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

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Let me know how you go with this.

I have tried some ‘blah’ thought replacement. Such blah thoughts do feel entirely interchangeable with my usual unfolding thought narrative. I can encourage some blah thoughts in where that previous thought was, then the usual stories about people, places, objects and Iain simply continues as if never interrupted. However, ‘blah’ thoughts are not compatible with things known in AE. AE is distinct, and trying to replace it with blah thoughts feels incompatible and artificial.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

Occasionally the thought “I am watching my thoughts for this exercise” came up. Otherwise the thoughts just poured out, running onwards, changing, repeating, familiar.

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

Absolutely not. Thoughts have a life of their own. They are not at my beck and call. I could schedule a particular thought in my diary, and respond to my diary entry at that time, but that would just be a story within the ongoing thought narrative. The pinning down of exact moments is just an idea.

Where are they coming from and going to?

Thoughts happen, and I know their narrative. Any idea that they have an origin or a destination would just be an invention. I know them at the time of the thought taking place. How could I know the thought before it occurs, or after it is gone to be replaced by another.

Can you predict your next thought?

No. I might as well try to guess the correct lottery numbers.

Can you push away any thought?

Uncomfortable thoughts may come up to be noticed. The idea that it would be nice to move on to a more pleasant thought is a thought in itself. Thought manipulation is just another thought. They are too slippery to be held, manipulated or pushed away.

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

That would be ridiculous. Thoughts are not real. They are not different places to visit, or different objects I could look at, or different foods I could taste. They are an unfolding story. Attempts to choose in such a way won’t work: such a selection would only be a thought itself, and pleasant or unpleasant are thought labels.

Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

Thought has no beginning or end. It is like being on a slide that simply goes on and on. I can’t remember when I got on the slide, and it will flow indefinitely. Thinking a thought has a middle and can be interrupted means creating another story about what thought is and what can be done to it.

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

If I could do this, I would have done so long ago. Sensations arise or images are experienced, and thought delights in the opportunity to apply a story of personalised memories, needs or suggested actions. Giving a thought a qualitative label is another thought. Thoughts will flow onwards, and labeling and pigeon holing thoughts as good, bad, progressive or regressive is part of their story. There’s no controlling this.

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

Thoughts are constantly changing but the idea of agency in choosing them is another thought process. I could pursue the thought ‘Iain has different thoughts’ then ‘how nice it would be to return to be back on that beach in Thailand’. I could then think ‘I am now immersed in that memory of being on the beach, I can feel the sand, smell the fragrances of the plants on the island and the sea water, feel the pleasure of being there’. However that entire process is one of thought: Iains, thinkers, agency, ‘different’ thoughts to be manipulated and colourful memories are just thought unfolding its story.

Is it possible to control any thoughts? Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

Thought is immune to such control. Surely ideas on controlling my thoughts it is thought itself. There is no controller to be found outside of thought to do any controlling, even if thought would invent this. Yes, there may often be a sense of an Iain character running alongside thought, at other times Iain will be absent, but there is no predictability or control taking place.

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’?

The narrative quality of thought does like to suggest some internal movie is being shown, with a beginning, middle and end, new characters and events and conclusions reached. Thought suggests I can sit back and take in the narrative, or even trace the train of thoughts back to see which one triggered which. Categorising patterns of thought and framing them in such a way is just applying a story to the story.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hello Iain,

Great looking at the nature of thought, Iain!
How does it feel to see that you are not the thinker of thoughts and never have been?

I have tried some ‘blah’ thought replacement. Such blah thoughts do feel entirely interchangeable with my usual unfolding thought narrative. I can encourage some blah thoughts in where that previous thought was, then the usual stories about people, places, objects and Iain simply continues as if never interrupted. However, ‘blah’ thoughts are not compatible with things known in AE. AE is distinct, and trying to replace it with blah thoughts feels incompatible and artificial.

And when replacing a thought in the middle of a story with ‘blahblahblah’ how did the ensuing thought stories feel? It’s not so much that they did or didn’t stop but how then did the story feel?


