The Gate

Ok, NIna
I'll do that !!
thanks

Hi, Nina

I'm trying the exercises and they are incredible.

The real experince has no label at all. We couldn't put words on it. Just LIVE the experience. THIS is IT.

Great LOOKING!
Yes, they are all just labels but labels are the actual experience (AE) of thought.

And what exactly is it that could "LIVE the experience"? Describe that someone/something to me who can "LIVE the experience".

I don't quite understand what you mean by "the real experience has no label at all". Could you tell me what you mean please?

What is it that could LIVE the experience?
Nobody lives the experience. Nothing lives the experience. There is just "experiencing" by no one. There is no sense of someone/something doing that. That's just happening. No sense of time nor space. That's what a called VOID before.

At this point I closed my eyes to LOOK directly to the experience, to feel your questions...NOTHING was left...just a void (even VOID is a thought label)...NO THING. Pure aliveness. How to put in words what is wordless?

The meaning of "real experience"
When all the thought labels crashes by LOOKING directly to them, then all that remain is what I call "the real experience". THAT experience is experienced for no one. That's why there is no label, 'cause there is no one to do that.
The thought "I" (the first thought of all) put labels in other thoughts creating duality. When there is no "I" thought there is no label at all. So, acttualy, we don't even can call it "experience" once there is nobody experiencing. I could say "experiencing is happening" (to no one).

Thanks for trying the exercise Zulu! It is great that so much came from it.
Colour and image are one and the same. Actually there are no images...only colour. It is thought that labels colour into different shapes and images.
So what remained was the raw experience of sound.

Now I can see that colour and image are one and the same. I saw it in direct experience. I was looking around when I perceived the landscape in two dimensions, like in a movie. And I just could see colours and movements.

Can a dividing line between "hear-er" and what is heard be found?

No, there is no boundary in between them.

To be very honest, at this point I began to be a little confused...

So, we have an AE of a THOUGHT (a cup of water, for example).
A "cup of water" is the content of the tought (this tought is the primary AE).
The content of a tought is another tought (the secondary AE, so to speak).
So, we are talking here about two AE. The THOUGHT and "cup of water".
But, the real experience has no name at all.
I don't know if I made myself clear.

Not quite!

The thought/label "cup of water" is AE of thought and not AE of a cup of water.
The image labelled "cup of water" is AE of image and not the AE of a cup of water.

Image is always the AE of image, whether it is a "cup of water" in your hand or a thought image "cup of water".

The label “cup of water” points to content, which is FICTION – it is a thought story.

There is no such thing as a cup of water. What is actually there is just the actual experience of thought + image.

Is this clear?

Not quite !!
I have an AE of a THOUGHT
This THOUGHT is labelled as "cup of water" - THOUGHT LABEL of "cup of water"
I see a colour/image of a "cup of water" - THOUGHT IMAGE of "cup of water"
And was is actually there is just the AE of THOUGHT + IMAGE
So, what is the difference betwen a THOUGHT and an IMAGE? Is an IMAGE a projection of a THOUGHT?

Colour and image are one and the same. Actually there are no images...only colour. It is thought that labels colour into different shapes and images.

Can you see my dificulty?


Please, help me at this point, Nina

Thank you

Zulu

Hi Zulu,

Thank you for your commitment to this. Things are getting clearer very quickly.
You are looking really well and coming up with great questions.

What is it that could LIVE the experience?
Nobody lives the experience. Nothing lives the experience. There is just "experiencing" by no one. There is no sense of someone/something doing that. That's just happening. No sense of time nor space. That's what a called VOID before.

Really great looking. There is just AE.

But what do you mean when you say VOID? What is in this VOID?

When all the thought labels crashes by LOOKING directly to them, then all that remain is what I call "the real experience". THAT experience is experienced for no one. That's why there is no label, 'cause there is no one to do that.
The thought "I" (the first thought of all) put labels in other thoughts creating duality. When there is no "I" thought there is no label at all. So, acttualy, we don't even can call it "experience" once there is nobody experiencing. I could say "experiencing is happening" (to no one).

Exactly! AE is happening. Taste, sound, smell, sensation, image/colour happen. "I" has nothing to do with it!

LOOKING more closely:
Please describe EXACTLY the process of how a thought "puts labels into other thoughts"?
Can thoughts do anything?
Is there anything controlling thought?

