Final Seeing

[Metta1]

Hi Kay

Really getting into just watching thought. They seem very random.

Describe to me in precise detail how you formulate a thought/intention to stop a thought? How is it known that you stopped a thought…because a thought said so?

I see that the intention to stop a thought is just another thought. It seems to have a pattern of its own. There is a momentary silence that is shortly filled with thought again. In other words, thoughts don't stop really although of its own accord I do have spacious emptiness without thought intermittently. I see a gap of only silence.

My mind also likes to play songs. I notice that a song is playing in my mind - parts of a chorus over and over again. These are songs that 'I' don't particularly like in many cases.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?
Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

It (the game, people running around chasing a ball) is just happening. No commentary is needed. The game goes on with or without the commentary. I often notice that my thoughts are just commentating on whatever is happening. Life, game, the play is happening by itself with or without commentary. Very interesting that all continues as it is and requires no commentating. The commentary provides an illusion that it is 'my' life.

Thanks Kay

[forgetmenot]

Hi J,

Really getting into just watching thought. They seem very random.

Wonderful...yes, they are random! Continue to look at the thoughts that are arising. Write them down. It’s been established that these thoughts will be about you so feel free to write it from that perspective. Fill a page. As you may have already seen if you've been observing your thoughts that it won’t be hard to do.

After you are done, go back and edit the writing so that the language is different by removing “I”, “me”, “my” from thoughts and actions.

For example: “I am hungry” becomes “hunger”

Do this for the whole list. After you are done go back and see what has changed. Let me know what you see.

Describe to me in precise detail how you formulate a thought/intention to stop a thought? How is it known that you stopped a thought…because a thought said so?

I see that the intention to stop a thought is just another thought. It seems to have a pattern of its own. There is a momentary silence that is shortly filled with thought again. In other words, thoughts don't stop really although of its own accord I do have spacious emptiness without thought intermittently. I see a gap of only silence.

And how is it known that there is a “gap of only silence”?

My mind also likes to play songs. I notice that a song is playing in my mind - parts of a chorus over and over again. These are songs that 'I' don't particularly like in many cases.

Yep…it’s like when you hear a song on the radio on your way to work or while you are cooking or doing something, and that song can stay with you all day. The song seems to play over and over again. All the intricate details are there. All the lyrics, all the notes in the guitar solo are as clear as when it was playing out of the car speakers. But really there is no music playing - no one singing, and no guitarist. It's just thought about sound.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?
Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

It (the game, people running around chasing a ball) is just happening. No commentary is needed. The game goes on with or without the commentary. I often notice that my thoughts are just commentating on whatever is happening. Life, game, the play is happening by itself with or without commentary. Very interesting that all continues as it is and requires no commentating. The commentary provides an illusion that it is 'my' life.

Yes, great observation. Thought seems to be the predominant experience, however, if you just allow (watch/observe) thought without actually following thought, (ie being side tracked by its content) you see that thought is just a constant stream of commentary that has a story about everything. Did you see how thought overlays actual experience continuously with stories. Colour becomes ‘players’, ‘ball’, ‘field’ and so on. And this is what thought does with the colour labelled ‘J’ and ‘his life’?

Did you notice how the muted video left you rather neutral towards the apparent happenings on screen, while the commentary version of the game kind of sucked you into the story that the commentator was telling? Also that muted watching was more about the current action whilst the commentator was mostly referring to what just happened or what may or may not happen (future thought). So this is how it goes with the story about a character called ‘J’!

Love, Kay
xx

[Metta1]

Hi Kay

I believe I have had two tiny glimpses of being everything vs self. Very tiny but has changed my knowledge of this Looking.

Do this for the whole list. After you are done go back and see what has changed. Let me know what you see.

The list was amazing. Out of a whole A4 page most of the blabber in my head were questions, questions, questions and then commentary on questions. Just going around and around and around. I will do this again for a bit more impact.

