What's here?

[dutton]

Hi Kay

Great exercise about memory! - having fun with it but busy weekend here - will report tomorrow

Love, Veda

[dutton]

Hi Kay

Well this was a powerful and fascinating exercise.

What is memory exactly?

Memory is simply thought in actual experience. Memory only exists because somehow 'prior' experience is available as content for new thought.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Memory is made of thought. The content of this thought is primarily mental images and what makes memory seem special is that these mental images can be accompanied by the AE of sensations in the present that thought then attributes to the prior experience, making it seem that the sensations as well as the mental images are from the 'past'.

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

There is no difference at all between a 'general' thought and a 'memory' thought. They both have content and the content can be accompanied by sensations and then thought can create a story about this.

WHEN does the memory actually appear?

Memory does not appear in the past but only in the present. As I type this I see that EVERYTHING can only appear in the present. The present is all there is. So whether it's memory about the past or imagination about the future it all happens in the only place it can happen which is now. Nice. I don't have to concern myself about anything except what's happening right now! I need to let this sink in - it contains the whole thing.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Ah, now this is a tricky one. I'm not quite sure if this is right but it must depend on the ability of THIS or current experience to 'record' and therefore reference a 'prior' experience. But the notion of 'something that has happened' is tricky since as I just said above there is no past, there is only now, so this 'something that has happened' is itself a thought occurring in the present. But somehow there must be a recording function so that one thought can reference another 'prior' thought or image or sensation, i.e. the current experience can reference another experience.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

The future thought is no different from the past thought or indeed any thought - it is just the AE of thought. The content may be different in the sense that the mental images may be different but the "mental imaging process" is exactly the same in each case.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

The future thought appears in the only time it can - which is now, just like any other thought, regardless of the content.

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

There is no difference at all

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Hmm, well a future thought can't refer to something that will happen because it is unknown and unknowable. But how does a future thought refer to some possible happening in the imagined future? Well it doesn't, it can't - all that happens is that the AE of thought has as its content a series of mental images and thoughts that thought then creates a story of 'future' around - but this bears no relation to what is.
So now going back to 'past thought' - presumably it's similar, the AE of thought has as its content mental images that thought then creates a story of 'past' around. But where does it get its mental images from of this imagined 'past'? This must be that recording function again, surely?

What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

There is no real difference - the only difference is in the content i.e. the mental images which are then accompanied by different sensations. For example, a 'past' thought about my wedding day and a future thought about my 30th wedding anniversary are the same AE of thought but with different images attached. Both have 'happy' sensations so it's just the images and thoughts part of the content that is different.

Much love, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hey Veda,

WHEN does the memory actually appear?

Memory does not appear in the past but only in the present. As I type this I see that EVERYTHING can only appear in the present. The present is all there is. So whether it's memory about the past or imagination about the future it all happens in the only place it can happen which is now. Nice. I don't have to concern myself about anything except what's happening right now! I need to let this sink in - it contains the whole thing.

Nice! And this is why it’s good to check to see what thought is pointing to, in order to see if what it is talking about, is actually happening in the current moment.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Hmm, well a future thought can't refer to something that will happen because it is unknown and unknowable. But how does a future thought refer to some possible happening in the imagined future? Well it doesn't, it can't - all that happens is that the AE of thought has as its content a series of mental images and thoughts that thought then creates a story of 'future' around - but this bears no relation to what is.
So now going back to 'past thought' - presumably it's similar, the AE of thought has as its content mental images that thought then creates a story of 'past' around. But where does it get its mental images from of this imagined 'past'? This must be that recording function again, surely?

Good luck with determining and finding the recording function! The bottom line is to see that memories and future thoughts and mental images are appearing now, and unless they are backed up by actual experience, then they are simply stories.

Old ideas are difficult to change because everything believed is rooted in time. Look at a cup, for example. Do you see a cup, or are you merely reviewing your past experiences of picking up a cup, be¬ing thirsty, drinking from a cup, feeling the rim of a cup against your lips, having breakfast and so on? Are not your aesthetic reactions to the cup, too, based on past experiences? How else would you know whether or not this kind of cup will break if you drop it? What do you know about this cup except what you learned in the past? You would have no idea what this cup is, except for your past learning. Do you, then, really see it?

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Dear Kay,

The bottom line is to see that memories and future thoughts and mental images are appearing now, and unless they are backed up by actual experience, then they are simply stories.

