Thread for Funky Buddha & Forgetmenot

[Funkybuddha]

Hi Kay,

And is that blackness empty space or only thought says that the blackness is empty space?

The blackness is thought pointing to the experience of empty space (black)

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

They appear by themselves as pictures and an internal voice

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

It seems like there is an 'I' choosing them, but where that 'I' is, is a mystery

Where are they coming from and going to?

They just appear and disappear, it is not known.

Can you predict your next thought?

It is not known what the next thought will be

Can you push away any thought?

By push away, is this to move the thought around in awareness ? There is no control over thoughts

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

It seems something is choosing yes, but maybe this is just another thought. There are thoughts arising when eyes are closed again to observe thoughts, then the attempt to stop thinking a thought in the middle appears to be another thought.

Can you choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

It was always thought that negative thoughts could be changed to positive ones. For instance when there is pain, listening to confidence Cd's was an experience coming from a thought that was chosen but now thats not known as who choses thoughts ?

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

The thought about changing the topic of thoughts arises before the next thoughts change. But the preceding shift in thoughts was also a thought.

s it possible to control any thoughts? Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

Changing thinking seems to be controlled but when looking the thought change was preceded by a thought "change to something different'. When a thought arises "stop thinking these thoughts' is that not too a thought ? They can't be prevented from arising no, what's doing the preventing ?

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’?

Thoughts seem to change at will, an the thought 'this is unnerving, who is in control' is to, just another thought.

Hope this helps
Love M

[forgetmenot]

Hello Mark,

And is that blackness empty space or only thought says that the blackness is empty space?

The blackness is thought pointing to the experience of empty space (black)

How can blackness be a thought? Is not ‘blackness’ simply the colour black?
How is it known that the ‘blackness’ is empty space? How can it be empty space when the colour black is the actual experience?

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

They appear by themselves as pictures and an internal voice

Are thoughts actually heard by ‘ears’ as if they are an outside sound? If not, then how can thoughts be an internal voice, are thoughts just not simply known?

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

It seems like there is an 'I' choosing them, but where that 'I' is, is a mystery

Choose a number between 1 and 20. Could you have chosen a different number appear that actually appeared?

Tell me the capital of any city in the world. Could you have chosen a different answer to the one that appeared?

SEEMS = thought. I want you to LOOK again and then tell me from LOOKING very carefully if could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

Can you predict your next thought?

It is not known what the next thought will be

Exactly, so there is no way of predicting what thoughts will appear or when, so how could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at the exact moment that a particular thought had already appeared?

Can you push away any thought?

By push away, is this to move the thought around in awareness ? There is no control over thoughts

If a thought comes up that you don’t want to have and you start to push it away so that it stops or disappears. Can you do this?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

It seems something is choosing yes, but maybe this is just another thought. There are thoughts arising when eyes are closed again to observe thoughts, then the attempt to stop thinking a thought in the middle appears to be another thought.

Now….here again is the SEEMS and a MAYBE. I don’t want you hedging your bets, I want you to LOOK carefully and give me a clear answer of yes or no.

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

Nice going on seeing that the attempt to stop thinking a thought in the middle is another thought.

Can you choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

It was always thought that negative thoughts could be changed to positive ones. For instance when there is pain, listening to confidence Cd's was an experience coming from a thought that was chosen but now thats not known as who choses thoughts ?

You did not answer the question. Can you choose not to have painful, negative or even fearful thoughts?

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

The thought about changing the topic of thoughts arises before the next thoughts change. But the preceding shift in thoughts was also a thought.

Yes…nice!

Is it possible to control any thoughts? Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

Changing thinking seems to be controlled but when looking the thought change was preceded by a thought "change to something different'. When a thought arises "stop thinking these thoughts' is that not too a thought ? They can't be prevented from arising no, what's doing the preventing ?

Yes..SEEMS to be but doesn’t make it the case when you LOOK carefully, ay! Nice LOOKING, Mark.

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’?

Thoughts seem to change at will, an the thought 'this is unnerving, who is in control' is to, just another thought.

Nice work!

Love, Kay

[Funkybuddha]

Hi Kay,

How can blackness be a thought? Is not ‘blackness’ simply the colour black?

