The Gate

Morning Kay

Apologies, I got kind of "overwhelmed" and unfocused last night I guess you could say. Again, thank you for sticking with me through all this. I'll focus more from now on.

So there is no such thing as a ‘racing heart’. What is really there is thought + sensation + image/colour.
Can you see this?

Yes I can see what you mean now! "Racing heart" in itself is a loaded label. It suggests the existence of a heart in the chest, which is an image in the mind. It suggests "racing", with has negative connotation, and is also just a label. What it really is is "sensation". It's not racing, it's not heart, it's just "sensation".

How is it known that the ‘body’ is your body?

When I look at the body, all I see is colour. When I go inside the body all I experience is sensation. However the sensation matches the colour. If I trace a line down the colour that you could call an "arm", I feel the sensation all along its colour. Does this mean its mine? Does this mean ownership? Does this mean there is an "I" inside that controls the body? No, it can't. Anything that could be the "controller" or "owner" of the body is just a thought. A label. God, self, nature, ownership, soul, all just labels.

Can you report back on how you are going with the exercise of labelling experience simply as image/colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation or thought?

Awareness just seems to bounce around in a sense. There's no evidence that anything controls it, it just moves. Sound, sensation, back to sound, colour, sensation, thought, labelling, sound, labelling, attention. Sometimes attention seems to pay attention to itself, if that makes sense. There is no soul, or me, in any of these things. There is no meaning. Things are empty. The only thing that would give something meaning is thought, which in itself is just a label, and means nothing.

Things are so simple, and beautiful in a way that I can't describe. There is a silence in everything when meaning itself is removed.

Much appreciation

Ben

Hi Ben,

Apologies, I got kind of "overwhelmed" and unfocused last night I guess you could say. Again, thank you for sticking with me through all this. I'll focus more from now on.

No need for apologies at all! Thank you for sharing whatever it is that arises for you and for the open communication.

So there is no such thing as a ‘racing heart’. What is really there is thought + sensation + image/colour.
Can you see this?

Yes I can see what you mean now! "Racing heart" in itself is a loaded label. It suggests the existence of a heart in the chest, which is an image in the mind. It suggests "racing", with has negative connotation, and is also just a label. What it really is is "sensation". It's not racing, it's not heart, it's just "sensation".

Beautiful!

How is it known that the ‘body’ is your body?

When I look at the body, all I see is colour. When I go inside the body all I experience is sensation. However the sensation matches the colour. If I trace a line down the colour that you could call an "arm", I feel the sensation all along its colour. Does this mean its mine? Does this mean ownership? Does this mean there is an "I" inside that controls the body? No, it can't. Anything that could be the "controller" or "owner" of the body is just a thought. A label. God, self, nature, ownership, soul, all just labels.

Is there and inside and an outside of the body? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

Can you report back on how you are going with the exercise of labelling experience simply as image/colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation or thought?

Awareness just seems to bounce around in a sense. There's no evidence that anything controls it, it just moves. Sound, sensation, back to sound, colour, sensation, thought, labelling, sound, labelling, attention. Sometimes attention seems to pay attention to itself, if that makes sense. There is no soul, or me, in any of these things. There is no meaning. Things are empty. The only thing that would give something meaning is thought, which in itself is just a label, and means nothing.

Lovely, Ben.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by “awareness”?

Let's have a 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.

Love, Kay

Hi Kay

Is there and inside and an outside of the body? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

The only inside my body that exists is a label and an image in my mind. I focus attention on the "inside" and it's just nothing, I only can picture what I think it is, which is blackness, another image. The only place inside or outside exists is in thought - so it doesn't exist at all.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by “awareness”?

This really spun me out when I started focusing on it. I remember before all this started happening, I had these ideas that awareness was located in the brain, and went outwards towards the world around me. But now I focus on awareness, and it doesn't have any location! It just seems to be around everything, this body, it kind of covers everything, the walls, the ground. I don't get a sense that it's "inside" me at all. Wow!

So to clarify, I what I mean by awareness was attention. My attention bounces around from one thing to another, but awareness is different. It's just this thing that's everywhere around me. Sometimes my attention can bounce onto awareness. I hope this makes sense.


Now to the thought exercise.

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

Not really, no. I don't have any control over when a thought comes. However I do "seem" to be able to choose something, but it's hard to explain. For example, a thought comes and says something like, "I'm now going to think about something ridiculous", and then I can choose to think about something riduclous or not, such as a pink elephant. But where does that choice come from? I guess yeah, the choice to do one or the other is out of any control. So I just realised during that last sentence that any form of control is just an illusion. It's the self coming in, attaching itself to thought and saying that it owns or controls it.

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

No. The initial thought is completely random and unknowable. It seems like there are two different types of thoughts though, there are louder ones that are more direct and have a more incling to feel that they are being "controlled", and there are quieter ones that seem to bubble up in the background.

Where are they coming from?

This is hard to answer. It feels like they are around the eyes or head, but it's just a feeling. I used to be sure they were in the brain, but now I'm not. They just kind of float around, like balls of energy around the eye area. That's their location, in terms of where they come from, they just come from nowhere, nothing.

Where are they going?

They disappear into nothing again, nowhere.

Can you predict your next thought?

Well when they initially come up, no. I can't predict what the next thought will be or where the attention will lie. But if a thought comes up, using my previous example, say "I'm going to think about a pink elephant", then I know what's coming and I think about a pink elephant. But the thought "I'm going to think about a pink elephant" is not predictable.

Can you push away any thought?

Yes. If I don't like something that I'm thinking I can stop it and push it away. But it's the "don't like" part that interesting. Because an opinion on a thought would just come from a "self", attaching emotions, opinions and labels to things and making it about a "me". So in that sense, I guess once you got the hang of it you'd never have to stop thinking any thought, because you just don't have any attachement to them at all. So pushing a thought away is only necessary when attachment to a thought occurrs.

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

I can't select any thoughts, they just come and go. Pleasant and unpleasant are judgements associated with the self, and are only necessary to perpetuate an illusiory self. From the perspective of the illusiory self, you can try to force thoughts, but as I experienced my whole life up until now it is fruitless, exausting and frustrating. But now I see the choice wasn't there at all, the attachement to the thought and applying the "self" concept to it is the issue.

Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

Kind of. This is a hard one. A thought comes and it does seem like it can be stopped mid sentence, but the choice to stop it isn't me doing the choosing. It just happens. So the question seems kind of a "trick" question. A thought stops in the middle, but there is no "you" to stop it. Thoughts can stop in the middle however there is no "me" involved in this process. It just happens.

