".
I then looked for the mind and the emotions since they appeared today while I was looking and they have no location either.
Well to be clearer, they were a result of a believed thought, but I could not find a place where there were pulled from. They just showed up via the thought that appeared.
I continue to look as my day goes on, and as different experiences arise, but still cannot find the self, or the memories or the emotions or even where the thoughts are coming from.

As I look, I notice how easy it is to get caught up in the content of the thought, but then a thought comes up that recognizes this and the looking continues.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

As I look at the thoughts to see where they come from it cannot be determined.
Thoughts don't come from anywhere. They just appear and they disappear, and then reappear again.I cannot find a location where they come from or where they go.

Yes. Thoughts are not coming form and going to anywhere.
The only thing that can be said that there is a thought present. That’s all.
Is this clear?

Thoughts also cannot be stopped in the middle as they appear as a complete thought

Yes.

When a story develops as a result of thoughts, another thought can interrupt the story with a new topic, but this just happens and it cannot be controlled. It just happens.

But does the thought perform the act of interrupting of the previous thought?
Is there an ACTUAL interruption going on, or there is just suddenly a thought with a different topic?

So the questions is, do thoughts have a power to do to things, like interrupting another thought?
Or just simply thoughts come after another with different topics (contents)?

I then looked for the mind and the emotions since they appeared today while I was looking and they have no location either.

And is there ACTUALLY such thing as a mind?
If yes, how does ‘mind’ is actually experienced? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?

The mind is believed to be the storage place of thoughts and memory-thoughts, which thoughts arise from.
But is there such storage place in experience where thoughts are emerging from?

As I look, I notice how easy it is to get caught up in the content of the thought, but then a thought comes up that recognizes this and the looking continues.

Do a thought have a power to recognize things?
If yes, then it would mean that thoughts are some sort of entities or agencies that could do all sorts of things, like performing actions? But is this so?

So rather there is just a content of thoughts that are not seen only as contents, and then suddenly there is another thought with the content ‘I was caught up in the content of the previous thought’?

Vivien

[Brenda]

Thoughts are not coming form and going to anywhere.
The only thing that can be said that there is a thought present. That’s all.
Is this clear?

Yes, I see this.

But does the thought perform the act of interrupting of the previous thought?
Is there an ACTUAL interruption going on, or there is just suddenly a thought with a different topic?

Thoughts have no power, they just show up. There is no interrupting, i just used that word to get the point across that the content of the thoughts can change, but there is doer changing them. It just happens.

So the questions is, do thoughts have a power to do to things, like interrupting another thought?
Or just simply thoughts come after another with different topics (contents)?

I looked and see that thoughts have no power at all. they just appear and disappear.

And is there ACTUALLY such thing as a mind?
If yes, how does ‘mind’ is actually experienced? Is it a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation or thought?

The mind is believed to be the storage place of thoughts and memory-thoughts, which thoughts arise from.
But is there such storage place in experience where thoughts are emerging from?

I looked for the mind, and there is no mind. There is no storage place that holds thoughts or the mind. Memories may appear in content of thought, but they are not stored anywhere. I could not find any location for the mind or a thought.

Do a thought have a power to recognize things?
If yes, then it would mean that thoughts are some sort of entities or agencies that could do all sorts of things, like performing actions? But is this so?

So rather there is just a content of thoughts that are not seen only as contents, and then suddenly there is another thought with the content ‘I was caught up in the content of the previous thought’?

I looked and see that A thought has no power at all. A thought can not recognize anything.
This is correct. I see a thought, and then the thought disappears and another thought is there.
Each thought contains different content.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

You did a nice looking :)

Can ‘you’ predict what will be the next thought?
Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

I see a thought, and then the thought disappears and another thought is there.

“I see a thought” – what is it exactly that sees the thought?
WHERE is the location of the seer?

Look very carefully, especially with these last two questions. Don’t rush.

Vivien

[Brenda]

Can ‘you’ predict what will be the next thought?
Can 'you' choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

I look at the thoughts, but there does not appear to be a way to predict the next thought, as thoughts just appear. There is nobody or nothing controlling the next thought. Thoughts just appear and disappear, so they can not be predicted.

"YOU" or nobody else can "Choose" to have a type of thought as again, they just appear. There is no entity managing the thoughts, and as I relook again, I cannot find the "YOU" anywhere. I am using the word "I" as lack of how else to explain it. We see that the "I" does not point to anything.

