RiverRock

[forgetmenot]

Hello John,

I would like you to go back to that exercise and give me a one or two word answer to each question please. We are focussing on SOUND only....nothing else.

Please repeat the exercise and answer the following questions from actual experience (AE) rather than give an intellectual answer. Actual (direct) experience is simply sound, colour, smell, taste, sensation and the face value of thought.

Tell me,
- How is it known that the sound heard is ‘breathing’? In other words what is it that says the sound is ‘breathing’? Is it colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation or thought that opines that the sound is that of 'breathing'?

- What is the actual experience (AE) of ‘hearing breathing’?

You can even do this exercise while flying. The sound labelled as 'aeroplane engines'.

How is it known that the sound heard is that of 'aeroplane engines'? In other words what is it that say the sound is 'aeroplane engines'?

What is the actual experience (AE) of 'hearing aeroplane engines'?

I should probably say, I will be on 2 long haul flights tomorrow. I will try and respond to your reply when I get it if I can tomorrow but if, by any chance, I don't, that will be the reason and I will reply on Sunday 6th.

Thank you for letting me know.

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

How is it known that the sound heard is that of 'aeroplane engines'? In other words what is it that say the sound is 'aeroplane engines'?

Thought.

Longer answer. There is nothing at all inherent in the sound that can let me know it is breathing. Only through thought is it understood to be breathing.

What is the actual experience (AE) of 'hearing aeroplane engines'?

Ears receive sound. Then thought appears and labels sound aeroplane engines.

Not sure if that is enough for you or if I am following the exercise properly. I can’t really describe the sound without getting more “wordy” and I know that’s not what you want me to do. In other words you don’t want descriptions of the nature of the sound. I have also been listening to lots of other sounds as i travel and it is clear that the process is the same with all sounds. Particularly so unfamiliar sounds. The sound is received then the brain goes to work and labels the sound. All seamless. But if I hear another unfamiliar sound and “block” the brain from going to work then it remains a nameless sound. Without me understanding it.

John

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

How is it known that the sound heard is that of 'aeroplane engines'? In other words what is it that say the sound is 'aeroplane engines'?

Thought.

Longer answer. There is nothing at all inherent in the sound that can let me know it is breathing. Only through thought is it understood to be breathing.

Yes….exactly! :) Without thought it cannot possibly be known that the sound is ‘aeroplane engines’ or ‘breathing’. It is simply sound.

What is the actual experience (AE) of 'hearing aeroplane engines'?

Ears receive sound. Then thought appears and labels sound aeroplane engines.

So the actual experience (AE) is simply sound. Thought ‘points’ to the sound and then describes it 'hearing aeroplane engines'.

Not sure if that is enough for you or if I am following the exercise properly. I can’t really describe the sound without getting more “wordy” and I know that’s not what you want me to do. In other words you don’t want descriptions of the nature of the sound.

The description ABOUT sound is thought and although thought is AE, thought, in and of itself does not contain any experience. If it did then you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’.

Actual experience cannot be described.

How would you describe the colour ‘orange’ to someone who has never seen?
How would you describe the taste of an ‘orange’?
Without describing the components that make up the idea of taste being an ‘orange’, how would you describe the taste?

I have also been listening to lots of other sounds as i travel and it is clear that the process is the same with all sounds. Particularly so unfamiliar sounds. The sound is received then the brain goes to work and labels the sound. All seamless. But if I hear another unfamiliar sound and “block” the brain from going to work then it remains a nameless sound. Without me understanding it.

Lovely observations!

What is the AE of the ‘brain’?

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

How would you describe the colour ‘orange’ to someone who has never seen?
How would you describe the taste of an ‘orange’?
Without describing the components that make up the idea of taste being an ‘orange’, how would you describe the taste?

No I think I am quite clear on this now. Actual
Experience cannot be adequately described by words. We can try, of course. But the AE is something quite different altogether. Like a drawing is not the scene it is depicting. A worthy attempt perhaps but in the end, a pale shadow of what it is trying to represent. The words are not the experience any more than the lines on a page are the scene.

The description ABOUT sound is thought and although thought is AE, thought, in and of itself does not contain any experience. If it did then you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’.

I am also quite clear on this. In that thought is AE but the content of it is not. There is a profound qualitative difference between me looking at a tree and me thinking of a tree. The thought tree is not AE but just the subject of a thought - which is AE. The drawing of a tree is real but there is not a tree in it. Just lines on a page.

What is the AE of the ‘brain’?

We’ve already established that AE can’t be described and that words are blunt instruments (but all we have).
But you’ve asked the question so let me try.
Actual experience of my brain is of a low dull throb. Most of the time. Not I would say a pain as such, not a headache. But a feeling of a heaviness there. Not a pleasant feeling. And the thud becomes more prominent when I try and grapple with difficult issues.
What is it? Blood moving around? So anyway I don’t know how other people experience their brain but I definitely feel a thing there, just like I feel tea in my mouth.