Can anything choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

No. Thoughts just come. It's the self attachement to them that produces the judgement they they are painful or negative. Generally this would be combined with a sensation and a memory, which further strengthens the illusiory concept that painful or negative thoughts are real.

Can anything pick and choose any kind of thought?

No. There is no choice in what comes and goes in terms of thoughts.

Is it possible to control any thoughts?

No. Anything that seems like it's controlling thoughts is just another thought.

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’?

Yes! I think I just realised that with my last answer about any controlling thought is just another thought. Whatever happens, it's just another thought. I have no control over any of it. I now realise that this makes a lot of my answers above not completely correct or true, as any control, change or difference in thought is just another thought.

Thank you Kay, that was super helful doing that exercise. Insights are coming from all angles at a million miles and hour. Wow! No wonder the body seems to take such a big hit from all this.

Love

Ben

Hi Ben,

I am going to break up my responses into two posts...otherwise it would be too long of a post and could be rather overwhelming.

Is there and inside and an outside of the body? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

The only inside my body that exists is a label and an image in my mind. I focus attention on the "inside" and it's just nothing, I only can picture what I think it is, which is blackness, another image. The only place inside or outside exists is in thought - so it doesn't exist at all.

Nice looking.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by “awareness”?

This really spun me out when I started focusing on it. I remember before all this started happening, I had these ideas that awareness was located in the brain, and went outwards towards the world around me. But now I focus on awareness, and it doesn't have any location! It just seems to be around everything, this body, it kind of covers everything, the walls, the ground. I don't get a sense that it's "inside" me at all. Wow!

So to clarify, I what I mean by awareness was attention. My attention bounces around from one thing to another, but awareness is different. It's just this thing that's everywhere around me. Sometimes my attention can bounce onto awareness. I hope this makes sense.

There is no “my attention”. Describe to me exactly where this “me” is located.
So what you are saying is that there is ‘awareness’ and there is ‘you….which = two. There is no two. There is not one which means there is not two. For there to be one of something would mean that there must be other somethings, which = separation.

Can you find a dividing line between ‘awareness’ and what is being ‘awared’ (awareness/awared)? Or to put it another way…can you find a dividing line between the knowing of what is known (knowing/known)?
Is there a dividing line between the see-er and what is seen?
Is there a dividing line between the hear-er and what is heard?
Is there a dividing line between the taster and what is tasted?

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

I guess yeah, the choice to do one or the other is out of any control. So I just realised during that last sentence that any form of control is just an illusion. It's the self coming in, attaching itself to thought and saying that it owns or controls it.

Yes, nice looking – there is no choice or control.

What exactly is this ‘self’ that is coming in attaching itself to thought?
Describe this ‘self’ to me in precise detail.
Where is this ‘self’ located exactly?

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

No. The initial thought is completely random and unknowable. It seems like there are two different types of thoughts though, there are louder ones that are more direct and have a more incling to feel that they are being "controlled", and there are quieter ones that seem to bubble up in the background.

Nice looking, Ben. But is there really two different types of thought, or is it another thought that says that?

Where are they coming from?

This is hard to answer. It feels like they are around the eyes or head, but it's just a feeling. I used to be sure they were in the brain, but now I'm not. They just kind of float around, like balls of energy around the eye area. That's their location, in terms of where they come from, they just come from nowhere, nothing.

There is no one/nothing that is feeling anything. Where can an experience-er be found?

How is it known that there are eyes? Close the eyes and just notice the ‘eye’ area. Drop all thoughts and images about ‘eyes’ and what is there? Are there really eyes there or is it thought that says the sensations are eyes?

Close your eyes again and put the tip of your forefinger on the top of your head. Drop all thoughts and images and what is actually there. Can you find a ‘head’ or a ‘finger’ anywhere, or is there just sensation?

Where are they going?

They disappear into nothing again, nowhere.

They SEEM to disappear, but what says that thoughts are different so that it seems like different thoughts are appearing and disappearing?

Can you predict your next thought?

Well when they initially come up, no. I can't predict what the next thought will be or where the attention will lie. But if a thought comes up, using my previous example, say "I'm going to think about a pink elephant", then I know what's coming and I think about a pink elephant. But the thought "I'm going to think about a pink elephant" is not predictable.

How is it known that the thought ‘pink elephant’ is the catalyst of the image appearing?
So where is this “I” that is thinking?

Please answer the questions in blue.
Love, Kay

Morning Kay

I think I get it now. Language needs to be precise, because precise language leads to precise looking. Imprecise language leads to falseness = separation = illusory sense of self. Vague and imprecise language is what caused this whole mess in the first place.

There is no “my attention”. Describe to me exactly where this “me” is located.

Anything that would be considered "me" is just another mental image. Attention is just another mental image. Attention seems to move however: Image, colour, sound, sensation, colour, thought

Can you find a dividing line between ‘awareness’ and what is being ‘awared’ (awareness/awared)? Or to put it another way…can you find a dividing line between the knowing of what is known (knowing/known)?

Any division exists as an illusion, a thought. The "my" part of awareness is just an image, a picture in my mind. The only thing that is there is sensation itself, colour itself. "Awareness" is just a thought, an image of space or blackness.

Is there a dividing line between the see-er and what is seen?

Any "see-er" is just a mental image. There is only seen.

Is there a dividing line between the hear-er and what is heard?

Any "hear-er" is just a mental image. A illusory I label. There is only heard.

Is there a dividing line between the taster and what is tasted?

A "taster" can only be an illusion. There is only taste.

What exactly is this ‘self’ that is coming in attaching itself to thought?
Describe this ‘self’ to me in precise detail.
Where is this ‘self’ located exactly?

You are right, my sentences were vague. It is actually taking me a lot of energy and time to get the precision that is required. Thank you for being patient Kay.

There is no self, only more thoughts. Any concept of a self attaching itself to thoughts is only just an image, a thought itself.

But there is something that happens that affects the body. For example, lately there have been thoughts of things like, "My life was built up to be so busy and full, and now this, how can I continue to lead such a busy and full life now? There are expectations people have of me and things I'm "required" to do, like work and things outside work, but part of me now just wants to lie on the floor all day or just sit on the beach and stare at it"

These types of thoughts have been swirling around over the past couple of days, and they cause the feeling of "anxiety" (racing heart etc.)

But, as I sit to meditate, I can "let go" as such. I know there's no "me" there actually "letting go", but there is a sense of being able to not believe all this stuff and just "get on with life" and change nothing for now and just see what happens, rather than "believe" the stressful thoughts about this. Believing thoughts seems to make me want to take action, such as quitting my job, all my hobbies, but then there are more stressful thoughts about "how will I live without money", etc. etc. I know this is all vague but I wanted to get this out.