Yes, absolutely - that really is the important thing.

Old ideas are difficult to change because everything believed is rooted in time. Look at a cup, for example. Do you see a cup, or are you merely reviewing your past experiences?

No you don't really see the cup at all, only your past experiences and thoughts about the cup. In fact it's now clear that we don't ever see a cup - we just see colour. It's thought that turns the colour into a "cup". I keep getting this image of a veil superimposed on top of reality. The veil is made of all our thoughts and past experiences and this creates the story that we mistake for what is. Your exercises are designed to help people see past the veil to the actual experience that is beneath it.
It reminds me of that wonderful description of Byron Katie's awakening experience when she woke up next morning to discover that she didn't know what the world was, what the objects were - she had to relearn how to use a cup for example or how to turn on the faucet. Almost like recovering from a stroke - the veil of thoughts and past experiences had been wiped away.

You would have no idea what this cup is, except for your past learning. Do you, then, really see it?

No of course you don't see it - you see the veil, the story. And clearly there is a value in this that enables us to function in the world, how to drink from the cup and not drop it, etc. But there is also a whole lot of limitation in it when we mistake our stories for what is.

Love, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hey Veda,

You would have no idea what this cup is, except for your past learning. Do you, then, really see it?

No of course you don't see it - you see the veil, the story. And clearly there is a value in this that enables us to function in the world, how to drink from the cup and not drop it, etc. But there is also a whole lot of limitation in it when we mistake our stories for what is.

Yes, exactly. It is really about coming from the place of “I don’t know” instead of looking at everything from what I think I know. There is no denying appearances, however they are not made from separate stand-alone substances that have a uniqueness all of their own. They are all made from/of the same substance ie Consciousness/THIS and therefore cannot be a part from or separate to. Every thing, be it appearances, happenings, movements are all expressions of the seamless whole.

Okay, so we have explored many areas of how the seeming separate finite self is ‘created’ and how it is perpetuated. Let’s have a look at the idea that the ‘me’ is the centre of the universe… that everything springs up (revolves) around the ‘me’. This experiment is using the ‘sense of sight’ only.

Sit in a chair somewhere in a quiet room, or even in nature if preferred. For the ease of writing, I will just refer to a room. When quietly seated, take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust.

Take a look around the room and just note the room itself ie walls, windows, curtains etc. and the furnishings. Without thought, all there is, is colour which thought then labels as clothes, body, chair, wall, rug, window, tv, clock and so on.

Now look carefully.
Notice what is seen of the body. Notice that no head can be seen, and not all of the body can be seen either. Thought chimes in and says something like “this is my body”, “this is me”. Just notice thoughts as they arise and subside and put them aside for the duration of this experiment as we are just going to use the ‘sense of sight’.

With thoughts about a body being put aside, what thought labels as the body, is actually the AE of colour.

Now look at the chair that you are sitting in. Once again ignore the thoughts and labels and notice that the actual experience of the chair is simply colour.

1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found? In other words, when looking can anything be found that separates the body from the chair?

Continue on like this for the rest of the experiment

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

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

4. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘bodychairfurniturefloor/rugfurniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found?

5. Is there any actual division between any of these ‘objects’, or is there just seamless colour which thought divides into different objects with different labels?
Is what is seemingly seen actually divided, or all there is, is one seamless whole? And even if thought says that there is ‘space’ between the objects, is not ‘space’ just and appearance of/as the seamless whole?

6. Did you come across anyone or anything that is actually seeing colour, or is seeingseen and colour one and the same?
If they are one and the same then where is the me or awareness or witness of them? Can anyone/anything be found that is doing the witnessing/awaring/seeing? Or is witnessing/awaring/seeing part of the seamless whole that is happening?

7. Can an ‘experiencerself’ be found anywhere at all as the centre of experience?
Do the body’s eyes actually see?
Can an inside and an outside of a ‘me’ be found?
Is the body the integral ‘thing’ that is experiencing anything, including seeing colour?
Was any separation found at all, or all there is, is one seamless whole?

How did you find doing this experiment?

Much love,
Kay

[dutton]

Hey Kay,

Fascinating exercise on seeing. Will report this weekend when I get some time in a busy schedule

Love to you, Veda

[dutton]

Hi Kay,

I found this exercise on seeing both powerful and difficult. Powerful in the sense that it's a radically new notion that what we are seeing isn't what is really there - that what we are seeing is memory's massive overlay of story, not the actual seamless experience of colour.