John

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

How would you describe the colour ‘orange’ to someone who has never seen?
How would you describe the taste of an ‘orange’?
Without describing the components that make up the idea of taste being an ‘orange’, how would you describe the taste?

No I think I am quite clear on this now. Actual
Experience cannot be adequately described by words. We can try, of course. But the AE is something quite different altogether. Like a drawing is not the scene it is depicting. A worthy attempt perhaps but in the end, a pale shadow of what it is trying to represent. The words are not the experience any more than the lines on a page are the scene.

Nice :)

The description ABOUT sound is thought and although thought is AE, thought, in and of itself does not contain any experience. If it did then you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’.

I am also quite clear on this. In that thought is AE but the content of it is not. There is a profound qualitative difference between me looking at a tree and me thinking of a tree. The thought tree is not AE but just the subject of a thought - which is AE. The drawing of a tree is real but there is not a tree in it. Just lines on a page.

Lovely! Just like these ‘words’ are black squiggly lines and are AE of colour and not AE of written words! :)

What is the AE of the ‘brain’?

We’ve already established that AE can’t be described and that words are blunt instruments (but all we have).
But you’ve asked the question so let me try.

The AE of the ‘brain’ is thought.
The label 'brain' is AE of thought and not AE of a brain
The thoughts ABOUT a brain and what it is, does and where it is located are AE of thought and not AE of a brain.

Can a brain actually be experienced?

Actual experience of my brain is of a low dull throb. Most of the time. Not I would say a pain as such, not a headache. But a feeling of a heaviness there. Not a pleasant feeling. And the thud becomes more prominent when I try and grapple with difficult issues.

The AE of ‘dull throb’ is AE of sensation. It is thought that then labels the sensation as a ‘dull throb’ and further labels it as the ‘brain’.

What is it? Blood moving around? So anyway I don’t know how other people experience their brain but I definitely feel a thing there, just like I feel tea in my mouth.

Can ‘blood moving around’ actually be experienced? Can it be tasted, smelled, felt, seen or heard? And even if it can be felt…the feeling is AE of sensation overlayed with the story of the sensation being ‘blood moving around’.

So let’s investigate AE further, so that it becomes crystal clear.

If you have an apple in the kitchen…go grab it or any other piece of fruit will do.



Have a look at an apple. When ‘looking at an apple’, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."
What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought. Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

The label ‘apple’ is known
Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay.

Can a brain actually be experienced?

No a brain cannot actually be experienced. Sensations, such as those I have described can be experienced directly but in order for them to become a brain, thought has to come into play and that takes it away from the realm of actual experience.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

No there is not an apple there in actual experience. As you say it is colour, but I would also add shape (or do I mean form?). And along with (or very shortly after?) the AE of colour/shape is the AE of thought, which happens to be a thought telling me it is an apple.

Would i be right in saying AE is the core material of experience, our direct contact with reality? In other words, all we can be sure of(?). Because I don't trust my thoughts/interpretations of things and I can never really be sure if I have gotten something right. I have learned not to trust how I interpret things over many years. We get it wrong all the time.

AE being hearing, seeing, touch, taste, smell and thought. Are all sense perceptions if we can agree that thought is a sense (which it has to be). The building blocks of our contact with reality. But nothing else is actual experience, just interpretation and meaning applied by thought. A smell within itself, or a taste, or for that matter a sight, do not have meaning within themselves, only through applied thought, which is subjective and random.

The label ‘apple’ is known
Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?

I had to read this a few times to get it (I think). If you will permit me, can I try and give my own interpretation of what I think you mean and what I can understand myself.

When I bite the apple my actual experience is taste, which is AE. A thought (which is an AE sense) gives this a label of apple.
When I look at the apple, my actual experience is colour/shape. Again, thought gives it label, apple.
When I smell and touch the apple my actual experience is smell and touch sensations. Thought labels apple.
But I cannot have an actual experience of apple. Apple is outwith my range of sense perceptions.

(I'm eating the apple now and it tastes nice. ;-))

When you say "The label "apple" is known" I am assuming you mean the thought about an apple is an actual experience (even thought the content of that thought, ie "apple", is not).

That's my lot for now.

John

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

Can a brain actually be experienced?

No a brain cannot actually be experienced. Sensations, such as those I have described can be experienced directly but in order for them to become a brain, thought has to come into play and that takes it away from the realm of actual experience.

Nice :)

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

No there is not an apple there in actual experience. As you say it is colour, but I would also add shape (or do I mean form?). And along with (or very shortly after?) the AE of colour/shape is the AE of thought, which happens to be a thought telling me it is an apple.

Nice looking! There are no shapes, however, as without thought how could it be known that something is a particular shape? Shapes are simply different patterns of colour

Would i be right in saying AE is the core material of experience, our direct contact with reality? In other words, all we can be sure of(?).

