How to move from intellectual to realised knowledge of no se

[ICB]

What is the AE of “identification”?
What is the AE of “I”?

So I notice the AE of identification is a thought that says "that person just insulted you", for example. Or, "that person is grateful to you - which means you are kind", and so on.

Similarly, it seems like the AE of "I" is actually thoughts that define the "I" by what "I" possess. So, for example, I was watching my daughter the other day and a thought came in "isnt she lovely - that's your daughter". This accumulation of things and concepts "I" own creates the illusory notion of a separate self. And those possessions can be conceptual as well (e.g. I am clever, I am stupid, and so on..)

Can you find 'other people' in AE? Can you find Ian in AE

No - there is no other people or Ian in AE. Just sound, sight, sensation and thoughts. I have spent some time thinking of this topic - and a thought arises that it shows just the strength of "Ian's" conditioning to a dual world of cause and effect.

Do the thoughts “what is 4+4 =” and thought “answer is 8” and “waggawaggawagga” contain any actual experience

The only actual experience is that of thought. I read recently (I am reading "I Am That") that thought has no meaning outside of the mind. This seems to encapsulate your point - in other words, 4+4 has no meaning in itself, but another thought comes along after this one that says it has meaning. That is all.

What is the AE of causality?

The AE of causality is one thought that comes along which says it "explains" a previous thought or series of thoughts/ experiences

But just look - are you aware of a ‘person’ at all?
Or are you only aware of actual experience?
What is the AE of a ‘person’?

There is no awareness of a person at all - just AE of sound, smell, colour, sensation - and thoughts that say there is a person there. The thoughts say things like "that person did that to you" or "you did that" or "that is your car" or "you are clever", "you are attractive", "you are lazy". The seemingly never ending flow of thought constantly labels things as belonging to me - whether this be an AE ("you are having this experience") or "physical objects" (which are just AE of sensation, colour, smell, etc - "this car belongs to you") or an abstract concept ("you are clever"), and a sense of separate self is sustained through ongoing thought....

[forgetmenot]

Hey Ian,

What is the AE of “identification”?
What is the AE of “I”?

So I notice the AE of identification is a thought that says "that person just insulted you", for example. Or, "that person is grateful to you - which means you are kind", and so on.
Similarly, it seems like the AE of "I" is actually thoughts that define the "I" by what "I" possess. So, for example, I was watching my daughter the other day and a thought came in "isnt she lovely - that's your daughter". This accumulation of things and concepts "I" own creates the illusory notion of a separate self. And those possessions can be conceptual as well (e.g. I am clever, I am stupid, and so on..)

Although the labels “identification” and “I” are actual experience of thought, what the labels are ABOUT are story.

The label “identification” is the AE of thought and not the AE of an identification of a person of any description (there is no person/s)
The colours (images) labelled ‘person/people are AE of colour and not AE of person/people
The sensations labelled ‘feelings’ are the AE of sensation and not the AE of identification of being insulted, praised or a good or bad ‘person’.

The label “I” is the AE of thought and is not the AE of a person “I”
The colours labelled ‘body/Ian’ is the AE of colours and not the AE of body/person/Ian/”I”

There is no actual experience as “identification” of any sort…what is really there is label + colour + sensation.
There is no actual experience of “I”…what is really there is label + colour

Is this clear?

Can you find 'other people' in AE? Can you find Ian in AE

No - there is no other people or Ian in AE. Just sound, sight, sensation and thoughts. I have spent some time thinking of this topic - and a thought arises that it shows just the strength of "Ian's" conditioning to a dual world of cause and effect.

Yes, there are no others or Ian in AE.

Instead of thinking….LOOK. Thinking will not help you to see through the illusory self…so each time the thought arises about “Ian’s conditioning” LOOK and see if you can find this separate individual called Ian who has supposedly been conditioned.

Do the thoughts “what is 4+4 =” and thought “answer is 8” and “waggawaggawagga” contain any actual experience

The only actual experience is that of thought. I read recently (I am reading "I Am That") that thought has no meaning outside of the mind. This seems to encapsulate your point - in other words, 4+4 has no meaning in itself, but another thought comes along after this one that says it has meaning. That is all.

Could I ask you to put aside all reading matter during this exploration please. If the book says something different to what I am pointing to..then we are at cross purposes.

And yes exactly…it is only another thought that says 4+4 has meaning and that “I answered it with 8”.

So, are you now clear that there is no control over thought and that there is no separate individual who has "some control as "I" added these numbers together, at least for an instant before the randomness kicked back in"?

What is the AE of causality?

The AE of causality is one thought that comes along which says it "explains" a previous thought or series of thoughts/ experiences

Actual experience is JUST sound, thought, colours, smell, taste and sensation. Actual experience is everything, EXCEPT, the "content" of thought, because thought does not contain ANY experience. So what you wrote about causality is content of thought and is just a story.

There is no AE of causality.
The label ‘causality’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of causality. So causality doesn’t exist.
Can you see this?

But just look - are you aware of a ‘person’ at all?
Or are you only aware of actual experience?
What is the AE of a ‘person’?

There is no awareness of a person at all - just AE of sound, smell, colour, sensation - and thoughts that say there is a person there. The thoughts say things like "that person did that to you" or "you did that" or "that is your car" or "you are clever", "you are attractive", "you are lazy". The seemingly never ending flow of thought constantly labels things as belonging to me - whether this be an AE ("you are having this experience") or "physical objects" (which are just AE of sensation, colour, smell, etc - "this car belongs to you") or an abstract concept ("you are clever"), and a sense of separate self is sustained through ongoing thought....

There is no person “having this experience”. Actual experience does not refer to a person or people who are experiencing life in a world...that is ALL content of thought and just story..fiction!

AE is ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of/as sound, the face value of thought, smell, taste, sensation and colour and nothing else.

Yes, the sense of separate self is sustained through ongoing thought. Isn’t it nice to see that although thoughts are endless, but that they are also meaningless. Thoughts are empty.

Have a look at what a thought is:

The written form of thought (words) is actually black squiggly lines and is AE of colour
Mental images (as well as visual images) are pictorial forms of thought and are AE of colour
The self-talk which thought says is sound is just a thought saying "it is a voice in my head”, Where exactly can a speaker in the head be found?
So thought is a ‘phenomena’ just as is the 5 senses…but there is no substance to thought.
Actual experience is indescribable…and thought itself is indescribable.