And it was difficult in the sense that trying to put aside a lifetime of interpretation by thought is a real challenge. Even when I was able to just look around without applying labels and just see colour, I noticed that thought wanted to turn this "seamless whole" into a 'something', a 2-dimensional scene, like it was on some sort of flat screen where everything was equidistant.

I did notice that shifting to seeing without labels or story makes the body into something seen, something experienced rather than something doing the experiencing. In fact everything just becomes something seen, there is nothing outside of it, no experiencerself, nobody here on the inside doing the seeing.

Now look at the chair that you are sitting in. Once again ignore the thoughts and labels and notice that the actual experience of the chair is simply colour.

1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found? In other words, when looking can anything be found that separates the body from the chair?

At first I was confused by the word colour - I was looking at my black jeans against the pale yellow couch and thinking, well yes, there is a dividing line. But on looking further I saw that the dividing line I was seeing was between colours not between colour in the way you meant it. It helped me to use the word 'image' instead of colour.
So anyway, no, there is no dividing line between 'body' and 'couch'.

And once that was seen I could immediately see that there was no dividing line anywhere between anything I was seeing. There was no division or separation between couch and rug, between rug and wall, between wall and window, between window and the trees outside, between trees and sky, or even between end of my nose and sky - it was all just one big blob of colour that thought separated into different objects and space between objects.

Is what is seemingly seen actually divided, or all there is, is one seamless whole? And even if thought says that there is ‘space’ between the objects, is not ‘space’ just and appearance of/as the seamless whole?

There is just one whole, although I find it difficult to say it's seamless, even though that's what I'm seeing. The pull of memory is so strong - but I'm getting used to the idea that memory and thought aren't reliable as vehicles for seeing what is.

6. Did you come across anyone or anything that is actually seeing colour, or is seeingseen and colour one and the same?

No, no-one and nothing was found. What's seen is what's known. I can't see anything without simultaneously knowing it.

If they are one and the same then where is the me or awareness or witness of them?

There is no me to be witness and awareness is unlocatable, it just is, without any platform needed.

Can anyone/anything be found that is doing the witnessing/awaring/seeing? Or is witnessing/awaring/seeing part of the seamless whole that is happening?

Nothing can be found that is doing the 'awaring' or 'witnessing' - it just happens. Witnessing/awaring is part of the seamless whole, in fact it seems even more accurate to say that it is the whole.

There's increasingly a felt sense here that once the notion of a separate self is seen through, and thus the notion of a world of objects is rejected or seen through, all that's left really is awareness, just some unexplainable process that 'awares' life. There's no intermediate steps so to speak - the choices are either a separate body/self/mind or awareness. There's a pull towards just living life from this new place of 'awareness' but I find the pull of old patterns is so strong that it's hard to maintain this for long. And I make it sound like it's a choice but of course it isn't quite so easy - it feels more like a falling into the heart and living from a place of not-knowing while at the same time letting go of the old compulsion to 'do' life from thought and a sense of 'a separate me', something that seems increasingly unbelievable.

7. Can an ‘experiencerself’ be found anywhere at all as the centre of experience?

No, there is no experiencerself to be found - although there still feels a bit like there is somehow a 'centre' of experience which I suppose must mean there are still remnants of a habit or belief in an experiencer. The notion of no centre is intriguing and I find myself wondering what that would be like to live without any sense of centre.

Do the body’s eyes actually see?

What a startling question! This stopped me in my tracks - of course the body's eyes see, it's not the ears that are seeing. But then I began to see that maybe it's actually awareness that's seeing. Because if as we said earlier the body is being seen and experienced, then it can't be the eyes that are seeing. Ah yes, now I think I understand - the eyes are part of the body which is part of what is experienced, not what is doing the experiencing, so the eyes can't be doing the seeing. So it's awareness that's seeing. Is that right?

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

It's funny - the answer to this question just seems so obvious now, but only a couple of months ago I would have struggled to answer this. No there is no inside or outside of a me, as there is no me.

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

No, the body is not the thing that's doing the experiencing because it is itself being experienced. There is nothing that's doing the experiencing, even though the lifetime habit of thought makes it a bit hard to live from this standpoint. It's like I was saying earlier - the notion of nothing doing the experiencing is similar to the notion of there being no centre of experience.