And how is it known that there is a “gap of only silence”?

It is not thought that knows unless it is very subtle thought that notices the silence. Although it seems to be the mind that notices driven by an initial thought to look.

And this is what thought does with the colour labelled ‘J’ and ‘his life’?

That will be 'her life'.

So this is how it goes with the story about a character called ‘J’!

Definitely. I can see the commentary provides a sense of doership.

Cheers J

[forgetmenot]

Hello J,

Do this for the whole list. After you are done go back and see what has changed. Let me know what you see.

The list was amazing. Out of a whole A4 page most of the blabber in my head were questions, questions, questions and then commentary on questions. Just going around and around and around. I will do this again for a bit more impact.

When the “I” was removed, did anything stop happening or everything was just happening with or without an “I”?

Next time, do this experiment. First write what is being ‘experienced’ right now using words “I” and “me” and “my”. Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just plain description of here now.

For example:-
I am lying in bed.
I am hearing the rain,
I am typing these words,
I am scratching my leg,
I am drinking a cup of coffee
I am thinking about what to write

Do it for 10 minutes. Watch the body - are there any sensations of tightening or relaxing?

Then for next 10 minutes write without words “I” and “me” and “my”. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs:

Lying in bed,
Waiting for next thought,
Typing,
Breathing, blinking, drinking, hearing the rain, scratching leg and so on

Again watch what is happening in the body.

Now compare the two ways of labelling experience- is one truer than the other? If so, which one? What is here without labels? Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

And how is it known that there is a “gap of only silence”?

It is not thought that knows unless it is very subtle thought that notices the silence. Although it seems to be the mind that notices driven by an initial thought to look.

Without a thought, be it subtle or loud pointing out that there is a gap, how it is known there is a gap? It would not be known. Refer back to the apple experiment. Without thought how would colour be thought of as a bird? Without thought how would colour be thought of as typed words? Without thought how would sound be thought of as car horn?

Okay…so you have seen the nature of thought, so let’s move on and have a look at the idea of control, decision making and choice.

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

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

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


Please answer each question individually.

Love, Kay
xx

[Metta1]

Hi Kay

When the “I” was removed, did anything stop happening or everything was just happening with or without an “I”?

It is clear that everything continues with or without an I. An I is not needed for action, activity, thinking etc.

Now compare the two ways of labelling experience- is one truer than the other? If so, which one? What is here without labels? Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

The activity continues with or without an 'I am ...'. With the 'I am' there is more confinement but mostly it is just describing what is already happening.

Without a thought, be it subtle or loud pointing out that there is a gap, how it is known there is a gap?

The gap itself is not a thought but the to see the gap requires a thought to look.

The palm experiment:

How is the movement controlled?

Once the motion has started, triggered by a thought to start the motion, the motion continues of its own accord, and ends of its own accord.

Does a thought control it?

I cannot see a thought that triggers the turning, so no thought does not control it once started.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

It seems to develop its own momentum without the need for a controller. A controller is not required and cannot be found. Very weird.

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

I cannot find a decision maker. Apart from the initial thought, the hand then continues on its own and stops on its own.

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

I cannot find a separate individual nor anything that is choosing to move the palm up or down.
Very odd. Once the momentum is in place it continues and ceases on its own. I can't find a controller. It still seems to require something to start it off however.

Cheers

J

[forgetmenot]

Hi J,

Without a thought, be it subtle or loud pointing out that there is a gap, how it is known there is a gap?

The gap itself is not a thought but the to see the gap requires a thought to look.

Can a ‘looker’ be found? Looking is happening, but can you find anyone/anything that is actually looking?

Without a thought saying that there is a gap between thoughts, there would be no knowing of a gap. This is a predisposition to the idea of separation and to the idea of space and time.

The label ‘gap’ is known
Thoughts about a ‘gap’ is known
But a gap is not known.

