The Gate

Hi Kay!

Good pointing, thank you!

What exactly is it that could/is making a choice?
What exactly is it that has choices?
What exactly is it that can choose between seeming choices?

It is a thought that says 'I choose' or 'I am going to do this or that' How ever the thought may be worded, the implication is that 'I am making a choice' This happens a lot throughout the day but it is obvious when looking that this is not true. One thing or the other simply happens. The very idea that there is even a choice available is just a thought. So, there is nothing that could or has or can choose. Its like an imaginary game...lol. Very humorous seeing this!

Can an author/owner of thoughts be found anywhere?

No, there is no owner of thoughts. Thoughts feel personal because I, me, my, mine etc are part of the contents usually. So all thoughts I assumed were mine

Where is this “I” that is typing?

In the imagination. Just a thought.

How is it known that there is an “I” that is typing?

Thought says so.

What is the AE of “typing”?

For some reason I had a hard time with this, it just got to complicated because there is a lot of thought/labels involved in the idea 'typing'...There is only sensation and thought with false contents, it involves what is labeled fingers and keyboard and seeing words and sentences develop.

How is it known that thoughts are appearing in some sort of logical sequence? Because another thought says so?

Yes I see that it thought that says so.

How is it known that a thought occurred before the action or vice versa? The idea is that a thought occurred first FOLLOWED by an action…which intimates time. How is it known that thought and action go hand-in-hand?

The first question surprised me. Wouldn't it be simple observation to know one thing occurred before another? Well I looked at the order of things happening in AE and I see that there is thought present, usually an image picturing something noticed before in comparison to something noticed now, the thought that the mental image happened first comes from this comparison.

The idea that thought and action go hand in hand is just a belief. A thought and an action are linked together by thought that says so.

Thank you,

Wes

Hi Wes,

Good pointing, thank you!

Thank-you :)

What exactly is it that could/is making a choice?
What exactly is it that has choices?
What exactly is it that can choose between seeming choices?

It is a thought that says 'I choose' or 'I am going to do this or that' How ever the thought may be worded, the implication is that 'I am making a choice' This happens a lot throughout the day but it is obvious when looking that this is not true. One thing or the other simply happens. The very idea that there is even a choice available is just a thought. So, there is nothing that could or has or can choose. Its like an imaginary game...lol. Very humorous seeing this!

Nice looking! :)

Can an author/owner of thoughts be found anywhere?

No, there is no owner of thoughts. Thoughts feel personal because I, me, my, mine etc are part of the contents usually. So all thoughts I assumed were mine

Yes, the “I” label immediately and automatically points to a personal ‘me’ - a separate individual who is thinking, doing, controlling, deciding and choosing. But when LOOKING, the label “I” points to actual experience fas thought which is experience/awareness itself, and not to a ‘person’.

Where is this “I” that is typing?

In the imagination. Just a thought.

Yes, just a thought.

What is the AE of “typing”?

For some reason I had a hard time with this, it just got to complicated because there is a lot of thought/labels involved in the idea 'typing'...There is only sensation and thought with false contents, it involves what is labeled fingers and keyboard and seeing words and sentences develop.

Excellent LOOKING!
The label ‘typing’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of typing
The sensation “fingers typing on keyboard” is the AE of sensation and not fingers typing on a keyboard
The colour/image labelled as ‘hand’, ‘fingers’, ‘keyboard’, ‘computer screen’, ‘mouse are the AE of colour/image and not the AE of ‘hand’, ‘fingers’, ‘keyboard’, ‘computer screen’, ‘mouse’.
The sound labelled as ‘clicking keyboard’ is the AE of sound and not the AE of a clicking keyboard.

So there is no one/nobody that is actually typing. 'Person' and 'typing' are non-existent. What is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour/image + sound.
Can you see this?

How is it known that thoughts are appearing in some sort of logical sequence? Because another thought says so?

Yes I see that it thought that says so.

Lovely.

How is it known that a thought occurred before the action or vice versa? The idea is that a thought occurred first FOLLOWED by an action…which intimates time. How is it known that thought and action go hand-in-hand?