So there is a letting go, just do whatever you do, get on with it, or there is a believing thoughts state which inspire change, and have affects on the sensations of heart etc. I hope this makes sense.

But is there really two different types of thought, or is it another thought that says that?

You are right, any labels of thought are just more thought. Thought just goes and goes and goes and never stops! Sometimes you think it's not a thought, but that's just another thought or image, which is a thought. Not thought is another thought. Wow!

There is no one/nothing that is feeling anything. Where can an experience-er be found?

Any experience-er is just a thought. An image of a body or a self in the mind. There is only experience. Sensation, colour.

How is it known that there are eyes? Close the eyes and just notice the ‘eye’ area. Drop all thoughts and images about ‘eyes’ and what is there? Are there really eyes there or is it thought that says the sensations are eyes?

It is just sensation. The only thing that an "eye" is is the image of an "eye" in the mind.

Close your eyes again and put the tip of your forefinger on the top of your head. Drop all thoughts and images and what is actually there. Can you find a ‘head’ or a ‘finger’ anywhere, or is there just sensation?

Yes, there is just a sensation. No head, no finger. Just one sensation.

They SEEM to disappear, but what says that thoughts are different so that it seems like different thoughts are appearing and disappearing?

Right! But there really does seem to be to be different thoughts. There are different images and words that make up thoughts. I know they aren't true as such, but they flow and there is differences to them.

How is it known that the thought ‘pink elephant’ is the catalyst of the image appearing?
So where is this “I” that is thinking?

Previous thought experience suggests that these two happenings associate with each other. Thought has shown previously that when the words "pink elephant" appear as thought, then the image of "pink elephant" appears. They are a type of thought that seem to go together. But where it comes from I really can't know, it just comes and then goes. But when it's gone it's not known that it's gone until it comes back again, so is it ever really there in the first place? Whoa. I need to sit with that last sentence for a while.


Much love

Ben

Hi Ben,

I think I get it now. Language needs to be precise, because precise language leads to precise looking. Imprecise language leads to falseness = separation = illusory sense of self. Vague and imprecise language is what caused this whole mess in the first place.

Language is important as it is the only means with which I have of gathering what you are seeing and where you are coming from. :)

Looking isn’t difficult. “Looking” is just plain looking to what is here right now. When you need your car keys and look everywhere for them – that is looking. It’s noticing sound, taste, smell, sensation and colours (images) to see what is really present (actual experience) and always has been; as well as noticing thought/s - not thinking, but noticing or being ‘aware’ of thought/s. Thoughts tend to pull you away from looking directly, as by directly looking into actual experience, you will inevitably unveil the ‘trick they play’ in creating the illusion of an "I".

There is no “my attention”. Describe to me exactly where this “me” is located.

Anything that would be considered "me" is just another mental image. Attention is just another mental image. Attention seems to move however: Image, colour, sound, sensation, colour, thought

The label ‘attention’ is the actual experience of thought and not the AE of someone/something having attention.

How exactly does “attention” move? Or is there is just the experience of/as colour, sound, sensation.

Is there a dividing line between the see-er and what is seen?

Any "see-er" is just a mental image. There is only seen.

When ‘seeing’ a tree is there a dividing line between the ‘seeing’ of the tree and the tree itself (the seen), or is there just seeing/seen? If there is a dividing line…what is it?

Is there a dividing line between the hear-er and what is heard?

Any "hear-er" is just a mental image. A illusory I label. There is only heard.

When a sound is being heard, is there a dividing line between the ‘hearing’ of the sound and the sound itself (what is being ‘heard’), or is there just hearing/heard?
For example, when a car horn is heard, is there someone doing the hearing or is the sound just heard – is there a dividing line between ‘hearing/heard’?

What exactly is this ‘self’ that is coming in attaching itself to thought?
Describe this ‘self’ to me in precise detail.
Where is this ‘self’ located exactly?

You are right, my sentences were vague. It is actually taking me a lot of energy and time to get the precision that is required. Thank you for being patient Kay.

You are being a bit hard on yourself. You have only just started this inquiry. It will become clearer as we move along. Just read what I wrote about ‘LOOKING’ and you will find that LOOKING need not be taxing.

There is no self, only more thoughts. Any concept of a self attaching itself to thoughts is only just an image, a thought itself.

The label ‘self’ is the actual experience (AE) of thought and is not the AE of a self
The sensation labelled ‘self’ is the AE of sensations and is not the AE of self
The colour (image) labelled as ‘Ben/self’ is the AE of colour (image) and is not the AE of self
Can you see this?

But there is something that happens that affects the body. For example, lately there have been thoughts of things like, "My life was built up to be so busy and full, and now this, how can I continue to lead such a busy and full life now? There are expectations people have of me and things I'm "required" to do, like work and things outside work, but part of me now just wants to lie on the floor all day or just sit on the beach and stare at it"

There are a few assumptions here (ie beliefs/stories)
1. That there is a body and there is someone/something that resides in a body
2. That the body ‘feels.
3. That there is a separate individual who is thinking, doing, controlling, choosing and deciding
4. That there is cause and effect (which would mean an object/subject split = separation)
5. For there to be cause and effect there would have to be time – there is no time.

These types of thoughts have been swirling around over the past couple of days, and they cause the feeling of "anxiety" (racing heart etc.)

So please find the author/owner of these thoughts and let me know where they reside and while you are at it, find the controller of thoughts…find that which is controlling what thoughts appear in any given ‘moment’.

But, as I sit to meditate, I can "let go" as such. I know there's no "me" there actually "letting go", but there is a sense of being able to not believe all this stuff and just "get on with life" and change nothing for now and just see what happens, rather than "believe" the stressful thoughts about this. Believing thoughts seems to make me want to take action, such as quitting my job, all my hobbies, but then there are more stressful thoughts about "how will I live without money", etc. etc. I know this is all vague but I wanted to get this out.

There is absolutely no one/no thing that is believing thoughts or who can change anything, including the story called “my life”.

But is there really two different types of thought, or is it another thought that says that?

You are right, any labels of thought are just more thought. Thought just goes and goes and goes and never stops! Sometimes you think it's not a thought, but that's just another thought or image, which is a thought. Not thought is another thought. Wow!

Yes, ‘not thought’ is another thought. Nicely seen.

There is no one/nothing that is feeling anything. Where can an experience-er be found?

Any experience-er is just a thought. An image of a body or a self in the mind. There is only experience. Sensation, colour.

What exactly is it that has a "mind"?
Describe to me where a "mind" is located and what it looks like.