Yes it is black, but is black not simply the AE of colour that thought labels black ?

How is it known that the ‘blackness’ is empty space? How can it be empty space when the colour black is the actual experience?

It is not empty space, it is the AE of colour.

Are thoughts actually heard by ‘ears’ as if they are an outside sound? If not, then how can thoughts be an internal voice, are thoughts just not simply known?

Thoughts are not heard by 'ears', the internal voice is the arising AE of thought.

Choose a number between 1 and 20. Could you have chosen a different number appear that actually appeared?

The number 7 came up, it appeared then disappeared, followed by another thought. No, it came up as soon as the question was read, another number could not have been chose.

Tell me the capital of any city in the world. Could you have chosen a different answer to the one that appeared?

The capital of France is Paris, a different answer could not be chose, Paris appeared after the thought France.

SEEMS = thought. I want you to LOOK again and then tell me from LOOKING very carefully if could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

What thoughts that appear are whatever is coming up, nothing can change that, The trying to make the thought appear as a different thought is itself a thought.

Exactly, so there is no way of predicting what thoughts will appear or when, so how could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at the exact moment that a particular thought had already appeared?

It was always thought that there was an 'I' choosing what to think about but upon the inspection of looking there can be no choosing and an attempt to think a different thought is also a thought.

If a thought comes up that you don’t want to have and you start to push it away so that it stops or disappears. Can you do this?

The thought I want to push this thought away, make it stop or disappear is just another thought. No, they can't be stopped.There are thoughts arising now, 'I don't like this' 'what I'm finding out means there is no control' which are just more thoughts.

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

No, the wanting to change thoughts to pleasant thoughts is also a thought

You did not answer the question. Can you choose not to have painful, negative or even fearful thoughts?

No I can't, no thought can be chose. What's coming is coming and the wanting to chose a different thought is also thought.

[forgetmenot]

Hello Mark,

Great post to read!

How can blackness be a thought? Is not ‘blackness’ simply the colour black?

Yes it is black, but is black not simply the AE of colour that thought labels black ?

Yes, but that does not make the AE of 'blackness' a thought. The AE of 'blackness' is colour. The thoughts ABOUT the colour being 'black' is AE of thought, but the AE of blackness is colour.

Are thoughts actually heard by ‘ears’ as if they are an outside sound? If not, then how can thoughts be an internal voice, are thoughts just not simply known?

Thoughts are not heard by 'ears', the internal voice is the arising AE of thought.

And you LOOKED to actually see this and didn’t just take my word for it, did you?

Choose a number between 1 and 20. Could you have chosen a different number appear that actually appeared?

The number 7 came up, it appeared then disappeared, followed by another thought. No, it came up as soon as the question was read, another number could not have been chose.

Great, so it is clear then that another thought could not have appeared instead of the thought that actually did?

SEEMS = thought. I want you to LOOK again and then tell me from LOOKING very carefully if could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

What thoughts that appear are whatever is coming up, nothing can change that, The trying to make the thought appear as a different thought is itself a thought.

Wonderful!

Exactly, so there is no way of predicting what thoughts will appear or when, so how could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at the exact moment that a particular thought had already appeared?

It was always thought that there was an 'I' choosing what to think about but upon the inspection of looking there can be no choosing and an attempt to think a different thought is also a thought.

Nice!

If a thought comes up that you don’t want to have and you start to push it away so that it stops or disappears. Can you do this?

The thought I want to push this thought away, make it stop or disappear is just another thought. No, they can't be stopped.There are thoughts arising now, 'I don't like this' 'what I'm finding out means there is no control' which are just more thoughts.

Yes. So you are getting the picture on how thoughts appear and how they work?

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

No, the wanting to change thoughts to pleasant thoughts is also a thought

Yep, because if we could choose thoughts, then wouldn’t we only choose to have pleasant thoughts!

You did not answer the question. Can you choose not to have painful, negative or even fearful thoughts?

No I can't, no thought can be chose. What's coming is coming and the wanting to chose a different thought is also thought.

Is it clear that there is no author of thought or owner of thought, that they are an appearance that comes and goes?

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice, seems to feel as though they can influence somehow what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome, the commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as 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?