The first question surprised me. Wouldn't it be simple observation to know one thing occurred before another? Well I looked at the order of things happening in AE and I see that there is thought present, usually an image picturing something noticed before in comparison to something noticed now, the thought that the mental image happened first comes from this comparison.

Are you referring to memory? Can you give me an example here of what you are saying?

The idea that thought and action go hand in hand is just a belief. A thought and an action are linked together by thought that says so.

Yes, exactly. And a belief is just another thought.
The label ‘belief’ is the AE of thought and the definition or meaning of what a belief is…is just a story.
What is it exactly that has beliefs?

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

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

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

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

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


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

Love, Kay

Hello Kay,

So there is no one/nobody that is actually typing. 'Person' and 'typing' are non-existent. What is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour/image + sound.
Can you see this?

Yes

Are you referring to memory? Can you give me an example here of what you are saying?

Yes, I guess I was referring to memory. I know that memory doesn't exist, but thoughts that would be labeled 'memory' feel real and true.

Today my wife and I were in the garden checking on the plants, there was thought that arose of planting the seeds, in images, with the thought that planting happened before the plants began growing. This feels very true, but the actual experience was that these thoughts arose in the present moment while in the garden and the story of planting the seeds, time passing then growth into plant was just a story.

What is it exactly that has beliefs?

Nothing can be found that can have beliefs. The label belief implies a personal attachment which helps sustain the illusion of a separate self.

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

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

No

Is there a ‘real’ cup or just an image of a cup?

Just an image

Is there an appearing mental image?

Yes

Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?

No

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

Yes, doing this cup exercise just now helped with the, memory feeling real, issue I mentioned above.

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

Doing this today much of the thought content was seen as pure imagination but some still felt real. I want to look some more tomorrow especially since doing the cup exercise. Already I can tell a difference, looking now at a memory it is obviously not real :)

tyvm,

Wes

Hey Wes!

Another great post…so enjoyable to read :)

Are you referring to memory? Can you give me an example here of what you are saying?

Yes, I guess I was referring to memory. I know that memory doesn't exist, but thoughts that would be labeled 'memory' feel real and true.

Today my wife and I were in the garden checking on the plants, there was thought that arose of planting the seeds, in images, with the thought that planting happened before the plants began growing. This feels very true, but the actual experience was that these thoughts arose in the present moment while in the garden and the story of planting the seeds, time passing then growth into plant was just a story.

Yes! Thank you for clarifying.
Is there a difference between a mental image and what is called a visual image? Or are they both just the AE of colour/image that are appearing ‘now’?

What is it exactly that has beliefs?

Nothing can be found that can have beliefs. The label belief implies a personal attachment which helps sustain the illusion of a separate self.

Yes, seemingly…if there was only a someone/something thing that could sustain an illusion of a separate self!

Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?

No

And is there a difference between a mental image of a cup and the visual image of a cup? And if how is it known that they are different?

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

Yes, doing this cup exercise just now helped with the, memory feeling real, issue I mentioned above.

Yes! What exactly is it that says an appearing image or thought is something that has happened before?

Doing this today much of the thought content was seen as pure imagination but some still felt real. I want to look some more tomorrow especially since doing the cup exercise. Already I can tell a difference, looking now at a memory it is obviously not real :)

Okay! Here is an exercise to help you with that.

Almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened.
That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…

What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

WHEN does the future thought appear?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

Love, Kay

Hi Kay!

I'm glad you are enjoying this, I am too!

Is there a difference between a mental image and what is called a visual image? Or are they both just the AE of colour/image that are appearing ‘now’?

No, in AE they are both the experience of color/image and only appear now.

Yes, seemingly…if there was only a someone/something thing that could sustain an illusion of a separate self!

Yes! There is nothing there trying to 'do' anything :).... There isn't anything doing anything, anywhere! lol

And is there a difference between a mental image of a cup and the visual image of a cup? And if how is it known that they are different?

There is not a difference, just image appearing

What exactly is it that says an appearing image or thought is something that has happened before?

Just thought. This wasn't clear at first..