Let’s say, for example, you are watching a documentary on the homeless and up pops a thought saying, “if I don’t continue to work, that will be me”, and with that thought the sensation labelled ‘fear’ appeared.
If you replace that thought with “blahblahblah”, what is the actual experience? Is that thought pointing to actual experience, or is pointing to a thought story (ie imagination)? What is the actual experience?

Or, another example, a thought appears saying “I hear a bird singing”. If you replace that thought with “blahblahblah”, what is the actual experience? If there is no actual ‘bird song’ appearing then the thought is pointing to fantasy. If there is ‘bird song’ heard, then the thought is pointing to AE of sound labelled as ‘bird singing’.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

Occasionally the thought “I am watching my thoughts for this exercise” came up. Otherwise the thoughts just poured out, running onwards, changing, repeating, familiar.

Yes, so occasionally the thought “I am watching my thoughts for this exercise” came up, and did you make that particular thought appear, or did it just appear among the arising and subsiding thoughts?

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

Absolutely not. Thoughts have a life of their own. They are not at my beck and call. I could schedule a particular thought in my diary, and respond to my diary entry at that time, but that would just be a story within the ongoing thought narrative. The pinning down of exact moments is just an idea.

Lovely

Where are they coming from and going to?

Thoughts happen, and I know their narrative. Any idea that they have an origin or a destination would just be an invention. I know them at the time of the thought taking place. How could I know the thought before it occurs, or after it is gone to be replaced by another.

Yes, exactly. “Thoughts happen, and I know their narrative”, is itself a thought!

Can you predict your next thought?

No. I might as well try to guess the correct lottery numbers.

Haha, wouldn’t that be nice!

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

That would be ridiculous. Thoughts are not real. They are not different places to visit, or different objects I could look at, or different foods I could taste. They are an unfolding story. Attempts to choose in such a way won’t work: such a selection would only be a thought itself, and pleasant or unpleasant are thought labels.

And if we could select a range of thoughts, why would we ever select to have fearful, painful and negative thoughts?

Is it possible to control any thoughts? Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

Thought is immune to such control. Surely ideas on controlling my thoughts it is thought itself. There is no controller to be found outside of thought to do any controlling, even if thought would invent this. Yes, there may often be a sense of an Iain character running alongside thought, at other times Iain will be absent, but there is no predictability or control taking place.

Terrific observations.
So if there is no ‘you’ who is the author/controller of thought, is there a ‘you’ who is responsible for anything?


The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice, seems to feel as though they can influence somehow what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome, the commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?

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

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

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

How does it feel to see that you are not the thinker of thoughts and never have been?

Seeing that Iain is a thought has been a gradually growing awareness over the last eighteen months or so. I’ve looked for Iain in different ways many times, open to the suggestion that he is not a character separate from thought, not a thing in control, not the thinker or that to which thoughts are known.

There have been moments when it has been clearer, and other times less so. My idea of who I am has changed, this does feel different. I feel as though thought has lost its power to vividly present a real person that is then thoroughly believed in, as such a person was only ever a thought.

And when replacing a thought in the middle of a story with ‘blahblahblah’ how did the ensuing thought stories feel? It’s not so much that they did or didn’t stop but how then did the story feel?

The story isn’t particularly phased by the introduction of blah.

If you replace that thought with “blahblahblah”, what is the actual experience? Is that thought pointing to actual experience, or is pointing to a thought story (ie imagination)? What is the actual experience?

The documentary is colourful images and sounds that are experienced. Thoughts run with a dramatic personalised story separate to the AE of the documentary. If I replace the fearful homeless thought with blah thoughts, the actual experience remains the same. The fearful personalised focus of the thought story drops away though.

Blah thoughts are another part of the thought story. They are neutral and don’t grab me like fearful or pleasurable thoughts. If the story can be one of fear, pleasure or blah, then the whole ‘realness’ of the story takes a blow and is reduced. Thought makes a complex story upon story, and in looking I can see it can equally be a story of blah, vivid Iain character, fear or pleasure narrative, but all story nonetheless separate from AE.

The thought blah, and the imagined bird song, feels equal. They equally do not point towards anything other than more thought. When I focus on the traffic outside, the thoughts of movement and vehicles and highways point towards that AE of sound. However, ‘Iain’, ‘blah’, ‘fear’, ‘fun’ are all thoughts that point only to other thoughts.