How is it known that there are eyes? Close the eyes and just notice the ‘eye’ area. Drop all thoughts and images about ‘eyes’ and what is there? Are there really eyes there or is it thought that says the sensations are eyes?

It is just sensation. The only thing that an "eye" is is the image of an "eye" in the mind.

How is it known that an ‘eye’ is an ‘eye’?
Describe to me the “mind” is and where the “image of an eye is exactly located in “the mind””.

Close your eyes again and put the tip of your forefinger on the top of your head. Drop all thoughts and images and what is actually there. Can you find a ‘head’ or a ‘finger’ anywhere, or is there just sensation?

Yes, there is just a sensation. No head, no finger. Just one sensation.

Great :)

They SEEM to disappear, but what says that thoughts are different so that it seems like different thoughts are appearing and disappearing?

Right! But there really does seem to be to be different thoughts. There are different images and words that make up thoughts. I know they aren't true as such, but they flow and there is differences to them.

This is an intellectual answer. Please answer from LOOKING with actual experience. In actual experience are there different thoughts and images? Images are made up of colour, so there are no such thing as images.

What says that thoughts are different?
What says that colours (images) are different?

How is it known that the thought ‘pink elephant’ is the catalyst of the image appearing?
So where is this “I” that is thinking?

Previous thought experience suggests that these two happenings associate with each other. Thought has shown previously that when the words "pink elephant" appear as thought, then the image of "pink elephant" appears. They are a type of thought that seem to go together.

Nice story but no LOOKING took place. Please LOOK again.
What says that the thought ‘pink elephant’ caused the colours/image of a ‘pink elephant’ to appear?


“Previous thought experience” is based on the assumption of ‘memory’.
Memory is a conceptual framework that suggests there is a storage system and an ‘image’ is retrieved.

What exactly is it that has ‘memory’?
Where exactly is this storage system located?

But where it comes from I really can't know, it just comes and then goes. But when it's gone it's not known that it's gone until it comes back again, so is it ever really there in the first place? Whoa. I need to sit with that last sentence for a while.

Nice. What did you notice when you looked at this some more?

Love, Kay

Hi Kay

The information you posted about "looking" was very helpful, thank you. It's the simplest thing of all, it's just that thought gets in the way.

I will answer your questions soon, but I just have to say some things and have a couple of questions.

The last few days have probably been the hardest of my life to be honest. It's kinda just swinging from a state of panic, to a state of complete calm, to a state of feeling so connected to people, to panic and more panic. Is it normally this difficult? How long does this all last usually? This is scaring the shit out of me.

Love

Ben

Hey Ben, I have sent you a PM from the forum.

Love, Kay

Hi Kay

Here are the answers to the questions - thank you.

How exactly does “attention” move? Or is there is just the experience of/as colour, sound, sensation.

You are right, there is no attention. There is only the experience of colour, sound and sensation. The attention is only a thought, which thinks that a self can focus on one at a time. In truth, they are all just there at all times.

When ‘seeing’ a tree is there a dividing line between the ‘seeing’ of the tree and the tree itself (the seen), or is there just seeing/seen? If there is a dividing line…what is it?

There is just seeing the tree. There is no division. Any division is a thought which divides things into a self that sees and a trees that is seen. There is only seeing that exists in AE.

When a sound is being heard, is there a dividing line between the ‘hearing’ of the sound and the sound itself (what is being ‘heard’), or is there just hearing/heard?
For example, when a car horn is heard, is there someone doing the hearing or is the sound just heard – is there a dividing line between ‘hearing/heard’?

Same as seeing, there are no two parts to hearing. There is only sound. The only division would be thought labelling sound as coming from something and going to something. Nothing in AE provides any evidence of this. There is only sound.

The label ‘self’ is the actual experience (AE) of thought and is not the AE of a self
The sensation labelled ‘self’ is the AE of sensations and is not the AE of self
The colour (image) labelled as ‘Ben/self’ is the AE of colour (image) and is not the AE of self
Can you see this?

Yes. Self is a thought. It attaches itself to sensation, colour, hearing, and creates an illusory sense of self. The heart does not exist. It's just a sensation. "My" room is not there, it's just colour. There is no me that takes ownership of anything. Just a self label.

So please find the author/owner of these thoughts and let me know where they reside and while you are at it, find the controller of thoughts…find that which is controlling what thoughts appear in any given ‘moment’.

The pink elephant thought appears, and then it is gone. Then it's thought is just a memory, which is another thought. Then the images appear, any association they may have is just another thought, a memory, which is just thought.
I don't know where it comes from. It's just always there. There is no control, no author, just there.

There is absolutely no one/no thing that is believing thoughts or who can change anything, including the story called “my life”.

You are right. It is all thoughts. Memories, labels, judgements... thoughts.

What exactly is it that has a "mind"?
Describe to me where a "mind" is located and what it looks like.

There is no "mind". Only a thought or an image of a mind, which is not a "mind", it's just a thought or an image.

How is it known that an ‘eye’ is an ‘eye’?
Describe to me the “mind” is and where the “image of an eye is exactly located in “the mind””.

There is no eye, there is no mind. An eye is just a thought, a mind is just a thought. No location, just thoughts.

What says that thoughts are different?
What says that colours (images) are different?

It's just another thought that says thoughts are different. Thought is just there, to consider a thought different is just another thought.
Saying that colours are different is just another thought. It's a thought labelling colours.

Nice story but no LOOKING took place. Please LOOK again.
What says that the thought ‘pink elephant’ caused the colours/image of a ‘pink elephant’ to appear?

Got it. In AE there is only 1 thought. Any thought that suggests one thought came after/before another is just another thought.

What exactly is it that has ‘memory’?
Where exactly is this storage system located?

There is no memory, just more thought.
There is no storage system, just a thought of a storage system.

But where it comes from I really can't know, it just comes and then goes. But when it's gone it's not known that it's gone until it comes back again, so is it ever really there in the first place? Whoa. I need to sit with that last sentence for a while.


What did you notice when you looked at this some more?

Thought is there but there is only ever 1 thought. The label 1 is a thought. But in AE there is only ever one thought.


Thank you Kay, so much.

Ben

Hi Ben,

How exactly does “attention” move? Or is there is just the experience of/as colour, sound, sensation.

You are right, there is no attention. There is only the experience of colour, sound and sensation. The attention is only a thought, which thinks that a self can focus on one at a time. In truth, they are all just there at all times.

Can a thought think, or is the thought “that a self can focus on one at a time” is just a thought that appears and what the thought is ABOUT is just a story?