What is the memory ‘made of’?

A thought usually an image along with the thought 'this is memory', 'this happened before', 'I did this' something that conveys the idea that this is a memory. The label 'memory' contains the thought this happened before. So, a memory is made of thought.

WHEN does the memory appear?

Always in the present moment.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

they are the same except memory thought always includes the idea(thought) 'this happened before' in some sense or another.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

This is the one where it became clear. Several times I looked at this, I couldn't spot the thought saying 'this has happened' It just felt like it was known to have happened. Then I noticed that this didn't happen, it is happening now! Then the thought that 'this happened' was noticed as it disappeared! How funny is that?! Seems so obvious now :)

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

thought+ thought saying this will/might happen, or a thought referring to the future, so just thought with 'future' content

WHEN does the future thought appear?

Now

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?

Nothing except that a 'future' thought points to the future or appears with an additional thought pointing to the future,.

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

Just that one points to the past, the other the future. There could be an image+ a future/past pointing thought or just be a thought worded in the future or past tense. Either way, there is no past or future, there never was a past and there will never be a future, both past thoughts and future thoughts point to imagination..Nothing ever happened, nothing is ever going to happen...laughing

Thank you for all the great questions

Wes

Kay

Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

I just noticed this after I posted. If what thoughts say are ignored there is no difference between a 'memory', 'past', or 'future' thought.

Wes

Wow, Wes! You’re LOOKING is fantastic. You LOOK and see so clearly!

I'm glad you are enjoying this, I am too!

Yes, very much so….as I wrote above, your LOOKING is fantastic and the fact that you keep LOOKING until it is clear is just wonderful.

Is there a difference between a mental image and what is called a visual image? Or are they both just the AE of colour/image that are appearing ‘now’?

No, in AE they are both the experience of color/image and only appear now.

Yes! :)
Does the body’s eyes actually see?

What exactly is it that says an appearing image or thought is something that has happened before

?
Just thought. This wasn't clear at first..

Yes! Slippery little suckers thems those thoughts LOL

What is the memory ‘made of’?

A thought usually an image along with the thought 'this is memory', 'this happened before', 'I did this' something that conveys the idea that this is a memory. The label 'memory' contains the thought this happened before. So, a memory is made of thought.

Yes, exactly. The label ‘memory’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of ‘a memory’. And image that is labelled ‘from the past’ is the AE of colour/image and not the AE of ‘the past/memory’. Same with sensations, thoughts, smell, taste and sound!

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

they are the same except memory thought always includes the idea(thought) 'this happened before' in some sense or another.

Yes!

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

This is the one where it became clear. Several times I looked at this, I couldn't spot the thought saying 'this has happened' It just felt like it was known to have happened. Then I noticed that this didn't happen, it is happening now! Then the thought that 'this happened' was noticed as it disappeared! How funny is that?! Seems so obvious now :)

Nice LOOKING!

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

Just that one points to the past, the other the future. There could be an image+ a future/past pointing thought or just be a thought worded in the future or past tense. Either way, there is no past or future, there never was a past and there will never be a future, both past thoughts and future thoughts point to imagination..Nothing ever happened, nothing is ever going to happen...laughing

Beautiful!

Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

I just noticed this after I posted. If what thoughts say are ignored there is no difference between a 'memory', 'past', or 'future' thought.

Yes exactly! And if the meaning of thought (content of thought was ignored entirely), what is really here?


Since we have looked at memory, we might as well look at time.

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Where does it start and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?


Love, Kay

Hey Kay!

I'm glad you are enjoying this, I am too!

Yes, very much so….as I wrote above, your LOOKING is fantastic and the fact that you keep LOOKING until it is clear is just wonderful.

I also have a very good guide! You point me exactly where I need to look, your style is very efficient and thorough, and I greatly appreciate that. You are also donating your time at no cost doing this wonderful work for others and I would be disrespecting that if I didn't give this my full focus, and honest effort. Not to mention, as we've gone along I'm more and more convinced of the value of 'looking'...not just for seeing the illusion of self, but much much more beyond that! It's worth the effort to look until seeing happens.

