Emptiness is the track on which the centred person moves. - Tsongkhapa.

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Oh…and how is it known that the tingling sensation is located at the ‘soles of the feet’ and the other sensation is located in a ‘chest’?

‘Soles of the feet’ and ‘chest’ are ideas in thought, and cannot be found when looking. Sensation is known in actual experience, but the idea that sensation originates in a part of the body is the overlay of thoughts. In a similar way there is the thought that thinking takes place in my head. This is thought only.

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go.

Seeing a colleague, simply = colourful image
Hearing the colleague talk, simply = sound
Feeling the colleague push against her nearby desk, simply sensation
Smelling the perfumed colleague, simply = smell
Thought of the identity of the colleague, simply = thought

Seeing a pen, simply = image/colour
Feeling the lightness and shape of the pen in my hand, simply = sensation
Chewing the pen in my mouth, simply = taste
Hearing the pen tap the desk, simply = sound
Thought about writing, simply thought

Seeing the book club book, simply = colourful image
Smelling the newness of the pages, simply = smell
Feeling the card and paper in my hand, simply = sensation
Smelling the new paper, simply = smell
Hearing the pages when flicked, simply = sound
Thought about this book on the table, simply = thought

I shall keep repeating many times.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hi Iain,

Seeing the book club book, simply = colourful image
Smelling the newness of the pages, simply = smell
Feeling the card and paper in my hand, simply = sensation
Smelling the new paper, simply = smell
Hearing the pages when flicked, simply = sound
Thought about this book on the table, simply = thought

I shall keep repeating many times.

Great work in breaking down activities into AE!
How did you find doing it, what did you notice when you were paying attention to AE?

And yes…please do keep breaking activities and emotions into AE.

Okay, so let’s begin to LOOK at the nature of thought.

Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts. First thing is to sit for at least 10-15 minutes quietly somewhere, close the eyes and just notice thoughts and do this several times throughout the day and then do the exercise throughout the day as per instructions below. The MAIN purpose of this exercise is to notice thoughts; finding the gap is secondary.

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

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

3. Then wait for the next thought to come.

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

5. Then wait for the next thought to come.

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

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

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

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

Let me know how you go.

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

How did you find doing it, what did you notice when you were paying attention to AE?

It was quite shocking exploring objects in AE. I was able to see that they are simply colour, sensation, and perhaps taste and smell. I was able to see how what I took before to be the object was in fact a thought story about objects: if they were useful or useless, if they were mine or others, if they were meaningful or pointless, dangerous or friendly. I was able to see the objective object, rather than the thought story object.

Usually I would be obsessed about the thought story linked to objects. Either I would automatically and without noticing interact with the object, or I would be caught up in the thought story related to the object. Only through looking could I actually see what was there.

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

Let me know how you go.

I don’t usually notice the gap between my thoughts. The gap between thoughts seems different to having thoughts. It seems to be a space, as opposed to simply the thought “at the moment I am not thinking and waiting for the next thought to appear”.

I can only experience one thought at a time. Sometimes, there is a torrent of competing thoughts. The next one rushes in demanding to be experienced, and the gap is imperceptible. At other times the pace of thoughts is slower, there is a space between thoughts.

During the gap in the thought AE of the sounds, sensations and smells of my environment continues, although I look towards the gap rather than this AE.

It’s easy to get pulled into the thought, and fully participate in watching its story. Then it ends and my interest is lost and effort is required to notice the gap, prior to being swept up in the next thought.

I shall keep repeating.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hello Iain,

How did you find doing it, what did you notice when you were paying attention to AE?

It was quite shocking exploring objects in AE. I was able to see that they are simply colour, sensation, and perhaps taste and smell. I was able to see how what I took before to be the object was in fact a thought story about objects: if they were useful or useless, if they were mine or others, if they were meaningful or pointless, dangerous or friendly. I was able to see the objective object, rather than the thought story object.

Thank you for sharing this with me! And I am so pleased to read this, that you clearly saw how thoughts overlay AE with stories which obscure it. But when LOOKING it is easy to see what IS and to then notice the thoughts ABOUT what IS. Nice going! Keep it up :)

Usually I would be obsessed about the thought story linked to objects. Either I would automatically and without noticing interact with the object, or I would be caught up in the thought story related to the object. Only through looking could I actually see what was there.

Yes! So keep up the practice for a few more days yet, until you clear about AE. Good job at LOOKING!

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

I don’t usually notice the gap between my thoughts. The gap between thoughts seems different to having thoughts. It seems to be a space, as opposed to simply the thought “at the moment I am not thinking and waiting for the next thought to appear”.