Even though you don't choose what thought appears, is thought, which is known separate to the knowing of it? Is there a border where thought stops and you start?

How is the movement controlled?

Once the motion has started, triggered by a thought to start the motion, the motion continues of its own accord, and ends of its own accord.

Hmmm….LOOK again. When a thought appeared saying ‘turn the hand over’ did the hand turn over each time? If not, then how can it be said that a thought started the motion? If thought started the motion, would not the hand turn each time the thought to turn the hand appeared?

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

I cannot find a decision maker. Apart from the initial thought, the hand then continues on its own and stops on its own.

Have you ever found yourself ‘absent mindedly’ scratching an itch? How could that happen if a thought was initially required to get the scratching to start?

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

I cannot find a separate individual nor anything that is choosing to move the palm up or down.
Very odd. Once the momentum is in place it continues and ceases on its own. I can't find a controller. It still seems to require something to start it off however.

Another exercise I would like you to do would be to get up and make a cup of coffee, tea or any beverage you like.DON'T READ ANY FURTHER UNTIL YOU HAVE COME BACK WITH THE DRINK. GO....

Now that you are back . Tell me did it require any thought to make or get the drink. Did someone or something have to tell you to move one leg at a time. Did you have to think about opening the fridge door or sitting back down at the computer?

Love, Kay
xx

[Metta1]

Hi Kay

Thanks for your ongoing guidance. I really appreciate your thoroughness and persistence.

Can a ‘looker’ be found? Looking is happening, but can you find anyone/anything that is actually looking?

There is no looker found, there is only the looking and an idea of a looker - habitual thought/sensations/beliefs that together creates the idea of a looker - like the colours that make the idea/label apple. To quote the buddhists, a looker is merely imputed on the looking. The imputation process is very obvious now. It is like an unquestioned assumption.

But a gap is not known.

You are quite right. Gap is not known, only the thought gap is known.

Even though you don't choose what thought appears, is thought, which is known separate to the knowing of it? Is there a border where thought stops and you start?

A thought cannot exist without the knowing of it. Thought is not separate from knowing. Knowing contains everything. Without knowing there is nothing.

Hmmm….LOOK again. When a thought appeared saying ‘turn the hand over’ did the hand turn over each time?

No the hand did not turn over each time a thought appeared saying 'turn the hand over'.

If not, then how can it be said that a thought started the motion? If thought started the motion, would not the hand turn each time the thought to turn the hand appeared?

It was not thought that started the hand turning but an intention (???). I'm not sure what an intention is, as it can exist with and without thought. When I get up in the morning it just happens without thought, washing the body in the shower just happens, making a cup of tea happens but an intention was there to generate movement??? Although not necessarily my intention.

Have you ever found yourself ‘absent mindedly’ scratching an itch? How could that happen if a thought was initially required to get the scratching to start?

Yes, thought is not the driver of action(s). Actions are happening.

Tell me did it require any thought to make or get the drink. Did someone or something have to tell you to move one leg at a time. Did you have to think about opening the fridge door or sitting back down at the computer?

Thought is not necessary for action to occur. Actions happen by itself without thought. Actions are independent of thought.

However, there was intention (what ever that is) to make a cup of tea, to turn the hand. What that is, I'm not sure.

Cheers

J

[forgetmenot]

Hey J,

Even though you don't choose what thought appears, is thought, which is known separate to the knowing of it? Is there a border where thought stops and you start?

A thought cannot exist without the knowing of it. Thought is not separate from knowing. Knowing contains everything. Without knowing there is nothing.

Yes, and the word ‘knowing’ is synonymous with experience/awareness/THIS.

Can you find anyone/anything that is knowing OF thought or is knowingknown one and the same?


Knowing ABOUT something is thought, while the knowing AS (the appearance) is direct. You always know exactly 'what is' by being directly aware of what is.

If not, then how can it be said that a thought started the motion? If thought started the motion, would not the hand turn each time the thought to turn the hand appeared?