When ‘seeing’ a tree is there a dividing line between the ‘seeing’ of the tree and the tree itself (the seen), or is there just seeing/seen? If there is a dividing line…what is it?

There is just seeing the tree. There is no division. Any division is a thought which divides things into a self that sees and a trees that is seen. There is only seeing that exists in AE.

Yes :)

When a sound is being heard, is there a dividing line between the ‘hearing’ of the sound and the sound itself (what is being ‘heard’), or is there just hearing/heard? For example, when a car horn is heard, is there someone doing the hearing or is the sound just heard – is there a dividing line between ‘hearing/heard’?

Same as seeing, there are no two parts to hearing. There is only sound. The only division would be thought labelling sound as coming from something and going to something. Nothing in AE provides any evidence of this. There is only sound.

Nice :)

The label ‘self’ is the actual experience (AE) of thought and is not the AE of a self
The sensation labelled ‘self’ is the AE of sensations and is not the AE of self
The colour (image) labelled as ‘Ben/self’ is the AE of colour (image) and is not the AE of self
Can you see this?

Yes. Self is a thought. It attaches itself to sensation, colour, hearing, and creates an illusory sense of self. The heart does not exist. It's just a sensation. "My" room is not there, it's just colour. There is no me that takes ownership of anything. Just a self label.

A thought is just another phenomenon that ‘appears’…just like colours, sound, taste, smell, and sensation. But what thoughts are about (the content of thought) is fiction. Thoughts cannot attach themselves to anything.
How would a thought know to attach itself to a colour or sensation?

When a sensation appears and a thought appears ‘simultaneously’ that says ‘goosebumps’, it is another appearing thought that says the thought ‘goosebump’ goes with the sensation. All that is really happening is sensation + thought are ‘appearing’, but how is it known that they go hand in hand?

So please find the author/owner of these thoughts and let me know where they reside and while you are at it, find the controller of thoughts…find that which is controlling what thoughts appear in any given ‘moment’.

The pink elephant thought appears, and then it is gone. Then it's thought is just a memory, which is another thought. Then the images appear, any association they may have is just another thought, a memory, which is just thought. I don't know where it comes from. It's just always there. There is no control, no author, just there.

If a 3 legged creature with 1 arm and 5 eyes were to appear, and the thought ornithorhynchus anatinus also appeared…how is it known that the two go together? Or that ornithorhynchus anatinus is what the creature is labelled as?

There is absolutely no one/no thing that is believing thoughts or who can change anything, including the story called “my life”.

You are right. It is all thoughts. Memories, labels, judgements... thoughts.

Yes, it is all just thoughts and ‘memories, labels, judgements’ are all AE of thought and all thought is meaningless. Some thoughts point to actual experience and some thoughts point to more thoughts (story).

For example ‘blue sky’.
The label’ blue’ points to AE of colour
The label ‘sky’ points to thoughts about what a sky is and does (aka story)

What exactly is it that has a "mind"?
Describe to me where a "mind" is located and what it looks like.

There is no "mind". Only a thought or an image of a mind, which is not a "mind", it's just a thought or an image.

The label ‘mind’ is AE of thought and not the AE of a mind
The colour/image labelled ‘mind’ is AE of colour/image and not the AE of a mind
The sensation labelled ‘mind’ is AE of sensation and not the AE of a mind
Is this clear?

How is it known that an ‘eye’ is an ‘eye’?
Describe to me the “mind” is and where the “image of an eye is exactly located in “the mind””.

There is no eye, there is no mind. An eye is just a thought, a mind is just a thought. No location, just thoughts.

The label ‘eye’ is AE of thought and not the AE of an eye
The colour/image labelled ‘eye’ is AE of colour/image and not the AE of an eye



Here is an image labelled ‘eye’. Notice what is actually present in this image. Thought says it's an eye that is on a face which in on head which is attached to a body. But all that's *actually* there is pink, white, black, blue. There is no eye present in the image at all.
Can you see that the eye is 100% just a story?

What says that thoughts are different?
What says that colours (images) are different?

It's just another thought that says thoughts are different. Thought is just there, to consider a thought different is just another thought. Saying that colours are different is just another thought. It's a thought labelling colours.

Yes.

What says that the thought ‘pink elephant’ caused the colours/image of a ‘pink elephant’ to appear?
Got it. In AE there is only 1 thought. Any thought that suggests one thought came after/before another is just another thought.

There is only thought, there are no multitudes of varying thoughts. It is only thought that says all thoughts are different and mean something different.

But where it comes from I really can't know, it just comes and then goes. But when it's gone it's not known that it's gone until it comes back again, so is it ever really there in the first place? Whoa. I need to sit with that last sentence for a while.

What did you notice when you looked at this some more?

Thought is there but there is only ever 1 thought. The label 1 is a thought. But in AE there is only ever one thought.

Yes, so it’s not 1 thought…but just thought.

Here is an exercise you might like to do..it will help with the idea of labels. Let me know how you go.

http://markedeternal.blogspot.com.au/20 ... abels.html


Love, Kay

Morning Kay, and happy Sunday!

I've calmed down quite a bit today, somehow had a breakthrough where I just "stopped" these worrying thoughts and focused on my body relaxing. Felt extraordinarily peaceful for about an hour before I managed to get to sleep. This morning I'm stil a bit anxious, but far less than I have been for the last week. It's good. Ended up getting about 5 hours sleep last night, after trying to relax for about an hour or so, seems like the standard amount for me lately, but I'm not sure it's enough because I seem to just get extremely tired suddenly during the day sometimes. How was your sleep affected by this process? Did you settle back into a better pattern or you simply just stop needing as much sleep? I'm mainly concerned because I have to return to a normal office job tomorrow, not sure how I'll go, but we'll have to see.

Can a thought think, or is the thought “that a self can focus on one at a time” is just a thought that appears and what the thought is ABOUT is just a story?

True. There are no facts in thought, just thought. Just movement, words, labels. The thought "a self can focus on one at a time" is just a thought, it's not a fact or a truth, it's just a story.

How would a thought know to attach itself to a colour or sensation?

A thought doesn't "know", it's just another phenomenon, as you said. Thought does what it does, it labels sensation. I'm not sure how it would "know" to do this though.

All that is really happening is sensation + thought are ‘appearing’, but how is it known that they go hand in hand?

It's another thought that says thought and sensation go together. You could say that "thought affects the body", however this would be another thought labelling sensation.

If a 3 legged creature with 1 arm and 5 eyes were to appear, and the thought ornithorhynchus anatinus also appeared…how is it known that the two go together? Or that ornithorhynchus anatinus is what the creature is labelled as?