Yes, so occasionally the thought “I am watching my thoughts for this exercise” came up, and did you make that particular thought appear, or did it just appear among the arising and subsiding thoughts?

The thought “I am watching my thoughts for this exercise” simply appears. Thought may add to this that “the person or character Iain has chosen to participate in this exercise, is in control of it, will decide when it ends, and is good or bad at running exercises somewhere called his mind” but all of that is simply more thought. If I were to imagine a number, I have no ability to choose that number, the number simply appears. Equally I have no ability to make any ‘valid’ or ‘real’, better or worse thoughts appear amongst other occurring thoughts.

So if there is no ‘you’ who is the author/controller of thought, is there a ‘you’ who is responsible for anything?

Absolutely no you or I separate from thought. No I or Iain behind, before, beneath or after thought. How could there be? Only thought can be there in that place of thinking. Thought functions to invent, it’s what it’s best at, but it can only come from thought and lead to more thoughts. Agency, origin of thought, right, wrong, responsibility and irresponsibility is all in thought and there is no I or Iain to be found separate. Convincing as characters may be, only thought can be there amongst the stories, narrative, thinking.

I've only just begun to work on the exercise. I will get you a full response to your remaining questions in just over half a day.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hello Iain,

How does it feel to see that you are not the thinker of thoughts and never have been?

Seeing that Iain is a thought has been a gradually growing awareness over the last eighteen months or so. I’ve looked for Iain in different ways many times, open to the suggestion that he is not a character separate from thought, not a thing in control, not the thinker or that to which thoughts are known.

Yes, seeing Iain as thought describes Iain, is thought…but you (not Iain) is not a thought. If you were a thought then you would not be aware of anything, as thoughts are not aware.

There have been moments when it has been clearer, and other times less so. My idea of who I am has changed, this does feel different. I feel as though thought has lost its power to vividly present a real person that is then thoroughly believed in, as such a person was only ever a thought.

Lovely. And the yo-yoing is natural. It happens to everyone. However, what has been seen cannot be unseen, no matter how many times thought appears saying that it is not clear. What is clear is that thoughts aren't clear, however you are clear that what is appearing is thought...that is never in doubt. A thought cannot appear without the knowing of it! :)

If you replace that thought with “blahblahblah”, what is the actual experience? Is that thought pointing to actual experience, or is pointing to a thought story (ie imagination)? What is the actual experience?
The documentary is colourful images and sounds that are experienced. Thoughts run with a dramatic personalised story separate to the AE of the documentary. If I replace the fearful homeless thought with blah thoughts, the actual experience remains the same. The fearful personalised focus of the thought story drops away though.

Yes, lovely. If I replace the thought “I am a person” with “blahblahblah”, the actual experience is silence. There is experience of sensation and ‘outside’ sounds heard, and mental image but nothing else. I don’t find a person.

The thought blah, and the imagined bird song, feels equal. They equally do not point towards anything other than more thought. When I focus on the traffic outside, the thoughts of movement and vehicles and highways point towards that AE of sound. However, ‘Iain’, ‘blah’, ‘fear’, ‘fun’ are all thoughts that point only to other thoughts.

Terrific!

So if there is no ‘you’ who is the author/controller of thought, is there a ‘you’ who is responsible for anything?
Absolutely no you or I separate from thought. No I or Iain behind, before, beneath or after thought. How could there be? Only thought can be there in that place of thinking. Thought functions to invent, it’s what it’s best at, but it can only come from thought and lead to more thoughts. Agency, origin of thought, right, wrong, responsibility and irresponsibility is all in thought and there is no I or Iain to be found separate. Convincing as characters may be, only thought can be there amongst the stories, narrative, thinking.

And the beauty of it is, is that it is only a thought that says “convincing as characters may be”! Convincing to what exactly?

I've only just begun to work on the exercise. I will get you a full response to your remaining questions in just over half a day.

I look forward to receiving them

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?

With the sound turned off there are colourful images and movement only. With the sound on, there is an abrupt extra layer of sound. The sound both rises and falls. The colours move both quickly and slowly. The linking of what the sounds and images means is within thought. Without thought, there is only image and sound.