When you answer questions, Ian, can you answer them individually and not lump them together please.

Kay xxoo

[ICB]

Hi Kay

Understand re reading matter - I value your support, so am happy to do so.

Although the labels “identification” and “I” are actual experience of thought, what the labels are ABOUT are story.

The label “identification” is the AE of thought and not the AE of an identification of a person of any description (there is no person/s)
The colours (images) labelled ‘person/people are AE of colour and not AE of person/people
The sensations labelled ‘feelings’ are the AE of sensation and not the AE of identification of being insulted, praised or a good or bad ‘person’.

The label “I” is the AE of thought and is not the AE of a person “I”
The colours labelled ‘body/Ian’ is the AE of colours and not the AE of body/person/Ian/”I”

There is no actual experience as “identification” of any sort…what is really there is label + colour + sensation.
There is no actual experience of “I”…what is really there is label + colour

Is this clear?

Yes - any "I" is just the content of thought...which is make believe. There is just a thought (which consists of an image or sound) and sensation - which another thought labels as "Ian". The body is just an image of "body" which thought labels as "my body". The content of these thoughts is continually "my" this or "me" that, "I". In essence it is meaningless and make believe.

Instead of thinking….LOOK. Thinking will not help you to see through the illusory self…so each time the thought arises about “Ian’s conditioning” LOOK and see if you can find this separate individual called Ian who has supposedly been conditioned.

I am trying to look each time a thought arises - and it is hard! Each time I look I can clearly see there is no Ian. Any search for this mysterious person leads to a chase into a hall of mirrors where there is just thought after thought after thought. It is easy for many thoughts to occur without me being vigilant enough to look. During these periods when I am not looking as overtly it seems that thought dominates over direct experience, and the thoughts around "I" this and "I" that increase in intensity. This is particularly true when the label + thought + sensation = anger occurs, where the flow of thought seems to increase in speed, whilst sensations tend to be strong

So, are you now clear that there is no control over thought and that there is no separate individual who has "some control as "I" added these numbers together, at least for an instant before the randomness kicked back in"?

Yes - it is clear from observing thought that it is totally random. And the meaning of 4+4 only "means something" because another thought says so. Often there can be a whole construct of thought that can seemingly add rationale upon rationale upon rationale - giving the illusion of a logical sequence of thinking or events. Yet I can see the illusory nature of it - when I remember that it is just the content of thought.

There is no AE of causality.
The label ‘causality’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of causality. So causality doesn’t exist.
Can you see this?

Yes I can. it is only the content of thought which says that causality exists, which is irrelevant. Yet - you say that thought doesn't contain any experience. I can see how that is true - but doesn't thought have the illusion of containing experience (e.g. it can seemingly present an image of me in my head, or sound like someone speaking). Even if this isn't an actual experience, doesn't it present as the illusion of direct experience?

The written form of thought (words) is actually black squiggly lines and is AE of colour
Mental images (as well as visual images) are pictorial forms of thought and are AE of colour
The self-talk which thought says is sound is just a thought saying "it is a voice in my head”, Where exactly can a speaker in the head be found?
So thought is a ‘phenomena’ just as is the 5 senses…but there is no substance to thought.

So when you say there is no substance to thought - does that mean there is more substance to the five senses? What does it mean for an experience to have more or less substance?

When you answer questions, Ian, can you answer them individually and not lump them together please.

I will do . Thanks, Ix

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ian,

There is quite a bit to LOOK at in this post. Take your time and LOOK very carefully.

Understand re reading matter - I value your support, so am happy to do so.

Many thanks :)

Yes - any "I" is just the content of thought...which is make believe. There is just a thought (which consists of an image or sound) and sensation - which another thought labels as "Ian". The body is just an image of "body" which thought labels as "my body". The content of these thoughts is continually "my" this or "me" that, "I". In essence it is meaningless and make believe.

Thoughts don’t consist of anything.

The label body/Ian is the AE of thought and not the AE of body/Ian
The sensation labelled as ‘body/Ian’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of body/Ian
The colours labelled ‘body/Ian’ is the AE of colours and not the AE of body/Ian.

You are once again saying that a sensation labelled as ‘body/Ian’ causes the thought of “I” to arise…which is causation.

How is this known?

Is a thought aware of an image or vice versa?
Is a thought aware of a sound or vice versa?
Is a thought aware of a sensation or vice versa?

There is also an assumption here that ‘phenomena’ comes and goes. Is there ever a moment when sounds, colour, sensation and thoughts are not?

I am trying to look each time a thought arises - and it is hard! Each time I look I can clearly see there is no Ian. Any search for this mysterious person leads to a chase into a hall of mirrors where there is just thought after thought after thought. It is easy for many thoughts to occur without me being vigilant enough to look. During these periods when I am not looking as overtly it seems that thought dominates over direct experience, and the thoughts around "I" this and "I" that increase in intensity. This is particularly true when the label + thought + sensation = anger occurs, where the flow of thought seems to increase in speed, whilst sensations tend to be strong

Anger does not = label + thought + sensation. What you are saying here is that the ‘emotion’ of ‘anger’ actually exits and it consists of thought + sensation! Anger is a thought story.

- Does the label ‘anger’ suggest in any way that it is angry?
- Do thoughts in any way suggest that they increase or decrease in speed? Or is that a thought that says that? That suggests that there is time…that a minute ago thoughts were calm and now in this minute they have increased in speed.
- Does the sensation labelled ‘angry’ suggest in any way that it is angry?
- Does the sensation in any way suggest that it has increased in intensity?
- Do the colours labelled body/Ian suggest in any way that it is angry?
- Does the sound labelled ‘angry voice/yelling suggest in any way that it is angry?
- Does the sound in any way suggest that its volume has increased or decreased?

What is the AE of ‘anger’?
The label ‘anger’ is the AE of thought and NOT the AE of anger
The sensation labelled ‘anger’ is the AE of sensation and NOT the AE of anger
The colour labelled ‘body/Ian’ is the AE of colour and NOT the AE of a ‘Ian who is angry’

Thought/label + sensation is what is occurring…there is no such thing as anger. It is another thought/label that marries these together and calls it ‘anger’.