Now I can see that colour and image are one and the same. I saw it in direct experience. I was looking around when I perceived the landscape in two dimensions, like in a movie. And I just could see colours and movements.

Right! Colour is what is seen.

Please explain exactly what 'movement' is from actual experience.

I have an AE of a THOUGHT
This THOUGHT is labelled as "cup of water" - THOUGHT LABEL of "cup of water"
I see a colour/image of a "cup of water" - THOUGHT IMAGE of "cup of water"
And was is actually there is just the AE of THOUGHT + IMAGE
So, what is the difference betwen a THOUGHT and an IMAGE? Is an IMAGE a projection of a THOUGHT?

Can you see my dificulty?

Yes.
Thought puts a label on what is seen : "cup of water" or "image"
"Colour" is still a label but it points directly to AE.

Mental images and visual images are the same thing…thought labels.
The actual experience is of colours…because images are ‘made up’ of colours.

The AE is of colour, whether the "image" is mental or visual.

For example:

What is a rose? Perhaps a nice red and green flower with a pleasant smell and some sharp thorns?
But look again - all that is ‘actually’ present are red and green, a nice smell and maybe an 'ouch' sensation. The ‘rose itself’ is only a story.
Notice that all things that seem to exist are just like the rose, just fictional stories about experience. Beyond the story, can any of them be found to exist at all?



Look at the picture of the rose.
Now, eyes closed, imagine the rose.

Is that any clearer?


All the best,

Nina
User avatar
forgetmenot

Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:07 am
Location: Australia

Thank you for your commitment to this. Things are getting clearer very quickly.
You are looking really well and coming up with great questions.

Thank you, Nina
I'm doing my best.

But what do you mean when you say VOID? What is in this VOID?

This VOID that I'm talking about is like a backgroud of all experiences. This VOID is not empty (sounds paradoxal) because all the experiences arises from "there". When I'm just looking around I can fell it everywhere. Silence...a profound silence, quietness...It's nothing and everything at same time. I can't describe THAT. It's HERE now.

LOOKING more closely:
Please describe EXACTLY the process of how a thought "puts labels into other thoughts"?
Can thoughts do anything?
Is there anything controlling thought?

There is wholeness...no sound, no colour, no sensation, no thing...I see it as an admensional point that contains everything in a potential state and no referencial poit to itself...EVERYTHING and NOTHING is there...suddenly, like a bubble rising from the seabed and reaching the surface, emanates the "I" thought (without any reason it emerges) and this thought starts to discriminate everything that was in a potential state...now the "I" fell separateness...a THOUGHT (the "I thought) then begins duality. It's like wholeness dreaming that it's not whole and complete. In the dream the "I" thought tries to complete itself in many ways. That is how a thought puts labels into other thoughts.

Please explain exactly what 'movement' is from actual experience.

Oh, my Gosh, I can be wrong, but what I see in actual experience is that there is no movement at all. I was drinking a cup of coffee and looking around...the wind blowing in the trees, people walking, a bird flying...and, suddenly I perceived that what actually was going on was sequencies of stoped pictures...they showed up like "booms"...moment to moment...boom, boom, boom...and it creates an illusion of movement.
It is like a roll of film ... there are sequences of still images that, when the roll is driven gives us the sensation of movement.

Thought puts a label on what is seen : "cup of water" or "image"
"Colour" is still a label but it points directly to AE.

Mental images and visual images are the same thing…thought labels.
The actual experience is of colours…because images are ‘made up’ of colours.

The AE is of colour, whether the "image" is mental or visual.

I've got it !!

For example:

What is a rose? Perhaps a nice red and green flower with a pleasant smell and some sharp thorns?

That is the story told about the AE of just colours (red and green).

But look again - all that is ‘actually’ present are red and green, a nice smell and maybe an 'ouch' sensation. The ‘rose itself’ is only a story.
Notice that all things that seem to exist are just like the rose, just fictional stories about experience. Beyond the story, can any of them be found to exist at all?

I've got it too !!

Look at the picture of the rose.
Now, eyes closed, imagine the rose.

Is that any clearer?

Very clear. The AE is of colour, whether the "image" is mental or visual as you said before.
I'm feeling like a child looking to the world for the first time.
But this feeling is not permanent... :(

Thank you one more time, Nina

Zulu

User avatar
forgetmenot

Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:07 am
Location: Australia

Is that to me?

