Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

[SterlingM]

Hi Kay

Sending you happy thoughts today from rainy London. I hope your week’s been rewarding an productive. Mine been OK, except I had appalling side effects from some meds this week, Knocked me sideways fwith dreadful stomach cramps rom Tuesday through Thursday but I’m OK now.

So to put it succinctly…are you saying that when you replace the thought with blahblahblah…that what remains, for example, if the thought is “I am fearful”, is the sensation itself? The barebones of what is actually appearing is sensation, with thoughts about the sensation being fear? Or if there was no sensation that went along with the thought…then when replacing the thought with blahblahblah, that there is no thing there. It is simply thoughts about nothing (no thing)? So the bare bones of it was simply thoughts about thoughts?

Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. It boils down to thoughts about thoughts: ‘I am confused’ is an isolated thought with no inherent meaning and the thoughts that surround it are simply thoughts about the central thought. Apologies for having rambled on bit about it; inasmuch as you lost a bit of momentum in my absence, I got a bit rusty in regard to precise articulation of meaning and keeping things succinct. Will try to do better!

Is feeling “tired’ ever the moment? That is what this exercise is getting to! When you replace the thought, can tiredness be found or only thoughts about tiredness?

Once again, I didn’t express clearly what I’d actually meant to convey. Sorry. Rather than writing “feeling tired was no longer in the moment” I should have written “feeling tired no longer seemed to be in the moment”. I’m growing so accustomed to thinking in terms of ‘thoughts about thoughts’ now, that I neglected to mention in my replies to you that I’m writing from that basis to begin with. So—yes, I acknowledge that ‘tiredness isn’t in the moment’ is just a thought about a thought. The element of time nestled in that thought is solely conceptual.

You are jumping to conclusions here. For something to precede something else points to time…and time is a concept. And for there to be different some ‘things’ points to separation!

Yes, that was sloppy, and a brief misstep backwards. I’d had a conventional reaction to a novel-seeming thought and was so exercised by it that I didn’t look carefully at either the thought itself or the reaction to it. The key word to have inserted there would have been ‘seemed to precede’. Because, to reiterate what you wrote - with which I’m entirely in accord - that thought about time and duality is just a concept: a thought about thoughts. (Since your post things have opened up re: time, of which more later.)

What is the AE of “emotion”?

thoughtsensation. Emotions are commonly thought of as having both mental and physical components, i.e. separate elements. But they’re really the same thing: thoughtsensation. I (erroneously) wrote above about ‘one thought preceding another’. Similarly, it’s typical to think about thought preceding sensation or vice versa in the process of an emotion—for example, ‘sorrow’: “I thought of my dead dog then my chest tensed up”. But really one doesn’t come before or after the other; they’re the same thing, happening at once.

What is the difference between what thought labels as thought and what thought labels as sound? No intellectual answers here….please LOOK.

What thought labels as thought = AE of thought pointing to AE of thought.
What thought labels as sound = AE of thought pointing to AE of sensation.

So what thought labels as thought and sound respectively breaks down to AE of thought.

That description discusses things in terms of separate entities solely in order to make describing them easier. But to give the definitive answer to ‘What is the difference between them?”, the answer is ‘there is none’. There can be no difference between them because they are one thing; THIS.

When ‘you’ have a night time dream, do you know that you are dreaming the dream?

No. And I’ve been trying to think if I ever had a nocturnal dream in which I knew I was asleep and dreaming and, nope, I don’t believe I ever have.

Or does thought suggest that there was a you who were sleeping, and whilst you were sleeping you were having a dream?

That is the case.

When the dream was happening…were you actually IN the dream? Or were you aware of everything that was happening in the dream, even aware of the idea that you were in the dream itself? But were you?

Certainly the notion has occurred that ‘I’ was in the scenario of a nocturnal dream as it was taking place, either as an active participant in or observer of the action. But, to reiterate what I just wrote, I don’t remember ever thinking ‘I am having a dream and I am now in it’. The world of a nocturnal dream seems to corresponds to its own logic, often apparently randomly, and while it is occurring it seems as real as waking life.

How is a night time dream any different to what we call life?

Nocturnal dreams use the language of symbols more than the language of words and often seem to defy ‘real world’ physics. But these are superficial differences. In essence a nocturnal dream is a story that arises in thought, which is exactly what the commonly understood experience of waking life is also.

How is it known that when waking up in the morning from a seeming period of slumber, that this is what is happening? That it is now ‘today’ and it is now morning, which is a follow on from ‘yesterday’?...

…Has the bedroom image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about waking up in the bedroom and so on?

Can you find any previous appearances of the bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, house, pets, kids, partner, work place? Where are they? If not, how can it be known that the these places, pets and people have appeared before?

Are these appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen them before? Do this checking in the morning for the next several mornings and let me know what you find.

I’ve followed these instructions for three days now. It’s been interesting throughout, but not until today did anything bob to the surface, so I’m glad the task could unfold without my having to hurry it. It’s helpful to have longer periods between posts.

I looked closely at my surroundings closely in the morning and intermittently through the day and night. As well as the inevitable consequence of simply noticing more stuff in more detail, across the days it was observed that superficially repetitive phenomena—whether that be train platforms, paving stones, other commuters, shirts hanging on chairs, chips of paint in hallways or whatever—never did look or seem quite the same each day. Even if the differences were very subtle—e .g. a wall looked fractionally darker and bluer than ‘before’, the light had shifted and changed the mood of a corner of a room—nothing was really the same from one day to the next.

By Day 3 a very subtle but strange sense (thought) arose that possibly my waking up was a first-time thing and not something I’d done day in day out my whole life.

Sometimes the world took on the feeling of an animated painting. Things did indeed feel, at times, dreamlike and somewhat unreal. Colours on passing trains seemed especially vivid.