Yes…exactly! It is our direct KNOWING of/as reality.

Because I don't trust my thoughts/interpretations of things and I can never really be sure if I have gotten something right. I have learned not to trust how I interpret things over many years. We get it wrong all the time.

It is a good practice not to believe anything that thought says without checking its claims against actual experience. Knowing ABOUT something is thought while the knowing AS (the appearance) is actual/direct. You always know exactly 'what is' by being directly aware of what is.

If thoughts were expressed via the tweeting of birds or an unknown language, how would you know what they meant? What meaning is given to thoughts are only just thoughts about thoughts.

AE being hearing, seeing, touch, taste, smell and thought. Are all sense perceptions if we can agree that thought is a sense (which it has to be). The building blocks of our contact with reality. But nothing else is actual experience, just interpretation and meaning applied by thought. A smell within itself, or a taste, or for that matter a sight, do not have meaning within themselves, only through applied thought, which is subjective and random.

Yes, BINGO! Thought is actual experience because it is a phenomenon just as is colour, smell, sound, taste and sensation. Thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about thought but thought is not aware and the only thing that says thought knows something, is a thought!

However, is an apple actually known?

I had to read this a few times to get it (I think). If you will permit me, can I try and give my own interpretation of what I think you mean and what I can understand myself.

When I bite the apple my actual experience is taste, which is AE. A thought (which is an AE sense) gives this a label of apple.
When I look at the apple, my actual experience is colour/shape. Again, thought gives it label, apple.
When I smell and touch the apple my actual experience is smell and touch sensations. Thought labels apple.

But I cannot have an actual experience of apple. Apple is outwith my range of sense perceptions.

Apple is unknown because it doesn’t exist. Everything that thoughts labels as an apple exists ie sound, smell, taste, colour, sensation and thoughts about an apple is known…but can an apple actually be found IN/AS sound, smell, taste, colour, sensation and thought?

The label ‘apple’ is AE of thought and not AE of an apple
The smell labelled ‘apple’ is AE of smell and not AE of an apple
The taste labelled ‘apple’ is AE of taste and not AE of an apple
The sensation labelled as ‘touching apple’ is AE of sensation and not AE of an apple
Image labelled as ‘apple’ is AE of colour and not AE of an apple.
Sound labelled as ‘apple crunch’ is AE of sound and not AE of an apple
The thoughts ABOUT an apple are AE of thought and not AE of an apple.

So what is actually appearing is label + smell + taste + sensation + colour + sound + thoughts about these being an apple…but in actual experience can an apple be found/known?

When you say "The label "apple" is known" I am assuming you mean the thought about an apple is an actual experience (even thought the content of that thought, ie "apple", is not).

Yes. Are you not aware of the word/thought ‘apple’ when it appears? Are you not aware of the thoughts about an apple when they appear? Are you not aware of all and any thoughts when they appear?

Nice job looking, John :)

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Apple is unknown because it doesn’t exist. Everything that thoughts labels as an apple exists ie sound, smell, taste, colour, sensation and thoughts about an apple is known…but can an apple actually be found IN/AS sound, smell, taste, colour, sensation and thought?

I think I need to pause you a bit here. I am fully clear that actual experience is just the raw sense perceptions, including thought. Anything in terms of the content of thought (interpretation, meaning, concepts, words) do not actually exist in reality, only in thought. As such, the labels which we apply to the sense perceptions we receive are not reliable. Therefore, in terms of my EXPERIENCE, the only thing that I can be sure exists, are those same sense providers - the sound (uninterpreted), the colour/shape (uninterpreted), the taste (uninterpreted) etc.

But! What I am struggling with is your statement that the apple is unknown because IT DOESN'T EXIST. How can you say that? I get that the raw phenomenon we receive though AE is all we know for sure and that anything we overlay on that is fluffy and unreliable. But how can you say for sure the apple doesn't exist, the object doesn't exist? Because if the object doesn't exist then what is the source of the colour, the taste etc? Or do you accept something exists to supply the colour, it's just that to call it an apple and to "name" it is to give it a definition/meaning/label we are unauthorised/unqualified to do?

The apple cannot be found as colour, smell, no, I get that. But that is different from saying it, or something, doesn't exist.

Please help with me on what you mean by the apple doesn't exist. Do you mean it doesn't exist or it isn't known?

So what is actually appearing is label + smell + taste + sensation + colour + sound + thoughts about these being an apple…but in actual experience can an apple be found/known?

No, in actual experience an apple can't be found/known. But with reference to my point above, I can't make the leap from that to state definitively that it doesn't exist. Maybe I'm missing something.

Yes. Are you not aware of the word/thought ‘apple’ when it appears? Are you not aware of the thoughts about an apple when they appear? Are you not aware of all and any thoughts when they appear?