Hi Zulu,

Thanks for you reply.

This VOID that I'm talking about is like a backgroud of all experiences. This VOID is not empty (sounds paradoxal) because all the experiences arises from "there". When I'm just looking around I can fell it everywhere. Silence...a profound silence, quietness...It's nothing and everything at same time. I can't describe THAT. It's HERE now.

Where is this VOID in Actual Experience?
Does this void have colour? Sound? Taste? Sensation? Smell?
Is this void in thought?

Where exactly is this "I" that can feel the void everywhere, located? Please describe the location in precise detail.
What is the AE of "profound silence"?

Answer from Actual Experience please.

There is wholeness...no sound, no colour, no sensation, no thing...I see it as an admensional point that contains everything in a potential state and no referencial poit to itself...EVERYTHING and NOTHING is there...suddenly, like a bubble rising from the seabed and reaching the surface, emanates the "I" thought (without any reason it emerges) and this thought starts to discriminate everything that was in a potential state...now the "I" fell separateness...a THOUGHT (the "I thought) then begins duality. It's like wholeness dreaming that it's not whole and complete. In the dream the "I" thought tries to complete itself in many ways. That is how a thought puts labels into other thoughts.

Where is WHOLENESS in Actual Experience?
Is there a bubble rising from the seabed is actual experience?
Can thoughts dream?
How exactly does a thought try to complete itself?

Actual experience is always 'on' and is the only thing that points to WHAT IS.
There is nothing beyond or before actual experience. There is no "nothing" in AE.

Have a LOOK at thoughts again.
You did not answer the questions asked:

Can thoughts DO anything?
Is there anything CONTROLLING thought?

Remember to answer from actual experience. Do not go to thought.

Oh, my Gosh, I can be wrong, but what I see in actual experience is that there is no movement at all. I was drinking a cup of coffee and looking around...the wind blowing in the trees, people walking, a bird flying...and, suddenly I perceived that what actually was going on was sequencies of stoped pictures...they showed up like "booms"...moment to moment...boom, boom, boom...and it creates an illusion of movement.
It is like a roll of film ... there are sequences of still images that, when the roll is driven gives us the sensation of movement.

Yes. "Movement" is a thought about time.
Is it possible to be wrong about Actual Experience?

Movement is the belief in distance, time and cause and effect. None of these things exist.

Just look at actual experience and describe. Nothing can be "wrong".
The content thought, however, are STORIES and not actual experience.

Very clear. The AE is of colour, whether the "image" is mental or visual as you said before.
I'm feeling like a child looking to the world for the first time.
But this feeling is not permanent... :(

Is there an expectation that this "feeling" will be permanent?

What exactly is it that is wanting a "feeling' to be permanent?
There is no such thing as a "feeling" as that would mean that there is someone/something that is the "feeler". There is no "feeler" who is "feeling'.

Where is the dividing line between "feeler" and "feeling"?

I look forward to your answers Zulu,

Best wishes

Nina

Hi, Nina

I think I’ve lost the point somewhere.
I think I'm confusing things, taking other’s experiences and mixing with my own and playing everything from that knowledge rather than realizing the actual experience. I’m lost in my own words.
Shall we begin again? I need your help at this point.
“VOID”, “profound silence”, “wholeness”, “bubble rising from seabed”, “thoughts dreaming”, “thoughts completing another thoughts”, they are all stories to be very honest. None of them can be found in actual experience. They are all stories.

Where is this VOID in Actual Experience?

There is no void in AE.

Does this void have colour? Sound?Taste?Sensation? Smell?

No. It's just a thought label. In AE it's a sensation followed by an story.

Is this void in thought?

Yes, it's just a thought content.

Where exactly is this "I" that can feel the void everywhere, located? Please describe the location in precise detail.

It’s just another story.

What is the AE of "profound silence"?

A thought label.

Where is WHOLENESS in Actual Experience?

It's a thought.

Is there a bubble rising from the seabed is actual experience?

No, there is no bubble rising from the seabed in AE.

Can thoughts dream?

No. A dream is a thought and a thought can’t have another thought.

How exactly does a thought try to complete itself?

It's just a story.

Actual experience is always 'on' and is the only thing that points to WHAT IS.
There is nothing beyond or before actual experience. There is no "nothing" in AE.