But still, conventional thoughts about time kept coming up: “If there’s no past, what explains the evident decay I see everywhere? Plants aren’t just inherently rotten—they need time to get that way,” was a particularly assertive one.

It wasn’t until this afternoon when I was washing my hands in the Gent’s at work that the penny dropped.

I looked for ‘Yesterday’ again, but when I tried to locate it, it was completely unfindable. I’ve been through quite a lot of work about the concept of time with you, and when I told you’d I’d got it, I meant it. But today it *really* clicked. I laughed out loud as the total absence of Yesterday dawned, or indeed any other ‘time that came before’. There is now no doubt remaining that the past does not exist, just as the “I” thought does not exist. ‘Time past’ is just a thought and nothing more, as unfindable as a separate self.

There’s so much to consider and so many tributaries to go down with this, but I won’t pass comment on that now. I’ll let it settle in more first.

{The ‘I’ thought…}seems real to who/what exactly, or is that just another thought as well?

The who / what is just another thought. As you’ve written before, it’s turtles all the way down—thought upon thought, infinite regress. There being no “I”, thought thinks about itself as thought it had autonomy.

And without thought saying so…how is it known that the mental process taking place was actually nutting it all out?

It isn’t. Nothing can be known without thought.

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"?

Given that thoughts about your question just commingled with ‘I want to go and have a shower’ and a mental picture of a yellow double-decker bus and the thought-impression that yes, these thoughts are proceeding chronologically and in a tidy order, it seems clear that thoughts are not logically sequenced at all.

That’s if we think about thoughts as separate entities and not, to borrow your analogy, like paint on an abstract canvas. Not ‘thoughts in a sequence’ but ‘thought in a continuum’—that is closer to the truth.

Love and thanks

Glenn

[forgetmenot]

Hi Glenn,

Sending you happy thoughts today from rainy London. I hope your week’s been rewarding an productive. Mine been OK, except I had appalling side effects from some meds this week, Knocked me sideways with dreadful stomach cramps from Tuesday through Thursday but I’m OK now.

You do seem to be in the wars at the moment!
We could use some rain here…the yard is a dust bowl. We have launched into spring for a second time, hopefully we will get some spring rains…but I won’t hold my breath!

What is the difference between what thought labels as thought and what thought labels as sound? No intellectual answers here….please LOOK.

But to give the definitive answer to ‘What is the difference between them?”, the answer is ‘there is none’. There can be no difference between them because they are one thing; THIS.

Exactly :) Nice :)

Or does thought suggest that there was a you who were sleeping, and whilst you were sleeping you were having a dream?

That is the case.

The following is a dream analogy of how all time is contained in an instant.
In the opening instant of a dream you find the 1st person dream character speeding along a highway towards the airport. He is late for his holiday flight, because his wife couldn't find her passport.
Now you will notice that this is just the opening instant of the dream, yet it contains a whole "history" of being a person who is an adult and is married to a woman who left her passport behind, etc. It contains "memories" of having the drama with the lost passport, and it has a whole imaginary future too, in the flight and the holiday.

Are these appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen them before? Do this checking in the morning for the next several mornings and let me know what you find.

It wasn’t until this afternoon when I was washing my hands in the Gent’s at work that the penny dropped.

I looked for ‘Yesterday’ again, but when I tried to locate it, it was completely unfindable. I’ve been through quite a lot of work about the concept of time with you, and when I told you’d I’d got it, I meant it. But today it *really* clicked. I laughed out loud as the total absence of Yesterday dawned, or indeed any other ‘time that came before’. There is now no doubt remaining that the past does not exist, just as the “I” thought does not exist. ‘Time past’ is just a thought and nothing more, as unfindable as a separate self.

Nice persistence with looking! Thank you!

Let’s put the same exercise something different…to the idea of a ‘me’.

Look into the mirror throughout the day. Body image appears... notice that all that's really there are some colours, and a thought-story saying 'these colours are my body'

When you return to the mirror each time, consider whether these 'body colours' have ever appeared before.

Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body?

Can you find any previous appearances of the body? Where are they? If not how can it be known that the body has appeared before?

Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

Do that for today and report back what you find.

And without thought saying so…how is it known that the mental process taking place was actually nutting it all out?

It isn’t. Nothing can be known without thought.

Nothing is known as in knowledge (knowledge is thought based), it's known because it is THIS, but in regards to knowledge THIS is unknown. Does THIS/experience need thought to know that it IS, or is THIS self-aware?

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"?

Given that thoughts about your question just commingled with ‘I want to go and have a shower’ and a mental picture of a yellow double-decker bus and the thought-impression that yes, these thoughts are proceeding chronologically and in a tidy order, it seems clear that thoughts are not logically sequenced at all.

LOL…thanks for the laugh! Nice description of so-called “sequential order” of thought!

Love, Kay

[SterlingM]

Hi Kay

Thanks as always for you last post. I’ve been thinking a great deal about dream perception and logic since I received it. While I’ve often considered the qualities of dreams in isolation, I never remotely considered their significance in the wider context you established. It gives everything a very different perspective.

The following is a dream analogy of how all time is contained in an instant.

In the opening instant of a dream you find the 1st person dream character speeding along a highway towards the airport. He is late for his holiday flight, because his wife couldn't find her passport.

Now you will notice that this is just the opening instant of the dream, yet it contains a whole "history" of being a person who is an adult and is married to a woman who left her passport behind, etc. It contains "memories" of having the drama with the lost passport, and it has a whole imaginary future too, in the flight and the holiday.

I’ve thought about ‘time dilation / distortion’ in dreams, but I hadn’t really examined the running-together of all the factors: memory, foresight, past, present.

The first thing that occurred to me after reading your description is that experience in dreams is like the prelude to the Big Bang: all existence is there in a nocturnal dream, but squeezed into a miniscule compartment so tightly that its edges overlap; then the ‘Big Bang’: waking life ensues, and everything suddenly and massively expands. Or... seems to. It hasn't substantially changed.