“I see a thought” – what is it exactly that sees the thought?
WHERE is the location of the seer?

As I look for the "I" or the seer there is nothing to be found. I use the "I" to explain as I am not sure how else to say it, but as I look again, I do not find the I or the seer.

As these thoughts come and go, I notice some are emotionally charged and others are not. I see the emotion is in the contents of the thought as I do not see "Emotion" located any where else, but I do not see why some thoughts have emotions and others do not.
I also see thoughts changing topics and I do not see any body or any thing changing the topic it just happens. I do not see a manager of these thoughts and I guess this raises some confusion, which I see is another thought that I am believing. I do not see who is believing these thoughts.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,
Before posting you can check how your post would look like by pressing the ‘Preview’ button next to the ‘Submit’ button. So

can make changes if necessary before posting.

I see the emotion is in the contents of the thought as I do not see "Emotion" located any where else, but I do not see why some thoughts have emotions and others do not.

We will investigate emotions later. For now, please don’t trying to figure this out intellectually.

I do not see a manager of these thoughts and I guess this raises some confusion, which I see is another thought that I am believing. I do not see who is believing these thoughts.

You did a nice looking.

Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
“I think” - What is 'I'?
What is the thinker of thoughts? – don’t think, rather look for a ‘thinker’
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?

What can a thought do?
Does a thought have volition?
Can it manipulate other thoughts or think new thoughts?

Vivien

[Brenda]

We will investigate emotions later. For now, please don’t trying to figure this out intellectually.
I was looking but was not clear.
Can an 'I' be found that generates thoughts?
No i do not see an "I" that can generate thoughts. I do not see an "I" at all. I don't see anything generating thoughts either.
“I think” - What is 'I'?
"I" is what the story is about, not that there is anything anywhere that is called the "I".
I only see an "I" in the contents of a thought.
What is the thinker of thoughts? – don’t think, rather look for a ‘thinker’
I do not see a thinker anywhere. I do not see anything creating or "thinking" thoughts.
Does the thinker of the thought appear in experience? Can it be found?
The thinker is not in the experience, only in the content of the thought, as I do not see any thinker. Thoughts just appear. I do not see anybody or anything "thinking" them
Or could it be that the 'I' that thinks is also just a thought?
Yes this is what i see.

What can a thought do?
A thought has no power and cannot do anything. It just appears and disappears. that is it.
Does a thought have volition?
no
Can it manipulate other thoughts or think new thoughts?
no. Thoughts have no power.

I continue to look and look and look to see actual experience.
I wake up in the middle of night looking, and through out the day I continue to look.

I am becoming comfortable with seeing the actual experience.
For example, walking me dog I experience the knowing of a thought, sound, smell, sensation, and image.
No labels, just the actual experience.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

You did a nice looking. But I would like to ask you to check how your post will look like by pressing the “Preview” button before submitting, since there are no quotes in your last reply, which makes hard to read and distinguish your comments from mine.

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"?

What do the thoughts belong to? What owns them?

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

Is there a location where thoughts appear?

Is there anything in experience that makes thoughts appear?

Vivien

[Brenda]

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"?

I do not see any organized or logical ordered appearance of thoughts. They often appear after an AE to describe what just happened. There is no logical order at all. The thoughts contain info about one thing, and then randomly contain info about something else, often due to AE experiences.

For example,
There is sensation
Thought Content – I am pushing the gas pedal - How did I know to push the gas pedal? – am I pushing hard enough – should I go faster
Sensation in arm
Thought content – oh my arm itches – I should itch it – no I shouldn’t – yes I should, etc
Image
Thought content – there is a red light - oh I should slow down – oh wait my foot is already on the brake. – how did it get there
Image
Thought content – light is green we should move foot - oh foot is already on gas pedal
Sensation
Thought content – my arm still itches – maybe I got bit – maybe it is poison ivy – etc
Thought Content – I am visiting linda today – I wonder how she is – should I bring anything
Sensation + taste
Thought content – why am I biting my nails – I should stop this – how did my hand get there

In this example,
the AE usually comes prior to the thought, and the thought narrates what it is.
sometimes the AE happens and no thought appears about it initially (example: oh my foot is already on the gas pedal)
except in the one example where a thought appeared about what I was going to do next. I did not see any AE prior to the thought “ I am going to visit Linda” it just appeared.