Does the body’s eyes actually see?

In actual experience there is just seeing, there are no eyes present that can see. There are sensations present labeled 'eyes', but 'eyes' is the AE of thought.

And if the meaning of thought (content of thought was ignored entirely), what is really here?

That's an interesting question. I've noticed recently some moments happening where some of the usual thought content was not present or was ignored (not sure which), and what is there at that moment is very mysterious and interesting. If thought content was ignored entirely there would just be what is here..it wouldn't be known what it is.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

The sense of 'now' is that it is here..not moving, there is constant movement within the now, but it is still, unmoving
I have never really looked at the now before, just at what was happening in it, it can be sensed and it is definitely not moving....I want to come back and look more.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

It is not moving at all. It is absolutely still.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

It is always here, it is everlasting

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

Every Tuesday at 2:00 am central standard time.

I couldn't help myself, it was just playfulness arising! ;)

The now never becomes the past, there is only now and it never becomes anything.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

'past' is the AE of thought

much love,

Wes

Hi Wes!

I also have a very good guide! You point me exactly where I need to look, your style is very efficient and thorough, and I greatly appreciate that. You are also donating your time at no cost doing this wonderful work for others and I would be disrespecting that if I didn't give this my full focus, and honest effort. Not to mention, as we've gone along I'm more and more convinced of the value of 'looking'...not just for seeing the illusion of self, but much much more beyond that! It's worth the effort to look until seeing happens.

Thank-you for your kind words :) Yes, LOOKING is for your benefit, I have already seen through the illusion! And the more you LOOK the easier it becomes, and LOOKING then also becomes automatic, so to speak!

Does the body’s eyes actually see?

In actual experience there is just seeing, there are no eyes present that can see. There are sensations present labeled 'eyes', but 'eyes' is the AE of thought.

Yes! Nice noticing of the sensation around the ‘eyes’. We will be looking at the body shortly.

And if the meaning of thought (content of thought was ignored entirely), what is really here?

That's an interesting question. I've noticed recently some moments happening where some of the usual thought content was not present or was ignored (not sure which), and what is there at that moment is very mysterious and interesting. If thought content was ignored entirely there would just be what is here..it wouldn't be known what it is.

Yes…it would be and is just THIS!

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

The sense of 'now' is that it is here..not moving, there is constant movement within the now, but it is still, unmoving. I have never really looked at the now before, just at what was happening in it, it can be sensed and it is definitely not moving....I want to come back and look more.

Let me know what you find.

[

quote]When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

Every Tuesday at 2:00 am central standard time. I couldn't help myself, it was just playfulness arising! ;) The now never becomes the past, there is only now and it never becomes anything.[/quote]

Haha! Playfulness is fun! :) Yes, the ‘now’ just IS.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

'past' is the AE of thought

Yup! :)

Okay…let’s have a look at decision/control/choice.

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

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

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

Please answer each question individually.

Love, Kay

Hello Kay,

Let me know what you find.

I looked more at the now. There is the sense that it is very still, very open and very serene. In fact the sense is that it is stillness, open-ness, and serenity..

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?

There is not anything choosing which hand to raise

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is doing the choosing?

No, there is sensation labeled 'arm/hand movement' along with thoughts containing information explaining which hand was being moved while attention moved from one thing to another. There was noticing that there was a sea of experience happening while attention generally moved around what is pertinent to answering this question. No choosing or doing.

What is it that is controlling the hand?

There is nothing controlling it. Just now reading the question, attention was drawn to my hand, seeing it move, open and close..picking up the mouse,. moving perfectly.. grasping the mouse with perfect pressure, picking it up a few times,. setting it down, showing itself to me, showing the palm,. making a fist, stretching out, showing the back .. fingers moving..I am AMAZED! There is no calculating, controlling, application of force here or there so that a certain amount of movement occurs..it just moves perfectly

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

Nope, not at all

Can anything be found that makes the hand move?

No

How is the decision made?

A decision is not made, there is no decision available,. it is all found in thought contents.

Love,

Wes

Hey Wes!

Let me know what you find.