(A brief digression here, sorry. This is true: When I was three years old I fell asleep on the hearth rug in the living room but I don’t remember ever having woken up. I’ve never quite been able to shake the feeling that, actually, I never did wake up, and that the whole of my subsequent life is the continuing dream of a three-year-old child. )

Let’s put the same exercise something different…to the idea of a ‘me’.

Look into the mirror throughout the day. Body image appears... notice that all that's really there are some colours, and a thought-story saying 'these colours are my body' When you return to the mirror each time, consider whether these 'body colours' have ever appeared before. Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body?

It’s the only time I’ve been aware of the body in this exact state.

However, as you suggested there would be, there are thoughts floating around of the kind that were absent when I did the more globally-encompassing version of this exercise a few days ago. Which is to say, thoughts like: ‘Well, there I am again’, ‘it’s me’, ‘Looking much like yesterday except my eyebrow looks funny and I look a bit red’ etc. These thoughts point to the ‘me’ thought and to (notional) locations in time, i.e. past states of the body. I can easily dismiss these thoughts but it’s interesting that they pop up when the concept of the continuity of the body is challenged or threatened.

Can you find any previous appearances of the body? Where are they? If not how can it be known that the body has appeared before?

No, I can’t. As such it can’t be known that the body has appeared before.

Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

Yes. And the same can be said of all apparent phenomena: everything is appearing now with only thought stories to generate / describe its ‘past history’. But the thought story seems to shout louder when I do this exercise with specific reference to the body rather than to the wider world.

Nothing is known as in knowledge (knowledge is thought based), it's known because it is THIS, but in regards to knowledge THIS is unknown. Does THIS/experience need thought to know that it IS, or is THIS self-aware?

Knowledge is the accumulation of past experience stories, i.e. the contents of thought, which are unreal. THIS is unknown in regard to knowledge because it is real and is constantly present and so transcends concepts of past and future. As such it cannot be ‘known’ by knowledge, i.e. conceptualised in a past context or extrapolated in a future one. It is, however, known to itself as THIS – here, now.

If we were to approach thought as being a discrete entity then the answer would be, yes, THIS needs thought to know that it is. I'll use the conventional language of duality here, only for convenience of description: ‘thought is how we experience THIS'.

But in fact THIS and thought are indivisible; ‘thought’ is a label pointing to a manifest quality of THIS. THIS is known to itself, so yes, THIS is self-aware.

Love and thanks

Glenn

[forgetmenot]

Hello Glenn,

You are sounding so much more relaxed these days! Is that due to better sleep, and/or you are feeling different due to having aha moments that have shown you that you are not a you?

Thanks as always for you last post. I’ve been thinking a great deal about dream perception and logic since I received it. While I’ve often considered the qualities of dreams in isolation, I never remotely considered their significance in the wider context you established. It gives everything a very different perspective.

Yes, it shows how the story of Glenn and Glenn’s life points to a story unfolding on linear time…which must prove that time is, and that one day follows another. But when you ‘wake up’ in the morning and actually LOOK to see if you have seen this moment before…you get to see how it is only ever a story.

Now you will notice that this is just the opening instant of the dream, yet it contains a whole "history" of being a person who is an adult and is married to a woman who left her passport behind, etc. It contains "memories" of having the drama with the lost passport, and it has a whole imaginary future too, in the flight and the holiday.

I’ve thought about ‘time dilation / distortion’ in dreams, but I hadn’t really examined the running-together of all the factors: memory, foresight, past, present.

Welcome to the movie called “Life according to Glenn” or “Glenn’s Life” ;) lol But seriously, this is the best thing you can do…is just become the observer of Glenns’ life and watch how each moment unfolds.

The first thing that occurred to me after reading your description is that experience in dreams is like the prelude to the Big Bang: all existence is there in a nocturnal dream, but squeezed into a miniscule compartment so tightly that its edges overlap; then the ‘Big Bang’: waking life ensues, and everything suddenly and massively expands. Or... seems to. It hasn't substantially changed.

Nicely put! No…why would life substantially change? So nothing changes and yet everything looks different. Does that make sense in your experience?

Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body?

It’s the only time I’ve been aware of the body in this exact state.

However, as you suggested there would be, there are thoughts floating around of the kind that were absent when I did the more globally-encompassing version of this exercise a few days ago. Which is to say, thoughts like: ‘Well, there I am again’, ‘it’s me’, ‘Looking much like yesterday except my eyebrow looks funny and I look a bit red’ etc. These thoughts point to the ‘me’ thought and to (notional) locations in time, i.e. past states of the body. I can easily dismiss these thoughts but it’s interesting that they pop up when the concept of the continuity of the body is challenged or threatened.

Yes. I think how it all comes together and makes a convincing story is simply miraculous. However if I look at that….how is that known? Without thought seemingly interpreting itself, so to speak, how would it be known that thoughts are referring to what is being seen, in that moment?

Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

Yes. And the same can be said of all apparent phenomena: everything is appearing now with only thought stories to generate / describe its ‘past history’. But the thought story seems to shout louder when I do this exercise with specific reference to the body rather than to the wider world.

Yep…and thought shouting louder with specific reference to the body…does that really have any meaning? In other words does it really mean something that thought shouts louder as times?

If we were to approach thought as being a discrete entity then the answer would be, yes, THIS needs thought to know that it is. I'll use the conventional language of duality here, only for convenience of description: ‘thought is how we experience THIS'.

But in fact THIS and thought are indivisible; ‘thought’ is a label pointing to a manifest quality of THIS. THIS is known to itself, so yes, THIS is self-aware.

Only thought suggests thought is known because it is thought. When you drop label and all notions about what thought is….thought is only known because it IS, not because of what thought says it is.

Okay, so to date, as part of the structure I guide to, we have looked at what AE is, we have looked at the nature of thought, the idea of control, choice and decision making, with lots of other stuff in between! Now let’s look at the idea of a doer/doership. We’ll do a little exercise on this topic. It has to do with the sense of seeing ie AE of colour.

