So close... yet so far?

[forgetmenot]

Hi Gray,

Nice looking!

To what exactly is “the illusion quite convincing”? Is that not just another appearing thought? And what is that thought pointing to? Does it point to AE or?

It would indeed be another thought, that does not point to AE… it doesn’t seem to point to anything?

Exactly! It points to further thoughts about what that is/means! So thoughts about thoughts!

Does a thought control it?

No… if thought controlled movement, then to what potentially infinite degree could this be divided? How many thoughts would be needed for even simple movements or actions? Doesn’t make sense.

Yep! I think about the need to brake when driving. If it needed thought to action every movement to finally brake…well…you can see what I am saying!

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No one / thing / seems to be at the controls… Amusing thought; would a videogame character think the same thing if they could think?

Perfect! And would a videogame character do half the stuff they do?

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 don’t know! It just seems to happen. Looking at hand, it turns over. In the moment before it turns over there is a very subtle feeling… like a tiny, meek little cluster of quiet thoughts trying to impose themselves, ‘Now! No…? Now? How about now? Please?’. But this is seen through easily and does not stick.

Nice!

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

No. There is a difficult to describe low-level feeling of a central agent or subtle ‘doer’ but this cannot be reconciled in AE.

Is this ”low-level feeling of a central agent or subtle ‘doer’” an actual sensation? If not, then it is only another thought/idea. If it is a sensation, can a sensation know anything, let alone a “low level feeling of a central agent or subtle ‘doer’”?

Let’s continue on in the same vein…

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.

You need to get any two different drinks you like for this exercise, ie coffee, tea, milk, water, juices, smoothies, beer, wine, etc. One will be drink A the other will be drink B

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

[Gray]

Hello Kay,

Is this ”low-level feeling of a central agent or subtle ‘doer’” an actual sensation? If not, then it is only another thought/idea. If it is a sensation, can a sensation know anything, let alone a “low level feeling of a central agent or subtle ‘doer’”?

Is this like the sensation of ‘I am’ mentioned a few times in the Gateless Gatecrashers book? A sensation definitely can’t know anything, so could this be like a very deep and subtle non-discursive thought that still identifies this 'I am-ness' as happening to or actually being the ‘self’?

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?

No, there was no active choosing in either case. The qualities and preferences just arose on their own.

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?

The preferences did take a back seat to the counting. There was no choosing or wilful shutting down of the preferences to give way to the counting, it just happened this way. There was no direct experience of a mental function or faculty. There is just the sequence taking place in AE.

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?

No, there was no was no witnessing or direct experience of a mental function or faculty doing the choosing. There was more like a ‘knowing’ (non-discursive thought?) of the choice that is taking place.

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’?

A feeling definitely can’t choose or make a choice! But the feeling seems to ‘draw towards’ one of the drinks.

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hello Gray,

Is this ”low-level feeling of a central agent or subtle ‘doer’” an actual sensation? If not, then it is only another thought/idea. If it is a sensation, can a sensation know anything, let alone a “low level feeling of a central agent or subtle ‘doer’”?

Is this like the sensation of ‘I am’ mentioned a few times in the Gateless Gatecrashers book? A sensation definitely can’t know anything, so could this be like a very deep and subtle non-discursive thought that still identifies this 'I am-ness' as happening to or actually being the ‘self’?

It has been a very long time since I read the book – so I can’t say I know what you are referring to. However, check with AE and that will tell you what IS and what is being inferred. If a sensation is not felt in the ‘body’ then the ‘feeling’ is an inference.

Thought adds “virtual layers” about experience by adding story about what IS. The more complex the idea, the more “virtual layers” have been added. So what needs to happen is to strip the layers of story away, until all that remains is the bare bones. And, there is way to determine when you have stripped away all the layers that are pure fantasy, and you have only the bare bones left. If you can replace the thought with “blahblahblah” and what it was referring to remains, you know you are down to the bare bones.