It was not thought that started the hand turning but an intention (???). I'm not sure what an intention is, as it can exist with and without thought. When I get up in the morning it just happens without thought, washing the body in the shower just happens, making a cup of tea happens but an intention was there to generate movement??? Although not necessarily my intention.

So, what is it exactly that has these intentions to get up in the morning, to wash the body, to make a cup of tea, to generate movement? Describe this someone to me in precise detail.

Tell me did it require any thought to make or get the drink. Did someone or something have to tell you to move one leg at a time. Did you have to think about opening the fridge door or sitting back down at the computer?

Thought is not necessary for action to occur. Actions happen by itself without thought. Actions are independent of thought.

For actions to be happening there must be someone or something that is DOING these actions. Where is this ‘doer’?

However, there was intention (what ever that is) to make a cup of tea, to turn the hand. What that is, I'm not sure.

As you have said that a thought cannot exist without the knowing of it, then how can thought be the intender if no thought is ‘seen’ to put the intention in place? It may SEEM that a thought appears saying that “I intend to make a cup of coffee” and coffee making happens, however, can a thought intend anything? Can a thought action anything?

If showering happens without thought, then doesn’t that point to the fact that there is no one/no thing intending anything…that it is just happening? A thought may even appear after the ‘action’ and say, “I intended to do that”, but what do thoughts know? Are they aware?

Intentions are just another thought form, a thought to do something. Intentions arrive like thoughts arrive.

Love, Kay

[Metta1]

Hi Kay

I will start with the end of your email if thats OK. This is all rather frustrating coz I seem to know this stuff but have just got lost in the commentator.

Intentions are just another thought form, a thought to do something. Intentions arrive like thoughts arrive.

I can see how intentions just arise. The body gets up, moves, tidies, goes to the fridge, scratches an itch without any thought. Doing happens. My mind wants to ask who or what inspires the doing? In the past I assumed it was the 'I' but I can see that most doing is happening by itself.

Yes, and the word ‘knowing’ is synonymous with experience/awareness/THIS.

I'm taking it to mean that anything that is known directly without thought or labelling is awareness experiencing. Whereas an interpretation is a translation of direct experiencing using thought as commentary.
Is this correct?

Can you find anyone/anything that is knowing OF thought or is knowingknown one and the same?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here but I think you mean there is the knowing of thought without a knower/person/self to do the knowing. Again the sense of a separate someone is simply inferred or owned by thought.

So, what is it exactly that has these intentions to get up in the morning, to wash the body, to make a cup of tea, to generate movement? Describe this someone to me in precise detail.

Most of the mundane doing is just happening but more complex tasks such as going for a walk for exercise requires an idea, generating the desire, using effort to get dressed,and going out. The walking happens by itself but it seems effort was required initially. There is a lot of thought about should go, it would be good for you etc. But I can see this is just commentary on an intention that has arisen. Again resorting to my Buddhist days a product of causes and conditions outside of 'my' control. The someone that decides to go for a walk is just thought commenting on the intention and making a story or sometimes a big deal out of it.

For actions to be happening there must be someone or something that is DOING these actions. Where is this ‘doer’?

There is a body moving and doing the actions of filling the jug, getting a cup, a teabag, pouring water etc. Most of the actions are automatic i.e. occurring without thought. There is a watcher seeing the actions being done and a commentator. There are other thoughts happening not necessarily about the actions. At the moment it feels like the watcher is the doer.

If showering happens without thought, then doesn’t that point to the fact that there is no one/no thing intending anything…that it is just happening? A thought may even appear after the ‘action’ and say, “I intended to do that”, but what do thoughts know? Are they aware?

Thought seems to be a side effect. They like to comment on the present, day dream the future, remember the past. Question. Are they aware? No, I (the watcher) am aware of the thoughts thoughts themselves are a by product and largely irrelevant to anything that is happening.