Is this clear?

Yes - it is clear from observing thought that it is totally random. And the meaning of 4+4 only "means something" because another thought says so. Often there can be a whole construct of thought that can seemingly add rationale upon rationale upon rationale - giving the illusion of a logical sequence of thinking or events. Yet I can see the illusory nature of it - when I remember that it is just the content of thought.

Great :)
However, is there a separate individual who is “remembering” or “forgetting”, or does “remembering and forgetting” just SEEM to happen?

What does the label "forgetting" and "remembering" point to....AE or thought?

Even if the specific content of thought is what is being remembered and forgotten momentarily…are you still not ‘aware’ of thoughts, sound, taste, smell, sensation and colour?

Yes I can. it is only the content of thought which says that causality exists, which is irrelevant. Yet - you say that thought doesn't contain any experience. I can see how that is true - but doesn't thought have the illusion of containing experience (e.g. it can seemingly present an image of me in my head, or sound like someone speaking). Even if this isn't an actual experience, doesn't it present as the illusion of direct experience?

If thoughts contained experience then the label ‘sweet’ when it appears would taste ‘sweet’, or the label ‘pain’ would be ‘painful’.

And image is an image and is the AE of colour, whether that image be a mental image or a visual image; and sound is the AE of sound.

When you hear a horn on a car, is that not the AE of sound? It is only thought that says the sound belongs to a car. The colours (image) labelled ‘car’ are AE of image and not the AE of a car.

When an image of a head appears (mentally or visually) it is only thought that labels the colours as “head”. How is it known that it is a head? If you had no idea of what a head looked like and the image appeared…how would you know it was a head?

If you close your eyes and drop all thoughts and mental images of what a head is and put the tip of a finger on top of your head…what is actually there?

The written form of thought (words) is actually black squiggly lines and is AE of colour
Mental images (as well as visual images) are pictorial forms of thought and are AE of colour
The self-talk which thought says is sound is just a thought saying "it is a voice in my head”, Where exactly can a speaker in the head be found?
So thought is a ‘phenomena’ just as is the 5 senses…but there is no substance to thought.

So when you say there is no substance to thought - does that mean there is more substance to the five senses? What does it mean for an experience to have more or less substance?

I want you to have a LOOK and let me know what you find. Do any of the following have substance?
Does colour have substance? Does the colour 'yellow', for example, have substance?
Does sound have substance? Does the sound 'car horn' have substance?
Does sensation have substance? Does sensation 'cold' have substance?
Does taste have substance? Does taste 'chocolate' have substance?
Does smell have substance? Does smell 'coffee' have substance?
Does thought have substance? Does thought 'it's a bright day' have substance?

If they have substance, then you must be able to describe the substance to me.


The bigger blocks of questions can be lumped together when answering them Ian...otherwise your post is going to be extremely long.
Kay xxoo

[ICB]

Hi Kay.

Thoughts don’t consist of anything.
The label body/Ian is the AE of thought and not the AE of body/Ian
The sensation labelled as ‘body/Ian’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of body/Ian
The colours labelled ‘body/Ian’ is the AE of colours and not the AE of body/Ian.
You are once again saying that a sensation labelled as ‘body/Ian’ causes the thought of “I” to arise…which is causation.
How is this known?

So I am not saying that the sensation CAUSES the thought of I to arise. What I see is that there is a sensation - which has no quality of "I" or "me" - it is just the AE of sensation. A thought can arise next to this sensation (not necessarily caused by the sensation) which says "that is my body I can feel". This content is meaningless - and I do not see it is caused by the preceding sensation. Correlation does not equate to causation...

Is a thought aware of an image or vice versa?
Is a thought aware of a sound or vice versa?
Is a thought aware of a sensation or vice versa?

Thought is now aware of anything. It is just an experience that comes and goes....

There is also an assumption here that ‘phenomena’ comes and goes. Is there ever a moment when sounds, colour, sensation and thoughts are not?

As far as I can see, there is never a moment when there is not an experience of some phenomenon or other - colour, sound, smell, sensation, thought. They arise into full view and pass one at a time, then something else. Always one at a time - again, as far as I can see..

Anger does not = label + thought + sensation. What you are saying here is that the ‘emotion’ of ‘anger’ actually exits and it consists of thought + sensation! Anger is a thought story.

I get this. I can see how my writing may have miscommunicated. I really get the fact that anger is just a thought. All there is the sensation and a label. Anger is a made up concept - it doesn't exist per se....

Does the label ‘anger’ suggest in any way that it is angry?

The label "Anger" gives the impression of solidity where there is none. "Anger" is not angry - it is just a sensation together with a thought.

- Does the sensation in any way suggest that it has increased in intensity?
- Do the colours labelled body/Ian suggest in any way that it is angry?
- Does the sound labelled ‘angry voice/yelling suggest in any way that it is angry?
- Does the sound in any way suggest that its volume has increased or decreased?

No - sensation cannot suggest they have increased in intensity. Colours cannot suggest they are angry. Sound cannot suggest it is angry, nor that volume increases or decreases. They just are. It is the content of thought that suggests all these things.

- Do thoughts in any way suggest that they increase or decrease in speed? Or is that a thought that says that? That suggests that there is time…that a minute ago thoughts were calm and now in this minute they have increased in speed.

So, we're entering the concept of time at last. I'm trying to look hard into this and let go. I guess what you are saying is that all there is is right now. There is no proof the past existed - except because thought tells me so. There is just present experience - all else is thought, right? Therefore there is no increase in speed, because there is no time. Whilst there may not be an increase in speed - it is just thought telling me that - is it acceptable to say that I notice more thought arising and passing during times of "anger", and more direct experience of what is when I'm not?

Thought/label + sensation is what is occurring…there is no such thing as anger. It is another thought/label that marries these together and calls it ‘anger’.

Is this clear?

Totally. I get this clearly. Time is now what I am working on looking in to...

However, is there a separate individual who is “remembering” or “forgetting”, or does “remembering and forgetting” just SEEM to happen?

What does the label "forgetting" and "remembering" point to....AE or thought?

Good point. it is pointing to the content of thought, which is meaningless. There is no I to remember of forget - just a thought that says "I have forgotten" or "I remember"

Even if the specific content of thought is what is being remembered and forgotten momentarily…are you still not ‘aware’ of thoughts, sound, taste, smell, sensation and colour?