I looked more at the now. There is the sense that it is very still, very open and very serene. In fact the sense is that it is stillness, open-ness, and serenity..

Hmmm…sounds like a lovely thought story!
What exactly is it that is ‘sensing’? Can you find it anywhere? What is here right now….can you find anything that is ‘very still, very open and very serene’? If so, can you describe it to me please!?

What is the AE of ‘still’?
What is the AE of ‘very open’?
What is the AE of ‘very serene’?

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?

There is not anything choosing which hand to raise

Yes :)

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is doing the choosing?

No, there is sensation labeled 'arm/hand movement' along with thoughts containing information explaining which hand was being moved while attention moved from one thing to another. There was noticing that there was a sea of experience happening while attention generally moved around what is pertinent to answering this question. No choosing or doing.

What exactly was that ‘sea of experience’, and what is it exactly that is experiencing a ‘sea of experience’?
Experience is sound, colour, taste, thought, smell and sensation anything else is a story.

Can you find an experience-er of experience? Can you find a border between see-er and colour, hear-er and sound, smeller and smell, feel-er and sensation and so on?

Are you aware of your thoughts, colours and sensations etc, or are they just thoughts, colours and sensations that are known? Thought labels them yours, but are they really? Can you find an owner in actual experience, or just thoughts about an owner, just thoughts about an experience-er?

What is it that is controlling the hand?

There is nothing controlling it. Just now reading the question, attention was drawn to my hand, seeing it move, open and close..picking up the mouse,. moving perfectly.. grasping the mouse with perfect pressure, picking it up a few times,. setting it down, showing itself to me, showing the palm,. making a fist, stretching out, showing the back .. fingers moving..I am AMAZED! There is no calculating, controlling, application of force here or there so that a certain amount of movement occurs..it just moves perfectly

Lovely! :)

Here is an interesting exercise! Normally we believe that the sensation is coming from sight - the ‘object’ seen (hand).

1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensations ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensation.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

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

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

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

You can repeat this with all of the body parts below, one-by-one:-
- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

Let me know how you go!

Love, Kay

Hi Kay,

Hmmm…sounds like a lovely thought story!

Yes, it was, but you nipped it in the bud..thank you! When I first read your comment the reaction was to defend it. Instead I looked at it and broke it down to see exactly what it was..which was some AE + thought + a few fancy labels+more thought+ the label--NOW, suspiciously close to Eckart Tolle's ideas, anyway, I'm ready to get back to business!

What exactly is it that is ‘sensing’? Can you find it anywhere? What is here right now….can you find anything that is ‘very still, very open and very serene’? If so, can you describe it to me please!?

There is nothing found anywhere that is sensing. There is nothing I can find that is very still, very open and very serene. I can find sensations that could be described as 'relaxed, at rest, quiet or peaceful' but they are just there, not connected to anything in AE.

What is the AE of ‘still’?
What is the AE of ‘very open’?
What is the AE of ‘very serene’?

The AE of all three is thought

What exactly was that ‘sea of experience’, and what is it exactly that is experiencing a ‘sea of experience’?

there is no sea of experience, and no experiencer

Can you find an experience-er of experience? Can you find a border between see-er and colour, hear-er and sound, smeller and smell, feel-er and sensation and so on?

Nope

Are you aware of your thoughts, colours and sensations etc, or are they just thoughts, colours and sensations that are known? Thought labels them yours, but are they really? Can you find an owner in actual experience, or just thoughts about an owner, just thoughts about an experience-er?

Yep it is all just known. The only thing that suggests thoughts are mine are thoughts themselves so I can't assume they're mine. There are plenty of thoughts about an owner and experience-er yes but neither can actually be found.

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

There is visual image and sensation, thought says that the visual image is a real hand, thought also says that the felt sensations are from the hand, when the eyes are closed there is a mental image there in place of the visual image, there isn't anything outside of thought that links the image and sensation. Thought somehow places the location of the hand image and the felt sensations together spatially. Haven't spotted how yet.

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

Yes, they are separate and independent from one another so to speak.

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

Yes they do.