Thanks Kay

Cheers J

[forgetmenot]

Hey J,

I will start with the end of your email if thats OK. This is all rather frustrating coz I seem to know this stuff but have just got lost in the commentator.

Yep, getting “lost in the commentator” happens as does the appearance of “frustration”. Could it be that attention just moves too – without a ‘you’ guiding it? Is there someone that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly?

Let’s have a look at the idea of frustration.

The label ‘frustration’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of frustration
The thoughts about ‘frustration’ are the AE of thought and not the AE of frustration
The sensation labelled ‘frustration’ are the AE of sensation and not the AE of frustration
The image labelled ‘me/I/body’ is the AE of colour and not the AE of frustration.

So, in AE is frustration known? Or what is actually known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about frustration?

Yes, and the word ‘knowing’ is synonymous with experience/awareness/THIS.

I'm taking it to mean that anything that is known directly without thought or labelling is awareness experiencing. Whereas an interpretation is a translation of direct experiencing using thought as commentary.
Is this correct?

Awareness/experience is not an entity that is experiencing experience. That makes for two ie separation….an experiencer and an experience.
When you looked to see if you could find a dividing line between the knowing of/as thought and the thought itself, could you find one? Is there a border where thought stops and the knowing of it begins?

Can you find anyone/anything that is knowing OF thought or is knowingknown one and the same?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here but I think you mean there is the knowing of thought without a knower/person/self to do the knowing. Again the sense of a separate someone is simply inferred or owned by thought.

Yes, exactly. We will look at this further a little later on.

There is a watcher seeing the actions being done and a commentator. There are other thoughts happening not necessarily about the actions. At the moment it feels like the watcher is the doer.

Yes, thought may say that the watcher is the doer and it SEEMS like that, but the key is to look to see if you can find a watcher or a doer. And the idea of a watcher and doer won’t disappear. There was never a separate self to begin with and the idea of a watcher and doer always appeared….so why would that change? What changes is that there is a knowing that there is no watcher or doer and all is just an appearance in/as THIS.

Let’s continue on with the idea of choice and decision making.

The aim of the following exercise is to discover whether the function of choice can really be found or confirmed in actual experience. The idea of making ‘choices‘ is a very clear example of a function that we wrongly identify as the basis of our identity.

Here's what’s needed - A chair, a table and two different drinks. Any two drinks you like are okay for this: coffee, tea, milk, water, juices, smoothies, beer, wine, etc.

Preparation - Place the two drinks side by side on the table in front of you, sit comfortably on the chair and mentally label them as drink A and drink B.

Experiment - Finding the function of choice

Sit for a few moments, take a few relaxed breaths and let the dust settle. When you feel ready:

1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
2. Count to 5.
3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

Questions:
Remember that we’re looking for some kind of function, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

Love, Kay

[Metta1]

Hi Kay

Could it be that attention just moves too – without a ‘you’ guiding it? Is there someone that makes that decision or does it simply happen, effortlessly?

It seems attention just moves by itself. There is noone choosing or guiding attention or decision making. It all just seems to happen by itself.

So, in AE is frustration known? Or what is actually known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about frustration?

Frustation is a label assigned to a combination of sensations and thoughts. AE of frustration doesn't exist.

When you looked to see if you could find a dividing line between the knowing of/as thought and the thought itself, could you find one? Is there a border where thought stops and the knowing of it begins?

There is no border, all is effortlessly flowing there is no dividing line. Thought is what happens or not.

What changes is that there is a knowing that there is no watcher or doer and all is just an appearance in/as THIS.

Thanks for that clarification. So it seems it is seeing through the belief but nothing else changes.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

Both the qualities and the preferences came up by themselves. There was no chooser to choose.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

I did not choose to have the preferences take a back seat, it just happened. Nobody chose to give way to the counting. A shift in perspective just happened. I did not notice a choosing faculty.