Yes because just to be aware that "I have forgotten" I need to be aware of thought

If thoughts contained experience then the label ‘sweet’ when it appears would taste ‘sweet’, or the label ‘pain’ would be ‘painful’.

And image is an image and is the AE of colour, whether that image be a mental image or a visual image; and sound is the AE of sound.

OK - so there is no such thing as a thought of an image - the content of a thought tells me something or labels something, and a mental image is something different (AE of colour)

When you hear a horn on a car, is that not the AE of sound? It is only thought that says the sound belongs to a car. The colours (image) labelled ‘car’ are AE of image and not the AE of a car.

So again - checking there are two separate things. A mental image (AE of colour) and a thought/ label (car)

When an image of a head appears (mentally or visually) it is only thought that labels the colours as “head”. How is it known that it is a head? If you had no idea of what a head looked like and the image appeared…how would you know it was a head?

I wouldn't. All there would be would be a mental image (AE of colour). It is only the label of thought that "tells me" it is a head

If you close your eyes and drop all thoughts and mental images of what a head is and put the tip of a finger on top of your head…what is actually there?

Just sensation - although it is nowhere in actuality (and everywhere!)

I want you to have a LOOK and let me know what you find. Do any of the following have substance?
Does colour have substance? Does the colour 'yellow', for example, have substance?
Does sound have substance? Does the sound 'car horn' have substance?
Does sensation have substance? Does sensation 'cold' have substance?
Does taste have substance? Does taste 'chocolate' have substance?
Does smell have substance? Does smell 'coffee' have substance?
Does thought have substance? Does thought 'it's a bright day' have substance?

If they have substance, then you must be able to describe the substance to me.

None of these have substance. This fits with what I see when I look. I guess I was wondering if you were hinting that hey had more substance in your text. Colour, sound, sensation, taste, smell and thought - they are all substanceless and indescribable..

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ian...I just wanted to acknowledge getting your post. I won't be replying until tomorrow as I am not feeling 100% today and I can't focus, and I am off to bed early.

Kay xxoo

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ian,

I am back..bright eyed and bushy tailed...so to speak! :)

So I am not saying that the sensation CAUSES the thought of I to arise. What I see is that there is a sensation - which has no quality of "I" or "me" - it is just the AE of sensation. A thought can arise next to this sensation (not necessarily caused by the sensation) which says "that is my body I can feel". This content is meaningless - and I do not see it is caused by the preceding sensation. Correlation does not equate to causation...

There is no correlation between sensation and thought either.
Can you find a dividing line between thought and sensation? Between colour and sound?

Is a thought aware of an image or vice versa?
Is a thought aware of a sound or vice versa?
Is a thought aware of a sensation or vice versa?

Thought is now aware of anything. It is just an experience that comes and goes....

Correct.
Thought is not aware of anything….but does it really come and go? Coming and going also points to time.
Is it not a thought that points to thought and says that it is thought?
What is the AE of thought?


Yes, so thought says. However, something (object) is noticed by someone (subject) as coming and going (time). See the beliefs in your answer?

LOOK to see if there is an actual dividing line of any sort between colour, sound, thought, sensation, smell and taste. Let me know what you find.

Anger does not = label + thought + sensation. What you are saying here is that the ‘emotion’ of ‘anger’ actually exits and it consists of thought + sensation! Anger is a thought story.

I get this. I can see how my writing may have miscommunicated. I really get the fact that anger is just a thought. All there is the sensation and a label. Anger is a made up concept - it doesn't exist per se....

Great! I will always check to make sure something is clear.

- Do thoughts in any way suggest that they increase or decrease in speed? Or is that a thought that says that? That suggests that there is time…that a minute ago thoughts were calm and now in this minute they have increased in speed.

So, we're entering the concept of time at last. I'm trying to look hard into this and let go. I guess what you are saying is that all there is is right now. There is no proof the past existed - except because thought tells me so. There is just present experience - all else is thought, right? Therefore there is no increase in speed, because there is no time. Whilst there may not be an increase in speed - it is just thought telling me that - is it acceptable to say that I notice more thought arising and passing during times of "anger", and more direct experience of what is when I'm not?

Well it SEEMS that more thoughts are arising and passing during anger…but what exactly is noticing this?
What exactly is it that is ‘experiencing’ more direct experience?

There is no ‘experience-er’ of experience. That is the belief in separation.
Can you find an ‘experience-er’ anywhere?
Can you find a a dividing line of any description between ‘experience-er’ and experience, or are they one and the same?

Are you able to separate a thought from the “knowing” of it? Are you able to separate sound, colour and so on from the ‘knowing” of it? Is there a dividing line between the ‘experience-er’ and the experience? Is there a dividing line between the knowing

Even if the specific content of thought is what is being remembered and forgotten momentarily…are you still not ‘aware’ of thoughts, sound, taste, smell, sensation and colour?

Yes because just to be aware that "I have forgotten" I need to be aware of thought.

Yes. And now take it one step further….can you find anywhere where there is someone/something that is aware of thought?

And image is an image and is the AE of colour, whether that image be a mental image or a visual image; and sound is the AE of sound.

OK - so there is no such thing as a thought of an image - the content of a thought tells me something or labels something, and a mental image is something different (AE of colour)

Visual sight = the image that seemingly appear in the ‘outside world seen through the eyes’.
Mental image = images that seemingly appear ‘inside a mind’ that is not the image of the current picture seen by the eyes, but rather just a reappearing image from memory

Since both definitions are about the body seeing and having experiences neither of these definitions are true. These 2 definitions are about time and space.

So in reality there are no such things as 'mental image' and 'visual sight'. There is only image/colour. Only thought labels them as 'visual' or 'mental'.

When you hear a horn on a car, is that not the AE of sound? It is only thought that says the sound belongs to a car. The colours (image) labelled ‘car’ are AE of image and not the AE of a car.

So again - checking there are two separate things. A mental image (AE of colour) and a thought/ label (car)

For the purpose of clarity during this investigation the 5 senses + thought are talked about as been separate…so that it is seen that what actually is…is actual EXPERIENCE and what isn’t actual EXPERIENCE is a story. However, can you find a dividing line between sound + thought, colour + thought and so on?