So, close your eyes, if desired and bring the story of “there is a feeling of a central agent or subtle ‘doer” to the forefront, and notice the sensation (if any) and images that seemingly go hand in hand with that thought.

Now replace the thought “there is a feeling of a central agent or subtle doer” with “blahblahblah”. Look at the actual experience, with thought only saying “blahbahblah.” Is there a “feeling that there is a central agent or subtle doer” without thought saying so? Is there an “I” that is “feeling that there is a central agent or subtle doer” without thought saying so?

If yes, that thought is referring to actual experience. That’s a “bare bones” thought, with all additional story layers stripped.

If no, then you know that the thought has added “virtual layers.” It is fantasy, and it isn’t confirmed as actual experience, because what it was saying didn’t remain when the thought was replaced with “blahblahblah.” If what remains, for example is sensation, then all that is confirmed in actual experience is AE of sensation, but can an “I am feeling that there is a central agent or subtle doer” be confirmed?

You can do that exercise with any thought that appears to see if a thought is a ‘bare bone’ thought or is a thought that has added ‘virtual layers’ to AE.

Test it out and let me know what you noticed.

The above exercise can be done with any thought, including the thoughts about fear, anxiety, sadness, happiness etc. Just simply replace the thought, eg, "I am feeling anxious" to "blahblahblah' and see what remains.

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’?

A feeling definitely can’t choose or make a choice! But the feeling seems to ‘draw towards’ one of the drinks.

And how exactly does a “feeling” do this? Please describe in step by step detail to how a feeling does this.
Without thought saying “but the feeling seems to ‘draw towards’ one of the drinks”, how would this be known?

Does the feeling actually draw attention to of one of the drinks?
Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes. Watch what focus does, focus on focussing, attention itself. Do you move it? Or it moves by itself? Hold focus on breath, see how it moves to thoughts, sensations, feelings, sounds. Is this something you control? What moves attention? Is thinking in control of attention? Is ‘feeling’ in control of attention?

Here is an interesting video about decisions/choices

https://vimeo.com/90101368

So let’s have a look at the idea of ‘doership’. We’ll do a little exercise on this topic. It has to do with the sense of seeing.

Take a few relaxed breaths to let the dust settle for a while, and then:
Look on your right.
Then look on your left.
Finally, bring your head back to centre, close your eyes and look in front.

Okay, so when you look on the right, the view on the right is seen (whatever that is).
When you look on the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).
And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the view in front is seen (ie ‘black space’).

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?

Can you turn off seeing?

What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Love, Kay

[Gray]

Hello Kay!

Test it out and let me know what you noticed.

Testing this with the ‘feeling of a subtle doer’, and sensation in the body is all that remains, so that confirms an AE of sensation?
What I’ve noticed from doing this is that most of my thoughts are ‘bare bones’. The stuff that wants to go off into onion-making is quickly seen through and reined in.

And how exactly does a “feeling” do this? Please describe in step by step detail to how a feeling does this.
Without thought saying “but the feeling seems to ‘draw towards’ one of the drinks”, how would this be known?

This is tricky to put into words and I'm kinda bumping up against (my own?) limitations of language in trying to describe this. Earlier I mentioned a kind of non-discursive 'knowing' which I can only describe as a sense of being 'drawn towards' something. Clearly, there is no way feeling 'does' this, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on.

This might be a slight digression, but during meditation some time back, I had the distinct insight that the ongoing internal discursive narrative is completely unnecessary, as everything (including thought) is already known. Like watching a movie with obnoxious, non-stop voice-over explaining everything that is so obviously taking place.

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

There is no choice, seeing just happens and cannot be turned off.

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?

It's not possible to not see the view on the left.

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?

Black space with billions of little fuzzy colour bits is seen. This cannot be unseen.

Can you turn off seeing?

Short of plucking out my eyeballs, no!

What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?