Love, Kay

[Funkybuddha]

Hi Kay,

And you LOOKED to actually see this and didn’t just take my word for it, did you?

Yes I 'Looked', the internal voice is not a sound, it is the arising of the AE of thought. When I close my eyes an listen to a sound (wind blowing) this is the AE of hearing - sound.

Great, so it is clear then that another thought could not have appeared instead of the thought that actually did?

Yes, it's like the arising thought '7' was already part of the reading the question 'think of a number 1 - 20', it's like the answer was already set before the question was read with no free will.

Is it clear that there is no author of thought or owner of thought, that they are an appearance that comes and goes?

There are thoughts arising saying 'I need more evidence' for this to be true, this is also another thought, a story about whether there is an author or not. Allot of arising thoughts saying 'How can there be no me', 'for all these years it was thought that I chose every thought' !!!! Again, this is just more thought.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?

Without thought and the sound turned off there is the AE of colour. With the sound turned on there is only the AE of sound and the AE of colour.

Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?

No, the commentary (Sound) is not important to what is happening in the football game, whether there is sound or no sound the football game still is the AE of colour.

And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

No it isn't, the movement of life will carry on 'lifing' whether there is a commentary (thought) describing what is unfolding or not.
Love M

[forgetmenot]

Hey Mark,

And you LOOKED to actually see this and didn’t just take my word for it, did you?

Yes I 'Looked', the internal voice is not a sound, it is the arising of the AE of thought. When I close my eyes an listen to a sound (wind blowing) this is the AE of hearing - sound.

Lovely!

Okay, let’s take this hearing-sound a little further.

For this exercise you will need to sit yourself near a clock that has an audible second hand. If you don’t have a ticking clock, then here is a link to a clock on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L21br2DSCSg

Allow your eyes to close gently.

Listen to the sound. “Tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock”

Focus on the tick tock. Attune to the sound itself. IGNORE all thoughts about what must be creating the sound.

Try to find the clock.

1. Going just by the tick tock sound, do you find a clock present?
2. Is there any direct/actual experience of a clock in the sound?
3. Does the sound come self-labelled as originating from the clock?
4. Do you find a clock hidden in the sound?
5. Do you find a clock beyond the sound?
6. In your direct/actual experience of the sound, do you find any evidence that the sound is caused by a clock?

Allow your eyes to open.

Were you able to establish that in your direct/actual experience of the tick tock sound, that there was a clock?

Were you able to find a division between hearing and sound?
Were you able to establish where hearing ended and sound begin, or was there just pure experience labelled as sound?

For a sound to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ (experiencing) of sound! Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ (experiencing) of the sound and the sound (known) itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?

Is it clear that there is no author of thought or owner of thought, that they are an appearance that comes and goes?

There are thoughts arising saying 'I need more evidence' for this to be true, this is also another thought, a story about whether there is an author or not. Allot of arising thoughts saying 'How can there be no me', 'for all these years it was thought that I chose every thought' !!!! Again, this is just more thought.

So, give yourself more evidence by continually LOOKING to see if you are the author of thought or if thought just appears. The more you see this, the deeper the seeing goes until there is no doubt that you are not the thinker of thought.

There have never been a separate ‘you’ who was the thinker or chooser of thought. And thoughts will still appear saying all sorts of stuff, that is why it is good to check what thought says with actual experience, to see if what thought is pointing to. Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to further thought about actual experience which is not the current experience which then equates to just story. All thought is empty of content UNLESS it is pointing to AE. For example sensation brrbrr = thought "cold".

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?

Without thought and the sound turned off there is the AE of colour. With the sound turned on there is only the AE of sound and the AE of colour.

So 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. And did you also notice that muted watching was more about the current action whilst the commentator was mostly referring to what just happened or what might happen. So this is how it goes with the story about a character called ‘Mark’!

If there is no commentary to ‘suck you in’, then everything is neutral. It is only the commentary that overlays what is appearing that seemingly gives meaning to what is happening and draws ‘you’ into the story of being a separate self.

Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?

No, the commentary (Sound) is not important to what is happening in the football game, whether there is sound or no sound the football game still is the AE of colour.