I would like for you to answer your question....what is the AE of car?

When an image of a head appears (mentally or visually) it is only thought that labels the colours as “head”. How is it known that it is a head? If you had no idea of what a head looked like and the image appeared…how would you know it was a head?

I wouldn't. All there would be would be a mental image (AE of colour). It is only the label of thought that "tells me" it is a head

Yes, exactly! :)

If you close your eyes and drop all thoughts and mental images of what a head is and put the tip of a finger on top of your head…what is actually there?

Just sensation - although it is nowhere in actuality (and everywhere!)

Yes, just sensation and it has no location. Location is just another concept.

If they have substance, then you must be able to describe the substance to me.

None of these have substance. This fits with what I see when I look. I guess I was wondering if you were hinting that hey had more substance in your text. Colour, sound, sensation, taste, smell and thought - they are all substanceless and indescribable..

That’s right. Experience is indescribable only content of thought can describe.
The label ‘blue sky’. The label ‘blue’ points to AE of colour, the label ‘sky’ is the AE of thought but what it points to is thought story.

Kay xxoo

[ICB]

Hi Kay

Glad to hear you're feeling better!

Can you find a dividing line between thought and sensation? Between colour and sound?

So as I have looked at this, I have noticed there appears to be no divide. Things seem to flow and merge into each other. I am aware of a sound, now it is image, now thought. There appears to be no divide, just a single uninterrupted flow...

Thought is not aware of anything….but does it really come and go? Coming and going also points to time.
Is it not a thought that points to thought and says that it is thought?
What is the AE of thought?

So i cannot say thought comes and goes...just that at some points I am aware of a thought, at others of a direct experience (image, sound, smell, sensation). It is thought that points to thought - you are right. the AE of thought seems to be a sound (series of words) categorised as "inside" my head (also sometimes a mental image).

Yes, so thought says. However, something (object) is noticed by someone (subject) as coming and going (time). See the beliefs in your answer?

You are right that another thought emerges which states that this sound is "me" (subject) making a comment on something else (object - another thought, image, etc..). This thought is just a thought...I can see how the belief is that it constitutes "me" talking to "myself"!

LOOK to see if there is an actual dividing line of any sort between colour, sound, thought, sensation, smell and taste. Let me know what you find.

As mentioned before, it seems to be an uninterrupted flow - with no clear dividing line between each. I'd never noticed this before.

Well it SEEMS that more thoughts are arising and passing during anger…but what exactly is noticing this?
What exactly is it that is ‘experiencing’ more direct experience?

So following on from earlier - a thought emerges which states that more thoughts are arising. Clearly nothing really notices this - it is just a thought...but the belief is that "I" am noticing.

As to your second point, nothing is experiencing more direct experience. Is it more true to say that during periods of "anger" there seems to be a preponderance of thought over direct experience (i.e. "external" noticing - image, sound, etc). In periods of "calm" external noticing seems to predominate?

Can you find an ‘experience-er’ anywhere?

No - I end up in a hall of mirrors where thoughts think about thoughts thinking about thoughts...

Can you find a a dividing line of any description between ‘experience-er’ and experience, or are they one and the same?

There is only experience. But the illusion of an experience-r can arise when a thought comments on another experience, right?

Are you able to separate a thought from the “knowing” of it? Are you able to separate sound, colour and so on from the ‘knowing” of it? Is there a dividing line between the ‘experience-er’ and the experience? Is there a dividing line between the knowing

No - the experience is the knowing of it. It is direct - one and the same.

….can you find anywhere where there is someone/something that is aware of thought?

No - there is just the AE of thought. Direct, singular experience. As I mentioned it seems this illusion can arise when the content of thought comments on another thought or experience...

However, can you find a dividing line between sound + thought, colour + thought and so on?

No - in some sense I could say they are all thought, right? A sound could be a sound - whether "inside" (thought/ story) or "outside" (actual EXPERIENCE) the head

I would like for you to answer your question....what is the AE of car?

The AE of a car is image/ colour, sound, sensation (feeling it from the outside/ riding in it) and the label (thought)

[forgetmenot]

Hey Ian,

You did some great LOOKING!

Glad to hear you're feeling better!

Thank you :) So am I! :)

Can you find a dividing line between thought and sensation? Between colour and sound?

So as I have looked at this, I have noticed there appears to be no divide. Things seem to flow and merge into each other. I am aware of a sound, now it is image, now thought. There appears to be no divide, just a single uninterrupted flow...

Yes! Nice :) It is thought that puts the ‘AND’ in between. Sound and thought and colour and taste and smell and sensation, when it is soundthoughtcolourtastesmellsensation.

Thought is not aware of anything….but does it really come and go? Coming and going also points to time.
Is it not a thought that points to thought and says that it is thought?
What is the AE of thought?

So i cannot say thought comes and goes...just that at some points I am aware of a thought, at others of a direct experience (image, sound, smell, sensation). It is thought that points to thought - you are right. the AE of thought seems to be a sound (series of words) categorised as "inside" my head (also sometimes a mental image).

Some thoughts point to AE and other thoughts point to thought. When an image, sound, smell, sensation appears…does not thought label those? When you see a red car, the label ‘red’ points to colour which is AE. The label ‘car’ points to thought, the sound vroomvroom points to sound which is AE. It is only thought that say vroomvroom points to a sound of a car...this is content of thought and is a story.
Is this clear?

The label ‘thought’ is the AE of thought. The content of thought is made up of more thought which is AE of thought. Thought can point to colours (sound, smell etc), but the colour labels are AE of thought. The actual colour itself is AE of colour. It is indescribable as is all AE.
Is this clear?

Yes, so thought says. However, something (object) is noticed by someone (subject) as coming and going (time). See the beliefs in your answer?

You are right that another thought emerges which states that this sound is "me" (subject) making a comment on something else (object - another thought, image, etc..). This thought is just a thought...I can see how the belief is that it constitutes "me" talking to "myself"!

Yes, and the thought “I am talking to myself” is just another thought appearing as AE of thought and belongs to and is authored by nobody.

Well it SEEMS that more thoughts are arising and passing during anger…but what exactly is noticing this?
What exactly is it that is ‘experiencing’ more direct experience?