It is definitely just a label, it's not what the creature actually is. The creature is just colour. But in terms of how is it known that the two go together, I'm not sure about this. Anything that says that go together is just a thought, or a memory, another story or label. I can't "prove" or "disprove" anything without referring to another thought, another story.

Yes, it is all just thoughts and ‘memories, labels, judgements’ are all AE of thought and all thought is meaningless. Some thoughts point to actual experience and some thoughts point to more thoughts (story).

For example ‘blue sky’.
The label’ blue’ points to AE of colour
The label ‘sky’ points to thoughts about what a sky is and does (aka story)

This made a lot of sense. There is the AE of phenomena, which is colour, sound, sensation, memory, label.
There is inaccurate experience of phenomena, which would be the thought labelling colour, or thought labelling more thought.

The label ‘mind’ is AE of thought and not the AE of a mind
The colour/image labelled ‘mind’ is AE of colour/image and not the AE of a mind
The sensation labelled ‘mind’ is AE of sensation and not the AE of a mind
Is this clear?

Not completely. I get that the label "mind" is the AE of thought and not the AE of a mind.
And I get that if a colour image of a "mind" was in front of me, say in a magazine, then the magazine and the image of the mind is just the AE of colour, and not the AE of a mind.
I'm just not getting that the mind could be a sensation. When I think "mind", a thought comes that is a label "mind", or another thought that is an image "mind", but no sensation.

Can you see that the eye is 100% just a story?

Yes. I look at the image and experience on colour in AE. The mind labels it "eye", and stories and images come that show a head and body, however none of these are present in AE. It's just a few colours.

Completed the exercise, it was very good. Very clear and simple. I notice far less "tension" in the body during AE rather than labeling everything with the "I" label before it. It's much more peacful without the "I" label. Thank you!

With love

Ben

Hi Ben,

I've calmed down quite a bit today, somehow had a breakthrough where I just "stopped" these worrying thoughts and focused on my body relaxing. Felt extraordinarily peaceful for about an hour before I managed to get to sleep. This morning I'm stil a bit anxious, but far less than I have been for the last week. It's good.

I am glad to hear that the anxiety levels have decreased. By dropping the story as much as possible about panic and what it means and just being with the sensations is a way of allowing the sensations to be there without them needing to be different or gone. Sometimes this is ‘easy’ to do and other times the story is very loud and persistent and it if that can just allow to be as well…they will also pass. The trick is to allow the sensations to be.

Are ‘you’ aware of ‘your’ thoughts and sensations, or are they just thoughts and sensations known to ‘you’? Thought labels them yours, but are they really? Can you find an owner in actual experience, or just thoughts about an owner?

Ended up getting about 5 hours sleep last night, after trying to relax for about an hour or so, seems like the standard amount for me lately, but I'm not sure it's enough because I seem to just get extremely tired suddenly during the day sometimes. How was your sleep affected by this process? Did you settle back into a better pattern or you simply just stop needing as much sleep? I'm mainly concerned because I have to return to a normal office job tomorrow, not sure how I'll go, but we'll have to see.

Tiredness can be a defense mechanism that arises when doing this exploration. Some people become extremely tired and just want to sleep all the time, while others are unable to sleep much at all.

What is the AE of 'tired'?

Can a thought think, or is the thought “that a self can focus on one at a time” is just a thought that appears and what the thought is ABOUT is just a story?

True. There are no facts in thought, just thought. Just movement, words, labels. The thought "a self can focus on one at a time" is just a thought, it's not a fact or a truth, it's just a story.

I don’t want you to see if what I am pointing to is true or not….what I want you to do is LOOK and see for yourself what is actually there. It is only through you seeing what is being pointed to that the recognition of no ‘separate self’ is seen.

There is no experience in thought itself. Thought is actual experience but what the thought is ABOUT (content) is story.

Where can “movement” be found in thought? I don’t understand what you are saying here, could you elaborate please?

How would a thought know to attach itself to a colour or sensation?

A thought doesn't "know", it's just another phenomenon, as you said. Thought does what it does, it labels sensation. I'm not sure how it would "know" to do this though.

So did you LOOK at this or did you nut this out via thinking?
So have a LOOK, how exactly does a thought label a sensation?
Think of a thought that seemingly creates a sensation and have a LOOK to see how or if a thought labels a sensation or whether they are both just an appearance...one being a thought and the other being a sensation and another thought says that this particular sensation is 'fear' (or whatever).

Does the sensation in anyway suggest that it is afraid or that it is fear itself?

All that is really happening is sensation + thought are ‘appearing’, but how is it known that they go hand in hand?

It's another thought that says thought and sensation go together. You could say that "thought affects the body", however this would be another thought labelling sensation.

Yes, so then does a thought actually label a sensation or does it only SEEM as if a thought is actually referring to sensation?

If a 3 legged creature with 1 arm and 5 eyes were to appear, and the thought ornithorhynchus anatinus also appeared…how is it known that the two go together? Or that ornithorhynchus anatinus is what the creature is labelled as?

It is definitely just a label, it's not what the creature actually is. The creature is just colour. But in terms of how is it known that the two go together, I'm not sure about this. Anything that says that go together is just a thought, or a memory, another story or label. I can't "prove" or "disprove" anything without referring to another thought, another story.

Yes, so is the sensation labelled 'fear' actually fear?

It seems as if thoughts, images, smells and so on are based in memory, but there is no such thing as memory. We will be looking at memory later on.

Thought, label, story are one and the same. Labelling something is a part of a thought process, and stories are all made up of thought…so they are not separate things.

“I can't "prove" or "disprove" anything without referring to another thought, another story” is spot on!

Yes, it is all just thoughts and ‘memories, labels, judgements’ are all AE of thought and all thought is meaningless. Some thoughts point to actual experience and some thoughts point to more thoughts (story).

For example ‘blue sky’.
The label’ blue’ points to AE of colour
The label ‘sky’ points to thoughts about what a sky is and does (aka story)

This made a lot of sense. There is the AE of phenomena, which is colour, sound, sensation, memory, label.
There is inaccurate experience of phenomena, which would be the thought labelling colour, or thought labelling more thought.

Although thoughts are empty, ie they do not hold any experience; they are of and in of themselves actual experience and they also seemingly point to actual experience. Words/labels are just pointing, but they are never what they are saying, otherwise the word/label "breathing" would be moving right now.

Checking to see what thought is pointing to is a good way to see whether you are ‘believing/telling’ a story or whether something is actual experience.