I am so pleased to how well you so carefully observed thoughts and can so thoroughly describe what they ‘do’. So from now on, learn to become the observer of thought. It will take some practice because we are so used of being 'in' our thoughts as opposed to being aware of how they come and go. We are too involved in what they are saying when in fact, thoughts know nothing.

Is not “It seems to be a space, as opposed to simply the thought “at the moment I am not thinking and waiting for the next thought to appear”.”….just another appearing thought?

I can only experience one thought at a time. Sometimes, there is a torrent of competing thoughts. The next one rushes in demanding to be experienced, and the gap is imperceptible. At other times the pace of thoughts is slower, there is a space between thoughts.

Great observations!
Have another LOOK and see if you can find where one thought ends and another begins, and see if you can find the middle of a thought.

During the gap in the thought AE of the sounds, sensations and smells of my environment continues, although I look towards the gap rather than this AE.

So, when sounds, sensation and smells were noticed, did you notice how thought just automatically labelled them? If not, sit for awhile again, get to the ‘gap’ and watch very carefully. Let me know what you find.

It’s easy to get pulled into the thought, and fully participate in watching its story. Then it ends and my interest is lost and effort is required to notice the gap, prior to being swept up in the next thought.

Fantastic! So now you have seen how thoughts work! So as I wrote at the beginning of this post. Begin to just observe thoughts. If you get caught up in them , that is okay, eventually you will notice this and come back to being the observer. The more you become the observer the less you will follow thought down the rabbit hole!


Is there any order to thoughts or they are just basically random in nature?

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Is not “It seems to be a space, as opposed to simply the thought “at the moment I am not thinking and waiting for the next thought to appear”.”….just another appearing thought?

The thinking that accompanies looking at the space between thoughts could well just be another thought. There may be no thought words in this space, but given that thought can appear as a sound or smell (when remembering a strong smell, or 'hearing' the thought words 'Iain') this space could well be another appearing thought.

I have yet to answer your other three questions. I shall work intensively on these over the next 24 hours and respond.

Love, Iain

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Have another LOOK and see if you can find where one thought ends and another begins, and see if you can find the middle of a thought.

It’s hard to pin point where one thought ends, and another begins. What is clear is I can look and notice one particular thought story, then moments later I can look and a new story has begun, either linked to the previous thought, or entirely different. What is clear is a new or different thought story is now appearing. I can notice a gap between thoughts, but I cannot see the transition in thoughts.

I can’t see the middle of a thought. I’m aware of the thought story unfolding before it becomes another thought, but no middle. To know the middle would be to know how long in advance a thought is going to be, but the stories just keep unfolding.

So, when sounds, sensation and smells were noticed, did you notice how thought just automatically labelled them? If not, sit for awhile again, get to the ‘gap’ and watch very carefully. Let me know what you find.

Yes. Sensations arise, sounds or smells are experienced, then thought comes in with its story dialogue on top describing, categorising and adding. This tends to happen imperceptibly, but when looking I can experience the sensation, sound or smell then see the thought come in following from this.

Is there any order to thoughts or they are just basically random in nature?

Essentially thoughts are random in nature. There’s certainly no controlling them. One thought may happen to link to the next, and so on, but there’s no predicting them, or negotiating with them, or controlling them.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain!

Great observations with thought! They are slippery little suckers, but when you get to see them clearly, they are as plain as day.

Have another LOOK and see if you can find where one thought ends and another begins, and see if you can find the middle of a thought.

It’s hard to pin point where one thought ends, and another begins. What is clear is I can look and notice one particular thought story, then moments later I can look and a new story has begun, either linked to the previous thought, or entirely different. What is clear is a new or different thought story is now appearing. I can notice a gap between thoughts, but I cannot see the transition in thoughts.

The actual experience of thought isn't any different just because the content of the thought is different. The content of thought is thought. Thought is simply thought, no matter what story it is telling.

A thought is much like a piece of graffiti scribbled on a wall. Graffiti doesn't know the wall exists. It doesn't know it is appearing on the wall. It doesn't know whether its words are true or not. It doesn't know that it is saying anything. It doesn't know anything *whatsoever*. A thought is just a bit of decoration appearing as experience. It just simply appears. You are aware of it. But thought knows nothing whatsoever about reality. And that is all there is to thought

Thoughts layer concepts over the actual/direct experience. A thought (concept or label) is never the actual. Some thoughts point to the actual, and some point to other thoughts, but the content of every single thought is just a story.


Here is another exercise which points out the difference between actual experience and content of thought.