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

The colourful moving images of the game are experienced. The commentary is an additional layer on top. The play does not know the commentary, and is not influenced by it. It would take place regardless of no commentary, or one hundred separate commentaries. The commentary may be loud and demanding, intricate and absorbing, but it can do nothing other than respond, not influence.

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

The inner narration of thought rolls out distinct from the play of life. It loves to strategise, plan, manipulate, reflect, suppose and project multiple ideas about what may happen. However, life flows without influence from the layers of thought narrative.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hello Iain,

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?

With the sound turned off there are colourful images and movement only. With the sound on, there is an abrupt extra layer of sound. The sound both rises and falls. The colours move both quickly and slowly. The linking of what the sounds and images means is within thought. Without thought, there is only image and sound.

Yes exactly :)

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

The colourful moving images of the game are experienced. The commentary is an additional layer on top. The play does not know the commentary, and is not influenced by it. It would take place regardless of no commentary, or one hundred separate commentaries. The commentary may be loud and demanding, intricate and absorbing, but it can do nothing other than respond, not influence.

Nicely expressed! Thought seems to be the dominant experience, however, if you allow (watch/observe) thought without actually following it, you see that thought is just a constant stream of commentary that has a story about everything.

Can you see how thought does the same with the colour labelled ‘Iain’ and ‘his life’?

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

The inner narration of thought rolls out distinct from the play of life. It loves to strategise, plan, manipulate, reflect, suppose and project multiple ideas about what may happen. However, life flows without influence from the layers of thought narrative.

Without thought there is just THIS appearing exactly as it is and everything is neutral. Nothing is either good or bad, right or wrong…it simply IS. So with the commentary off, everything is just happening. There is no one who can predict what is going to happen, or how the commentary will go! It can only base itself on what has already happened. And even future thoughts are based on past thoughts!

Okay, moving on from thoughts alone to looking at the idea of control and decisions.

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

Watch like a hawk.

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

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

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

How is the movement controlled?

The movement simply happens. The fleshy object turns up and over. I cannot see a controller. I cannot find control when watching the up and down movement. If I trace the hand back to the arms and the torso I am no closer to finding a controller. I prodded my palm to see if it was possible to discover control within the flesh, but this didn’t reveal any controlling influences.

Does a thought control it?

Regardless of what thoughts are present before during and after the hand movement, the movement simply continues to take place. Any thoughts may appear, and no thoughts may appear, but the hand continues to move. Thought might like to comment “I received an instruction so now I have decided to move part of Iain’s body” but this is simply a story. The idea that an instruction was received, a self with control contemplated this, a point of decision was reached, and then monitoring of the movement took place is all within thought, and thought has no ability to control, only comment.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

There is colour and image, thoughts continue with their narrative, but no controller of the turning image movement, elsewhere in the body, outside the body or in the thought narrative.

How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.

The hand turns. The thought may appear “I will start this exercise in three, two, one…go” but this is simply a layer of narration. The idea that there can be a point “go” is only a thought. The idea that such a point can be decided upon is only a thought. What is clear is the hand turns. What cannot be found is a moment of decision making. There is only image of flesh movement, and thought, but thought cannot make decisions.

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

Thought loves to throw in ideas that “there is a self in your body somewhere” and “look, that’s what Iain feels like” and “Iain comes first and decides on what’s moving or not moving” but this is all just empty thoughts. What cannot be denied is the movement is taking place, but there is no controller or originator or responder that can be seen.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hi Iain,

How is the movement controlled?

The movement simply happens.

Lovely LOOKING.

Does a thought control it?

Regardless of what thoughts are present before during and after the hand movement, the movement simply continues to take place.

Exactly. Have you found yourself scratching an area of the body, and then thought appears saying, “I found myself absent mindedly scratching”. Thought appears laying ‘claim’ to an “I” that is absent mindedly scracthing, however if there was no awareness of thought to start scratching, then what exactly precipitated the movement of the hand to go to the area to be scratched?!

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

There is colour and image, thoughts continue with their narrative, but no controller of the turning image movement, elsewhere in the body, outside the body or in the thought narrative.