Was any separation found at all, or all there is, is one seamless whole?

Oh, wow - I still find it hard to say that there is no separation even though I've just been seeing that there is in fact no separation to be found. It's again that long habit of thought that makes it seem that separation is there when all there is is colour. I'd love to have everything appear as a 'seamless whole' but I'm not there yet. But I will continue to look at the world through this new lens and see where this takes me.

Whew! Strong stuff this, Kay! Love it.

Much love, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hello Veda,

And it was difficult in the sense that trying to put aside a lifetime of interpretation by thought is a real challenge. Even when I was able to just look around without applying labels and just see colour, I noticed that thought wanted to turn this "seamless whole" into a 'something', a 2-dimensional scene, like it was on some sort of flat screen where everything was equidistant.

Are you the author/thinker of thought? If not, then what is the point of wanting thought to change or stop? So what if thought labels and interprets…that isn’t going to stop…but you now know…you are now aware that what thought points to can be questioned, as there is a different way of perceiving things. That’s it. What is intellectually grasped eventually becomes and insight…an ‘aha’ moment...becomes a knowing, but other than that…this is it. What more are you looking for?

I did notice that shifting to seeing without labels or story makes the body into something seen, something experienced rather than something doing the experiencing. In fact everything just becomes something seen, there is nothing outside of it, no experiencerself, nobody here on the inside doing the seeing.

I showed you this picture some time back. The exercise you just did is no different to this picture with its questions…other than it was an indepth exercise. However, the same conclusion could have come from just seeing what the picture and questions were pointing to here.



Looking at this picture and just working with the colours, thought says that the yellow, peach and green areas in this picture are an object called ‘me’. Thought also calls these colours your body. Thought also says that the other colours are something else. Is there a division between the body and not-body, or is that division imagined? And seeing that divisions are only ever imagined, could a body ever really be present at all?

Thought also says that the blue and tan colour is called a ‘door’, and that there is something behind the door. How is it known that there is something behind the door?

Can anyone/anything be found that is doing the witnessing/awaring/seeing? Or is witnessing/awaring/seeing part of the seamless whole that is happening?

Nothing can be found that is doing the 'awaring' or 'witnessing' - it just happens. Witnessing/awaring is part of the seamless whole, in fact it seems even more accurate to say that it is the whole.

Awaring is part of the seamless whole….consciousness appearing as awaring. Awareness/consciousness has no attributes, it is not a thing of any description. It is unfindable, unknowable...it is formless, boundaryless, colourless, shapeless and unlimited. It is appearing as the whole but never becomes those things...just like clouds appear in the sky, but the sky doesn't become the clouds, nor does the sky change when clouds appear. The sky remains as the sky.

Look at this doodle. It looks like there are a lot of separate things…right?



Life seems to be a gigantic soup of experience that is grouped, categorised and labelled as things. There seems to be a ‘me’ that is ‘here’ that is experiencing things that are ‘out there’. And all those things ‘out there’ are all individual separate things.

None of it is separated except through thought because all of the images present are just one big canvas. Sounds overlap and intrude on each other, and there is a thought that says “I can separate bird song from car horns. Look! See? I've just named them!” But what is actually appearing is sound, with perhaps an image of a bird and an image of a car, and thoughts ABOUT sound appearing as a bird and car!

And thought appears saying “I can separate a cat from a book. See, I’ve just named them!” But what is actually appearing is colour and thoughts ABOUT colour appearing as shapes/images labelled ‘cat’ and ‘book’.

‘Things’ seemingly appear and there are never not things, but have a LOOK to see what is actually appearing.

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene. Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?

Do the body’s eyes actually see?

What a startling question! This stopped me in my tracks - of course the body's eyes see, it's not the ears that are seeing. But then I began to see that maybe it's actually awareness that's seeing. Because if as we said earlier the body is being seen and experienced, then it can't be the eyes that are seeing. Ah yes, now I think I understand - the eyes are part of the body which is part of what is experienced, not what is doing the experiencing, so the eyes can't be doing the seeing. So it's awareness that's seeing. Is that right?

If there is no inside or outside of the body…then how can the body’s eyes see?

Awareness doesn’t see, it is the seeing. In other words awareness is appearing as seeing, and it is awareness that is aware of seeing. So seeing, hearing, thinking, smelling, tasting and feeling are all appearance which awareness appears as.