There are two types of thoughts:
(1) Thoughts with words “Here is cup”
(2) Visual mental images of a ‘cup’

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

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

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

The thoughts and mental images are real (actual experience) only as arising thoughts and mental images, their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what are they about (like the cup) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

I can’t see the middle of a thought. I’m aware of the thought story unfolding before it becomes another thought, but no middle. To know the middle would be to know how long in advance a thought is going to be, but the stories just keep unfolding.

Yes, exactly! Thought can be likened to a flowing stream. There is no beginning, middle or ending.

So, when sounds, sensation and smells were noticed, did you notice how thought just automatically labelled them? If not, sit for awhile again, get to the ‘gap’ and watch very carefully. Let me know what you find.

Yes. Sensations arise, sounds or smells are experienced, then thought comes in with its story dialogue on top describing, categorising and adding. This tends to happen imperceptibly, but when looking I can experience the sensation, sound or smell then see the thought come in following from this.

Yes, these thoughts are very subtle and are not as easily discerned as the ‘loud’ thoughts, only when you LOOK very carefully.

Is there any order to thoughts or they are just basically random in nature?

Essentially thoughts are random in nature. There’s certainly no controlling them. One thought may happen to link to the next, and so on, but there’s no predicting them, or negotiating with them, or controlling them.

And without thought saying that one thought links to the next, how would this be known?

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

I'll continue this process for the next few hours then report back fully.

Love, Iain

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

Thoughts can weave an elaborate story with vivid characters and events, and objects imagined in them can feel very real. Thought is powerful and can imagine sounds, and in thought feel the texture and weight of the cup, or smell the thought tea being poured in. My usual experience is one of being sucked entirely into thoughts, as if immersed in a movie.

However, the mental image of the cup is not real whatsoever. Whether it be the holy chalice, or a mug I might use for my morning coffee, the thought cup cannot be grasped, poured into or drunk from.

Thoughts pour outwards with their story line. Thought loves to elaborate, fantasize, theorize, branch out and flesh out thought, adding imagined realness.

Looking closely at thoughts I can see that they are story only. Thought may masquerade as experience, but it knows nothing of experience. As you say, thought can know nothing of reality.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain,

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

Looking closely at thoughts I can see that they are story only. Thought may masquerade as experience, but it knows nothing of experience. As you say, thought can know nothing of reality.

And when you see this, what did you feel?

So, did you see the difference between actual experience and the content of thought?

So if the thought appears “I am the thinker of thought” and up comes and image of Renee Descartes “thinking man” appears with it. “I am the thinker of thought” is the thought and the ensuing thoughts of what that means is the content (which is only further thought). The same goes for the image of the statue of the “thinking man”.

If, in this current moment you are actually standing directly in front of the “thinking man” statue, or even seeing an actual picture, then the actual experience of colour labelled “thinking man” is appearing and is not just an empty thought that is pointing to nothing but further thoughts (ie story), it is a thought that is pointing to the AE of colour. Is this clear?

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Hi Kay,

I'm going to spend a bit more time looking in response to your last post. There's some really clear directions there on the distinction between AE and the content of thought that I need to spend more time looking at. I'll answer your questions when I know that I've looked clearly at this.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Okay Iain...thank you for letting me know :)

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Sorry about the delay in replying.

So, did you see the difference between actual experience and the content of thought?

And when you see this, what did you feel?

I feel as though the realness that I unthinkingly believed thought had has reduced. I am still swept up in the story of thoughts (they so want to be real); as if there is an Iain who is the central character constantly toying with ideas and trying out new storylines. Like an internal movie that I’m aware of (especially when deliberately looking at it) or else runs on regardless and is occasionally noticed.

Now I feel I can see the difference between AE of sensations, images, smells, tastes, sounds, and awareness of thought which is very different to the artificial layer of story upon story in thought. Sensations arise, they are undeniably felt, then I can see thought swoop in to label the sensation and pull it into the ongoing narrative of thought. A real experience happens (AE) then afterwards thought takes over with story.

There’s not any strong feelings associated with this though, more of a growing awareness.

If, in this current moment you are actually standing directly in front of the “thinking man” statue, or even seeing an actual picture, then the actual experience of colour labelled “thinking man” is appearing and is not just an empty thought that is pointing to nothing but further thoughts (ie story), it is a thought that is pointing to the AE of colour. Is this clear?

This is becoming clearer. I can imagine an object in thought, and then continue to have other thoughts triggered and built upon this initial thought, thoughts pointing towards thoughts.

I can stand in front of the statue, and look at the colour, touch the pedestal, smell the air around the statue, feel sensations arise while looking. The thought label “this is the Thinking Man” may arise. The colour of the statue and the thought “Thinking Man” point toward each other. If I then go off into a thought story about philosophy, what thought means to me, Iain is a thinker and so forth, then I have moved completely away from AE and entirely into thought story.