I've got it !!

Can thoughts DO anything?

NO, thoughts can't do anything.

Is there anything CONTROLLING thought?

No, they just arises.

Yes. "Movement" is a thought about time.
Is it possible to be wrong about Actual Experience?

NO, AE is what it is.

Movement is the belief in distance, time and cause and effect. None of these things exist.

I've got it too.

Just look at actual experience and describe. Nothing can be "wrong".
The content thought, however, are STORIES and not actual experience.

I understand.

Is there an expectation that this "feeling" will be permanent?

Yes, the expectation is there, but it's another story.

What exactly is it that is wanting a "feeling' to be permanent?

The "I" thought. But, can a thought want anything? So, it's another story.

There is no such thing as a "feeling" as that would mean that there is someone/something that is the "feeler". There is no "feeler" who is "feeling'.

Where is the dividing line between "feeler" and "feeling"?

They are one and the same thing: a thought.

Thank you, Nina
Zulu

Zulu!

Things are going really well. Looking can be difficult at first!

I think I’ve lost the point somewhere.
I think I'm confusing things, taking other’s experiences and mixing with my own and playing everything from that knowledge rather than realizing the actual experience. I’m lost in my own words.

Looking at AE directly challenges beliefs. This can make it difficult. The only advice is to keep looking again and again.

Shall we begin again? I need your help at this point.

The guide is here to help!

“VOID”, “profound silence”, “wholeness”, “bubble rising from seabed”, “thoughts dreaming”, “thoughts completing another thoughts”, they are all stories to be very honest. None of them can be found in actual experience. They are all stories.

YES! They are all stories. They are the content of thought.

Does this void have colour? Sound?Taste?Sensation? Smell?

No. It's just a thought label. In AE it's a sensation followed by an story.

Look at this again.
There is AE of sensation + AE of thought label "Void". The content of the thought is a story. The thoughts of what the "void" is ABOUT is story.

How is it known that story follows sensation?
There is no cause and effect as that would mean that there is someone/something that can cause something in something else! . If there were cause and effect then the concept of separation/duality would be real.

Does the sensation know anything about the thought?
Does sensation know anything about the story?
Do thoughts know anything about sensations?

Is there an expectation that this "feeling" will be permanent?

Yes, the expectation is there, but it's another story.

It is a story yes. But it is important to look at expectations because they could be a barrier to seeing.


Now is the time to have a good LOOK at thoughts.

Here is a little exercise:
Sit for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear and notice what the thought actually is - words, images, bits of music - whatever appears.

Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying, and rather 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?
Where are they going?
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 anything choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?
Can anything pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to control any thoughts?

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’?

Please look carefully when doing this exercise and answer all questions individually using the quote function.
There are a lot of questions but it is important to answer all of them!

Good luck with the exercise Zulu!
I look forward to the answers.

Best wishes

Nina

Hi, Nina
Thanks for the support

Looking at AE directly challenges beliefs. This can make it difficult. The only advice is to keep looking again and again.

I'll keep looking ;)

There is AE of sensation + AE of thought label "Void". The content of the thought is a story. The thoughts of what the "void" is ABOUT is story.

OK, I can see it now.

How is it known that story follows sensation?
There is no cause and effect as that would mean that there is someone/something that can cause something in something else! . If there were cause and effect then the concept of separation/duality would be real.

AE of sensation + AE of thought + story about thought

Does the sensation know anything about the thought?

No, it' doesn't. Sensation is just sensation and can't know anything.

Does sensation know anything about the story?

No, it doesn't.

Do thoughts know anything about sensations?

No

Here is a little exercise:
Sit for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear and notice what the thought actually is - words, images, bits of music - whatever appears.

Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying, and rather just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

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

NO, they just appeared.

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

What I perceived was that even those thoughts that I tried to bring up were there before I think in try. So, try to bring an specif thought was another thought. So, I could not have done anything to make a different thought appear. They just arise.

Where are they coming from?

From nowhere

Where are they going?

To nowhere

Can you predict your next thought?

"Predict the next thought" is another thought , so I have no control. A thought arises "I'll predict my next thought", then comes the one that I thought I had predicted. (too many thoughts...laughing)

Can you push away any thought?

That's another thought.

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

In AE there is no such thing as "pleasant" or "unpleasant" thought...they are all just thoughts...the story is pleasant or unpleasant.

Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

No, that would be another thought: "stop that thought !!"

Can anything choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

Thoughts are just thoughts...the story can be painful or negative...

Can anything pick and choose any kind of thought?

No way...that would be another tought telling to pick up an specific kind of thought. Remember that I was not paying attention to the content of thoughts. And The AE of a thought can't tell me to do anything...it's just a thought.

Is it possible to control any thoughts?

It's Impossible to control them..."control thoughts" is the content of another thought.

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence?

In fact, they are caotic...to be honest, I thought I would be crazy...but that's another story :)

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’?

In this exercise I couldn't see none of it...they had no sequence at all.

Please look carefully when doing this exercise and answer all questions individually using the quote function.
There are a lot of questions but it is important to answer all of them!

[/quote]

I did my best !!

Thank you, NIna

Zulu

Hi Zulu,

Thought is becoming clearer!

How is it known that story follows sensation?

There is no cause and effect as that would mean that there is someone/something that can cause something in something else! . If there were cause and effect then the concept of separation/duality would be real.

AE of sensation + AE of thought + story about thought

Stories are made up of thought, so why is there a "+ story about thought"?
Thoughts are thoughts whether they are in stories, books, written, spoken or as 'self-talk'.

Is it clear that a sensation does not cause a thought or a story made up of thoughts?

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

NO, they just appeared.

YES. There is no seperate individual in control.

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

What I perceived was that even those thoughts that I tried to bring up were there before I think in try. So, try to bring an specif thought was another thought. So, I could not have done anything to make a different thought appear. They just arise.

YES. Thought arises. There is no controller.

What is this "I" that is perceiving?

The word ‘perceiving’ assumes :
1. a perceiver, a doer (who / what performs the ‘act’ of perceiving)
2. the ‘act’ of perceiving (as an action)
3. time in which the ‘act’ of perceiving unfolds

Can you predict your next thought?

"Predict the next thought" is another thought , so I have no control. A thought arises "I'll predict my next thought", then comes the one that I thought I had predicted. (too many thoughts...laughing)

YES. There are chains of thought that SEEM to suggest there is a controller. The chains of thought seem to suggest there is a seperate individual predicting thoughts.
BUT can you find a separate individual anywhere? If you can, please describe them in precise detail.

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

In AE there is no such thing as "pleasant" or "unpleasant" thought...they are all just thoughts...the story is pleasant or unpleasant.

There is no difference between thought and a thought story! Stories are made up of thoughts. Thoughts either point to AE or they point to thoughts.

For example the yellow cup.
The label "yellow" points to AE of colour, but the label "cup" points to thought.
The "cup" and the story of what a cup is, is content of thoughts.
The face value of thoughts are AE but what the thoughts are ABOUT (content) are fiction/story.

Do you see this?

What exactly is it that describes a story as "pleasant" or "unpleasant"?
How is it known that a story is "pleasant" or "unpleasant"?

Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

No, that would be another thought: "stop that thought !!"

Yes. It is a chain of thoughts.

Can anything choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

Thoughts are just thoughts...the story can be painful or negative...

What exactly is it that could find stories "painful or negative"?
How is it known that stories are "painful and negative"?

What is the AE of painful?
What is the AE of negative?

Can anything pick and choose any kind of thought?

No way...that would be another tought telling to pick up an specific kind of thought. Remember that I was not paying attention to the content of thoughts. And The AE of a thought can't tell me to do anything...it's just a thought.

Yes, but what exactly is this "me" that can't be told what to do and where can this "me" be found?

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence?

In fact, they are caotic...to be honest, I thought I would be crazy...but that's another story :)

HA HA! Yes - thoughts are pretty "wild". :)

Is it possible to control any thoughts?

It's Impossible to control them..."control thoughts" is the content of another thought.

Exactly

Thank you for using the quote function perfectly Zulu!


Best wishes

Nina

Hi, NIna

Stories are made up of thought, so why is there a "+ story about thought"?

Actually they are one and the same...just thoughts.

Thoughts are thoughts whether they are in stories, books, written, spoken or as 'self-talk'.

Ok, I've got it !!

Is it clear that a sensation does not cause a thought or a story made up of thoughts?

Yeah, very clear. There is no cause and effect.

What is this "I" that is perceiving?