I did this several times today, but I'm hanging up on the thoughts, I believe that there is a real hand there, even though I know that there isn't one in actual experience. I believe it because there is the thought 'these thoughts are true' I did the imaginary cup exercise a couple of times today as well, I'm still working on this one.

Thank you so much,

Wes

Hey Wes,

Hmmm…sounds like a lovely thought story!

Yes, it was, but you nipped it in the bud..thank you! When I first read your comment the reaction was to defend it. Instead I looked at it and broke it down to see exactly what it was..which was some AE + thought + a few fancy labels+more thought+ the label--NOW, suspiciously close to Eckart Tolle's ideas, anyway, I'm ready to get back to business!

Thought is also actual experience. Thought is experience which comes and goes just as sound, taste, sensation, sound and smell. So thought is actual, but the content of thought (what the thought is ABOUT) is just story.
Is this clear?

What exactly is it that is ‘sensing’? Can you find it anywhere? What is here right now….can you find anything that is ‘very still, very open and very serene’? If so, can you describe it to me please!?

There is nothing found anywhere that is sensing. There is nothing I can find that is very still, very open and very serene. I can find sensations that could be described as 'relaxed, at rest, quiet or peaceful' but they are just there, not connected to anything in AE.

Sensation itself is AE.
How is it known that there are a variety of different sensations?
Does a sensation suggest in any way that it is ‘relaxed, at rest, quiet or peaceful’ or that it knows anything about these?
Does sensation itself ever suggest that it is different to other sensations?
If you drop all labels and images of appearing sensation…is there different experiences of sensations or just sensation (singular)?

Are you aware of your thoughts, colours and sensations etc, or are they just thoughts, colours and sensations that are known? Thought labels them yours, but are they really? Can you find an owner in actual experience, or just thoughts about an owner, just thoughts about an experience-er?

Yep it is all just known. The only thing that suggests thoughts are mine are thoughts themselves so I can't assume they're mine. There are plenty of thoughts about an owner and experience-er yes but neither can actually be found.

Yes…no owner/author of thoughts or experience-er can be found, there are only thoughts ABOUT an owner/author/experience-er.

If colour was not known...how then would you be 'aware' of colour? So yes, all is just known.

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

There is visual image and sensation, thought says that the visual image is a real hand, thought also says that the felt sensations are from the hand, when the eyes are closed there is a mental image there in place of the visual image, there isn't anything outside of thought that links the image and sensation. Thought somehow places the location of the hand image and the felt sensations together spatially. Haven't spotted how yet.

Yes…and isn’t the thought “when the eyes are closed there is a mental image there in place of the visual image” be the thought that placed the location of the hand image and felt sensation together spatially?
What is the AE of space?
What is the AE of distance?

I did this several times today, but I'm hanging up on the thoughts, I believe that there is a real hand there, even though I know that there isn't one in actual experience. I believe it because there is the thought 'these thoughts are true' I did the imaginary cup exercise a couple of times today as well, I'm still working on this one.

Is there a believer of thought or thoughts ABOUT a believer of thought?
What is it exactly that can believe a thought that says “these thoughts are true”?
Are you not aware of this thought?
If you were what the thought said then what does a believer of thought look like, and if that is what you were, then how would you know when you weren’t a believer of thought? So can you ever be what thought says you are?

What is the AE of ‘hand’?

Seeing (visual) the hand = actual experience (AE) of colour/image
Feeling the hand = AE of sensation.
Hearing hands clapping = AE of sound.
Noticing thoughts ABOUT a hand = actual experience (AE) of thought

So, even from this little exercise….is there really a hand? Or what is really appearing is colour/image + sensation + sound + thought?
Is this clear?

Love, Kay

Hi Kay!

Thought is also actual experience. Thought is experience which comes and goes just as sound, taste, sensation, sound and smell. So thought is actual, but the content of thought (what the thought is ABOUT) is just story.
Is this clear?