I know the AE of sensations, images, smells, tastes, sounds and the awareness that thought is taking place.

I’m less clear on how the content of thought is experienced. I know that thinking simply takes places without a ‘thinker’ behind it, and that the character Iain is another thought, and thoughts have no ability to experience, despite pretending to do so. It feels as though the thought story simply unfolds, and in unfolding the empty thought narrative is known (but has no truth in AE). It’s not known to a person, as the idea of a person is just another empty thought, but it is still known. Is that correct?

Or is the idea that the thought story is a narrative that is known, has thought characters doing things in thought, a beginning and end, new thoughts, nice thoughts, scary thoughts – simply a thought itself, as distinct from AE?

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain,

Sorry about the delay in replying.

No, not at all. It is your thread and you take the time you need so you can really LOOK. I thank you for letting me know, it just keeps me in the loop. You have done some wonderful LOOKING, Iain, this is a lovely post to read.

So, did you see the difference between actual experience and the content of thought?
And when you see this, what did you feel?

I feel as though the realness that I unthinkingly believed thought had has reduced. I am still swept up in the story of thoughts (they so want to be real); as if there is an Iain who is the central character constantly toying with ideas and trying out new storylines. Like an internal movie that I’m aware of (especially when deliberately looking at it) or else runs on regardless and is occasionally noticed.

This is great, Iain. Yes, the idea of getting swept up in thought stories will continue to happen for some time. However, the more you notice thought, eventually this will lessen…so just notice that you are aware of all thoughts; the thoughts you seemed to have gotten lost in and the thought that you have gotten lost in thought!

Now I feel I can see the difference between AE of sensations, images, smells, tastes, sounds, and awareness of thought which is very different to the artificial layer of story upon story in thought. Sensations arise, they are undeniably felt, then I can see thought swoop in to label the sensation and pull it into the ongoing narrative of thought. A real experience happens (AE) then afterwards thought takes over with story.

Really really great to hear! Keep up the LOOKING.

There’s not any strong feelings associated with this though, more of a growing awareness.

Brilliant!

If, in this current moment you are actually standing directly in front of the “thinking man” statue, or even seeing an actual picture, then the actual experience of colour labelled “thinking man” is appearing and is not just an empty thought that is pointing to nothing but further thoughts (ie story), it is a thought that is pointing to the AE of colour. Is this clear?

This is becoming clearer. I can imagine an object in thought, and then continue to have other thoughts triggered and built upon this initial thought, thoughts pointing towards thoughts.

Yes! You got it…thought pointing to more thought….just a fairytale, no more real than Cinderella.

I can stand in front of the statue, and look at the colour, touch the pedestal, smell the air around the statue, feel sensations arise while looking. The thought label “this is the Thinking Man” may arise. The colour of the statue and the thought “Thinking Man” point toward each other. If I then go off into a thought story about philosophy, what thought means to me, Iain is a thinker and so forth, then I have moved completely away from AE and entirely into thought story.

YES! A good way to check, is for every thought that comes up, and to determine whether it is referring to actual experience or whether it is pure fantasy, replace the thought with “blahblahblah” and check whether what it was referring to remains.
Let me know how you go with this.

I know the AE of sensations, images, smells, tastes, sounds and the awareness that thought is taking place.

Great! Keep breaking down activities and even emotions into AE. The more you break it all down the clearer it becomes.

I’m less clear on how the content of thought is experienced. I know that thinking simply takes places without a ‘thinker’ behind it, and that the character Iain is another thought, and thoughts have no ability to experience, despite pretending to do so. It feels as though the thought story simply unfolds, and in unfolding the empty thought narrative is known (but has no truth in AE). It’s not known to a person, as the idea of a person is just another empty thought, but it is still known. Is that correct?

YES! Thoughts, colour, taste, smell, sensation and sound are not experienced, they are simply known. This will become clearer a little later on in our investigation.

Or is the idea that the thought story is a narrative that is known, has thought characters doing things in thought, a beginning and end, new thoughts, nice thoughts, scary thoughts – simply a thought itself, as distinct from AE?

This question is the perfect lead in to looking at the nature of thought.

Here is a thought exercise. Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
Where are they coming from and going to?
Can you predict your next thought?
Can you push away any thought?
Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to control any thoughts? Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?
It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Look carefully when doing this exercise and do it several times if necessary. Please answer each question individually.

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

I'm continuing to look, and will get your questions answered in a few hours.

Thank you for your dedication.

Love, Iain