Another thought.

The word ‘perceiving’ assumes :
1. a perceiver, a doer (who / what performs the ‘act’ of perceiving)
2. the ‘act’ of perceiving (as an action)
3. time in which the ‘act’ of perceiving unfolds

Ok, I understand.

YES. There are chains of thought that SEEM to suggest there is a controller. The chains of thought seem to suggest there is a seperate individual predicting thoughts.
BUT can you find a separate individual anywhere? If you can, please describe them in precise detail.

There is none.

There is no difference between thought and a thought story! Stories are made up of thoughts. Thoughts either point to AE or they point to thoughts.

For example the yellow cup.
The label "yellow" points to AE of colour, but the label "cup" points to thought.
The "cup" and the story of what a cup is, is content of thoughts.
The face value of thoughts are AE but what the thoughts are ABOUT (content) are fiction/story.

Do you see this?

Perfectly

What exactly is it that describes a story as "pleasant" or "unpleasant"?

Another thought.

How is it known that a story is "pleasant" or "unpleasant"?

It’s based in thought stories about pleasure and unpleasure.

What exactly is it that could find stories "painful or negative"?

Thought stories about pain and negativeness.

How is it known that stories are "painful and negative"?

Stories being compared…by no one….thoughts being compared with thoughts by thoughts.

What is the AE of painful?

For example “kicking a stone on the ground”…There is an AE of colours and sensations + the AE of a thought + the content of the thought “kicking a stone on the ground, this is painful and blá blá blá” compared to another "painful" thoughts. And nobody is doing this comparison.

What is the AE of negative?

The same thing that I told about the AE of painful.

There is no such thing as painful or negative. They are stories.

Can anything pick and choose any kind of thought?

No way...that would be another tought telling to pick up an specific kind of thought. Remember that I was not paying attention to the content of thoughts. And The AE of a thought can't tell me to do anything...it's just a thought.

Yes, but what exactly is this "me" that can't be told what to do and where can this "me" be found?

That’s another thought. It can’t be found anywhere.

Thanks, Nina

Hi Zulu,

Great LOOKing Zulu!

Thoughts are thoughts whether they are in stories, books, written, spoken or as 'self-talk'.

Ok, I've got it!!

Great!

So, although thought is Actual Experience , the content of of thought is story.

Is it clear that a sensation does not cause a thought or a story made up of thoughts?

Yeah, very clear. There is no cause and effect.

Great clarity.

What is this "I" that is perceiving?

Another thought.

Thought is AE but the content of thought is a story.

Is it clear that the thought label "I" is pointing to a story about a seperate individual perceiving?

The word ‘perceiving’ assumes :
1. a perceiver, a doer (who / what performs the ‘act’ of perceiving)
2. the ‘act’ of perceiving (as an action)
3. time in which the ‘act’ of perceiving unfolds

Ok, I understand.

Is is possible to find anywhere a seperate individual "doing" and "acting"?

YES. There are chains of thought that SEEM to suggest there is a controller. The chains of thought seem to suggest there is a seperate individual predicting thoughts.
BUT can you find a separate individual anywhere? If you can, please describe them in precise detail.

There is none.

Great clarity :)

What exactly is it that describes a story as "pleasant" or "unpleasant"?

Another thought.

Yes. It is just thoughts.

How is it known that a story is "pleasant" or "unpleasant"?

It’s based in thought stories about pleasure and unpleasure.

Exactly

What exactly is it that could find stories "painful or negative"?

Thought stories about pain and negativeness.

Do THOUGHTS find stories painful or negative?
What is the actual experience of pain in a a story?

How is it known that stories are "painful and negative"?

Stories being compared…by no one….thoughts being compared with thoughts by thoughts.

What do you mean here by "thoughts being compared with thoughts by thoughts"?
Is it possible for thoughts to compare?
Is it possible for thoughts to do anything?

What is the AE of painful?

For example “kicking a stone on the ground”…There is an AE of colours and sensations + the AE of a thought + the content of the thought “kicking a stone on the ground, this is painful and blá blá blá” compared to another "painful" thoughts. And nobody is doing this comparison.

OK. So this is about the pain experienced when kicking a stone. Yes, in this example, AE is sensation + "Pain" which is the AE of thought.