So with the commentary off, everything is just happening. There is no one who can predict what is going to happen, or how the commentary will go! It can only base itself on what has already happened. And even future thoughts are based on past thoughts! If someone didn’t kick the ball and get a goal, without commentary.,.all there is, is figures running and kicking a ball that either goes through the net or not! It is only the commentary that says what the figures are doing and that they are people, that a net is a net and a ball is a ball….and then either judges the action as good or bad and so on.

And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

No it isn't, the movement of life will carry on 'lifing' whether there is a commentary (thought) describing what is unfolding or not.

Yes. Thought seems to be the predominant experience, however, if you just allow (watch/observe) thought without actually following thought, you see that thought is just a constant stream of commentary that has a story about everything, and how it overlays actual experience continuously with stories.
So can you see how thought does the same with the colour labelled ‘Mark’ and ‘his life’?

Love, Kay

[Funkybuddha]

Hi Kay,
Doing this on my phone so bear with me. Will answer them as numbers without the quote function.

A1. A clock cannot be found, only the AW of sound.
A2. In the sound there is only intermittent noise, a sound then silence then a sound then silence over & over.
A3. The sound is heard and thoughts arise saying ‘ticking clock’ . The more I Focus on the sound the commentary is not noticed.
A4. There is no clock in the sound, only thoughts pointing to the sound describing it as ‘clock’ ‘ticking’ etc
A5. No, there is no clock beyond, only the AE of sound.
A6. In AE there is no evidence that this sound is a clock, the only way to think it was a clock is thought says so. Could thought be wrong ?
A7. No, it couldn’t be established by the raw sound, thought calls it clock but it could be wrong.
A8. No, a division cannot be found.
A9.The sound has no distance from my awareness of it, it is like I can’t pinpoint a location outside of me, it appears that it is ‘inside’ of my awareness.
A10. There is only knowingness of the sound. It appears inside of my experience.

Hope this helps
Love Mark

[Funkybuddha]

Hi Kay,
Sorry, I missed the last question.
A11. Yes, thought never stops labelling my direct experience throughout the day, ‘noise’ thought says ‘car horn’ then ‘colour’ thought says ‘ blue sky’ and ‘someone talking’ thought says, ‘I like, I don’t like this guy’ all thought creating a narrative about what is the AE of the day
Love M

[forgetmenot]

Hey Mark,

So far so good with the clock! :)

Okay...let’s continue with the clock and try to find a sound...if sound is actually heard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L21br2DSCSg

Close your eyes. Focus on the experience of the tick tock sound. Set aside all thought, images, ideas or theories about what must be going on. Just focus on the sounds themselves.

Going by hearing alone, do you directly experience a sound apart from your sense of hearing?

Do you experience a sound getting closer to your range of hearing before you actually hear it?

Do you experience a sound after you hear it?

Do you experience an unheard sound of any kind?

Allow your eyes to open.

Were you able to establish, in your direct experience of hearing, that sounds enter your sense of hearing. In other words, in direct/actual experience is there a hearer AND sound? Or is there simply sound?

Love, Kay

[Funkybuddha]

Hi Kay,
Still using my phone for now, so will number the answers again. Should have laptop back tomorrow.

A1. No, the hearing of the sound is not apart from the sound. The hearing & the sound arise simultaneously, the hearing ‘Is’ the sound.

A2. No, the sound doesn’t ‘get closer’ from my range of hearing. There is no distance between me and the sound. It arises as hearing.

A3. No, the experiencing is the sound. It doesn’t come after. The sound arises an falls then arises again.

A4. No, all sounds are known within my experience. The arising of them and the hearing happens at the same moment.

A5. Again No, it couldn’t be established that sound enters my sense of hearing. The arising of the sound and the hearing of the sound has no seperation, the hearing is the arising sound. For there to be a ‘heater’ of sound there would have to be ‘Someone’ sepetatw to hear the sound, a division and one can not be found.

Hope this helps
Love Mark

[forgetmenot]

Hi Mark,

Were you able to establish, in your direct experience of hearing, that sounds enter your sense of hearing. In other words, in direct/actual experience is there a hearer AND sound? Or is there simply sound?

A5. Again No, it couldn’t be established that sound enters my sense of hearing. The arising of the sound and the hearing of the sound has no seperation, the hearing is the arising sound. For there to be a ‘heater’ of sound there would have to be ‘Someone’ sepetatw to hear the sound, a division and one can not be found.