Great! :) So you can see, just like with the sports exercise, that there is only ever an appearing thought saying that there is an “I” that is controlling the movement, controlling thoughts etc?

How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.

The hand turns. The thought may appear “I will start this exercise in three, two, one…go” but this is simply a layer of narration. The idea that there can be a point “go” is only a thought. The idea that such a point can be decided upon is only a thought. What is clear is the hand turns. What cannot be found is a moment of decision making. There is only image of flesh movement, and thought, but thought cannot make decisions.

Terrific…nice LOOKING.

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

Thought loves to throw in ideas that “there is a self in your body somewhere” and “look, that’s what Iain feels like” and “Iain comes first and decides on what’s moving or not moving” but this is all just empty thoughts. What cannot be denied is the movement is taking place, but there is no controller or originator or responder that can be seen.

Thought can’t actually do anything, they simply arise and subside and it is just another thought that claims that thought is doing something.

So, let’s throw a detour in here and have a look at what movement is all about!

Normally we believe that sensation is coming from sight - the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’.

1. Close the eyes and hold up one of the hands. Pay attention only to the felt sensations ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.
Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

You can repeat this with all of body parts below, one-by-one. Spend a considerable amount of time on each of them:

- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

Let me know how you go and what you notice.


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

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

The sensations will keep coming for as long as I pay attention. Seeing the image of the body part isn’t required to experience the sensations. Different thoughts may come up about what the sensation means, what the image of the body part means, that ‘looking’ can confirm the location of the sensations, but these are all thoughts. I can smell and taste the body parts also, and don’t need to see them to do this.

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Seeing the colour of the body part, and feeling the sensations that come from the body part can happen at the same time, but they are different experiences. I can pay attention the colour in one moment, and the sensations in another moment. The sensations do not come from the image, and vice versa. Nor do I need to see the image to feel the sensations, nor feel the sensations to see the image.

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Sensation can be felt and images can be seen. One is not dependent on the other. Looking at the body part does not change the sensation. Feeling the body part does not change the image. Thoughts may arise such as “I can both see and feel my hand” and “that body part belongs to me” and “feeling my foot and then looking at it confirms it is my foot” but this is all just thought.

Let me know how you go and what you notice.

I notice how different the image of the body part is to the sensation. One does not come from the other.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hello Iain,

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

The sensations will keep coming for as long as I pay attention. Seeing the image of the body part isn’t required to experience the sensations. Different thoughts may come up about what the sensation means, what the image of the body part means, that ‘looking’ can confirm the location of the sensations, but these are all thoughts. I can smell and taste the body parts also, and don’t need to see them to do this.

How is it known that that smell and taste are of “body parts”?

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Seeing the colour of the body part, and feeling the sensations that come from the body part can happen at the same time, but they are different experiences. I can pay attention the colour in one moment, and the sensations in another moment. The sensations do not come from the image, and vice versa. Nor do I need to see the image to feel the sensations, nor feel the sensations to see the image.

Is there colour AND body part?
Is there sensation AND body part?

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Sensation can be felt and images can be seen. One is not dependent on the other. Looking at the body part does not change the sensation. Feeling the body part does not change the image. Thoughts may arise such as “I can both see and feel my hand” and “that body part belongs to me” and “feeling my foot and then looking at it confirms it is my foot” but this is all just thought.

If the sensation was actually produced by colour labelled ‘hand’, then when the eyes are closed there would be no sensation as there is no ‘hand’ to be seen…..yes?

Let’s continue with looking at decision making.

Investigate ‘decision making’ whatever ‘you’ do today. For example getting out of bed in the morning.

Can a decision maker be found that decides when to wake up?
Can a decision maker be found making the body leave the bed?
Where does the ‘decision’, the ‘command’ to get up come from?
What makes the body get up, is there a ‘you’, or a decider that commands the body?
When lying there, shout 'GET UP' internally as loudly as you can. Does that affect the outcome?

How does the decision happen?
Does a decider come in and take over, weighing pros and cons, looking at possible consequences?
Or does getting up just happen, or not?

Did an 'I' perform assessments and calculations necessary to heave a body into an upright position and then continue to take many decisions about moving legs into exactly the right positions to do 'walking to the kettle'?