Yes I am aware of any and all thoughts as they appear. In the same way that I am aware of a smell, or a colour. They are all phenomena, appearing in my awareness/consciousness. An apple doesn't appear in my consciousness, just a label of apple (as a thought), which I give to the sense perceptions I am receiving. And the label apple is not an apple.

Oh boy.

Thought I was doing well but there is this uneasy feeling I may be skidding off the track!

Over to you.

John

[Drumps]

If the apple doesn't exist then nothing exists, except MY sense perceptions/Actual Experience. In which case are those existing in a vacuum?
Are we saying nothing exists except awareness/consciousness?

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

Apple is unknown because it doesn’t exist. Everything that thoughts labels as an apple exists ie sound, smell, taste, colour, sensation and thoughts about an apple is known…but can an apple actually be found IN/AS sound, smell, taste, colour, sensation and thought?

I think I need to pause you a bit here. I am fully clear that actual experience is just the raw sense perceptions, including thought. Anything in terms of the content of thought (interpretation, meaning, concepts, words) do not actually exist in reality, only in thought. As such, the labels which we apply to the sense perceptions we receive are not reliable. Therefore, in terms of my EXPERIENCE, the only thing that I can be sure exists, are those same sense providers - the sound (uninterpreted), the colour/shape (uninterpreted), the taste (uninterpreted) etc.

Yes, spot on

But! What I am struggling with is your statement that the apple is unknown because IT DOESN'T EXIST. How can you say that? I get that the raw phenomenon we receive though AE is all we know for sure and that anything we overlay on that is fluffy and unreliable. But how can you say for sure the apple doesn't exist, the object doesn't exist? Because if the object doesn't exist then what is the source of the colour, the taste etc? Or do you accept something exists to supply the colour, it's just that to call it an apple and to "name" it is to give it a definition/meaning/label we are unauthorised/unqualified to do?

Great question!
There is experience itself (THIS/source/awareness – whatever word you use) that IS colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation and thought. They do not and cannot be apart from experience itself. Coloursoundsmellthoughtsensationtaste = experience/THIS exactly as it is (they are synonymous).



Have a look at this abstract painting.

Experience/THIS can be likened to an abstract painting and if you look at an abstract painting you start to see shapes etc within the painting itself. Those shapes aren’t really there…but they SEEM (appear) to be. So from that perspective...do the shapes really exist? The same is happening with life. It is thought that divides experience into different abstractions and gives them objectivity via labels (colour, sound, thought, smell, taste, sensation), dimensions, meaning and purpose and then further overlays these with stories about them.

When you look at the painting…all there is, is the paint. The paint is appearing exactly as it is…the same goes for experience/THIS. THIS is appearing exactly as it is – whole, complete and seamless…only thought divides it.
Can you see this?

The apple cannot be found as colour, smell, no, I get that. But that is different from saying it, or something, doesn't exist.

So let’s clear that up



Thought says that this is a painting of a tree….right?

Can a tree actually be found in the paint?
Does the paint become a tree, or is the tree simply paint which thought then suggests is a tree and is separate to the paint?
Does the tree change or affect the paint in any way or does the paint remain as paint?
So the paint SEEMS to be appearing as a tree, but does it become a tree?

So what is actually appearing is label + smell + taste + sensation + colour + sound + thoughts about these being an apple…but in actual experience can an apple be found/known?

No, in actual experience an apple can't be found/known. But with reference to my point above, I can't make the leap from that to state definitively that it doesn't exist. Maybe I'm missing something.

No, you aren’t missing something. Like anything, it takes looking over and over to see if what is being pointed to can be seen. That is what is good about being guided. You aren’t being asked to believe anything…you are asked to look and see it for yourself. I don’t know how old you are…but we are taught from an early age that an apple is an apple and that it exists in its own right. It doesn’t. There is nothing separate. We aren’t denying what appears…we are investigating whether or not whatever is appearing exists in its own right as thought opines it does.

Thought I was doing well but there is this uneasy feeling I may be skidding off the track!

Nope you are not skidding off the tracks. This investigation will turn you upside down though as it goes against everything you think you know and believe.

If the apple doesn't exist then nothing exists, except MY sense perceptions/Actual Experience. In which case are those existing in a vacuum?
Are we saying nothing exists except awareness/consciousness?

There are no ‘things’. For there to be ‘things’ means that there is an object/subject split which would mean that separation is real…and it’s not. All ‘appearances’ are appearances of THIS/experience, but THIS is not an ‘appearance‘ of anything, as there is no thing for THIS to be an appearance of. (Look at the abstract painting again). Can you see the paradox and why it cannot be intellectually gotten. It has to be seen to be realised. Please don’t get wrapped up in this…it will become clearer as we move through this exploration.

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

I guess it's starting to get interesting now.