Nice LOOKING, Mark.
So it was clearly seen that there is no hearer of sound, that hearing and sound are one and the same hearingsound , or simpler still, just sound?


Keeping the clock exercise in mind.

Colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation and thoughts are known, and experience is the knowing of/as the known. So can there be a knowing without a known, or a known without a knowing? Or there is simply knowingknown?

Are you able to separate a thought (known) from the “knowing” of it?
Where do you end and the knowing of thought begin?

Are you able to separate sound, colour, sensation, smell and taste from the ‘knowing” of it?

Love, Kay

[Funkybuddha]

Hi Kay,
Back in business with the laptop again :)

So it was clearly seen that there is no hearer of sound, that hearing and sound are one and the same hearingsound , or simpler still, just sound?

There is no distance between me & the sound. The word 'hearing' is pointing to the AE of sound, the is no 'hearer' of sound, only the knowing of it, which I am. The intermittent sound is labelled by mind, 'Tick Tock, tick tock', pictures of a clock arise in my experience, again these are thoughts.

Colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation and thoughts are known, and experience is the knowing of/as the known. So can there be a knowing without a known, or a known without a knowing? Or there is simply knowingknown?

I am the knowing, the known is the arising experiences, Colour, smell, taste, sensation & thought. But they are not separate from what I am. They arise within me with no separation.

Are you able to separate a thought (known) from the “knowing” of it?

In order to separate a thought there would have to be a "me' and a thought. I would have to be an observer of the thought. Which would mean separation, the knowing of the thought 'Is' the known. I am the thought. Which if true for the experience of knowing the thought would mean it be true for everything else that appears, it is all made of me.

Where do you end and the knowing of thought begin?

For there to be a beginning & an end would again mean a separation between a me and a thought. No divisions can be found, just the knowing of the arising experience of thought.

Are you able to separate sound, colour, sensation, smell and taste from the ‘knowing” of it?

No, they all arise an pass within me, in fact not even within me, as that would point to a 'without' me, an outside, when all there is is this, no inside or outside, no me & experiences, just the knowing of the experiences.

Hope this helps & thank-you for taking your time to do this pointing for me.
Love Mark

[forgetmenot]

Good afternoon Mark,

Back in business with the laptop again :)

Yay!

So it was clearly seen that there is no hearer of sound, that hearing and sound are one and the same hearingsound , or simpler still, just sound?

There is no distance between me & the sound. The word 'hearing' is pointing to the AE of sound, the is no 'hearer' of sound, only the knowing of it, which I am. The intermittent sound is labelled by mind, 'Tick Tock, tick tock', pictures of a clock arise in my experience, again these are thoughts.

Terrific!

Are you able to separate a thought (known) from the “knowing” of it?

In order to separate a thought there would have to be a "me' and a thought. I would have to be an observer of the thought. Which would mean separation, the knowing of the thought 'Is' the known. I am the thought. Which if true for the experience of knowing the thought would mean it be true for everything else that appears, it is all made of me.

Yes, the knowing of the known are one and the same = knowingknown.

Are you able to separate sound, colour, sensation, smell and taste from the ‘knowing” of it?

No, they all arise an pass within me, in fact not even within me, as that would point to a 'without' me, an outside, when all there is is this, no inside or outside, no me & experiences, just the knowing of the experiences.

Great! You have a great understanding of the knowingknown. We will look more at this later.


Okay, so we have looked at what AE is, and we have looked at thoughts, looked at the idea of separation. We are going to look at the control and decision making.

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?

Love, Kay

[Funkybuddha]

Hi Kay, hope your well :)

How is the movement controlled?

The instruction for the exercise was read, then the movement observed. A 'doer' of the movement cannot be found, thoughts arise, 'I am moving my hand' 'I control this' etc, but this is commentary pointing to actual experience, which is only thought. There is no controller of the movement. Thought says, how can this be ? I am along for the ride, this is frightening, this is unsettling. Again more blah blah thought.

Does a thought control it?

No, thought does not control the movement. How could it ? Thought only labels experience. The movement of the hand is what is the unfolding experience, thought just narrates it into a "my hand is moving' "I am turning my hand up & down' etc

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No, no controller can be found. There is commentary about a controller, a me, a self, that is doing this, but this is thought, an now it's known that thought makes all kind of shit up.