What do the thoughts belong to? What owns them?

The thoughts do not belong to anybody. There is no owner, They just appear and disappear.

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

I do not see the thoughts appear in any specific location. There is just a knowing that they are there, but no specific location can be found.

Is there a location where thoughts appear?

As I look for the “I”, there is no location or anything to be found. The “I” is in the content of the thought, in every thought, as the “I” is what the thought is expressing about. Looking, I see the “I” within all thought contents.
I do not see a location where thoughts appear. They just appear.

Is there anything in experience that makes thoughts appear?

Experience does not “make” thoughts appear, but thoughts appear to describe an experience that is happening.

The illusion is based on thoughts creating a story, which is not true information.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

You did a nice looking.

Here is an exercise which points out the difference between direct experience and content of thought.

There are two types of thoughts:

(1) Verbal thought with words “Here is cup”
(2) Visual thought of a ‘cup’

So I invite you to do this exercise:
Think of a cup. Get a very clear picture in your mind. See clearly the size, shape, colour and volume of the cup. Notice whether it is decorated or plain. Notice whether it has a handle. Notice whether it is heavy or fragile. Do you have a clear picture?

Now, can you physically grasp that visual thought of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?

Is there a ‘real’ cup or just a visual thought of a cup?
Is there an appearing visual thought?
Is the content of the visual thought (the cup) ‘real’?

Both verbal and visual thoughts are real only as arising thoughts (as ‘containers’), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However, their contents, what are they about are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?


So thoughts can be looked at in 2 different ways:

- seeing the CONTENT of a thought, what is a thought ABOUT
- and only seeing the thought itself (as phenomenon taking place), as a ‘CONTAINER’

When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?

Thoughts as arising thoughts (the containers) are ‘real’, but their contents (what they are ABOUT) are not. Like when you think about E.T. There is an arising thought, it cannot be denied, but its content “E.T.” is not real. Sometimes thoughts point to something tangible, like chair, however a thought about a chair is not a chair. A thought about a chair is just a mental concept with an arising visual thought of a ‘chair’ but that thought is not ‘real’. However, as an arising thought is there, it is ‘real’, but not its content (what it’s about).

Certain sensations can be felt in the body that is labelled such and such emotion, like ‘cheerful’. However, ‘cheerful’ is just a mental label / thought on the felt sensation. So the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea. Can you see this?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising verbal or visual thought, check whether its content (what it’s about) is really happening, or the content is just pure imagination.

Let me know how it goes.

Vivien

[Brenda]

Now, can you physically grasp that visual thought of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?

I can visually see a cup with tea in it, but I cannot physically touch it, or pour tea into tor drink from it.

Is there a ‘real’ cup or just a visual thought of a cup?
Is there an appearing visual thought?
Is the content of the visual thought (the cup) ‘real’?

This is just a visual thought, it is not real. The tea cup is a content of a thought, so one could say it is 'real' but only in the content of the thought, not in any other way. I cannot touch it, drink out of it, etc. It is the content of a thought.

Both verbal and visual thoughts are real only as arising thoughts (as ‘containers’), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However, their contents, what are they about are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

This is very clear.

So thoughts can be looked at in 2 different ways:

- seeing the CONTENT of a thought, what is a thought ABOUT
- and only seeing the thought itself (as phenomenon taking place), as a ‘CONTAINER’

When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored, is what we call the actual experience of a thought. Do you see the difference?

This is clear.
But the question is who is ignoring the content of the thought?
I do not see a doer or decider, or an "I", so who is ignoring the thought?
I also see that the first thought contains what is happening, and then another thought that basically says you should believe it and the next thought says you shouldn't. The contents of the thoughts are conflicting.
And I also see that the thoughts do not have any power on what will happen in your direct experience next. Things just continue to happen.
So again, I do not see how the content of the thought is ignored?

As I look I notice that some sensations or AE do not come with the knowing of a thought. For example as I said yesterday,
Sensation
Thought: My foot is on gas pedal
Image
Thought: There is a red light, oh my foot is already on the brake pedal.
I did not realize where my foot even was until I looked. My thought was that my foot was still on the gas pedal.
So in this case there was an AE of the foot moving to the brake but I did not see a thought associated with that.
Do all sensations need to be associated with the knowing of a thought to be an AE?
And if there is no awareness of a thought, is it an AE?