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

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

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

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

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

Can you turn off seeing?

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

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

Love, Kay

[SterlingM]

Hi Kay

London boils again after weeks of deluge! So I’m sitting here with my shirt off, tapping away , sweating like a hog and looking distinctly un-Brad Pitt-like in the sopping heat.

I’m sorry that this update has taken a bit longer than I’d intended; I’d meant to send it on Saturday but my internet connection went down over the weekend. It’s Bank Holiday so there was no one available to fix it but it’s back now at last, as you can see.

You are sounding so much more relaxed these days! Is that due to better sleep, and/or you are feeling different due to having aha moments that have shown you that you are not a you?

Ha ha! Well, I could still be getting more / better sleep (which I’m working on) but yes, otherwise you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s not so much that I’ve been having a lot of ‘a-ha!’ moments—it’s more like my whole life’s turning into one big ‘a-ha!’ moment, since seeing through the ‘I’ thought. As I was told from the start, once you’ve seen the ‘I’ thought for what it is, you can’t un-see it. And I can’t. The more time passes—or, I should say, *seems* to pass—the more embedded the fact of no-self becomes.

Am I feeling different? Yes. I know I’m not an ‘I’. As such, thoughts / behaviours surrounding self and, by extension, self-expectation and self-defensiveness seem to be fading. As well as that, seeing the true nature of ‘past’ and ‘future’ means that the thought stories that constitute those concepts have ‘loosened their emotional grip’. The combination of these two factors is enlightening in two senses: that of opening my eyes to the truth and that of removing previously apparent emotional burdens. It’s momentous, but because these truths are so basic, it also feels really, well…ordinary! So I guess I won’t be getting my magic Christmas tree + fireworks display after all—but I can’t say you didn’t warn me :-)

Having said all that, old patterns of thinking and behaviour haven’t totally vanished overnight. But it’s becoming second nature to immediately step back when they arise and simply observe them, as you suggested I do in your previous post; I was ahead of you there :-) . I don’t have to struggle for reaffirmation about what these things really are; it only takes a moment to look.

I'm relaxed because of what's happening here; the pulling back of the curtain and the lifting of the weight. It just seems to bring calm and happiness.

Another, more mundane reason for me sounding relaxed is probably the less frequent updates; I’d sometimes felt that the struggle to meet a daily deadline was taking precedence over the time I actually needed to process the work at hand. As I hardly need to tell you, some of this stuff can seem pretty complicated at first. And when my new job started, time got scarce, I got tired and, as a result, sometimes felt that I was short-changing you, me and the process itself, which led to frustration. Inasmuch as I understand the importance of maintaining momentum, it’s been better for me to be able to take a little bit more time over things.

Welcome to the movie called “Life according to Glenn” or “Glenn’s Life” ;) lol But seriously, this is the best thing you can do…is just become the observer of Glenn's life and watch how each moment unfolds.

As I wrote above, it’s now becoming a natural inclination to do exactly that.

So nothing changes and yet everything looks different. Does that make sense in your experience?

Yes, it does, and it describes the shift that is taking place as a result of this work. If I look in a mirror I may see a similar sight to what I saw ‘yesterday’—except that it’s now immediately and inescapably apparent that ‘yesterday’ does not exist, and so the ‘me’ of yesterday also does not exist. Everything is permanently brand new—which is a beautiful paradox.

It still feels a bit weird, but emphatically not in any kind of negative way; it’s all very, very good. The weirdness arises from the contrast between the new and old ways of seeing, which is significant and requires some adjustment.

It’s quietly exciting and engenders a sense of lightness and freedom and fascination with the world. In many ways it’s like being a small child again; experience seems constantly vivid and new; that applies to both abstract thought and also literally to how things look. Like close analysis of a painting or listening individually to tracks on a multitrack recording of music, the edges, corners, curves, details and colours of the phenomenal world can seem to reveal greater depth, definition and meaning.

Yes. I think how it all comes together and makes a convincing story is simply miraculous. However if I look at that….how is that known? Without thought seemingly interpreting itself, so to speak, how would it be known that thoughts are referring to what is being seen, in that moment?

The apparent distinction between thought and seeingseen is illusory. Thought is not a separate observer, thought is indivisible from the Experience of seeing and, by extension, from THIS. It’s that MC Escher staircase-leading-nowhere quality of THIS that suggests that thought is looking in from the outside—of seeing, of events, of itself, of THIS—when in fact there is no split-off chunk of thought that’s interpreting everything from outside. Thought isn’t really interpreting itself—it’s just being thoughtseeingseen.

Yep…and thought shouting louder with specific reference to the body…does that really have any meaning? In other words does it really mean something that thought shouts louder as times?

None at all. Well…it can be interpreted conventionally as the surrounding thoughts of the ‘I’ thought (ego) kicking into self-defence mode. But in real terms, no. If one man whispers the main soliloquy from Hamlet and another man yells it at the top of his voice, it’s still ‘To be or not to be,’ whichever way you slice it. Similarly, a thought is just a thought, however forceful it may seem. (It just occurred to me that perhaps the apparent forcefulness of the thought in question is engendered by a symbiotic response in the body: quickening heart rate, tightening muscles, etc, that make the thought seem louder.

Only thought suggests thought is known because it is thought. When you drop label and all notions about what thought is….thought is only known because it IS, not because of what thought says it is.

See above! I hadn’t actually read down to this section when I wrote the last-but-one paragraph. Sometimes when I write these posts, the sheer novelty of what is being written can make me question their sense and correctness, so it’s good to know that we’re on the same page there :-)

We’ll do a little exercise on this topic. It has to do with the sense of seeing ie AE of colour…
So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

No. Even imagining a painted scrim in front of the scene does nothing to alter the view itself.