A sense of self is linked to the belief that 'visual sight' and 'mental images' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and at the same time the image 'of the eyes' appear with it. Let's have a look at this.

What are the eyes in the actual experience? Close your eyes and focus your attention for a few minutes on the location thought calls the ‘eyes’. Notice the sensation. It may be subtle when you first start to look, but keep your focus there and just become aware of the sensation.
Now open and close the eyes slowly and notice the sensation thought labels as blinking.

The actual experience of eyes is sensation + a mental image, right?

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

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

Was any separation found at all, or all there is, is one seamless whole?

Oh, wow - I still find it hard to say that there is no separation even though I've just been seeing that there is in fact no separation to be found. It's again that long habit of thought that makes it seem that separation is there when all there is is colour. I'd love to have everything appear as a 'seamless whole' but I'm not there yet. But I will continue to look at the world through this new lens and see where this takes me.

???? You have brought back old desires and expectations and the idea that there is somewhere to get! There has never been a Vedaself and yet what has always been seen, has looked as it looks now. Why would that change? There has never been a Vedaself, ever, so nothing is going to change except your perception. I have said this many times, plus realising there is no separate self happens…but it takes time for that realisation to sink in and integrate. It sounds to me that you are still waiting for something to happen. What is it exactly that you are waiting for? Seeing through the idea of being a finite separate self is ordinary. Life doesn’t change. Life goes on exactly the same and you will still go to bed every night and wake up in the morning, have breakfast, go to work, come home, have dinner and go to bed again. Chop wood carry water before enlightenment. Chop wood carry water after enlightenment.

What are you waiting for? If you look now, can you find a separate self anywhere, in any shape or form?

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Hi Kay

Are you the author/thinker of thought? If not, then what is the point of wanting thought to change or stop?

You're right, there is no point. It's just habit to assume I have control of thought.

I showed you this picture some time back. The exercise you just did is no different to this picture with its questions…other than it was an indepth exercise. However, the same conclusion could have come from just seeing what the picture and questions were pointing to here.

Yes, I'm sure you're right, I could have come to that conclusion back then, but this latest exercise made it clear.

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

When I look at the world in this new way you've introduced me to I can see that nothing is separate from anything else, that the imagined borders are supplied by thought alone and not there in actual experience. It's all colour, all just seeing.

The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene. Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?

Good example - yes, it is obvious looking at a TV screen that there are no separate items or objects at all, that what I am seeing is actually one unified whole.

The actual experience of eyes is sensation + a mental image, right?

Yes, that's exactly what is experienced.

Can sight come from a sensation?

No, sight cannot come from a sensation

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

No

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?

No

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

No

???? You have brought back old desires and expectations and the idea that there is somewhere to get! There has never been a Vedaself, ever, so nothing is going to change except your perception.

Yes, you're right I do have a desire to get somewhere - what I'm looking for is the change in perception you talk about. Not quite sure what's wrong with that. Are you saying that because there is no me there is no agent to bring about this change in perception, or what?

It sounds to me that you are still waiting for something to happen. What is it exactly that you are waiting for?

Yes, I'm looking for a permanent shift in perception. And actually I'm finding that perception IS slowly changing, that things ARE being seen in a different way, thanks to your exercises. And I'm really grateful for that.

I think it might help to remember that seeing things in a new way from your insightful exercises doesn't necessarily translate to an instant and permanent shift, at least for me, maybe it does for others. It seems to take practice. No doubt frustrating for you, but that seems to be what this process is about, is it not? And just to reassure you, I am practicing this every chance I get. Am I missing something?

Warmly, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hi Veda,

???? You have brought back old desires and expectations and the idea that there is somewhere to get! There has never been a Vedaself, ever, so nothing is going to change except your perception.

Yes, you're right I do have a desire to get somewhere - what I'm looking for is the change in perception you talk about. Not quite sure what's wrong with that. Are you saying that because there is no me there is no agent to bring about this change in perception, or what?

A perception shift is a shift in your understanding, not a literal shift in how ‘the eyes’ see the world. Nothing else changes. The character seems to change as a byproduct of beliefs and programming changing, but other than that the world and life continues on the same.

It sounds to me that you are still waiting for something to happen. What is it exactly that you are waiting for?
Yes, I'm looking for a permanent shift in perception. And actually I'm finding that perception IS slowly changing, that things ARE being seen in a different way, thanks to your exercises. And I'm really grateful for that.