I also see when I experience an AE, and ignore the content of thought, some of the time the thoughts seem to stop appearing. It is not that I have a thought containing the subject of me not having a thought, but I stop seeing thoughts arise for a period of time. And during this time, since there are no thoughts arising, when the next thought finally comes, the contents of the thought are that I don't remember the last 10 minutes, (or whatever it is).
So does the AE really exist without the awareness of the thought that comes with the AE?

Thoughts as arising thoughts (the containers) are ‘real’, but their contents (what they are ABOUT) are not. Like when you think about E.T. There is an arising thought, it cannot be denied, but its content “E.T.” is not real. Sometimes thoughts point to something tangible, like chair, however a thought about a chair is not a chair. A thought about a chair is just a mental concept with an arising visual thought of a ‘chair’ but that thought is not ‘real’. However, as an arising thought is there, it is ‘real’, but not its content (what it’s about).

I see this.
Which also means that there is no real chair anywhere. The chair does not exist, only in the content of the thought.

Certain sensations can be felt in the body that is labelled such and such emotion, like ‘cheerful’. However, ‘cheerful’ is just a mental label / thought on the felt sensation. So the felt sensation is ‘real’, the arising mental label, simply as arising label is ‘real’, but its content ‘cheerful’ is just an idea. Can you see this?

This brings up a few good questions.
The AE of sound where somebody is talking.
The AE is sound.
The thought content is what they are saying.
The next thought content says "you don't like that", then the sensation comes up of "mad".
Then the content of a thought comes up to label it.
I see that when the content of the thought comes up that I feel mad, I see a pause between the thoughts, and if there is a belief in the label then I see the sensation changes to that emotion.
But that would mean the thought had power which I see it does not.
I will look more at this situation over the next day or so.

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising verbal or visual thought, check whether its Content (what it’s about) is really happening, or the content is just pure imagination.

See above.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

But the question is who is ignoring the content of the thought?
I do not see a doer or decider, or an "I", so who is ignoring the thought?
So again, I do not see how the content of the thought is ignored?

With the word ‘ignoring’ we use conventional language.
But there is no actual ignoring going on.

The attention is either zoomed in to the content only (thus it’s not seen only as a thought), or it’s zoomed out to see the ‘container’, to see thought as a phenomenon.

So there is no actually ignoring going on, rather zooming in to the content, and zooming out to see that it’s just a thought. Can you see this?

I also see that the first thought contains what is happening, and then another thought that basically says you should believe it and the next thought says you shouldn't. The contents of the thoughts are conflicting.
And I also see that the thoughts do not have any power on what will happen in your direct experience next. Things just continue to happen.

Yes. Thoughts are ‘talking’ about all sorts of things, without they knowing what they are talking about.

I did not realize where my foot even was until I looked. My thought was that my foot was still on the gas pedal.
So in this case there was an AE of the foot moving to the brake but I did not see a thought associated with that.
Do all sensations need to be associated with the knowing of a thought to be an AE?

Please tell me in your own words, and without going back to read my description of it, what is actual experience?
I have to see how you interpret the label AE.

So in this case there was an AE of the foot moving to the brake but I did not see a thought associated with that.

And then what? Does a thought make the sensation into an experience?
Does a thought is needed to know the presence of a thought?

Do all sensations need to be associated with the knowing of a thought to be an AE?

Are you saying that without a thought commenting on a sensation, the sensation is not experienced?
What makes you think that the presence of a thought has anything to do with the experience of a sensation?

Thought: There is a red light, oh my foot is already on the brake pedal.
I did not realize where my foot even was until I looked.

Are you making the assumption that a thought was needed to be aware of the foot?

#1: Thought: “it’s a red light, I should stop”
#2: Attention goes to the sensation of the foot
#3: Thought: “my foot is already on the brake pedal”

Are you saying that thought 1 is made the attention to go to the sensation?
If yes, how do you know it?

Have you actually seen the thought grabbing attention and turning its head to the sensation?

As I look I notice that some sensations or AE do not come with the knowing of a thought.

‘come with the knowing of a thought’ – are you saying that thoughts can KNOW about the presence of a sensation?
Are you saying that the knowing of the presence of a sensation is coming from a thought?

And if there is no awareness of a thought, is it an AE?