However, the conversation was about painful stories.
What is the AE of "pain" when it is a story? A story about loss of life in an accident, for example, or a story about the end of a relationship?
What is the AE of "sadness" or "tears" or "upset"?


There still seems to be a misunderstanding about the AE of thought and the content of thoughts.
The AE of a thought/ story + the content of the thought
The AE is the thought label or thought/ story (the experience of the thought). The content of the thought is not Actual Experience.

Is this clear?

Yes, but what exactly is this "me" that can't be told what to do and where can this "me" be found?

That’s another thought. It can’t be found anywhere.

Great clarity :)


Very best wishes

Nina

Hi Zulu,

Sorry - I made a mistake towards the end of the post ....... your line was not quoted using the "quote function"!!


There still seems to be a misunderstanding about the AE of thought and the content of thoughts.

The AE of a thought + the content of the thought

The AE is the thought label or thought/ story (the experience of the thought). The content of the thought is not Actual Experience.

Hi, Nina

What exactly is it that could find stories "painful or negative"?

Thought stories about pain and negativeness.

Do THOUGHTS find stories painful or negative?

Sorry, what actually happens is an association of thoughts. Nobody does it...it just happens.

What is the actual experience of pain in a story?

Just a thought label.

How is it known that stories are "painful and negative"?

Stories being compared…by no one….thoughts being compared with thoughts by thoughts.

What do you mean here by "thoughts being compared with thoughts by thoughts"?

Actually, what occurs is an association between stories, and nobody does it...it just happens.

Is it possible for thoughts to compare?

No, thoughts can't do anything.

Is it possible for thoughts to do anything?

No, it's not possible.

However, the conversation was about painful stories.

What is the AE of "pain" when it is a story? A story about loss of life in an accident, for example, or a story about the end of a relationship?

It’s the AE of a thought / story.

What is the AE of "sadness" or "tears" or "upset"?

It’s the AE of a thought label.

The AE is the thought label or thought/ story (the experience of the thought). The content of the thought is not Actual Experience.

Is this clear?

Ok, it's clear.

Thank you, Nina

Hi Zulu?

Is there some resistance to this process at the moment?
Is it true to say not much LOOKING is happening?
Is there "fear", "frustration" , "annoyance"?

The questions can seem repetitive but it is important that all questions are answered. It is also important that questions are answered from ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.
The questions help clarity. That is why they are asked. No other reason.

Let's go back and have another LOOK.

What is this "I" that is perceiving?

Another thought.

Thought is AE but the content of thought is a story.

Is it clear that the thought label "I" is pointing to a story about a seperate individual perceiving?

Really LOOK Zulu. Then answer this question

The word ‘perceiving’ assumes :
1. a perceiver, a doer (who / what performs the ‘act’ of perceiving)
2. the ‘act’ of perceiving (as an action)
3. time in which the ‘act’ of perceiving unfolds

Ok, I understand.

Is is possible to find anywhere a seperate individual "doing" and "acting"?

Really LOOK. Then answer the question.

Do THOUGHTS find stories painful or negative?

Sorry, what actually happens is an association of thoughts. Nobody does it...it just happens.

Can you explain what this association of thoughts looks like?
Describe in detail the AE of a "painful" thought.

What do you mean here by "thoughts being compared with thoughts by thoughts"?

Actually, what occurs is an association between stories, and nobody does it...it just happens.

The word "compare" has been substituted by the word "association".
These is no indication about the AE of painful and negative thoughts.

Yes there are stories. But how is it known that these stories are painful?

Is it possible for thoughts to compare?

No, thoughts can't do anything.

That is right. Thoughts can not compare.
Nor can thoughts "associate".

What is the AE of "pain" when it is a story? A story about loss of life in an accident, for example, or a story about the end of a relationship?

It’s the AE of a thought / story.

Yes, it the AE of thought.
But how is it known that the story is painful?

What is the AE of "sadness" or "tears" or "upset"?

It’s the AE of a thought label.

Yes they are the AE thought labels. AND?

For example ....
In the story of the "Foot kicks the stone. It is painful",
Actual experience is:
AE sensation + AE thought "foot kicks stone".

In the case of painful stories, "emotions" are "painful".
There are no such things as "emotions" and "feelings". They are thought labels that tell stories.