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

How is it known that that smell and taste are of “body parts”?

Smells and tastes are experienced. It is thought that labels these experiences as linked to body parts. Ideas of hand, foot and body part is in thought.

Is there colour AND body part?
Is there sensation AND body part?

Only the colour is experienced. Thought then labels this image and may call it hand, foot, or Iain’s body part.
Only sensation is experienced. Thought then labels this sensation and may call it sensation of hand or foot or another of Iain’s body part.

If the sensation was actually produced by colour labelled ‘hand’, then when the eyes are closed there would be no sensation as there is no ‘hand’ to be seen…..yes?

The experience of the colour and the experience of the sensation are separate experiences. Seeing the colour is not dependent of feeling the sensation, and feeling the sensation is not dependent on seeing the colour. With eyes closed, the sensation remains.

Can a decision maker be found that decides when to wake up?

Waking up simply happens. Thoughts may tell a story about alarms and wake up times, but this is only thought.

Can a decision maker be found making the body leave the bed?

Getting out of bed happens. There may be a thought narrative taking place at that time, but this is only the ongoing narrative of thought.

Where does the ‘decision’, the ‘command’ to get up come from?

There is no decision or command as such. There is a body in bed, and a body that has left the bed. There is a thought narrative going on that may or may not include stories about beds and bodies. Movement flows, colours change, a myriad of sensations are felt, but decisions and commands are ideas in thought.

What makes the body get up, is there a ‘you’, or a decider that commands the body?

There is no point of decision or command. The body undertakes all sorts of actions such as sleeping, waking, getting out of bed and going out, but there is no decision maker or decision before these actions. One action follows from another automatically. Thought narrates while the actions take place, and there may be thoughts such as “I will decide to get up in a few minutes” or “if I don’t get up now, I will feel uncomfortable” but these are thoughts, not decisions or commands from a decision maker or commander. There can only be movements, and the narration of thought, no other sources of agency.

When lying there, shout 'GET UP' internally as loudly as you can. Does that affect the outcome?

Loud thoughts are fun. Thoughts are powerful and the story can be one of loud internal shouts, whispers, the thought of a person or character 'having' sensations but even if I imagine the loudest shout ever this is simply another thought. Thought does not govern bodies and movements and colours and sensations. Thought can only tell a story while experiences unfold, so no.

How does the decision happen?
Does a decider come in and take over, weighing pros and cons, looking at possible consequences?
Or does getting up just happen, or not?

There could be an elaborate story about the benefits of getting up, and fear or discomfort from not getting up, or how a character called Iain deserves the pleasures of remaining in bed, or an entirely different thought story. However, this has no impact on the getting up taking place. The getting up will take place regardless of what thoughts are taking place.

Did an 'I' perform assessments and calculations necessary to heave a body into an upright position and then continue to take many decisions about moving legs into exactly the right positions to do 'walking to the kettle'?

The body and its movements, or lack of movement, does not come from a process of thought. A familiar sensation called I or Iain may be present, but that I or Iain has as much ability to organise and command another person’s body, or the body of one of the birds flying outside, as it does to make my own move. No matter how much I buy into ‘Iain’s body’, ‘Iain can control’ and ‘this is what Iain being in charge looks and feels like’ these are all simply thoughts.

The thought story has no start and no end, and I is only a thought within the story. Thoughts cannot start, pause or stop life. My body will move about for as long as life flows through it. Thoughts will always weave their story but that story has no agency even when thoughts of control arise.

Movement happens, colours are experienced, life unfolds, the thought story runs and runs, character I or Iain may be present or absent in thought, but has no agency whatsoever in the unfolding.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain,

How is it known that that smell and taste are of “body parts”?

Smells and tastes are experienced. It is thought that labels these experiences as linked to body parts. Ideas of hand, foot and body part is in thought.

What is it exactly that is experiencing smell and taste? Where does smelling end and the smell begin? In other words, where does the ‘experiencer’ end and the experience begin?

Is there colour AND body part?
Is there sensation AND body part?

Only the colour is experienced. Thought then labels this image and may call it hand, foot, or Iain’s body part.

Where does colour end and seeing begin?
Do the body’s eyes see?