Please tell me what is AE in your own words. And don’t go back to read my description.
And what is thought in relation to experience.

I also see when I experience an AE, and ignore the content of thought, some of the time the thoughts seem to stop appearing. It is not that I have a thought containing the subject of me not having a thought, but I stop seeing thoughts arise for a period of time. And during this time, since there are no thoughts arising, when the next thought finally comes, the contents of the thought are that I don't remember the last 10 minutes, (or whatever it is).
So does the AE really exist without the awareness of the thought that comes with the AE?

Probably you have fallen asleep. Or you have been lost in the content of a thought story (zoomed in to the content) that you haven’t even noticed it as a thought.

Your question shows that you are thinking about what experience is and not looking at experience directly.

So first, you have to tell me what you mean by experience.
And what is thought in relation to experience.

Vivien

[Brenda]

So there is no actually ignoring going on, rather zooming in to the content, and zooming out to see that it’s just a thought. Can you see this?

Yes I can see this.

Please tell me in your own words, and without going back to read my description of it, what is actual experience?

An actual experience is a sound, taste, smell, color (image), sensation, knowing of a thought.
Once you believe the contents of the thought then it is no longer an AE.

And then what? Does a thought make the sensation into an experience?
Does a thought is needed to know the presence of a thought?

When I look I usually see a thought appear right after an AE, but not always as in the case of the foot on the brake pedal.
I am questioning this as I didn't even notice there was an sensation (foot on the brake) prior to seeing the contents of the thought that the light was red. I have several examples of this when I am looking, and did not notice the AE even happened until I zoomed into the content of the thought.

The thought does not make the sensation into an experience, by "zooming into the thought", I saw that the AE happened.
I know the thought has no power, but by believing the contents of the thought, I saw that my foot had moved. I guess there was really no AE as my foot moved, as I did not feel the sensation, so the sensation did not exist.

A thought is not needed to know the presence of a thought, but the knowing of the thought is needed.

Are you saying that without a thought commenting on a sensation, the sensation is not experienced?
What makes you think that the presence of a thought has anything to do with the experience of a sensation?

No , I am not saying that without a thought commenting the sensation, the sensation is not experienced, as I have looked and saw many AE's without the presence of a thought.

From looking, the presence of a thought comes after a AE. If there is no presence of thought after a sensation, I do not always see the sensation happen, not aware that it happened. I know the awareness is the contents of the thought, so the question becomes if you don't experience the sensation, then it must not be an AE.

Are you making the assumption that a thought was needed to be aware of the foot?

Yes I am. Without a thought with contents to be aware of the foot, I would not know the foot is there.
That does not give the thought power, it is just information information. The thought is not telling me to look at the foot, it is stating informational message that the foot is on the brake pedal.

#1: Thought: “it’s a red light, I should stop”
#2: Attention goes to the sensation of the foot
#3: Thought: “my foot is already on the brake pedal”

Are you saying that thought 1 is made the attention to go to the sensation?
If yes, how do you know it?

Have you actually seen the thought grabbing attention and turning its head to the sensation?

Thought 1 does not "make" anything happen. It is just informational message.
There is an additional thought there that I should stop so put the foot on the brake..
As I zoom into the contents of this thought, the next thought that comes up is the "my foot is on the brake", so I never actually experienced the AE, it just happened and then the thought came up telling me where my foot is.

Thought does not grab anything. You are right, I see that the thought did not bring attention to the sensation but another thought came up with the contents of where my foot was, so I see there is no sensation at all in this case. There is no AE.

As I look I notice that some sensations or AE do not come with the knowing of a thought.

‘come with the knowing of a thought’ – are you saying that thoughts can KNOW about the presence of a sensation?
Are you saying that the knowing of the presence of a sensation is coming from a thought?

I am not saying either of these things.
The sensation comes first, then the knowing of a thought.
Thoughts do not KNOW anything. They just randomly arise often after an AE and contain a narrative of the AE.
I see this clearly.

Please tell me what is AE in your own words. And don’t go back to read my description.
And what is thought in relation to experience.

I did no go back to your description: An actual experience is a sound, taste, smell, color (image), sensation, knowing of a thought.
Once you believe the contents of the thought then it is no longer an AE.

Thoughts appear in relation to experience containing a narrative on what caused the experience.

So first, you have to tell me what you mean by experience.
And what is thought in relation to experience.