There doesn't appear to be a chooser to choose anything, nor a self to choose something.

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Not much, apparently? Hrm.

:)

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hello Gray,

Test it out and let me know what you noticed.

Testing this with the ‘feeling of a subtle doer’, and sensation in the body is all that remains, so that confirms an AE of sensation?

Yes, so what is actually appearing is AE of sensation. Does the sensation itself know anything about a ‘doer’? Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘doer’? When you actually look at the sensation can a ‘doer’ be found either in or ‘behind’ the sensation?

What I’ve noticed from doing this is that most of my thoughts are ‘bare bones’. The stuff that wants to go off into onion-making is quickly seen through and reined in.

What exactly is it that is "reining in thought"?

99.9% of thoughts are definitely not bare bones. Sound, smell, colour, sensation and taste are always overlayed with a story about them.

If you look at your computer screen now…thought has appeared saying “that is a computer screen”. How is that bare bones?

If you replace the thought “that is a computer screen” with “blahblahblah”…what actually remains? What is actual experience?

And how exactly does a “feeling” do this? Please describe in step by step detail to how a feeling does this.
Without thought saying “but the feeling seems to ‘draw towards’ one of the drinks”, how would this be known?

This is tricky to put into words and I'm kinda bumping up against (my own?) limitations of language in trying to describe this. Earlier I mentioned a kind of non-discursive 'knowing' which I can only describe as a sense of being 'drawn towards' something. Clearly, there is no way feeling 'does' this, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on.

Imagine you lost your keys and you could swear you left them in your pocket. But when you go to check, they are not there. You empty out all your pockets, still no keys. You feel very strongly that they must be there because that was the last place you saw them. But they are simply not there. In this case, your actual experience contradicts what it is you are feeling. This happens all the time. The problem is that believing in your feelings and not your direct experience will keep you from understanding clearly. It is important to understand that just because you feel something is true, does not mean that it is. You can simply look and see what is true and what is not. And doing the “blahblahblah” exercise is a great tool for checking.

This might be a slight digression, but during meditation some time back, I had the distinct insight that the ongoing internal discursive narrative is completely unnecessary, as everything (including thought) is already known. Like watching a movie with obnoxious, non-stop voice-over explaining everything that is so obviously taking place.

Yes exactly.
Let's have a look at how thought narrates what appears as life which makes it seem like the story is about a 'you'.

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. Do this exercise several times before answering the questions. The purpose of this experiment is to see how thoughts are like the commentator in the following clip.

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. Without thought and looking at AE, what is actually appearing/happening?

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?

Can you turn off seeing?

Short of plucking out my eyeballs, no!

Do the body’s eyes see? What is the AE of “eyes”?

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

Love, Kay

[Gray]

Yes, so what is actually appearing is AE of sensation. Does the sensation itself know anything about a ‘doer’? Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘doer’? When you actually look at the sensation can a ‘doer’ be found either in or ‘behind’ the sensation?

No, a ‘doer’ can’t actually be found!

What exactly is it that is "reining in thought"?

Hmm, cannot a pinpoint anything that actually ‘does’ this.

If you look at your computer screen now…thought has appeared saying “that is a computer screen”. How is that bare bones?

Seems I have misunderstood or not carefully grasped your explanation earlier. Please bear with me!
Let’s see if I got it right.
If I look at my computer screen and no thought arises, that is AE. If the thought ‘image’ arises, that is a ‘bare bones’ thought. If the thought “computer screen” arises, that is a story or ‘virtual layers’ of thought. Is this correct?

If you replace the thought “that is a computer screen” with “blahblahblah”…what actually remains? What is actual experience?

Image / colour.

The problem is that believing in your feelings and not your direct experience will keep you from understanding clearly. It is important to understand that just because you feel something is true, does not mean that it is. You can simply look and see what is true and what is not. And doing the “blahblahblah” exercise is a great tool for checking.

Wonderful, thank you!