Only sensation is experienced. Thought then labels this sensation and may call it sensation of hand or foot or another of Iain’s body part.

Where does feeling end and sensation begin? Can a dividing line be found to where a feeling ends and the sensation begins?

When lying there, shout 'GET UP' internally as loudly as you can. Does that affect the outcome?
Loud thoughts are fun. Thoughts are powerful and the story can be one of loud internal shouts, whispers, the thought of a person or character 'having' sensations but even if I imagine the loudest shout ever this is simply another thought. Thought does not govern bodies and movements and colours and sensations. Thought can only tell a story while experiences unfold, so no.

Thoughts are powerful? To what exactly are thoughts powerful?

Did an 'I' perform assessments and calculations necessary to heave a body into an upright position and then continue to take many decisions about moving legs into exactly the right positions to do 'walking to the kettle'?

The body and its movements, or lack of movement, does not come from a process of thought. A familiar sensation called I or Iain may be present, but that I or Iain has as much ability to organise and command another person’s body, or the body of one of the birds flying outside, as it does to make my own move. No matter how much I buy into ‘Iain’s body’, ‘Iain can control’ and ‘this is what Iain being in charge looks and feels like’ these are all simply thoughts.

Lovely looking with this exercise, Iain.

So has been clearly see that there is no separate self who is the controller, chooser or decision maker?

Love, Kay

[IainB]

Dear Kay,

What is it exactly that is experiencing smell and taste? Where does smelling end and the smell begin? In other words, where does the ‘experiencer’ end and the experience begin?

I can’t pin down a spot where an experience takes place and it is experienced by an experiencer, separate from that experience.

When I look it’s not possible to see that which is other than the experience. Smelling and the smell is one experience. Tasting and the taste is one experience. Thoughts may tell a story, but that is not the experience, and a story or narrative is certainly not an experiencer.

Where does colour end and seeing begin?
Do the body’s eyes see?

There is no point when colour or image ends and an experience of seeing takes place. Seeing is the colour or image. Seeing may pause when the eyes are closed but all I can find is the colour or image and that isn’t coming from the eyes.

Where does feeling end and sensation begin? Can a dividing line be found to where a feeling ends and the sensation begins?

No. Any dividing line is a story introduced by thought and cannot be found in looking.

Thoughts are powerful? To what exactly are thoughts powerful?

That’s a good point. Thoughts are what they are. Giving thoughts particular qualities is just another thought.

So has been clearly seen that there is no separate self who is the controller, chooser or decision maker?

I need to keep looking at this one.

Love, Iain

[forgetmenot]

Hey Iain,

Nice looking :)

What is it exactly that is experiencing smell and taste? Where does smelling end and the smell begin? In other words, where does the ‘experiencer’ end and the experience begin?

I can’t pin down a spot where an experience takes place and it is experienced by an experiencer, separate from that experience.
When I look it’s not possible to see that which is other than the experience. Smelling and the smell is one experience. Tasting and the taste is one experience. Thoughts may tell a story, but that is not the experience, and a story or narrative is certainly not an experiencer.

Lovely!

Where does colour end and seeing begin?

Do the body’s eyes see?

There is no point when colour or image ends and an experience of seeing takes place. Seeing is the colour or image. Seeing may pause when the eyes are closed but all I can find is the colour or image and that isn’t coming from the eyes.

With eyes closed, there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness'?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?

Okay….then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘blackness’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

Thoughts are powerful? To what exactly are thoughts powerful?

That’s a good point. Thoughts are what they are. Giving thoughts particular qualities is just another thought.

Really have a careful look a thought. Does thought have a voice? Does thought have sound? Does thought have an image? Does thought have a sensation? Does thought have a taste? Does thought have a smell? Can you describe a thought?

So has been clearly seen that there is no separate self who is the controller, chooser or decision maker?

I need to keep looking at this one

Okay, so let’s keep looking at this!

1. Place both hands on a table in front of you, palms down.
2. When you have done that, rest for a moment and then raise one hand in the air but not the other.

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

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is doing the choosing?
What is it that is controlling the hand?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
Can anything be found that makes the hand move?
How is the decision made?

Love, Kay