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

It’s still there. Largely dominated by the biggest, oldest and most beautiful Cedar of Lebanon in London, incidentally.

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

Nope. The inky blackness abides.

Can you turn off seeing?

When it involves looking at images of Donald Trump, the desire to turn off seeing can get pretty intense. But no, for good or ill, seeing is not a turn-offable thing.

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

There was no self / chooser and thus no choice; seeing is seeing: seerseeingseen. It happens and cannot be changed by the supposed deliberation of an imagined chooser.

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

Nothing (no thing)—which leads to the conclusion that aside from their being no chooser (self), choice is itself an illusion.

Love and thanks

Glenn

[forgetmenot]

Hey Glenn,

London boils again after weeks of deluge! So I’m sitting here with my shirt off, tapping away , sweating like a hog and looking distinctly un-Brad Pitt-like in the sopping heat.

Thank you for that depressing image LOL. I am so not looking forward to our summer :(

You are sounding so much more relaxed these days! Is that due to better sleep, and/or you are feeling different due to having aha moments that have shown you that you are not a you?

Ha ha! Well, I could still be getting more / better sleep (which I’m working on) but yes, otherwise you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s not so much that I’ve been having a lot of ‘a-ha!’ moments—it’s more like my whole life’s turning into one big ‘a-ha!’ moment, since seeing through the ‘I’ thought. As I was told from the start, once you’ve seen the ‘I’ thought for what it is, you can’t un-see it. And I can’t. The more time passes—or, I should say, *seems* to pass—the more embedded the fact of no-self becomes.

Lovely to read, thank you :0)

Am I feeling different? Yes. I know I’m not an ‘I’. As such, thoughts / behaviours surrounding self and, by extension, self-expectation and self-defensiveness seem to be fading. As well as that, seeing the true nature of ‘past’ and ‘future’ means that the thought stories that constitute those concepts have ‘loosened their emotional grip’. The combination of these two factors is enlightening in two senses: that of opening my eyes to the truth and that of removing previously apparent emotional burdens. It’s momentous, but because these truths are so basic, it also feels really, well…ordinary! So I guess I won’t be getting my magic Christmas tree + fireworks display after all—but I can’t say you didn’t warn me :-)

Haha….you are such a treasure Glenn!

Having said all that, old patterns of thinking and behaviour haven’t totally vanished overnight. But it’s becoming second nature to immediately step back when they arise and simply observe them, as you suggested I do in your previous post; I was ahead of you there :-) . I don’t have to struggle for reaffirmation about what these things really are; it only takes a moment to look.

Exactly…and good on you for continuing to LOOK. Keep it up.

I'm relaxed because of what's happening here; the pulling back of the curtain and the lifting of the weight. It just seems to bring calm and happiness.

Yeah…no Wizard of Oz to be found behind the curtain. Just Isness :)

Yep…and thought shouting louder with specific reference to the body…does that really have any meaning? In other words does it really mean something that thought shouts louder as times?

None at all. Well…it can be interpreted conventionally as the surrounding thoughts of the ‘I’ thought (ego) kicking into self-defence mode. But in real terms, no. If one man whispers the main soliloquy from Hamlet and another man yells it at the top of his voice, it’s still ‘To be or not to be,’ whichever way you slice it. Similarly, a thought is just a thought, however forceful it may seem. (It just occurred to me that perhaps the apparent forcefulness of the thought in question is engendered by a symbiotic response in the body: quickening heart rate, tightening muscles, etc, that make the thought seem louder.

Thoughts can have a stuckness if they are habitually associated with recurring sensations in the body. When this kind of association appears, it is a good time to start digging! Usually the sensation in the body is being accepted as proof that the associated thoughts and ideas are correct. The association can be disrupted by carefully examining the body sensation and the thoughts, and seeing clearly that they are unrelated phenomena that happen to arise at the same time. This takes patience, the first few times it may not happen quickly, though over time it will become easier and quicker.

Let’s have a look and see if the thought and sensation go hand-in-hand. In other words, do thoughts evoke sensations.

Put aside 10-15 minutes and sit quietly somewhere, where you won’t be disturbed. Take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and then close your eyes.

1. Think of a story that brings up a bodily sensation, be it a sensation labelled as anxiety, fear or dread, but one that you can feel in the body that it not too intense that it overwhelms you, but one that you are definitely aware of.

2. Then with your eyes still closed, I want you to LOOK very very carefully to see if you can find/see an actual link between the thought and the sensation. You are looking to find if there is something that actually links the thought/story with the sensation labelled as ‘anxiety, fear or dread’.

3. If the sensation starts to dissipate, then bring the story to mind again until the sensation is felt clearly again, then continue looking to see if you can see/find a link. You are looking for an actual link that connects the thought/story with the sensation.
4. If you find yourself following thought instead of looking carefully for the link, just bring your attention gently back to the sensation and continue looking.

Do this exercise of looking for the link between thought story and sensation at least 3-4 times throughout each day, for the next 2-3 days, making sure to look very carefully. Let me know what how you go and what you find.

Can you turn off seeing?

When it involves looking at images of Donald Trump, the desire to turn off seeing can get pretty intense. But no, for good or ill, seeing is not a turn-offable thing.

LOL, but without thought…would the colour labelled as “Donald Trump” have any meaning at all? ;)

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

Nothing (no thing)—which leads to the conclusion that aside from their being no chooser (self), choice is itself an illusion.

Beautiful, yes. So what precisely is the difference between colour, sound, sensation etc. and awareness of colour, sound, sensation etc? In other words can you pinpoint what exactly "awareness" is, that is different from "what is awared".