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.

How can a decision point, when thought turned the hand over be made when 'thought' only points to 'what is going on' ? It would be like the commentator in the Soccer exercise we done affecting the movement of the players an the ball. in order for there to be a decision made, then that would imply a 'Decider' of decisions. The hand began moving up & down as the next unfolding of the instruction to do so being 'read' or experienced as colour on a screen, an also the instruction was not instructed by a someone but as what was going on. There was never a decider in any of the whole show. It's just what is unfolding.

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

No, the only chooser is a story about a 'chooser' created by thought. The actual movement of the hand when observed void of thought is experienced as just movement.

Hope this helps
Love M

[forgetmenot]

Hey Mark,

Fantastic LOOKING with that exercise.

How is the movement controlled?

The instruction for the exercise was read, then the movement observed. A 'doer' of the movement cannot be found, thoughts arise, 'I am moving my hand' 'I control this' etc, but this is commentary pointing to actual experience, which is only thought. There is no controller of the movement. Thought says, how can this be ? I am along for the ride, this is frightening, this is unsettling. Again more blah blah thought.

Okay, so let’s have a look at this fear/anxiety

1) Look at the label/thought ‘fear’ itself. See the label/word ‘fear’ as a typewritten word in the ‘mind’s eye’ across the forehead

Does the label ‘fear’ know anything about ‘fear’, or is the word just a bunch of letters?
Is the label ‘fear’ itself anxious?
Can you find anyone/anything in the word itself that is fearful/anxious?

2) Then look at the sensation and ignore everything else but the sensation itself.
Inquire into the sensation and ask if the sensation itself knows anything about ‘fear’.

And then look to see if there is anyone/anything in the sensation or behind the sensation that can be ‘fearful/anxious’.

3) Look at the image/colour labelled body, whether that image be ‘mental’ or ‘visual’.

Inquire into the colour and ask if the colour itself knows anything about ‘fear’.
And then look to see if there is anyone/anything in the colour that knows anything about ‘fear’ or that can be ‘fearful/anxious’.

When you have inquired into these and if no one/no thing is found, then just sit with the sensation. Just breathe normally, notice the thoughts and images that appear and ask if they are ‘fear’ itself or know anything about fear, and let them pass on by, and just allow the sensation all the room it needs in the body without pushing it aside or judging it. If it becomes too intense just take a couple of deep breaths into the sensation itself, and then notice the floor under your feet, notice your backside on the chair and then notice what is in the room you are sitting in and name them out loud, while being aware of the sensation and remember to breathe normally. If the sensation does not dissipate completely, that is okay, just notice it, without doing anything with it and just go about your day.

Let me know how you go.

Does a thought control it?

No, thought does not control the movement. How could it ? Thought only labels experience. The movement of the hand is what is the unfolding experience, thought just narrates it into a "my hand is moving' "I am turning my hand up & down' etc

Lovely. Have you noticed at times that you are absent mindedly scratching an itch and it isn’t until after you have started to scratch that you notice you are scratching. If it needed a thought to make the hand move to scratch, then you would have been aware of that thought. Nothing is hidden, ever. If you are not aware of it, then it isn’t!

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No, no controller can be found. There is commentary about a controller, a me, a self, that is doing this, but this is thought, an now it's known that thought makes all kind of shit up.

LOL…great! And yes, thought is the greatest storyteller! Even the story about an illusory self who is fearful about losing itself! haha

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.

How can a decision point, when thought turned the hand over be made when 'thought' only points to 'what is going on' ? It would be like the commentator in the Soccer exercise we done affecting the movement of the players an the ball. in order for there to be a decision made, then that would imply a 'Decider' of decisions. The hand began moving up & down as the next unfolding of the instruction to do so being 'read' or experienced as colour on a screen, an also the instruction was not instructed by a someone but as what was going on. There was never a decider in any of the whole show. It's just what is unfolding.

Nice!

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

No, the only chooser is a story about a 'chooser' created by thought. The actual movement of the hand when observed void of thought is experienced as just movement.

And what is the AE of movement?

Love, Kay