You suggest I am not looking because I am asking questions but that Is not my experience.
Sometimes I look and look and look and am unclear, so I write it here. That does not mean I am not looking but maybe unclear of what I am seeing.

Again an experience is when I hear a sound, color, taste, smell, sensation of knowing of a thought without believing the contents of a thought.
The contents of a thought describes the experience.

[Vivien]

Hi Brenda,

An actual experience is a sound, taste, smell, color (image), sensation, knowing of a thought.
Once you believe the contents of the thought then it is no longer an AE.

When the content of a thought is taken as real, there is still the AE of a thought, since the knowing of a thought, still happening, although its thought-ness isn’t seen, since the focus is on the content. Can you see this?

And experience is never just ONE of those 6 six things, but rather the combination of those.

Let’s say you are driving home, but there is the memory of the incidence with the boss is playing and there is a zoom in the content.

And although there is a zoom in on the content, this thought is still experienced as a thought, since it is known.
If it wasn’t known there wasn’t even a content. But the content is not happening, not experienced, since you are not standing in front of your boss, but sitting in the car driving.

But still there is the experience of this thought story. The thought as a ‘container’ and the content are inseparable.
They are no two things. One cannot be without the other. Can you see this?

All there is to a thought is the content. Can you see this?

And while you are driving home with this story replaying, there is also the experience of colors, sounds, sensations, and attention is quickly jumping from one object (color, sound, sensation, thought) to another, even when there is a zoom in on the contents of thoughts. Can you see this?

So we cannot say that there is no experience going on.
No experience is deep sleep, or anaesthesia.

When I look I usually see a thought appear right after an AE

It seems that there is an assumption here that as soon as there is a thought content taken as real, then there is no experience. As if experience was turned off, as soon as the focus is on the content of the thought.

But experience cannot be turned on and off by the attention being on the content of a thought.
As long as you are awake, experience is constantly on.
It’s never turned off (while awake).
Can you see this?

I have several examples of this when I am looking, and did not notice the AE even happened until I zoomed into the content of the thought.

This sentence also shows that there is an assumption that experience can be turned on and off. And when there is a zoom in on the content, there is no experience.

There is still the experience of the thought which attention zoomed in. If there wasn’t the experience of the thought, then there wasn’t the content either. Can you see this?

The only difference is that the content is taken real. And what the thought is about isn’t experienced, but the thought itself is. Always. Even when there is a zoom in to its content. Can you see this?

V: Are you making the assumption that a thought was needed to be aware of the foot?

B: Yes I am. Without a thought with contents to be aware of the foot, I would not know the foot is there.

This is an assumption of cause and effect, which is a belief in time. Cause and effect is just as an illusion as the self. We will investigate this later.

So the assumption is, if I understand you correctly (but please correct me if I am wrong) that in order to be aware of certain sensations (like the feet) there ALWAYS has to be a preceding thought to put the focus there.

Without a thought saying “let’s focus on my stomach / legs /hands / face /chest” those sensations never arise, since there has to be a preceding thought to do turn the attention there.

Please check this in experience throughout the day.
Check, how many sensations are there that was preceded by a thought order “Let’s be aware of this or that sensation”, and how much happened just on their own, without any preceding thought. Let me know what you find.

They just randomly arise often after an AE and contain a narrative of the AE.

But thoughts don’t come after AE, since thoughts are NOT OUTSIDE of experience.

There is no experience + interpreting thoughts outside of experience.
The interpreting thoughts are PART OF the experience. Can you see this?

Can ever be anything outside of experience?
If yes, what would be that?

You suggest I am not looking because I am asking questions but that Is not my experience.
Sometimes I look and look and look and am unclear, so I write it here. That does not mean I am not looking but maybe unclear of what I am seeing.

I did not suggest that you are not looking, but I assumed that you didn’t know exactly what we mean by the label of experience.

And it’s getting clearer what is the source of the confusion. It’s the assumption that experience can be turned on and off and when there is the zoom in on the content, then experience stops.

Vivien

[Brenda]

An actual experience is a sound, taste, smell, color (image), sensation, knowing of a thought.
Once you believe the contents of the thought then it is no longer an AE.

When the content of a thought is taken as real, there is still the AE of a thought, since the knowing of a thought, still happening, although its thought-ness isn’t seen, since the focus is on the content. Can you see this?