So following on from earlier - a thought emerges which states that more thoughts are arising. Clearly nothing really notices this - it is just a thought...but the belief is that "I" am noticing.

“But the belief is that “I” am noticing”. Is that a belief or just another thought appearing?
What exactly is it that can believe or not believe?

As to your second point, nothing is experiencing more direct experience. Is it more true to say that during periods of "anger" there seems to be a preponderance of thought over direct experience (i.e. "external" noticing - image, sound, etc). In periods of "calm" external noticing seems to predominate?

This is just a story.
To what exactly does this happen to?
Can any of this be found in actual experience?
What is known is known, and what is known is sensation + thought + colour (person), which is labelled ‘anger’ and this label is also known. The rest is just a fairytale.

Can you find an ‘experience-er’ anywhere?

No - I end up in a hall of mirrors where thoughts think about thoughts thinking about thoughts...

Great, so it is seen that there is nothing happening to anyone or anything?

Can you find a a dividing line of any description between ‘experience-er’ and experience, or are they one and the same?

There is only experience. But the illusion of an experience-r can arise when a thought comments on another experience, right?

To what exactly would this illusion of an ‘experience-er’ arise to?
Thoughts know nothing. It is thought that divides WHAT IS (EXPERIENCE) into sound, thought, sensation, colour, taste, smell.

What is the AE of sound?
What is the AE of thought?
What is the AE of sensation?
What is the AE of colour?
What is the AE of smell?
What is the AE of taste?

Are you able to separate a thought from the “knowing” of it? Are you able to separate sound, colour and so on from the ‘knowing” of it? Is there a dividing line between the ‘experience-er’ and the experience? Is there a dividing line between the knowing

No - the experience is the knowing of it. It is direct - one and the same.

Wonderful! Nice looking.

….can you find anywhere where there is someone/something that is aware of thought?

No - there is just the AE of thought. Direct, singular experience. As I mentioned it seems this illusion can arise when the content of thought comments on another thought or experience...

Can you give me a specific example please, because I don’t get what you are alluding to here.

However, can you find a dividing line between sound + thought, colour + thought and so on?

No - in some sense I could say they are all thought, right? A sound could be a sound - whether "inside" (thought/ story) or "outside" (actual EXPERIENCE) the head

I don’t understand what you are alluding to here either. All labels are labels and are AE of thought.
So the label ‘colour’ is the AE of thought. However, is colour itself just a thought or is colour known?
The label ‘sound’ is AE of thought, however is a sound ‘heard’ just a thought or is sound known?
The label 'thought' is AE of thought, however is thought not also known?

There is no AE of “outside the head”!
What is the AE of “outside”?
What is the AE of “head”?
What is the AE of “internal”?

Didn’t you just do an exercise about the ‘head’ and found that it is only sensation and there is no actual experience of a head?

I would like for you to answer your question....what is the AE of car?

The AE of a car is image/ colour, sound, sensation (feeling it from the outside/ riding in it) and the label (thought)

Yes exactly, so in actual experience is there such a thing as a car?

Kay xxoo

[ICB]

Yes! Nice :) It is thought that puts the ‘AND’ in between. Sound and thought and colour and taste and smell and sensation, when it is soundthoughtcolourtastesmellsensation.

Thanks. As I have noticed this, it seems that AE is just a continual, seamless unfolding. Thought "chops" things up, labels them and fragments them. Krishnamurti used to talk about "the fragmentation of thought" - I never understood what I meant. I think this is what he was getting at - AE is just a continual unfolding, a single stream of experience that is ever-unfolding...

Some thoughts point to AE and other thoughts point to thought. When an image, sound, smell, sensation appears…does not thought label those? When you see a red car, the label ‘red’ points to colour which is AE. The label ‘car’ points to thought, the sound vroomvroom points to sound which is AE. It is only thought that say vroomvroom points to a sound of a car...this is content of thought and is a story.
Is this clear?

Yes - it is clear. It seems that thought is "working" very hard (although in reality there is nothing/ no-one working) at constantly fragmenting, labelling and categorising each AE as it arises. I notice how much "energy" this seems to take up...although clearly this is just another thought - ;-)

The label ‘thought’ is the AE of thought. The content of thought is made up of more thought which is AE of thought. Thought can point to colours (sound, smell etc), but the colour labels are AE of thought. The actual colour itself is AE of colour. It is indescribable as is all AE.
Is this clear?

Yes - there is AE of colour, then there is the label. The AE is undescribable, a purely qualitative experience that lies beyond words (or thought)...

“But the belief is that “I” am noticing”. Is that a belief or just another thought appearing?
What exactly is it that can believe or not believe?

Nothing can believe or not believe. They are just more thoughts unfolding...and meaningless in terms of the content they carry.

This is just a story.
To what exactly does this happen to?

to no-one - these are just arising thoughts. The thought says "you are experiencing more thought/ more sensation". But, again, it is meaningless.

Can any of this be found in actual experience?
What is known is known, and what is known is sensation + thought + colour (person), which is labelled ‘anger’ and this label is also known. The rest is just a fairytale.

Got it. What I do notice is that during times of "anger" there seems to be more thought arising that says "this person did me wrong!" or "you can't let them speak to you like that!" or "you need to stand up for yourself"...lots of thought where the fairy tale is about an illusory I who is being hard done by. In moments of calm, I notice more of AE of colour/ sound/ smell/ sensation etc...

Great, so it is seen that there is nothing happening to anyone or anything?

Nope - there is no I. Just thoughts about thoughts about thoughts (and occasionally AE of colour/ sound/ sensation/ smell)

To what exactly would this illusion of an ‘experience-er’ arise to?
Thoughts know nothing. It is thought that divides WHAT IS (EXPERIENCE) into sound, thought, sensation, colour, taste, smell.

this illusion of an experience-er arises to no-one. But a thought can arise that says "this is happening to ME". But again, that is a fairy tale...

What is the AE of sound?
What is the AE of thought?
What is the AE of sensation?
What is the AE of colour?
What is the AE of smell?
What is the AE of taste?

Each moment is unique in its AE and indescribable (sorry - being lazy as the answer is the same for each!). Thought fragments experience, then labels and categorises what it has fragmented.

No - there is just the AE of thought. Direct, singular experience. As I mentioned it seems this illusion can arise when the content of thought comments on another thought or experience...
Can you give me a specific example please, because I don’t get what you are alluding to here.