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off. Without thought and looking at AE, what is actually appearing/happening?

With sound off, thought wants to run it’s own commentary. Without thought, looking just at AE there is only image / colour moving around on the screen.

What I also notice is that when the audio commentary is running, it is very difficult to wilfully notice just sound when native language is heard. Understanding and comprehension just happen.

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

No.

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

No! Totally unnecessary.

Do the body’s eyes see? What is the AE of “eyes”?

No, the eyes themselves don’t do seeing. They just receive light. Can the AE of eyes be known? Seems not?

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

There is just seeing. No awareness separate from experience, only experience itself.
I cannot even say for certain that it is actually this body that is receiving sensory information!

[Gray]

Hello Kay,

Yes, so what is actually appearing is AE of sensation. Does the sensation itself know anything about a ‘doer’? Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘doer’? When you actually look at the sensation can a ‘doer’ be found either in or ‘behind’ the sensation?

No, a ‘doer’ can’t actually be found!

What exactly is it that is "reining in thought"?

Hmm, cannot a pinpoint anything that actually ‘does’ this.

If you look at your computer screen now…thought has appeared saying “that is a computer screen”. How is that bare bones?

Seems I have misunderstood or not carefully grasped your explanation earlier. Please bear with me!
Let’s see if I got it right.
If I look at my computer screen and no thought arises, that is AE. If the thought ‘image’ arises, that is a ‘bare bones’ thought. If the thought “computer screen” arises, that is a story or ‘virtual layers’ of thought. Is this correct?

If you replace the thought “that is a computer screen” with “blahblahblah”…what actually remains? What is actual experience?

Image / colour.

The problem is that believing in your feelings and not your direct experience will keep you from understanding clearly. It is important to understand that just because you feel something is true, does not mean that it is. You can simply look and see what is true and what is not. And doing the “blahblahblah” exercise is a great tool for checking.

Wonderful, thank you!

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off. Without thought and looking at AE, what is actually appearing/happening?

With sound off, thought wants to run it’s own commentary. Without thought, looking just at AE there is only image / colour moving around on the screen.

What I also notice is that when the audio commentary is running, it is very difficult to wilfully notice just sound when native language is heard. Understanding and comprehension just happen.

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

No.

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

No! Totally unnecessary.

Do the body’s eyes see? What is the AE of “eyes”?

No, the eyes themselves don’t do seeing. They just receive light. Can the AE of eyes be known? Seems not?

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

There is just seeing. No awareness separate from experience, only experience itself.
I cannot even say for certain that it is actually this body that is receiving sensory information!

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hello Gray,

Yes, so what is actually appearing is AE of sensation. Does the sensation itself know anything about a ‘doer’? Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘doer’? When you actually look at the sensation can a ‘doer’ be found either in or ‘behind’ the sensation?

No, a ‘doer’ can’t actually be found!

Great!

What exactly is it that is "reining in thought"?

Hmm, cannot a pinpoint anything that actually ‘does’ this.

Okay…so could it possibly be just another thought that is appearing suggesting that thought is being “reined in”?

If you look at your computer screen now…thought has appeared saying “that is a computer screen”. How is that bare bones?

Seems I have misunderstood or not carefully grasped your explanation earlier. Please bear with me!
Let’s see if I got it right.
If I look at my computer screen and no thought arises, that is AE. If the thought ‘image’ arises, that is a ‘bare bones’ thought. If the thought “computer screen” arises, that is a story or ‘virtual layers’ of thought. Is this correct?

The label ‘computer screen’ is AE of thought and not the AE of a computer screen
The image labelled ‘computer screen’ is AE of colour and not AE of a computer screen.
The thoughts ABOUT colour been a ‘computer screen’ and ensuing thoughts about what a computer screen is and does etc is content of thought and is simply AE of thought.

So what is known is AE of colour + AE of label/thoughts, but is a computer screen known?