Yes…paradoxically, it takes time for the new understanding/insights to filter through. Many years of believing in a ‘me’ and the idea of separation doesn’t fall away overnight. The new way of perceiving gradually deepens over time, and further intellectual understandings become aha moments and gradually deepen. This seems to be the case for the majority...even for those who haven’t been through the gate and yet are ‘awakened’. Nothing is guaranteed in life. What is it exactly that can or does control any of this? I don’t know of anyone who has gated who realised no separate self permanently, in that moment. You can either accept this or you can chase it, which is only further seeking and angst. But even that is not in your control.

I think it might help to remember that seeing things in a new way from your insightful exercises doesn't necessarily translate to an instant and permanent shift, at least for me, maybe it does for others. It seems to take practice. No doubt frustrating for you, but that seems to be what this process is about, is it not? And just to reassure you, I am practicing this every chance I get. Am I missing something?

I do understand what you are going through…been there, and it is an unsettling phase. The mind thinks that it should be easy and that it should be a permanent shift because the separate self has been seen through…but that just isn’t the case. So no you aren’t missing something. It’s not so much a practice either. LOOKING is not the same as seeking. Seeking is always towards something that is not present, or trying to get away from something that is present. Looking is investigating what is present; it's for no reason other than itself. It's done for its own sake. If you're expecting something from LOOKING, then you're not LOOKING, you're seeking for what you expect LOOKING will give you.

You never answered this question from my last post.

If you look now, can you find a separate self anywhere, in any shape or form?

We can continue to dialogue if you like. Do you have any questions?

With love, Kay

[forgetmenot]

PS: The idea that freedom is in the future, is a fly trap. What future?

"Rather than asking if you can be ever be free - because ‘ever’ is a huge amount of future time – ask if you can be free in this moment. The only place you where you can or need to be free is this moment. Not the rest of your life. Just now."
~Eckhart Tolle

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Dear Kay

Thank you for understanding. I'm actually not so consumed by desire here as it might seem and am not even feeling any particular angst about any of this. I recognise the truth of what you said which is that this shift in perception takes time and that's OK with me. I sense that these new ways of looking at the world will work their magic, or not, in their own time and it's not something I can bring about. All I can do is show up and keep looking, which I'm enjoying doing.

And I get that looking is not the same as seeking. I'm actually not trying to get away from the present but get more into the present by being able to see how thought interferes and then looking past that to what's actually being experienced. And there's a quiet joy in that. I can even say that if that's all that I end up with from this process, that's OK. I am really grateful for this process and for all your help as we go along.

And I sense that I'm not quite done and that we're not quite done yet. I would love to continue to dialog with you if you're willing and see what transpires.

And to answer your question, no I don't and can't find any sense of a separate self anywhere. When self referencing happens it's seen as lacking any inherent meaning, rather like an old wheel that has been disconnected from the engine but is still slowly turning of its own momentum.

I don't have any specific questions right now although I imagine these will arise. But I find myself wondering what this phase was like for others or for you? Was it a phase that required anything particular from you? Or looking back would you have done anything differently? And did it take years or months?

Much love to you, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hey Veda,

Lovely to read your post. We can certainly dialogue further. I thought what was written by Joan Tollifson would be of interest to you:-

What is meant by no self? When we talk of no self, it seems important to clarify what exactly we mean. To me, it doesn’t mean we are no longer a conditioned organism with a personality and preferences. It refers rather to the recognition that we’re not a persisting, independent entity, but rather, we are an ever-changing process inseparable from what we think of as not-me. There’s no actual boundary, no inside and outside, no subject and object. We’re like a wave on the ocean—an activity of the totality. No self also points to a seeing-through of the psychological self (all those stories and ideas about who I am and what I’m like), and a seeing through of the illusion of independent free will or agency.

Those stories about "me" and that illusion of agency may continue to show up intermittently, but there is a recognition that the stories are not really true, that they are abstractions and over-simplifications of a living reality with infinite complexity—that the self at the center of “my story” is simply a bunch of thoughts, sensations, images, memories and ideas that create a kind of mirage in the imagination.