In the story of "It is so sad Mary died. It is very painful"
Actual experience is:
AE sensation + AE thought "It is so sad"

In the story "John wept salty tears for days after Claire left. His face was red and damp with tears" .....
Actual Experience is:
AE taste + thought label "salty tears"
AE sensation + thought label "damp"
AE colour + thought label "red"

Is this clear?

What is the AE of a painful story?
What is the AE of "unhappy"?


Thanks Zulu!

Good Luck.

Nina

Hi, Nina

Is there some resistance to this process at the moment?

Yes, resistance is happening...thoughts like "this is hopeless", "why to do that?", "it's running in circles", "nothing is going on" are arising.

Is it true to say not much LOOKING is happening?

Yes, it's true...sometimes confusing thoughts arises and gets LOOKING very dificult. Thoughts are seen as truth and not as Ae of thoughts. Stories are seen as truth and not as fiction. Then, annoyance arises and LOOKING is left aside or uncomplete and false answers are given.

Is there "fear", "frustration" , "annoyance"?

Yes. There is fear, frustation and annoyance. Even knowing that those are just thought labels LOOKING gets harder with them around.

The questions can seem repetitive but it is important that all questions are answered. It is also important that questions are answered from ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.
The questions help clarity. That is why they are asked. No other reason.

Ok, that's clear...if the resistance is there is there...it's part of the process. The questions will be answered from ACTUAL EXPERIENCE and the thought labels will be seen like thought labels and not as truth. They can't interfere when seen as what they really are (just thoughts).
To give up and to surrender is not an option. ;)

Let's go back and have another LOOK.

Let's go !!

Thought is AE but the content of thought is a story.

Is it clear that the thought label "I" is pointing to a story about a seperate individual perceiving?

Really LOOK Zulu. Then answer this question

Yes, it's clear.

Is it possible to find anywhere a seperate individual "doing" and "acting"?

Really LOOK. Then answer the question.

It SEEMS so, but ACTUALLY there is nobody doing anything at all. Thoughts arise pointing to stories that there is someone doing something. And those stories can be very convincent...in AE nobody can be seen. Things just happens.

Do THOUGHTS find stories painful or negative?

Sorry, what actually happens is an association of thoughts. Nobody does it...it just happens.

Can you explain what this association of thoughts looks like?
Describe in detail the AE of a "painful" thought.

The associations of thoughts looks like stories...actually they are stories.

The actual experience of a "painful thought" is sensation + thought label that points to a story about pain.

Example:

Edward cried rivers of tears after his friend, Charles, died in a car crash accident.
The AE is: AE of Sensation + AE of thought label "rivers of tears"
"Charles died in a car crash accident" is a story pointed by the thought label.

What do you mean here by "thoughts being compared with thoughts by thoughts"?

Actually, what occurs is an association between stories, and nobody does it...it just happens.

The word "compare" has been substituted by the word "association".
These is no indication about the AE of painful and negative thoughts.

Yes there are stories. But how is it known that these stories are painful?

Thought labels like "emotions"and "feelings" (sadness, upset, tears) point to stories about pain.

What is the AE of "pain" when it is a story? A story about loss of life in an accident, for example, or a story about the end of a relationship?

It’s the AE of a thought / story.

Yes, it the AE of thought.
But how is it known that the story is painful?

There are thought labels that point to stories about pain.

What is the AE of "sadness" or "tears" or "upset"?

It’s the AE of a thought label.

Yes they are the AE thought labels. AND?

The AE of "sadness" or "tears" or "upset" is sensation + thought label "sadness", "tears" or "upset" that point to a painful story.

For example ....
In the story of the "Foot kicks the stone. It is painful",
Actual experience is:
AE sensation + AE thought "foot kicks stone".

In the case of painful stories, "emotions" are "painful".
There are no such things as "emotions" and "feelings". They are thought labels that tell stories.

In the story of "It is so sad Mary died. It is very painful"
Actual experience is:
AE sensation + AE thought "It is so sad"

In the story "John wept salty tears for days after Claire left. His face was red and damp with tears" .....
Actual Experience is:
AE taste + thought label "salty tears"
AE sensation + thought label "damp"
AE colour + thought label "red"

Is this clear?

It's clear.

What is the AE of a painful story?

AE of sensation + AE of thought label that points to a painful story.

What is the AE of "unhappy"?

AE of sensation + AE of thought label "unhappy" that points to a sad story.

I'm back, Nina

Thanks again

Zulu