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

There wasn't even a feeling to choose. I got out of the way and the choosing happened. The drink that was drunk wasn't even the one 'I' had chosen. And amazingly after taking a sip of drink A, the body took a sip of drink B as well. That certainly wasn't even a consideration.

Again very helpful.

This maybe a silly question but I am thinking I could be observing these automatic events throughout the day as well.

Cheers

J

[forgetmenot]

Hey J,

When you looked to see if you could find a dividing line between the knowing of/as thought and the thought itself, could you find one? Is there a border where thought stops and the knowing of it begins?

There is no border, all is effortlessly flowing there is no dividing line. Thought is what happens or not.

You aren't quite getting what I am pointing at here. It is not about whether thought happens or not...it is about seeing that there is no divider between the 'knowing' of thought and the thought (known) itself. And if there is no dividing line then there cannot be an experiencer of experience....there is just experience.

Close your eyes and listen to sounds. Notice how much distance exists between a sound and awareness when the "I am" is absent. Perceptions are no longer happening TO an "I am" as a "me"; awareness is simply expressing itself AS perceptions. A newborn infant has full awareness without an "I am" thought construct.

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

There wasn't even a feeling to choose. I got out of the way and the choosing happened. The drink that was drunk wasn't even the one 'I' had chosen. And amazingly after taking a sip of drink A, the body took a sip of drink B as well. That certainly wasn't even a consideration.

How did an illusory “I” “get out of the way” exactly”? And what is this illusory “I” “getting out of the way” of?

This maybe a silly question but I am thinking I could be observing these automatic events throughout the day as well.

Yes…it is important that LOOKING take place throughout your day everyday and not just when doing these exercises when you receive them. It is like forming any new habit, it takes more than once or twice before LOOKING becomes a habit and it takes ‘seeing’ through something more than once for it to remain a ‘seeing’, otherwise it remains as an intellectual knowing only.

So is it clear that since there is no thinker or controller of thoughts and there is no one/no thing that is in control and therefore in charge of choosing or deciding what is said, done, felt or thought, then there is no one who is responsible for what happens, ever?

If you have no questions with what we have done so far, we will move onto looking at the body, but I want to make sure you are clear about the nature of thought and the distinction between the face value of thought and the content of thought and that it is clear there is no chooser or decider or controller of thought or what appears to be happening, has ‘happened’ or what may or may not happen?

Love, Kay

[Metta1]

Hi Kay

Thanks for clarifying a few things. I can't say I see it completely but will continue to work with

it is about seeing that there is no divider between the 'knowing' of thought and the thought (known) itself. And if there is no dividing line then there cannot be an experiencer of experience....there is just experience.

However, having said that I have experienced a sort of sadness of the loss of the 'doer'. The belief in a doer is clinging on grimly but in its death throws. I read a book called Biocentrism which also reported some experiments which show that decisions are made before the person has a conscious experience of a decision being made which also helped to loosen something.

How did an illusory “I” “get out of the way” exactly”? And what is this illusory “I” “getting out of the way” of?

Having just done the drinks experiment again. I can see that even if an illusory 'I' was choosing, it is irrelevant to what is chosen to drink. So by default it is entirely unnecessary to imply an 'I' of any description. In hindsight from the first time I did this experiment I can't even think why I even stated 'I got out of the way". It seems a ridiculous thing to say now.

So is it clear that since there is no thinker or controller of thoughts and there is no one/no thing that is in control and therefore in charge of choosing or deciding what is said, done, felt or thought, then there is no one who is responsible for what happens, ever?

The knowledge of this fact is creating the sad feeling. I know it is only sensation with the label sad, but something is definitely leaving and causing what I interpret as a grief response (separate to the cat grief). There is sadness of the fact that 'I' have never done anything. But I was kinda getting to that conclusion anyway before this process.