If there is no colour labelled ‘computer screen’ that is actually appearing in this moment….then it is simply thoughts appearing and is not AE of computer screen but AE of thought.

If you replace the thought “that is a computer screen” with “blahblahblah”…what actually remains? What is actual experience?

Image / colour.

Yes. Just to be sure it is clear…let’s look at the idea of hearing a bird, for example.

Listen for a sound. A thought will pop up saying “I am hearing a …….” (whatever the sound is).

Now replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains.
Let me know how you go.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off. Without thought and looking at AE, what is actually appearing/happening?

With sound off, thought wants to run it’s own commentary. Without thought, looking just at AE there is only image / colour moving around on the screen.

Yes!

What I also notice is that when the audio commentary is running, it is very difficult to wilfully notice just sound when native language is heard. Understanding and comprehension just happen.

Yes, exactly! Great observation.

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

No! Totally unnecessary.

So, yes, as you observed, thought seems to be the predominant experience, however, by just observing 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 ‘Gray’ and ‘his/her life’?

Did you happen to notice that when the video was muted it 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. The muted watching was more about the current action whilst the commentator was mostly referring to what just happened or may be about to happen ie past and future. This is how it goes with the story about a character called ‘Gray’!

Do the body’s eyes see? What is the AE of “eyes”?

No, the eyes themselves don’t do seeing. They just receive light. Can the AE of eyes be known? Seems not?

Hmm...let’s have a look at the AE of ‘eyes’.

The label ‘eyes’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of eyes
The sensation labelled as ‘eyes blinking, shutting, squinting etc’ is AE of sensation and not AE of eyes
The image labelled as ‘eyes’ is AE of colour and not AE of eyes.
The thoughts about ‘eyes’ are AE of thought and not AE of eyes.

So what is known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts. However are eyes actually known?

So from this…can eyes receive light?

Here is an image to help point out the difference between actual experience and the stories thought tells about experience.

That's got to be Albert Einstein, right?



Notice that all that's actually present in the picture are some colours. That's all that's there, colour. Thought then labels these colours as hair, tongue, moustache, nose, eyes, eyebrows, mouth, ears, face and head and a story about this head being that of Albert Einsten.

The image of Einstein is just a story. There is no Einstein of any kind present. Just a story.

Now notice that thought is doing this with everything. In fact, without thought, there wouldn't even seem to be any things.

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

There is just seeing. No awareness separate from experience, only experience itself.
I cannot even say for certain that it is actually this body that is receiving sensory information!

Wonderful! We will look at the body a little later on.

Love, Kay

[Gray]

Hello Kay!

Okay…so could it possibly be just another thought that is appearing suggesting that thought is being “reined in”?

Could be! But it seems to be non-verbal. Perhaps it’s very subtle?

So what is known is AE of colour + AE of label/thoughts, but is a computer screen known?

No, a computer screen is not known, that is only the label.

Now replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains.
Let me know how you go.

Just sound!

This is how it goes with the story about a character called ‘Ananda’!

Indeed, I have realised this, and it’s something I have been trying to work with in my interactions with people, particularly family and loved ones (who are often the most complicated to deal with!) It is not ‘them’ who are or contain difficult, stubborn, irritating, beautiful, friendly, happy, kind, sad etc. etc. This is just thought doing it’s thing—building a story from all these labels, which the self then coagulates into a ‘character’ and projects onto ‘them / that person’ ‘out there’.

Now notice that thought is doing this with everything. In fact, without thought, there wouldn't even seem to be any things.

As far as I can tell, this applies to absolutely everything in the universe of experience, without exception. It’s all a projection of labels by thought, as you say here. The image labelled Sugar itself does not contain the taste labelled as sweetness.

So what is known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts. However are eyes actually known?

No, they cannot be.

So from this…can eyes receive light?

No, eyes cannot receive light. Hmm.

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hi Gray,

Okay…so could it possibly be just another thought that is appearing suggesting that thought is being “reined in”?