Experience/THIS can be likened to an abstract painting and if you look at an abstract painting you start to see shapes etc within the painting itself. Those shapes aren’t really there…but they SEEM (appear) to be. So from that perspective...do the shapes really exist? The same is happening with life. It is thought that divides experience into different abstractions and gives them objectivity via labels (colour, sound, thought, smell, taste, sensation), dimensions, meaning and purpose and then further overlays these with stories about them.

Very nice picture by the way. ;)

This does indeed take us into fertile territory. You may have picked up my interest in art from previous posts which is why you have chosen this example.

What you say is of course absolutely right in that when people look at abstract art they do, to a greater or lesser extent, read into them familiar shapes and patterns and objects/scenes. Something truly abstract would have no emotional impact on us. The way we understand everything around us is through association with things we have seen before, stored in our memory banks. So my view is that there is really no such thing as abstract art - just degrees of abstraction (moving from the most abstract art to realistic art). But they are all basically understood, and have an emotional impact on us, in the same way. It's the same process. 1. Look 2. Compare 3. Understand 4. Feel something. Without 2 & 3 you won't get 4.

What you are doing, which is something of a revelation to me, is turning that completely on its head and saying there is nothing but abstraction. And where we give figurative interpretation to the visual information we are seeing, this is only in our heads (thought) and does not exist in reality. I think I can get that. I tried that today sitting at traffic lights watching cars go by. And consciously wiped my brain of association (and any presumption of what I was looking at) and instead of seeing cars and people go by, what I saw was a series of moving shapes (me again!) and colours. And very pleasant and entertaining it was too. Not very easy to keep up for a long time though. The lights changed!

When you look at the painting…all there is, is the paint. The paint is appearing exactly as it is…the same goes for experience/THIS. THIS is appearing exactly as it is – whole, complete and seamless…only thought divides it.
Can you see this?

Yes I think I'm with you on this. It's just colour. Colour in my AE and when things start to appear (though association) that's just my mind doing what it has basically been trained to do. But it is a good example you have picked with the abstract painting because it is clear the things my mind is seeing clearly aren't there, even loosely.

Can a tree actually be found in the paint?
Does the paint become a tree, or is the tree simply paint which thought then suggests is a tree and is separate to the paint?
Does the tree change or affect the paint in any way or does the paint remain as paint?
So the paint SEEMS to be appearing as a tree, but does it become a tree?

No, a tree cannot be found in the paint. A tree can only be found in my thoughts about the paint(ing).
The paint does not become a tree. And we should also not forget that couldn't happen because there is no paint there either, just colour, experienced.

Another example I just thought of is the habit we have of making objects out of the clouds in the sky. We as humans want to do this type of thing all the time, it's what we're hard-wired to do. Make associations. And it's fun for us because it is a play on how our brain works. But of course the things we see in the sky aren't there, and are changing all the time. All in our head.

There are no ‘things’. For there to be ‘things’ means that there is an object/subject split which would mean that separation is real…and it’s not

I think you will understand that while I get where you're coming from here and intellectually follow this statement, it is a bit of a leap for me to feel this at this stage. Not just in terms of that statement in and of itself but also the drop jaw wonderment about how in the name of God it would be to live if you weren't seeing all this stuff as separate objects! That is not to diminish what I have said previously about my grasp of the fact that all we are getting through AE is the colour, the smell etc of which we make something that is not, of its own right, there.

All ‘appearances’ are appearances of THIS/experience, but THIS is not an ‘appearance‘ of anything, as there is no thing for THIS to be an appearance of.

Forgive my crude philosophising in an attempt to follow you here. Oneness for dummies. Everything is one thing (but not actually a thing). If everything is one thing, the separation of stuff into different stand-alone broken off bits is just plain wrong, but the unfortunate lot we mature adults seems to have drawn. In actual fact what we experience is colour, smell, touch and other senses which are constituent elements of a wholeness and not different things. And somehow I suspect you may come to tell me that the sensing of that colour, sound etc is not different from the being of that colour/sound. Because it's all one thing. Am I close?

Please don’t get wrapped up in this…

I'm actually quite enjoying getting wrapped up in this. But no idea where I'm going.

Your go.

John

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

I enjoyed reading your responses! :)

I guess it's starting to get interesting now.

Yes, it is always interesting to me! LOOKING can become monotonous at times…but it is the key and therefore a necessity for the realisation of no self to happen.

Experience/THIS can be likened to an abstract painting and if you look at an abstract painting you start to see shapes etc within the painting itself. Those shapes aren’t really there…but they SEEM (appear) to be.

The way we understand everything around us is through association with things we have seen before, stored in our memory banks.

Yes, it seems this way. However, where in AE can a ‘memory bank’ be found?

Time is a concept. There is no past, present or future. What seems to be a previous association with something can only be accredited to appearing thoughts. Without thought, how is it known that there are associations or that what is appearing has appeared before?