Love, Kay

[SterlingM]

Hi Kay

It’s been an interesting week in which to do this exercise. My old upstairs neighbour and I became friends 3 or 4 years ago and we both moved out of our shared block 6 months back. This week I saw her for the first time since then and our meeting was, to my surprise, more like a real date. Whether or not that’s a portent, life flows on and all’s well. But it meant that, while I mostly focused on fear and anxiety as directed, a few thought stories and sensations slipped through that were a bit cow-eyed and sappy. So...apologies :-)

At this point it may be unnecessary to say this but, to assure you that there’s no confusion at my end: I know that for there to be a link between thought-story and sensation they’d have to be separate entities in the first place, and they’re not. With that cleared up, the following is worded in dualistic terms and refers to time as linear:

At first look, what appears to happen when thinking of a fearsome / anxious experience is that the body responds to the thought story fractionally after the thought has arisen. Sensation almost always manifests as a horizontal tightening of the chest, then a quickening heartbeat, tightening of the jaw, then a pulling back of the shoulders.

Looking closer however, it becomes clear quite quickly that the sensation doesn’t actually follow the thought. In fact, they are occurring simultaneously, as thoughtsensation. And, throughout the duration of this thoughtsensation, attention *seems* to favour thought over sensation and vice-versa in a lightning back-and-forth. But, thanks to some world-class training, I’m an old hand at this now and recognise that as really being the phenomenon of ‘only-one-thought-at-a-time’.

When looking for a link, the best thought can come up with—and frequently does—is a mental picture of a line or tendril curling from the brain to the affected part of the body, glowing against the dark background of the imagination. But this isn’t an actual link; it’s just a symbolic / metaphorical thought.

I practised this exercise a few times a day for a couple of days and concluded that there's no link between thought and sensation. They seem to be separate entities that arise simultaneously but really they’re the same thing.

But without thought…would the colour labelled as “Donald Trump” have any meaning at all? ;)

No. Which is a good argument for abolishing thought :-)

So what precisely is the difference between colour, sound, sensation etc. and awareness of colour, sound, sensation etc? In other words can you pinpoint what exactly "awareness" is, that is different from "what is awared".

No, I can’t. In dualistic terms, awareness is thoughts about AE, including AE of thought: it is the subject—a kind-of fenced-off section of thought with unique observing properties—while ‘everything else’ is the object (“what is awared”).

But awareness is not really a separate part of thought, that’s an illusion. And thought itself is not actually ‘thought’ anyway, but THIS. As I wrote in my previous post, thought , and therefore awareness, is indivisible from THIS.

It is a quality of THIS to suggest that there is a separate phenomenon that is looking in from ‘outside’, when in fact there is no split-off chunk of THIS that’s interpreting everything from outside at all (and nor is there an ‘outside’, for that matter).

Put another way: A thought about a thing is inherent in that thing, and the thing is inherent in the thought about it. They are, in fact, a whole thing, and that goes for ‘everything’. It follows that there’s no difference between ‘awareness’ and ‘awared’.

Love and thanks
Glenn

[forgetmenot]

Hello Glenn,

When looking for a link, the best thought can come up with—and frequently does—is a mental picture of a line or tendril curling from the brain to the affected part of the body, glowing against the dark background of the imagination. But this isn’t an actual link; it’s just a symbolic / metaphorical thought.

Yes…there is an idea, which can show up as a mental image of a connection between thought (which supposedly happens in the head) and to where the sensation is appearing in the body. And all of that is simply AE of thought.

I practised this exercise a few times a day for a couple of days and concluded that there's no link between thought and sensation. They seem to be separate entities that arise simultaneously but really they’re the same thing.

Lovely! What other tool that is great to use to see if what thought is pointing to, is to do the blah blah blah exercise which I gave you some time back. When the idea of fear arises, for example, and a thought appears saying “I am in fear”, replace the thought with “blahblahblah” and see what actually remains. The sensation may remain…but does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘fear’ or that it is fearful?

Okay, so let’s have a look at the body.
Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

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

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

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

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

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

Love, Kay

[SterlingM]

Hi Kay

Much love to you today. All is well here.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.

Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?

As per your direction, sensation is the singular focus during this exercise and no, there’s no way to know the height / weight / anything of the body from sensation alone. Calculating the height (and other dimensions) of anything is dependent on duality thinking, comparing it against other objects, labelling it, conceptualising it, etc.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No. At the very start of the initial go-round of this exercise there was a flicker of conventional thinking (e.g. ‘my hand’s pressing down on my stomach’) but that evaporated quickly. There’s no weight or volume—there’s only sensation. Thought still tends to label / differentiate between ‘types’ of sensation though, e.g. it labels sensation as static or fluid, etc. But regardless, no weight or volume can be ascertained, just sensation.

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

The mind commonly seeks to conceptualise a form by alighting on ‘areas’ of sensation that seem to predominate over other areas at any given moment; for example, a pulsation becomes notable *over there* when, an instant ago, pressure *somewhere else* was foremost in awareness. Thought triangulates these apparent coordinates of sensations and extrapolates a solid form from them. Like a ‘join the dots’ picture, basically.

But all of that occurs in thought and is completely conceptual. Spatial awareness is conceptual, differences in the quality of sensation are conceptual. And the body has no shape or form. Focusing solely on sensation reveals only what is there, and that is sensation itself, which is intangible, ergo has no shape or form. Going back to a phrase I haven’t used in a while: it has no quality beyond itself.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

No—without thought there’s no sense of any kind of boundary at all. Sensation doesn’t inhere in the body or clothing or in anything; it’s just sensation happening. Interesting to note that when I do, so to speak, ‘allow myself to think’ about a putative boundary, it’s really hard to do—for example, to think ‘the leg of my pyjamas is pulling down on my calf and there’s a gap between one and the other’. I have to actually make an effort. Instead, what comes naturally into thought is just sensation. It’s not about ‘this pulling on that’ or ‘this pressing down on that’ or where it is. It’s just there.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No; see above. Actually, at time of writing I’m lying down rather than sitting up. There is sensation…Let me describe it in conventional terms, otherwise I’ll be here all night scrabbling for words: There’s an area of sensation at where we would normally say my back meets the bed. But that’s not how ‘I’m experiencing’ it. This sensation belongs neither in my back or in the bed or in some notional space between them. It’s just *there*. Completely elusive, it can’t be grasped. It’s actually a bit maddening almost; it goes so completely against received wisdom that it creates a bit of a cognitive snarl-up.