I guess I was trying to look and see how I have harboured this illusion there is a separate me. And it seems it is because a thought comments on a previous thought (or sound, smell, etc...) and says something about Ian - like "you were very clever there" or "you shouldn't have done that", etc...Although the thought is meaningless, without clear seeing the illusion of a separate I is maintained, right?

So the label ‘colour’ is the AE of thought. However, is colour itself just a thought or is colour known?

Colour is known through direct experience but indescribable.

The label ‘sound’ is AE of thought, however is a sound ‘heard’ just a thought or is sound known?

Sound is known through direct experience but indescribable.

The label 'thought' is AE of thought, however is thought not also known?

Thought is known through direct experience but the contents of it are meaningless.

What is the AE of “outside”?
What is the AE of “head”?
What is the AE of “internal”?

They are actually just AE of thought. There is no AE of "outside", "head or "internal". these are just labels contained within the content of thought - which is a fairy tale.

Didn’t you just do an exercise about the ‘head’ and found that it is only sensation and there is no actual experience of a head?

Yep - wasn't seeing clearly for a moment ;-)

Yes exactly, so in actual experience is there such a thing as a car?

Nope - just the AE of colour, sound, sensation and thought, and the meaningless label "car"

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ian,

Yes! Nice :) It is thought that puts the ‘AND’ in between. Sound and thought and colour and taste and smell and sensation, when it is soundthoughtcolourtastesmellsensation.

Thanks. As I have noticed this, it seems that AE is just a continual, seamless unfolding. Thought "chops" things up, labels them and fragments them. Krishnamurti used to talk about "the fragmentation of thought" - I never understood what I meant. I think this is what he was getting at - AE is just a continual unfolding, a single stream of experience that is ever-unfolding.

Yes, thought divides EXPERIENCE into what we call actual experience - the 5 senses + thought itself.

However, “unfolding” points to time. We will be looking at time a little later.

Yes - it is clear. It seems that thought is "working" very hard (although in reality there is nothing/ no-one working) at constantly fragmenting, labelling and categorising each AE as it arises. I notice how much "energy" this seems to take up...although clearly this is just another thought - ;-)

Yup! :) As you have noted, all thoughts and labels are what seemingly keeps the illusion of a separate individual ‘alive’.

Yes - there is AE of colour, then there is the label. The AE is undescribable, a purely qualitative experience that lies beyond words (or thought)...

I (haha) really like the way you expressed this Ian.

“But the belief is that “I” am noticing”. Is that a belief or just another thought appearing?
What exactly is it that can believe or not believe?

Nothing can believe or not believe. They are just more thoughts unfolding...and meaningless in terms of the content they carry.

Exactly

Can any of this be found in actual experience?
What is known is known, and what is known is sensation + thought + colour (person), which is labelled ‘anger’ and this label is also known. The rest is just a fairytale.

Got it. What I do notice is that during times of "anger" there seems to be more thought arising that says "this person did me wrong!" or "you can't let them speak to you like that!" or "you need to stand up for yourself"...lots of thought where the fairy tale is about an illusory I who is being hard done by. In moments of calm, I notice more of AE of colour/ sound/ smell/ sensation etc...

But that is still story, Ian. Look for the “I” that notices. Thought may say that there are moments of ‘anger’ and moments of ‘calm’, but to what is this happening to? Thoughts SEEM to be very convincing but that thought is just a thought as well! Going from anger to calm and vice versa not only points to someone/something but also to time.

Can the label ‘anger’ know anything about anger?
Can the sensation ‘anger’ know anything about anger?
Can the colour labelled ‘body/Ian’ know anything about anger?
Can the label ‘calm’ know anything about calm?
Can the sensation ‘calm’ know anything about calm?
Can the colour labelled ‘body/Ian’ know anything about calm?

What exactly is it that experiences ‘anger’ and ‘calm’. Can you find this entity/person anywhere?

You have looked and seen that there is no “I”, so have a LOOK and see if there are ‘others’ and let me know what you find.

Are you the author of any thoughts?
Can you choose which thoughts appear?
Do you have anything to do with any thoughts?
Are you responsible for what is ‘spoken’?
Can you decide what ‘you’ are going to say?
Can you choose between thoughts to what ‘you’ are going to say or do?
What is it exactly that is deciding and choosing?

Great, so it is seen that there is nothing happening to anyone or anything?

Nope - there is no I. Just thoughts about thoughts about thoughts (and occasionally AE of colour/ sound/ sensation/ smell)

Great :)

this illusion of an experience-er arises to no-one. But a thought can arise that says "this is happening to ME". But again, that is a fairy tale...

Yes, so when a thought like that arises – “this is happening to ME”….stop and have a look for that “me”. LOOKING must continue consistently. Seeing through the “me” once or a couple of times isn’t enough. When you learned to drive a car, was once or a couple of times enough, or did you have to do it over and over before it became and ‘automatic’ doing, so to speak?

What is the AE of sound?
What is the AE of thought?
What is the AE of sensation?
What is the AE of colour?
What is the AE of smell?
What is the AE of taste?

Each moment is unique in its AE and indescribable (sorry - being lazy as the answer is the same for each!). Thought fragments experience, then labels and categorises what it has fragmented.

Yep :) I’m glad you didn’t break it down into individual components…would of made for a very long post!

No - there is just the AE of thought. Direct, singular experience. As I mentioned it seems this illusion can arise when the content of thought comments on another thought or experience...
Can you give me a specific example please, because I don’t get what you are alluding to here.

I guess I was trying to look and see how I have harboured this illusion there is a separate me. And it seems it is because a thought comments on a previous thought (or sound, smell, etc...) and says something about Ian - like "you were very clever there" or "you shouldn't have done that", etc...Although the thought is meaningless, without clear seeing the illusion of a separate I is maintained, right?

Thought takes ownership of everything. When you get swept away by a beautiful piece of music…there is no one listening..there is only the music. When the music ends a thought pops ups and says “how beautiful, I just listened to the most beautiful music”.
So a thought appears that owns the ‘listening’ which then alludes to a ‘person’ hearing. But even the alluding is just a thought.