Of course, we must have some functional sense of location and boundaries, unless we suffer the kind of neurological problem that Oliver Sacks wrote books about. Otherwise, we would not be able to distinguish our hand from the carrot we are chopping up for lunch. And we have a functional sense of free will and choice that is integral to how we operate. We seemingly must “decide” what to cook for dinner, for example. One neuroscientist has called this functional sense of free will and agency “neurological sensations.”

But by giving attention to the making of decisions, it’s possible to discover directly that our apparent choices are a happening of life, that no actual decider can be found. In a situation of indecision, opposing thoughts arise choicelessly and unbidden, arguing this way and that, and we cannot make the decisive moment happen any sooner than it does.

It’s definitely possible to live without the thought-sense of being encapsulated inside the body, looking out at a separate world. And in many ordinary moments, there is no sense of identity as the psychological self—if we’re not thinking about ourselves, we’re simply washing the dishes, driving the car, watching the clouds, adding up numbers, or whatever is happening. There’s no “me” in the picture until a thought pops up, such as, “I wish I didn’t have to wash the dishes,” and suddenly that mirage springs into apparent being. For most of us, that sense of identity as the psychological self with free will and choice doesn’t vanish permanently and completely, but continues to show up intermittently—and is the source of such things as defensiveness, guilt, blame, pride, and so on. But it can be seen through, and seen for what it is, whenever it shows up. And it can be realized that ALL of this (the illusion of agency, the sense of being separate, feelings of guilt or blame, and so on) is itself simply another impersonal shape that presence is momentarily taking.

I would describe the self as a kind of mental image, an idea, a mirage, or an intermittent thought that claims ownership and authorship before or after the fact: I was thinking, I went shopping, I made a decision, It happened to me. The actuality is an ownerless, authorless happening of the whole. In truth, we are no-thing and everything. And yet, we can’t deny that we are also appearing as a particular, unique individual with a personality, preferences, opinions, interests, aversions, likes and dislikes. But we can come to see that ALL of this is a choiceless happening, a movement of the totality, and that even what seems most personal is really not personal at all.

We can still use personal pronouns and tell our life story, but it is all held much more lightly.

What I would like to do now, is to give you the following questions...just so that we are clear that you are clear and that I have actually done my job and pointed clearly! Can you answer the questions with some detail please, and answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer. Also please provide examples where asked.

1) Can you say with 100% certainty that you have realised that there is no separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Was there ever?

2) Share in your own words what the illusion of separate self is and how it shows up in experience. Also, through your inquiry, what is different now?

3) How does it feel to see this?
What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over; made you look?

5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.

b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

6) Anything to add?

Much love, Kay

[dutton]

Hello Kay

Will respond Thursday morning (your time). Busy couple of days coming up work-wise

Love, Veda

[dutton]

Dear Kay,

I am so thrilled to be at this stage of our exploration and before we go further I just want to say a huge THANK YOU to you for all the guidance you have given me (and many others). This work is so amazing and so important and so needed and you do it well. Bless you. And if you ever talk to Ilona please thank her too for setting up such an incredible website and resource.

Here are my answers to your 6 questions:

1) Can you say with 100% certainty that you have realised that there is no separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Was there ever?

No there is no separate self, no me, no 'I'. Never was and never will be.

2) Share in your own words what the illusion of separate self is and how it shows up in experience. Also, through your inquiry, what is different now?

The illusion of a separate self is just the content of a thought, albeit a very persistent one. As a thought it does not actually point to anything real that can be found in actual experience. The irony here is that this thought, even though it is universally agreed upon by mankind, is nevertheless simply an unexamined assumption that in actual fact points to nothing real at all.
It shows up in experience as the imagined controller that controls life, makes decisions, chooses this over that and is responsible for outcomes. This illusion of control provides comfort and solace in an unpredictable world which partly explains why the notion of a self persists so much and so long for so many.