What you are doing, which is something of a revelation to me, is turning that completely on its head and saying there is nothing but abstraction. And where we give figurative interpretation to the visual information we are seeing, this is only in our heads (thought) and does not exist in reality. I think I can get that.

Yes, exactly – we are unlearning everything you think you know - turning everything topsy turvy! This can be discombobulating and become fearful…let me know when fear appears so we can look at what is really appearing.

No 'thing' exists in its own right. That would mean that there is a creator of objects which = two. We are not denying appearances but we also don’t believe what thought says those appearances are.

Thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about AE and thoughts and thoughts.

For example, colour (image) isn't story, but thought could say, "Wow! What a spectacular sunset!" If colour labelled "sunset," isn't you current direct experience in this moment, then it IS a thought story ie thoughts ABOUT colour and doesn’t exist.
Can you see this?

I tried that today sitting at traffic lights watching cars go by. And consciously wiped my brain of association (and any presumption of what I was looking at) and instead of seeing cars and people go by, what I saw was a series of moving shapes (me again!) and colours. And very pleasant and entertaining it was too. Not very easy to keep up for a long time though. The lights changed!

Nice!

When you look at the painting…all there is, is the paint. The paint is appearing exactly as it is…the same goes for experience/THIS. THIS is appearing exactly as it is – whole, complete and seamless…only thought divides it.
Can you see this?

Yes I think I'm with you on this. It's just colour. Colour in my AE and when things start to appear (though association) that's just my mind doing what it has basically been trained to do.

What is the AE of ‘mind’?
Can a mind be found behind thoughts?

Can a tree actually be found in the paint?
Does the paint become a tree, or is the tree simply paint which thought then suggests is a tree and is separate to the paint?
Does the tree change or affect the paint in any way or does the paint remain as paint?

So the paint SEEMS to be appearing as a tree, but does it become a tree?
No, a tree cannot be found in the paint. A tree can only be found in my thoughts about the paint(ing).

The paint does not become a tree. And we should also not forget that couldn't happen because there is no paint there either, just colour, experienced.

Yes the paint was a metaphor for experience itself (THIS). 'Colour’ is a label that thought uses to name the indescribable ie THIS/experience.

All ‘appearances’ are appearances of THIS/experience, but THIS is not an ‘appearance‘ of anything, as there is no thing for THIS to be an appearance of.

Forgive my crude philosophising in an attempt to follow you here. Oneness for dummies. Everything is one thing (but not actually a thing). If everything is one thing, the separation of stuff into different stand-alone broken off bits is just plain wrong, but the unfortunate lot we mature adults seems to have drawn. In actual fact what we experience is colour, smell, touch and other senses which are constituent elements of a wholeness and not different things. And somehow I suspect you may come to tell me that the sensing of that colour, sound etc is not different from the being of that colour/sound. Because it's all one thing. Am I close?

Spot on! Yes…how can there be an experiencer of experience….that points to two. Experiencer and experience are one and the same. There is no 'AND'.

We are jumping the gun here…but…

Sit quietly somewhere where you won't be disturbed.
Take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and then close your eyes.

When closing the eyes, notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?

Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Okay….then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

Is there anything that is witnessing colour?

Is the ‘see-er’ of the seen actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience?

I lobbed the ball back into your court...your turn ;) :)

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Yes, it seems this way. However, where in AE can a ‘memory bank’ be found?

Time is a concept. There is no past, present or future. What seems to be a previous association with something can only be accredited to appearing thoughts. Without thought, how is it known that there are associations or that what is appearing has appeared before?

Of course in AE there is no memory bank. I understand that. It is a concept existing in thought. Although the associations that I refer to do not exist necessarily in thought but more often in sub consciousness. So the associations are not necessarily thought through - although they can be. But of course where is sub consciousness in AE? Nowhere to be found, so that doesn't exist in terms of AE.

I struggle to grasp the idea of time not existing. because even if we disregard yesterday and the real past and say everything is just "arising" from nothing. By definition for something to arise (ie not have been here and then be here) that implies a movement/change and that implies time - which surely is nothing other than change. If everything didn't change and stayed absolutely static we would have a hard time making up the concept of time. But given things are arising all the time it makes the concept of time rather convenient. And if I go with you and abandon the concept of time, I have a hard job knowing what to put in its place. Notwithstanding that I do also get that the mind is rooted in time and given it is always jumping from past present and future.

But I'm guessing, based on my experience, that in the overall seeing of no me, the absence of time/space is rarely the fist thing that people grasp(?). It's a bit out there.

Thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about AE and thoughts and thoughts.

For example, colour (image) isn't story, but thought could say, "Wow! What a spectacular sunset!" If colour labelled "sunset," isn't you current direct experience in this moment, then it IS a thought story ie thoughts ABOUT colour and doesn’t exist.
Can you see this?