I see the confusion here and I may not be explaining my self in your terms, so we will try again.

Yes there is an actual experience if we add thought contents to it or not. I see that there is still the experience. If we believe the contents then the actual experience has a thought overlay on it, but this can distort the actual experience. I see this completely.

And experience is never just ONE of those 6 six things, but rather the combination of those.

This is exactly what I am saying. There is usually an experience of a thought in combination with the other experiences.

Let’s say you are driving home, but there is the memory of the incidence with the boss is playing and there is a zoom in the content.

And although there is a zoom in on the content, this thought is still experienced as a thought, since it is known.
If it wasn’t known there wasn’t even a content. But the content is not happening, not experienced, since you are not standing in front of your boss, but sitting in the car driving.

But still there is the experience of this thought story. The thought as a ‘container’ and the content are inseparable.
They are no two things. One cannot be without the other. Can you see this?

This was a conflict of words for me. I didn't realize that a thought story was still an experience, but that is what I see, this is clear now. But a thought story experience is not an AE.
I do see that the container and the content are inseparable. This is clear.

All there is to a thought is the content. Can you see this?

Yes, I see this.

And while you are driving home with this story replaying, there is also the experience of colors, sounds, sensations, and attention is quickly jumping from one object (color, sound, sensation, thought) to another, even when there is a zoom in on the contents of thoughts. Can you see this?

I am not sure I see this. I makes sense logically, but sometimes if I am zoomed in on a thought story, I do not notice anything around me. Is it an actual experience even if you don't notice it?


It seems that there is an assumption here that as soon as there is a thought content taken as real, then there is no experience. As if experience was turned off, as soon as the focus is on the content of the thought.

But experience cannot be turned on and off by the attention being on the content of a thought.
As long as you are awake, experience is constantly on.
It’s never turned off (while awake).
Can you see this?

This makes sense intellectually, but as I look, sometimes I do not notice the smell, sound, etc, so I am just experiencing the thought story.
are you defining the "AE" and "an experience" as something different? If that is the case, that is where the misunderstanding is.
Please clarify definition of experience without "Actual experience".

This sentence also shows that there is an assumption that experience can be turned on and off. And when there is a zoom in on the content, there is no experience.

I believe that you are saying an experience and an actual experience are different?
I thought story is not an actual experience, correct?

There is still the experience of the thought which attention zoomed in. If there wasn’t the experience of the thought, then there wasn’t the content either. Can you see this?

If experience is different than actual experience than I see this.

The only difference is that the content is taken real. And what the thought is about isn’t experienced, but the thought itself is. Always. Even when there is a zoom in to its content. Can you see this?

yes

So the assumption is, if I understand you correctly (but please correct me if I am wrong) that in order to be aware of certain sensations (like the feet) there ALWAYS has to be a preceding thought to put the focus there.

Without a thought saying “let’s focus on my stomach / legs /hands / face /chest” those sensations never arise, since there has to be a preceding thought to do turn the attention there.

That is not what I am saying at all.
I am saying the sensation usually comes first and then a thought arises to describe the experience.
This is what happens most of the time.
I am saying In the particular case about me not noticing the foot until I saw the thought of the red light, I did not notice the sensation in my foot.
Do we call it an Actual Experience or even an experience if we were not aware it happened?
I see what I see, I am just trying to use same terminology as you.
I am NOT saying you need a thought to see an AE. I am asking if you do not notice the AE do you still call it an AE?
Again, also what is the difference between an experience and an actual experience?

Please check this in experience throughout the day.
Check, how many sensations are there that was preceded by a thought order “Let’s be aware of this or that sensation”, and how much happened just on their own, without any preceding thought. Let me know what you find.
See above.
I see that things are constantly happening by the body and things around me that I have nothing to do with, they are just happening. The clarity I need is if I am not aware of it happening, what do you call that?

But thoughts don’t come after AE, since thoughts are NOT OUTSIDE of experience.

There is no experience + interpreting thoughts outside of experience.
The interpreting thoughts are PART OF the experience. Can you see this?

Can ever be anything outside of experience?
If yes, what would be that?

I guess here is the play on words. I see that the knowing of a thought is part of the AE, and the contents of the thought are considered the experience?
I am not saying anything is out of experience. please provide the definition of experience.

I do not think I am clear on the definitions.