What is different now? Several things: 1) That illusion of control I just mentioned is seen through now - but instead of arousing anxiety this has actually led to a spaciousness and freedom, for the simple reason that now I don't have to try and make good things happen and avoid bad things happening, which was what life used to be about. And the irony here is that the old attempt to avoid pain and seek pleasure never worked very well anyway, not for me or for anyone - it's weird that mankind spends its time thinking it has the steering wheel in its hands when there isn't even a car.
2) What used to feel like a spread-out world of time with an imagined future and past now feels just NOW - and irony again, that NOW feels much bigger and more spacious than the old view with its long future and long past.
3) There is a peacefulness - this actually feels like the biggest difference. The old notion of living in a make-believe world of thought where I assumed that my thoughts were reflecting reality has been replaced by living in a world of actual experience, much simpler, much more intimate and inherently peaceful. It's like Sailor Bob's book title "What's wrong with right now, unless you think about it?"
And I don't mean to say here that thought has disappeared, it's just that when it appears its content is examined for whether it reflects actual experience.
4) There is now a quiet joy which comes from an 'allowing' of this moment in actual experience, as opposed to the resisting that accompanied my old way of thinking my way through life - and this allowing is so much less stressful, aligning with what-is rather than opposing it.
5) This is similar to what I have already mentioned above but I also notice that I feel more trust now, trust that anything that happens will be dealt with satisfactorily. And that's because I'm not focusing on the imagined future in order to protect myself from adversity. It's seen that there is no me and no future either and so there's a trust that whatever arrives will be dealt with just fine as it always has been.

3) How does it feel to see this?
What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

It feels wonderful, really wonderful. Like finally arriving at the end of a long road, and even though it's seen that this is also the beginning of a new one, that feels good and right too.
As for the difference from before I started the dialogue, I've already named many differences in the previous section. But stepping back to look at the big picture, the main difference is a sense of peace and joy - nothing huge or exuberant, just a quiet backdrop of "it's all OK". Yes, shit happens and the pipes in the bathroom sprung a leak and a bear destroyed the bird feeder two nights ago and so on - but that's now seen more through the eyes of actual experience rather than thought and that makes all the difference.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over; made you look?

Well in my case it happened after we'd been exploring the nature of thoughts versus actual experience and I had a sort of breakthrough in the kitchen where I suddenly got "Oh, the 'I' is only a THOUGHT". But I would also say that this whole months-long process has pushed me over the edge - this sustained intense exploration is such a powerful process.

5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how things happen and how things work.

All of these things, decision, intention, choice, control etc are all part of the illusion that we are in charge of our life, that we are "doing" life rather than life is doing us, so to speak. Because there is no me, there is no decider or controller or chooser - decisions and choices all get made but not by me, they just get made. A non-existent "me" can't make things happen - and there's a peace in realising that it isn't necessary anyway.
For example, when I 'decided' to make a cup of tea an hour ago before writing this, there was no me to make the decision, it just happened in the same way it's happened a thousand times before. To a mind that assumes control this seems unfathomable but when examined it's seen that 'I' never did decide to make tea, it always happened spontaneously and didn't require anyone to decide. Same with everything else. I didn't decide to write this response - even though thoughts were giving a running commentary about how it's time to write this, etc - it all just happened.

b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

Nothing. There's no 'I' here to be responsible for anything. That doesn't mean that social conditioning stops - I still open the door for the lady in the grocery store, still make sure my wife's car is serviced, still avoid stepping in front of oncoming vehicles, etc. But none of this requires a 'me'.

6) Anything to add?

1. Prior to this exploration I remember I used to wonder what seeing through the illusion of a separate self would feel like and vaguely imagined that the sense of 'me' would be replaced by some sort of huge blank empty space that would be a bit scary because it would feel like there was no-one at the controls, and would it remember which side of the road to drive on, etc. Now as I sit here it feels more like the sense of 'me' has been replaced instead by a peaceful, joyful "sense of being" that is impersonal, that bears no name. The sense of being is just the "I AM" that was always here but used to be covered over so to speak by this illusory small personal identity that did have a name and that thought it was in control, and thought it had to be in control in order to live.
2. This probably seems obvious but one of the things I realized after going through this process is that it's not about getting some sort of passing grade on an exam that requires some sort of special spiritual intelligence, but an immersion in a process that simply requires an openness to new ways of seeing, a willingness to challenge old assumptions.
3. Lastly, there is a great sense of gratitude for dear Kay, my guide in the process, but also for all the wonderful guides who offer this amazing service for so many seekers - and all without any money being exchanged! That is truly inspiring and a model for humanity to emulate. My gratitude also goes to Ilona and others who founded Liberation Unleashed and put this fantastic website together for the benefit of us all. Love and blessings on you all.

Where do we go from here Kay? I hope we can continue in some way or other as I can see that there is a new road ahead of exploring life-without-an-'I'. and would love to stay in touch with you and others in this process.

Much love, Veda