Could be! But it seems to be non-verbal. Perhaps it’s very subtle?

You wrote:- “ What I’ve noticed from doing this is that most of my thoughts are ‘bare bones’. The stuff that wants to go off into onion-making is quickly seen through and reined in”.

When you look can you find anyone/anything that can or is “reining in thoughts”?

So what is known is AE of colour + AE of label/thoughts, but is a computer screen known?

No, a computer screen is not known, that is only the label.

Wonderful! So the label 'computer screen' is known as it is AE of thought, but there is no computer screen known.

Now replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains.
Let me know how you go.

Just sound!

Yes! So see how it cuts to the bare bones of what actually IS!

So from this…can eyes receive light?

No, eyes cannot receive light. Hmm.

What is the difference between ‘dark’ and ‘light’?
When the eyes seemingly close, what appears is AE of colour labelled ‘black’
When the eyes are seemingly open, what appears is AE of colour labelled pink, green, yellow, red etc. So is really there any difference?

For something to be receiving light means that there is an object/subject split. That there is a here and a there.

Okay, so let’s move on and have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions.

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

[Gray]

Hello again Kay!

When you look can you find anyone/anything that can or is “reining in thoughts”?

No! There is no agency to this process.

Yes! So see how it cuts to the bare bones of what actually IS!

Indeed!

What is the difference between ‘dark’ and ‘light’?

There is none in AE.

When the eyes seemingly close, what appears is AE of colour labelled ‘black’
When the eyes are seemingly open, what appears is AE of colour labelled pink, green, yellow, red etc. So is really there any difference?

None at all.

How is the movement controlled?

It isn’t!

Does a thought control it?

No, thought comes afterwards and tries to take the credit.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No, it cannot.

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?

There is no separate individual or self doing any choosing!

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hello Gray,

When you look can you find anyone/anything that can or is “reining in thoughts”?

No! There is no agency to this process.

Great!

Thank you for humouring me in answering the palm exercises again. :) We can move onto looking at 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

[Gray]

Hello Kay!

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No, it cannot.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

Not that can be known in AE.

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

No.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

None at all, there are only sensations without any felt sense of boundary.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No, as with clothing there is only an intermingling of sensations.

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

There is no inside or outside found in AE. There is only this mixture of sensations in AE that simply are and cannot be pinpointed to happen somewhere ‘here’ or ‘there’, nor within any defined boundary.

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

Image / colour.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

It seems that there is no actual experience of the body other than actual experience itself.

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hello Gray,

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

Image / colour.

The word/label ‘body’ actually refers to AE of thought.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

It seems that there is no actual experience of the body other than actual experience itself.

There is no AE of a body. Thought points to colour, sensation, smell etc and overlays raw experience with the label ‘body’ and thoughts about what a body is and does etc.

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?


(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Kay :)

[Gray]

Hello Kay,

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

No. Thought labels the image in the mirror ‘reflection of my body’, but it is only ‘image / colour’ in AE.

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

No, the ‘mirror hand’ is only AE of ‘image / colour’.

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

No. As with the mirror hand, there is only AE of ‘image / colour’ thought labels as ‘hand’. ‘Mirror hand’ and ‘hand’ are both the same thing—‘image / colour’—in AE.

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?

The image itself, no. The suggestion that it is ‘me’ or ‘my body’ happens only after thought labels it so.

Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

It is only colours and shapes. The label ‘body’ is tacked on by thought.

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

Thought says that there is a ‘feeling of legs’ and creates a mental image of legs. There is nothing else to suggest any knowledge that there must be legs.

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

Only sensations.

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

Only sensations.

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

No, there is only sensation, which, as it has a familiar pattern and rhythm is labelled ‘walking’ by thought.

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?

Only thoughts about body can be found.

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

No, only thought that labels sensations as ‘walking’.

Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Sensations are not localised or confined in any way.

Best,

Gray