The label ‘blue’ points to AE of colour but can the colour ‘blue’ be described?
The label ‘fear’ points to sensation but can the sensation be described?
The label ‘fear’ points to thought but can thought be described?
Whereas the label ‘sky’ points to more thought as there is a story ascribed to the label ‘sky’.
Can you see this?

The label ‘mind’ is AE of thought and not the AE of a mind
The colour/image labelled ‘mind’ is AE of colour/image and not the AE of a mind
The sensation labelled ‘mind’ is AE of sensation and not the AE of a mind
Is this clear?

Not completely. I get that the label "mind" is the AE of thought and not the AE of a mind.
And I get that if a colour image of a "mind" was in front of me, say in a magazine, then the magazine and the image of the mind is just the AE of colour, and not the AE of a mind.
I'm just not getting that the mind could be a sensation. When I think "mind", a thought comes that is a label "mind", or another thought that is an image "mind", but no sensation.

Even if a mental image of a ‘mind’ appeared and it was in black and white…it is still AE of colour.

Close the eyes and just focus on the ‘head’ and the ‘forehead’ for a few moments.
What does thought say these sensations are?

Can you see that the eye is 100% just a story?

Yes. I look at the image and experience on colour in AE. The mind labels it "eye", and stories and images come that show a head and body, however none of these are present in AE. It's just a few colours.

Great :)

Completed the exercise, it was very good. Very clear and simple. I notice far less "tension" in the body during AE rather than labeling everything with the "I" label before it. It's much more peacful without the "I" label. Thank you!

The label “I” is the AE of thought and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I
The sensation labelled “I” is the AE of sensation and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I
The colours labelled “I” are the AE of colour and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I
The sound labelled “my voice/me/I” is the AE of sound and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I

Is this clear?

Love, Kay

Hi Kay

Are ‘you’ aware of ‘your’ thoughts and sensations, or are they just thoughts and sensations known to ‘you’? Thought labels them yours, but are they really? Can you find an owner in actual experience, or just thoughts about an owner?

There are only thoughts and sensations. I can't find an owner or controller of these in AE.

What is the AE of 'tired'?

Good question, I haven't looked into this one before. It is just a sensation, thought labels it as tired, a story about a sensation.

Where can “movement” be found in thought? I don’t understand what you are saying here, could you elaborate please?

When looking at it there is no movement in thought. It was just a another thought-story that says "thought moves". There is no continuity to thought, that would only be a thought-story as well. In AE thought exists, but it is just thought, and has no other qualities. Any other quality assigned to thought is just another thought.

Does the sensation in anyway suggest that it is afraid or that it is fear itself?

Both the thought and the sensation are in no way linked. I experience a sensation and it's just a sensation, there's no fear in the sensation. Thought appears in AE as well, a thought itself is just an appearance and it doesn't contain any inherant fear.

Yes, so then does a thought actually label a sensation or does it only SEEM as if a thought is actually referring to sensation?

It only seems this way, I can't see why though. But I can see how thought is just thought, it's not inherantly anything, and sensation is just sensation, it's not inherantly anything. To say that one labels the other is just a thought. There is never a combination of thought/sensation, they don't combine to make something new. There is only ever the experience of sensation and the experience of thought.

Yes, so is the sensation labelled 'fear' actually fear?

The sensation labelled fear cannot be fear, it's just a sensation. The label fear is just a thought, it's not fear either.

The label ‘blue’ points to AE of colour but can the colour ‘blue’ be described?
The label ‘fear’ points to sensation but can the sensation be described?
The label ‘fear’ points to thought but can thought be described?
Whereas the label ‘sky’ points to more thought as there is a story ascribed to the label ‘sky’.
Can you see this?

Yes I'm starting to see this clearly. Thought can point to an AE or it can point to more thoughts.
I'm using the fan in my bedroom as an example. The label "fan" is pointing to a story about what a fan is a does, may bring up memories about what a fan has done in the past.
The thought sound is pointing to the AE of hearing the fan. Same as the thought "colour" would be pointing to the AE of colour, which is another AE of the fan.
The only way to AE the fan is through colour, sound, sensation. Thought can only point to either these AE's of the fan, or further thought regarding the story of a fan.

Even if a mental image of a ‘mind’ appeared and it was in black and white…it is still AE of colour.

This confuses me a bit. The AE of seeing a mind on say a textbook is colour. Are you saying that the AE of thought that appears as an image is colour too? So this would suggest that the AE of thought-images and the AE of colour on a page are no different? It's just that for me when a thought brings up an image of a mind, I know it's in colour, or the colour may change to black and white, however I don't actually experience colour or black and white in the same way that it would be AE'd on a page. This is hard to explain, I hope this makes sense.

Close the eyes and just focus on the ‘head’ and the ‘forehead’ for a few moments.
What does thought say these sensations are?

The head and forehead in AE are only sensations. Thought labels these sensations as head/forehead, and will sometimes produce and image of a head/forehead, but these aren't the AE of a head/forehead, just thoughts.

The label “I” is the AE of thought and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I
The sensation labelled “I” is the AE of sensation and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I
The colours labelled “I” are the AE of colour and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I
The sound labelled “my voice/me/I” is the AE of sound and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I

Is this clear?

Yes, it's becoming clearer. Thought can either label AE, point to stories about AE, or point to more thought. The label I is a thought that is pointing to AE, pointing to stories (more thought) about AE, or pointing to more thought.
Sensation, colours and sound are AE, they aren't thought, they aren't the AE of any "self". If thought points to a self, it is not there is AE, only sensation, colour and sounds are there. Thought is an AE as well however, but the label "self" can only point to more thought, which is not a "self" or point to a story about an AE of say colour, or point to an AE like colour.

With love

Ben

Hey Ben,

Are ‘you’ aware of ‘your’ thoughts and sensations, or are they just thoughts and sensations known to ‘you’? Thought labels them yours, but are they really? Can you find an owner in actual experience, or just thoughts about an owner?

There are only thoughts and sensations. I can't find an owner or controller of these in AE.

So it is clear that thoughts and sensations are known but are not owned or controlled by anyone or anything?

What is the AE of 'tired'?

Good question, I haven't looked into this one before. It is just a sensation, thought labels it as tired, a story about a sensation.

Yes! A story about a sensation and a story about colours labelled as a body that gets tired.
How can colours/image labelled 'body' become tired? Do colours know anything about being ‘tired’?
Do sensations know anything about being tired?
Does thought know anything about being tired?

The label ‘tired’ is the actual experience (AE) of thought and is NOT the AE of tired
The sensation labelled ‘tired’ is the AE of sensation and is NOT the AE of tired
The colours/image labelled ‘body/Ben/mind are the AE of colour/image and not the AE of a person who is tired.