I think what you are referring to is like what I said in a previous post about the qualitative difference between looking at a tree (in AE) and thinking about the same tree (ie when it is not there). One is direct experience (sharp, alive) whilst the thought story about a tree doesn't exist. Clearly given how much time we spend in thought story's (pictures, dialogues, words and concepts in the head) none of which exist and are fuzzy and poor in definition, this makes a large part of our experience qualitatively weak.

What is the AE of ‘mind’?
Can a mind be found behind thoughts?

I'm sensing a trick question here. We already established that actual experience of brain is thought. Actual experience of mind? Mind doesn't exist? No, for sure, no mind can be found behind thought so I'm questioning does it exist. I guess what you are saying, on our terms, is anything that can't be found in actual experience doesn't exist. Would I be right in that? Like the apple we talked about. It isn't found in AE, just colours, texture etc. No apple.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?

1) Yes Just AE of colour labelled black.
2) No just black.
3) No it cannot.
4) When I focus on the black, without thought, there is no me. When thought drifts in, and when it picks up other sense providers, sound, my bum on the seat, it puts together a bouquet of senses and tells me it adds up to me.

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or ‘black’ just is?

No generally black just is. With the exception outlined in number 4 above.

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?

No, wonderfully in this there is no dividing line between seeing and colour. It's just one thing. Inseparable.

Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

No a see-er can't be found. But the seeing is somehow found in the seen.

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

I think I need to sit with this idea for a bit more into tomorrow (it's been a long day - even though time doesn't exist!) because I know this is important. I know that the see-er is just a concept but I don't know it, really feel it. If you know what I mean.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

They are both just an appearance of colour.

Is there anything that is witnessing colour?

This is the one I am struggling with. I know there's nothing but it still feels like me.

Is the ‘see-er’ of the seen actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience?

This is relatively easy for me. Both with the black with the eyes closed and the various colour when open. It is clear to me that the seeing and the seen are the same unbroken thing. But rather than this meaning there is no see-er, this feels to me more like the seen is me. The seen is drawn towards me rather than there being no me. I'm me, and that is me too! And I'm out there too. I think that is an important indicator of where I'm at. I get, or at least in many vivid moments, the continuity/oneness, but it's all me - which I know isn't the deal.

That's all for now. Sorry some of my answers have been a bit un-expansive today. I was going to save the draft and send tomorrow but thought it better we keep the momentum up. Like I said, long, timeless, day.

John

[forgetmenot]

Good morning John,

If I am giving you too much to look at in one hit…let me know and I will crank it back a little. I don’t want you overwhelmed or overthinking. I just want you to be able to look carefully without being hurried.

Time is a concept. There is no past, present or future. What seems to be a previous association with something can only be accredited to appearing thoughts. Without thought, how is it known that there are associations or that what is appearing has appeared before?

Of course in AE there is no memory bank. I understand that. It is a concept existing in thought. Although the associations that I refer to do not exist necessarily in thought but more often in sub consciousness. So the associations are not necessarily thought through - although they can be. But of course where is sub consciousness in AE? Nowhere to be found, so that doesn't exist in terms of AE.

Yes, memory and subconscious are concepts/stories that appear in the dream/show and concepts are just abstractions in/of this utterly indivisible and seamless show. Any divisions of the indivisible are meaningless. So concepts are meaningless.

I struggle to grasp the idea of time not existing. because even if we disregard yesterday and the real past and say everything is just "arising" from nothing. By definition for something to arise (ie not have been here and then be here) that implies a movement/change and that implies time - which surely is nothing other than change.

The one constant in the dream is change, however if you go back to the abstract painting…is anything really changing or do shapes/objects just appear? Do you actually go looking for these shapes/object or do they seem to ‘stand out’ on their own? (If you get what I mean?)

Look at this doodle. It looks like there are a lot of separate things…right?



Life seems to be a gigantic soup of experience that is grouped, categorised and labelled as things. There seems to be a ‘me’ that is ‘here’ that is experiencing things that are ‘out there’, and all those things ‘out there’ are all individual separate things.

None of it is separated except through thought because all of the images present are just one big canvas. Sounds overlap and intrude on each other, and there is a thought that says “I can separate bird song from car horns. Look! See? I've just named them!” But what is actually appearing is sound, with perhaps an image of a bird and an image of a car, and thoughts ABOUT sound appearing as a bird and car!

And thought appears saying “I can separate a cat from a book. See, I’ve just named them!” But what is actually appearing is colour and thoughts ABOUT colour appearing as shapes/images labelled ‘cat’ and ‘book’.

‘Things’ seemingly appear and there are never not things, but have a LOOK to see what is actually appearing.

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene. Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?

If everything didn't change and stayed absolutely static we would have a hard time making up the concept of time. But given things are arising all the time it makes the concept of time rather convenient. And if I go with you and abandon the concept of time, I have a hard job knowing what to put in its place. Notwithstanding that I do also get that the mind is rooted in time and given it is always jumping from past present and future.