Is there an inside or an outside?

No, there’s neither. I’m surprised at the way this exercise is turning out. In memories of past meditation experiences, I went very deep into singular focus on bodily sensation. But, deep or not, there was no question then that some sensations were happening inside and some outside of the body. Only after the body seemed to disappear into the flow of the environment on one fleeting occasion did the notion of ‘no boundaries’ occur at all.

But now, without any effort, that distinction seems to have vanished. There’s only sensation! Even though it's not the right word, it's like sensation is 'through' everything, not inside or outside. I realise 'through' implies in and out, but that's not what I'm trying to express and I hopwe you get what I'm driving at. Bi of a language block. Sorry.

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

The label ‘body’ refers to a thought construct derived from sensation ordered by spatial awareness; also from colour; sound, smell, taste, thought. It refers to a notional shell for the mind, to the literal embodiment of the ‘I’ thought.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

In the context of this specific exercise: AE of sensation

Overall:

coloursoundsmelltastesensationthought: THIS.

What I conclude from this exercise is that there is apparently no actual substance to the body. The experience of ‘my body’ is contingent solely on sensation: sensation is the physical reality that forms around negative space in the shape of ‘a body’ and, by so doing, suggests that this negative space has form and substance when in truth it does not.

Which isn't remotely mindblowing at all. :-)

I’ll let it sink in.

Love and thanks

Glenn

[SterlingM]

Clarification: " It refers to a notional shell for the mind, to the literal embodiment of the ‘I’ thought." should read:

" It also refers to a notional shell for the mind, to the literal embodiment of the ‘I’ thought."

[forgetmenot]

Hey Glenn,

Much love to you today. All is well here.

Thank you for the love….embrace and received with loving gratitude. I am happy to hear that all is well with you. All goes well Downunder with exception of the weather. The weather and I aren't seeing eye to eye at the moment! LOL

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No. At the very start of the initial go-round of this exercise there was a flicker of conventional thinking (e.g. ‘my hand’s pressing down on my stomach’) but that evaporated quickly. There’s no weight or volume—there’s only sensation. Thought still tends to label / differentiate between ‘types’ of sensation though, e.g. it labels sensation as static or fluid, etc. But regardless, no weight or volume can be ascertained, just sensation.

Thought will always label and differentiate between different types of thoughts, sounds, colours/shapes, sensations, smells and tastes. There would have to be a thinker of thought in order to change that or stop that. Can a thinker of thought be found?

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

But all of that occurs in thought and is completely conceptual. Spatial awareness is conceptual, differences in the quality of sensation are conceptual. And the body has no shape or form. Focusing solely on sensation reveals only what is there, and that is sensation itself, which is intangible, ergo has no shape or form. Going back to a phrase I haven’t used in a while: it has no quality beyond itself.

What also seems to cement the idea of the body is the facsimile like image (an outline of the body) that appears in the mind. This is more predominantly seen when eyes are closed…but happens when eyes are open as well if you look carefully enough...especially around the idea of the head :)

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No; see above. Actually, at time of writing I’m lying down rather than sitting up. There is sensation…Let me describe it in conventional terms, otherwise I’ll be here all night scrabbling for words: There’s an area of sensation at where we would normally say my back meets the bed. But that’s not how ‘I’m experiencing’ it. This sensation belongs neither in my back or in the bed or in some notional space between them. It’s just *there*. Completely elusive, it can’t be grasped. It’s actually a bit maddening almost; it goes so completely against received wisdom that it creates a bit of a cognitive snarl-up.

LOL…yes it does. Thoughts seem to begin to squabble amongst themselves as a means to convince each other about what the truth is or isn’t!

Is there an inside or an outside?

But now, without any effort, that distinction seems to have vanished. There’s only sensation! Even though it's not the right word, it's like sensation is 'through' everything, not inside or outside. I realise 'through' implies in and out, but that's not what I'm trying to express and I hopwe you get what I'm driving at. Bi of a language block. Sorry.

I know what you are saying…and it is okay to use language, I will check language if it seems to read erroneously to me.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

In the context of this specific exercise: AE of sensation

The actual experience of the body = AE of thought. Thought points to sensation and infers that it is a body. Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a body, or that it knows anything about a body?

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

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(8) Start to walk slowly.

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

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

Much love,
Kay

[SterlingM]

Hi Kay

Thank you for your reply. Full response to follow. For now I just wanted to write:

The actual experience of the body = AE of thought. Thought points to sensation and infers that it is a body. Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a body, or that it knows anything about a body?

Doh! I'd meant write 'thought' and not 'sensation' in the first place. I wrote the latter by mistake. I'm pretty sure you gathered that from everything that preceded it, but I just wanted to make it explicit here: no, sensation neither is nor can know about a body--nor anything else.

Looking forward to addressing the rest of your post shortly.

In the meantime, I hope the weather doesn't get too vengeful for you across the weekend. It's mellowing significantly here, turning gently into a pleasant late summer / early autumn. Inside a cinema these meteorological concerns get somewhat less pressing, which is handy because today I'm off to the pictures to see my third Cary Grant movie of no less than six this month. I introduced my Hungarian friend to him a couple of weeks ago and she fell in love instantly. With Cary Grant, I hasten to add, not with me. I took her to one movie and now we're doing almost the entire season. This is in no way a hardship :-)

Much love

Glenn

[SterlingM]

Hi Kay

A fond hello from a happy-but-'sensational' (i.e. ‘aching’) me :-)

I don’t know if commencing a sugar detox on the same day as a hardcore workout regime with a personal trainer is a wise strategy for an unfit man but I’ve done it. So I’m a bit scatty and can’t really move from the chest up, but it’s all good.