AE is visual image/color, sound, taste, smell, tactile sensation, and thought, however the content of thought, the information contained in the thought is pure story and story is fiction. I see this, its not just accepted, I do see this. The question you posed earlier comes up.."What is here if all thought is ignored?" Well, is anything known without thought content? When looking in AE how is it known what is being seen? Is anything known in actual experience? Is there a difference in knowing in actual experience vs the knowing that comes from thought? Knowing that comes from thought content is not truly knowing. I know this process isn't about you answering my questions, these are just coming up...

How is it known that there are a variety of different sensations?

Sensation is divided by thought and located by thought, it is easier to notice with eyes closed because a 3 dimensional image is there locating the sensation and designating a form (ie hand) 'source'. When eyes are open, the visual field appears 3 dimensionally (by thought??) and a certain sensation is sourced from some form in the visual field..the form is isolated and labeled by thought.

Does a sensation suggest in any way that it is ‘relaxed, at rest, quiet or peaceful’ or that it knows anything about these?

No, this is defined and labeled by thought

Does sensation itself ever suggest that it is different to other sensations?

No

If you drop all labels and images of appearing sensation…is there different experiences of
sensations or just sensation (singular)?

Sensation would just be there, it wouldn't be coming from some thing located somewhere.

Yes…and isn’t the thought “when the eyes are closed there is a mental image there in place of the visual image” be the thought that placed the location of the hand image and felt sensation together spatially?

Yes, I see that now

What is the AE of space?

Thought.

What is the AE of distance?

Thought.

The visual field being 3 dimensions is thought. Since mental images also appear 3 dimensionally I can see this. A mental image is pure thought and if it can have 3 dimensions then the 3 dimensional quality of it must be thought. In fact yes, space (3D) is thought! What is real?? Not sure what to say about seeing this

Is there a believer of thought or thoughts ABOUT a believer of thought?

Yes, just thoughts ABOUT a believer of thought

What is it exactly that can believe a thought that says “these thoughts are true”?

There is nothing that can. There is merely another thought saying "these thoughts are true" then maybe another saying "I believe what that thought just said" LOL .. a little story developing about something that believes

Are you not aware of this thought?

Not understanding your question exactly.

If you were what the thought said then what does a believer of thought look like, and if that is what you were, then how would you know when you weren’t a believer of thought?

Yes, content of thought is false and makes no sense

So can you ever be what thought says you are?

There is no thing being anything, thought says whatever it says, it has no bearing on what is. It appears some thought is useful but the majority of it is just the rantings of a mad man

Thank you for the excellent questions!

Love, Wes

Kay,

Missed this one on my last post.

Seeing (visual) the hand = actual experience (AE) of colour/image
Feeling the hand = AE of sensation.
Hearing hands clapping = AE of sound.
Noticing thoughts ABOUT a hand = actual experience (AE) of thought

So, even from this little exercise….is there really a hand? Or what is really appearing is colour/image + sensation + sound + thought?
Is this clear?

Yes.

Also I'm not clear about a question you raised earlier...

Are you aware of your thoughts, colours and sensations etc, or are they just thoughts, colours and sensations that are known?

I thought (mistakenly, I think) you were asking is there 'awareness' or is it 'known' what there is in AE. I answered it is known because 'awareness' doesn't actually exist. But knowing doesn't either after looking again...

Then you replied..

Yes…no owner/author of thoughts or experience-er can be found, there are only thoughts ABOUT an owner/author/experience-er.

If colour was not known...how then would you be 'aware' of colour? So yes, all is just known.

I think you were making the point that there is not a 'someone' 'aware', but I'm confused by your second statement... If colour was not known...how then would you be 'aware' of colour? So yes, all is just known.

I'm confused about what knowing is. What is meant that there must be knowing in order for there to be awareness?
Do you mean the label--color or the AE of color? The AE of color being present, awareness of the presence, and knowing it is present is the same thing isn't it? If color is not present there is not awareness of color and color can not be known. You would have to go to thought in order to say color is known outside of it being present.

It can be said that if color was not known then 'you' cannot be 'aware' of it, but if it is not present you cannot be aware of it either, to say that it known without it being present is the same as saying "I'm aware of what color is." aware and known have the same meaning and it is thought based.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be clear on what you mean. :)

much love, Wes