Yes exactly, so in actual experience is there such a thing as a ca

r?
Nope - just the AE of colour, sound, sensation and thought, and the meaningless label "car"

You can do that with everything. With your morning ‘cup of coffee’! Have a look, is there really a cup of coffee?

Kay xxoo

[ICB]

Hi Kay

But that is still story, Ian. Look for the “I” that notices. Thought may say that there are moments of ‘anger’ and moments of ‘calm’, but to what is this happening to? Thoughts SEEM to be very convincing but that thought is just a thought as well! Going from anger to calm and vice versa not only points to someone/something but also to time.

I get that. I guess what I am saying in that in a moment that thought labels as "anger" there seems to be more thought when I look at what is happening (together with a rush of sensation to what thought labels the "body"). In a moment that thought labels as "calm" there seems to be more AE of direct experience...and not so much thought

Can the label ‘anger’ know anything about anger?
Can the sensation ‘anger’ know anything about anger?
Can the colour labelled ‘body/Ian’ know anything about anger?
Can the label ‘calm’ know anything about calm?
Can the sensation ‘calm’ know anything about calm?
Can the colour labelled ‘body/Ian’ know anything about calm?

There is no experiencer in any of these to know anything about anything. A label is just a label, and meaningless. Sensation and colour can be experienced but not described...

What exactly is it that experiences ‘anger’ and ‘calm’. Can you find this entity/person anywhere?

Nothing experiences anger or calm - they're just labels. There is no entity anywhere...

You have looked and seen that there is no “I”, so have a LOOK and see if there are ‘others’ and let me know what you find.

Not sure what you mean here...

Are you the author of any thoughts?

No

Can you choose which thoughts appear?

No

Do you have anything to do with any thoughts?

Nada

Are you responsible for what is ‘spoken’?

Nope

Can you decide what ‘you’ are going to say?

Thats a negatory

Can you choose between thoughts to what ‘you’ are going to say or do?

Hell no

What is it exactly that is deciding and choosing?

Nothing. It just happens...

Yes, so when a thought like that arises – “this is happening to ME”….stop and have a look for that “me”. LOOKING must continue consistently. Seeing through the “me” once or a couple of times isn’t enough.

I am starting to notice just how habitual and frequent thought is that constantly labels things as "I", "me", "my" - and how easy it is to lose vigilance and let that process go on "in the background" (i.e. without noticing). It's a continual effort at the moment - and there are times when that vigilance slides and "I" fall back into old patterns...

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ian,

I get that. I guess what I am saying in that in a moment that thought labels as "anger" there seems to be more thought when I look at what is happening (together with a rush of sensation to what thought labels the "body"). In a moment that thought labels as "calm" there seems to be more AE of direct experience...and not so much thought

It just happens. There is no particular reason for anything happening or how it shows up. It’s like a night dream. Can a dream character in a dream pick and choose what happens in the dream or what happens to them? But are you the dream character if the dream is within you? How could you be aware of the dream and be the dream character at the same time? Night time dreams seem very real and when we awake from them it feels that we were in the dream…but were we? A night dream is no different to this seeming awake dream. You are aware of the character and what is happening to the character so how can you be the character? And what actually is the character but colour + sensation + sound + smell.

There is no experiencer in any of these to know anything about anything. A label is just a label, and meaningless. Sensation and colour can be experienced but not described...

So is there any difference between the label ‘experience-er’ and the label ‘experience’? Or are they one and the same? What I am asking is how is sound, for example, ‘experienced’?

You have looked and seen that there is no “I”, so have a LOOK and see if there are ‘others’ and let me know what you find.

Not sure what you mean here...

Since there is no “Ian”, is there really a “Kay"?

Can you choose between thoughts to what ‘you’ are going to say or do?

Hell no

So you can see how guilt then is a concept!
Are you responsible then for what you say or don’t say?

I am starting to notice just how habitual and frequent thought is that constantly labels things as "I", "me", "my" - and how easy it is to lose vigilance and let that process go on "in the background" (i.e. without noticing). It's a continual effort at the moment - and there are times when that vigilance slides and "I" fall back into old patterns...

Nice! That is a great awareness. Is there a ‘you’ anywhere that can control this?

The falling back into old patterns and the losing of vigilance will continue to happen – until it doesn’t (and this may or may not continue). You are aware of all of this, but is it happening to you? You are aware of the thought ‘anger’ appearing, as well as a sensation labelled ‘anger’ appearing, but the story about anger…is it really happening to you? The thought “I am angry”…that is known as is the sensation labelled ‘angry’. So this flip flopping is known to you…not as the story but as thought itself.

Can you see this?

Can you see why pointing is rather repetitive…it takes a bit to come to this awareness…that thought continually takes ownership of everything and is continually labelling everything and just how sticky the “I” thought is.

[ICB]

Hi Kay just to say today has been a bit busy so no chance to reply, I'll write tomorrow - thanks, Ix


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ICB]

Hi Kay
Back and looking forward to reconnecting. I hope you had a productive weekend...

What I am asking is how is sound, for example, ‘experienced’?

So it seems to me that sound just is, rather than being experienced per se. For it to be experienced, there would have to be an experience-er, which is again a dualist construction. Sound exists, it arises, it fades. The label experience-er is a label that describes the AE of thought; the label experience is a label that describes the AE of colour, sensation, smell, sound, etc...but they are both just labels.

Since there is no “Ian”, is there really a “Kay"?

No - there is no-one.

So you can see how guilt then is a concept!

Absolutely!

Are you responsible then for what you say or don’t say?

No - it just occurs

Is there a ‘you’ anywhere that can control this?

Nope - not at all.

The falling back into old patterns and the losing of vigilance will continue to happen – until it doesn’t (and this may or may not continue). You are aware of all of this, but is it happening to you? You are aware of the thought ‘anger’ appearing, as well as a sensation labelled ‘anger’ appearing, but the story about anger…is it really happening to you? The thought “I am angry”…that is known as is the sensation labelled ‘angry’. So this flip flopping is known to you…not as the story but as thought itself. Can you see this?

I'm with you in this paragraph right up to where you say this flip flopping is know not as the story but as thought itself...what do you mean by that?

Can you see why pointing is rather repetitive…it takes a bit to come to this awareness…that thought continually takes ownership of everything and is continually labelling everything and just how sticky the “I” thought is.

Absolutely!