If you have no questions with what we have done so far, we will move onto looking at the body, but I want to make sure you are clear about the nature of thought and the distinction between the face value of thought and the content of thought and that it is clear there is no chooser or decider or controller of thought or what appears to be happening, has ‘happened’ or what may or may not happen?

I can't truthfully say all is clear but it is becoming clearer at this stage.

I am happy to move onto the body and maybe clean up any residual stuff, if necessary, later. And in the meantime I will keep LOOKING throughout the day to let this sink in deeper.

Thanks Kay and Cheers Jeannet

[forgetmenot]

Hi Jeannet,

Thanks for clarifying a few things. I can't say I see it completely but will continue to work with

That is why this work is repetitious, because being clear takes time. It is a new way of looking at everything and a different way of thinking…so it takes time.

it is about seeing that there is no divider between the 'knowing' of thought and the thought (known) itself. And if there is no dividing line then there cannot be an experiencer of experience....there is just experience

However, having said that I have experienced a sort of sadness of the loss of the 'doer'. The belief in a doer is clinging on grimly but in its death throws.

Nice noticing the sadness. Can you just be with the idea of sadness without having to do anything about it, other than to notice and observe it? If there are tears, just let the tears come. Nothing in the dream is permanent…the sadness too shall pass. Just be aware that fear may also appear.

A belief is a thought, about reality, for which there is no actual experiential evidence. That’s why it is good to check everything with actual experience, it will soon show you whether what is and what isn’t!

How did an illusory “I” “get out of the way” exactly”? And what is this illusory “I” “getting out of the way” of?

Having just done the drinks experiment again. I can see that even if an illusory 'I' was choosing, it is irrelevant to what is chosen to drink. So by default it is entirely unnecessary to imply an 'I' of any description. In hindsight from the first time I did this experiment I can't even think why I even stated 'I got out of the way". It seems a ridiculous thing to say now.

Here is a good exercise to do.

There is no who. There is nothing here in actual experience that is separate from experienced. In other words there is no ‘experiencer’ of experience. Just THS. Always now.

You will need pen and paper and 20 minutes of your time.

First write what is being ‘experienced’ right now using words “I” and “me” and “my”. Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just plain description of here now.

For example:-
I am lying in bed.
I am hearing the rain,
I am typing these words,
I am scratching my leg,
I am drinking a cup of coffee
I am thinking about what to write

Do it for 10 minutes. Watch the body - are there any sensations of tightening or relaxing?

Then for next 10 minutes write without words “I” and “me” and “my”. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs:

Lying in bed, waiting for next thought, typing, breathing, blinking, drinking, hearing the rain, scratching leg.

Again watch what is happening in the body.

Now compare the two ways of labelling experience- is one truer than the other? If so, which one? What is here without labels? Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

I can't truthfully say all is clear but it is becoming clearer at this stage.

Great! And yes, it will continue to become clearer, but it certainly doesn’t happen overnight! If you have any questions, just ask them or if you aren’t clear about something, just say so and we will look at it further.

Okay…moving onto the body.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

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

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.

Love, Kay

[Metta1]

Hi Kay

Sorry for the delay yesterday. I really wanted to do this thoroughly.

Now compare the two ways of labelling experience- is one truer than the other? If so, which one? What is here without labels? Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

Without the label 'I' nothing changes. The 'I am' is superfluous. It is just an arbitrary label assigned to experience.

The body:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?

Neither the height or the weight or the volume can be known.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

All I can notice is sensations of energy or something.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

It is impossible to tell which is the body and which is the clothing, so no, no boundary.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

It is impossible to say where the body ends and the chair begins, just sensations.

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

There is only sensation, no possibility of determining what is outside or inside of sensation, just sensation. Occasionally there is a mental image of a boundary, but it is just an image.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

It is a label placed on images/colour and sensations and movement.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Just pure sensation, mental image, colour, movement (which is also sensation) and an assumption that these sensations belong to a me.

Cheers J