Where can “movement” be found in thought? I don’t understand what you are saying here, could you elaborate please?

When looking at it there is no movement in thought. It was just a another thought-story that says "thought moves". There is no continuity to thought, that would only be a thought-story as well. In AE thought exists, but it is just thought, and has no other qualities. Any other quality assigned to thought is just another thought.

Yes, thought just is, just as sound just is, colour just is and so on.

Does the sensation in anyway suggest that it is afraid or that it is fear itself?

Both the thought and the sensation are in no way linked. I experience a sensation and it's just a sensation, there's no fear in the sensation. Thought appears in AE as well, a thought itself is just an appearance and it doesn't contain any inherant fear.

Yes :)

Yes, so then does a thought actually label a sensation or does it only SEEM as if a thought is actually referring to sensation?

It only seems this way, I can't see why though. But I can see how thought is just thought, it's not inherantly anything, and sensation is just sensation, it's not inherantly anything. To say that one labels the other is just a thought. There is never a combination of thought/sensation, they don't combine to make something new. There is only ever the experience of sensation and the experience of thought.

Yes. Thought has no creative qualities whatsoever, nor does sensation, sound, taste, smell or colour. There is no cause and effect otherwise separation would be real because it would mean that there are separate objects which are affected by other objects and affected by experience.

Yes, so is the sensation labelled 'fear' actually fear?

The sensation labelled fear cannot be fear, it's just a sensation. The label fear is just a thought, it's not fear either.

Lovely :)

The label ‘blue’ points to AE of colour but can the colour ‘blue’ be described?
The label ‘fear’ points to sensation but can the sensation be described?
The label ‘fear’ points to thought but can thought be described?
Whereas the label ‘sky’ points to more thought as there is a story ascribed to the label ‘sky’.
Can you see this?

Yes I'm starting to see this clearly. Thought can point to an AE or it can point to more thoughts.
I'm using the fan in my bedroom as an example. The label "fan" is pointing to a story about what a fan is a does, may bring up memories about what a fan has done in the past.
The thought sound is pointing to the AE of hearing the fan. Same as the thought "colour" would be pointing to the AE of colour, which is another AE of the fan.
The only way to AE the fan is through colour, sound, sensation. Thought can only point to either these AE's of the fan, or further thought regarding the story of a fan.

There is NO actual experience of a fan. The fan is a story.

What is really there is:

The sound the fan makes is the AE of sound and is not the AE of a fan making a sound.
The colour/image of the fan is the AE of colour/image and is not the AE of a fan
The sensation labelled ‘cool’ is the AE of sensation and is not the AE of a fan blowing cool air.
The label ‘fan’ is the AE of thought and is not the AE of a fan.

Let’s look at an example of a dog.

The label ‘dog’ is the actual experience of a thought, it is not the actual experience of a dog.
The sound of a barking dog is the actual experience of sound and is not the actual experience of a dog barking.
The colour/image labelled ‘dog’ is the actual experience of colour/image and is not the actual experience of a dog.
The sensation of soft warm fur is the actual experience of sensation and is not the actual experience of a dog with soft warm fur.

So the dog doesn’t exist...what is really there is thought + sound + colour/image + sensation.
Is this clear?

Even if a mental image of a ‘mind’ appeared and it was in black and white…it is still AE of colour.

This confuses me a bit. The AE of seeing a mind on say a textbook is colour. Are you saying that the AE of thought that appears as an image is colour too?

Yes. If a black and white mental image of a rose appears, it is still appearing as colour!
Is not black a colour and is not white a colour, and is not the rose an image?

The picture of a black and white rose is no different to a ‘real’ red rose. It is only a thought that says that the black and white rose is different because it is missing colour. How can it be missing colour…both black and white are colours.

Have a look carefully at one object in the room you are in. What says that what you see is in 3D? It is only colour and shapes that give the illusion of 3D! And shapes themselves are only a particular pattern of colour. Let me know what you notice.

So this would suggest that the AE of thought-images and the AE of colour on a page are no different? It's just that for me when a thought brings up an image of a mind, I know it's in colour, or the colour may change to black and white, however I don't actually experience colour or black and white in the same way that it would be AE'd on a page. This is hard to explain, I hope this makes sense.

There is no ‘you’ experiencing anything. Please find where this ‘you’ who is experiencing is and describe the location to me in precise detail.

However, yes there is no difference between a mental image, a magazine image or a mirror image or an image of what is ‘visually’ seen. When you look out the window and you see a tree…the window, the tree and what else is seen is just an image.

What exactly is it that that says a mental image and a magazine picture and an image in a mirror and what is ‘visually’ seen are different? Are they not all actual experience of colour/image?

Close the eyes and just focus on the ‘head’ and the ‘forehead’ for a few moments.
What does thought say these sensations are?

The head and forehead in AE are only sensations. Thought labels these sensations as head/forehead, and will sometimes produce and image of a head/forehead, but these aren't the AE of a head/forehead, just thoughts.

Yes, because there is a thought that marries the image of a head with the sensations associated with the head and says they go together and make a head.
Can you see a head? Look now…can you see ‘your’ head at all or is there only a thought ABOUT a head?

The label “I” is the AE of thought and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I
The sensation labelled “I” is the AE of sensation and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I
The colours labelled “I” are the AE of colour and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I
The sound labelled “my voice/me/I” is the AE of sound and not the AE of a person/entity/thing/me/I
Is this clear?

Yes, it's becoming clearer. Thought can either label AE, point to stories about AE, or point to more thought. The label I is a thought that is pointing to AE, pointing to stories (more thought) about AE, or pointing to more thought.

Thought can’t label AE. Thought can’t do anything. Thought can’t think or do.
Labels point to either actual experience or to more thought.

Sensation, colours and sound are AE, they aren't thought, they aren't the AE of any "self". If thought points to a self, it is not there is AE, only sensation, colour and sounds are there. Thought is an AE as well however, but the label "self" can only point to more thought, which is not a "self" or point to a story about an AE of say colour, or point to an AE like colour.

Yes! :)

The label “I” points to thought and the face value of thought is actual experience.
The thoughts ABOUT a self called “I”, points to story. What makes up the concept (story) of a ‘self’ is in actual experience sensation, sound, colour, thought - so no ‘self’ actually exists.

Love, Kay

Hi Kay

I have read your last post, as usual everything you're doing is so helpful to me.

I just wanted to let you know though that I am returning to work tomorrow so my replies won't be as frequent, but I'll make sure to do at least one per day, but let you know if I can't. I will answer all the questions you've given in detail tomorrow.

As usual, I appreciate everything.

With love

Ben