Actually, it really is. I’m making light of it, but I honestly did feel dreadful from the detox for a couple of days, and after the workout my body feels like it’s been bludgeoned with a heavy plank. But unlike in my pre-LU incarnation I now step back and look at every sensation and every circumstance, breaking it down and seeing it for what it is. If I start to get drawn into thoughts of worry, stress or pain I quickly recall what is really happening and watch those thoughts dissipate.

Since I last wrote I’ve tried the exercise you set five times. I honestly can’t say if it’s the immediate circumstances of my life as described above that have temporarily dulled my edge or if it’s simply a breakthrough-in-waiting, but thus far I have to say things feel a bit inconclusive. Obviously I’ll await further comment from you but while I do so I’ll keep on with this exercise. I think I may have been efforting a bit and of course that doesn’t help.

Here’s how it’s been so far:

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

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

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

Just thoughts and mental images that suggest that there is. It’s odd, actually. I look at the image in the mirror before closing my eyes and it looks like it always does. After I open them again it looks different; the colours and shapes have changed and there is the definite sense of looking *at someone* rather than *at my own image*. Thoughts of familiarity still pop up, but it’s nonetheless a perceptibly different experience than the everyday one.

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

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

No. The sensations labelled hand are abundantly dynamic, whereas the image of movement seems distant and abstract and no more alive than an animated cartoon. The sense of dislocation between sensation and the mirror-hand is strong. Just looking at my notes here--it says ‘weird – hand looks like a plastic hand’.

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

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

Only thoughts suggest a connection. There's no connection being formed in thought between the sensations and the mirror image.

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?

By itself, no. But I had to look for a long time before the separation of seen image and conceptualised body became apparent, and even then it was fleeting. Thought appears to be holding on tightly to the body concept.

Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?

No. Without thought it’s just colours and shapes. I am able to see that, albeit again quite briefly. It’s easier to see when looking downward from the face and head; it seems that much of the concept of self-embodiment is based on the image of the head. And though I know that they are just thoughts, nonetheless those thoughts of ‘that is my body’ are forceful. More work needed here.

Or are there only colours and shapes?

See above.

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

This part was really amusing. It didn’t take long to see that no, there wasn’t anything below the tops of the thighs and that only thought suggested that there was. For some reason the evidence of the eyes met little or no resistance to this bananas-sounding idea and for a minute I actually felt like I ended six inches below the waist and was hovering above the carpet.

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

Only sensations. It required only a little focus to quickly dispel conventional body-concept thoughts.

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

There are only sensations, but thoughts about a body walking intervene frequently. That in turn gives rise to a vexing and unsatisfactory feeling, like a blinking lightbulb that needs to be screwed in properly but is too high up to reach. I know these are just thoughts but they’ve proved hard to evade. That’s why I’ll continue with this exercise a bit more unless you advise otherwise.

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

No, just sensations but, again, thoughts about walking intervene frequently.

Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

See above.

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?

Just thoughts about a body.

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

No. The label ‘walking’ points to AE of sensation.

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

At this point, they seem to be localised in space, like going through the room. Although by ‘letting the mind go’, briefly almost entering a meditative state, there was a fleeting sense that they were unbounded; ‘at one with the air’.

I'm left with the feeling that there's more to do, so I’ll continue to repeat the exercise and see what develops.

For now,

Love and thanks,

Glenn

[forgetmenot]

Hi Glenn,

Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?

No. Without thought it’s just colours and shapes. I am able to see that, albeit again quite briefly. It’s easier to see when looking downward from the face and head; it seems that much of the concept of self-embodiment is based on the image of the head. And though I know that they are just thoughts, nonetheless those thoughts of ‘that is my body’ are forceful. More work needed here.

There is an expectation here…what is it?

The simplicity is, that without thought it cannot be known that this a body, let alone that it your body. Since you are not the author of thought, which includes the mental images ie facsimiles of a body...then the idea of the body is going to remain. It’s not about denying the appearance of the body, but about seeing that the body is no different to anything else that appears as they are ‘all’ made from/of the same substance ie experience itself!

7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

Only sensations. It required only a little focus to quickly dispel conventional body-concept thoughts.

It’s not about dispelling conventional body concept thoughts…but just seeing them as thoughts arising. What is dispelling them exactly? Thoughts simply arise and subside, does the content of those thoughts actually exist?

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

There are only sensations, but thoughts about a body walking intervene frequently. That in turn gives rise to a vexing and unsatisfactory feeling, like a blinking lightbulb that needs to be screwed in properly but is too high up to reach. I know these are just thoughts but they’ve proved hard to evade. That’s why I’ll continue with this exercise a bit more unless you advise otherwise.

And what exactly wants to evade these thoughts? How can they be evaded? Is what you are the author of thoughts….in other words can you choose which thoughts are going to appear? The only authoring of thought that happens, is that thought and you are one and the same thing, so there is no authoring of thought. See though for what it is and not what it says.

Where does thought end and you begin? Where does thought end and the knowing of it begin?

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

No, just sensations but, again, thoughts about walking intervene frequently.

And to what exactly does that matter? It may seem to matter to a Glennself…but are you the Glennself or are you that which is the knowing of the Glennself and everything that this seeming self thinks, says, does, speaks etc?

I'm left with the feeling that there's more to do, so I’ll continue to repeat the exercise and see what develops.

And does this feeling actually know anything? Where is this feeling exactly? Where does it reside?

Kay

[SterlingM]

Hi Kay

This is to let you know that I'll be replying in full to your previous post tomorrow. I'm so sorry for the long wait; my dear mum was taken ill on Thursday and I've been preoccupied with looking after her. To great relief all round she seems to be back to herself today so, accordingly, I will be too.

More soon

Glenn