But I'm guessing, based on my experience, that in the overall seeing of no me, the absence of time/space is rarely the fist thing that people grasp(?). It's a bit out there.

There is no you who needs the concept of time, or is making up the concept of time! Seeing through the illusion of “I” doesn’t mean you will lose the “I” and with it your whole identity and all concepts. The “I” doesn’t exist, not even now as you are reading these lines. If there really is no inherent self, how would the experience be different from what already is?

And yes…it’s a little too soon to be looking at the idea of time. It will be looked at later.

What is the AE of ‘mind’?
Can a mind be found behind thoughts?

I'm sensing a trick question here. We already established that actual experience of brain is thought. Actual experience of mind? Mind doesn't exist? No, for sure, no mind can be found behind thought so I'm questioning does it exist. I guess what you are saying, on our terms, is anything that can't be found in actual experience doesn't exist. Would I be right in that? Like the apple we talked about. It isn't found in AE, just colours, texture etc. No apple.

Yes exactly, if it cannot be found as AE then it isn’t known! THIS/experience only knows itself as itself. Experience never becomes what it SEEMS to appear as, because appearances come and go, whereas experience always IS.

4) When I focus on the black, without thought, there is no me. When thought drifts in, and when it picks up other sense providers, sound, my bum on the seat, it puts together a bouquet of senses and tells me it adds up to me.

Nice! A ‘mental’ image (impression) of a ‘me’ may appear. Is that image an actual ‘me’? Or is it simply an image which thought suggests is a ‘me’?
Does the impression/image itself know anything about a ‘me’?
Do any of the other ‘senses’ know anything about a ‘me’?

Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

No a see-er can't be found. But the seeing is somehow found in the seen.

Yes. Seeing and seen are one and the same, as is seeing and knowing. Seeing of colour and seeing of seeing are one and the same = colour

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

I think I need to sit with this idea for a bit more into tomorrow (it's been a long day - even though time doesn't exist!) because I know this is important. I know that the see-er is just a concept but I don't know it, really feel it. If you know what I mean.

I don’t know how you are going to “feel it”! What this exploration does is plants many seeds. By you looking at what is being pointed at, it becomes seen, however can it actually be grasped and experienced….no. These seeds come together, so to speak and a penny dropping moment happens…this is when it becomes a realisation. And the realisation of not separate self happens, but the realisation of other things won’t happen in the time frame of this exploration, but will continue to percolate afterwards, until other penny dropping moments (realisations) happen.

Sit in a chair somewhere quiet and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust. Begin to notice the ‘body’, the chair, the floor, the rugs, the furniture and the walls. Without thought, all there is, is colour which thought then labels as clothes, or body, chair, wall etc (we are only looking at colour for this exercise).

Now look carefully.
1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?
2. Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniture’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug and furniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’, ‘furniture’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just simply colour?
What do you find?

Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply seamless colour which thought divides into ‘things’ and further divides in into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?

Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

Is there anything that is witnessing colour?

This is the one I am struggling with. I know there's nothing but it still feels like me.

There has never been a ‘me’ so how would not ‘feeling like a me’ feel like exactly?

Is the ‘see-er’ of the seen actually separate from the seen, or is it all a singular experience?

This is relatively easy for me. Both with the black with the eyes closed and the various colour when open. It is clear to me that the seeing and the seen are the same unbroken thing. But rather than this meaning there is no see-er, this feels to me more like the seen is me. The seen is drawn towards me rather than there being no me. I'm me, and that is me too! And I'm out there too. I think that is an important indicator of where I'm at. I get, or at least in many vivid moments, the continuity/oneness, but it's all me - which I know isn't the deal.

Yes…the see-er and the seen are one and the same and they are you, not John - as there is no John…but the You who is self aware.

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

If I am giving you too much to look at in one hit…let me know and I will crank it back a little. I don’t want you overwhelmed or overthinking. I just want you to be able to look carefully without being hurried.

No we're OK thanks. I'm up for it it's just if I have a particularly busy day there may be a dip in my responses. But generally that won't happen and I will let you know if I am getting too much from you.

The one constant in the dream is change, however if you go back to the abstract painting…is anything really changing or do shapes/objects just appear? Do you actually go looking for these shapes/object or do they seem to ‘stand out’ on their own? (If you get what I mean?)

With respect, I don't think you've answered my point. How can you have change without time because in my definition, change is time. Nothing is changing in the abstract painting because it is static and fixed. The change happens in the minds perception of that fixed object as the viewing matures and things that didn't seem to be there appear, but that is only happening in our imagination and doesn't exist. But you are not suggesting that existence is a fixed phenomenon (like the abstract painting) and the change (and time) which we perceive is only happening in the mind(?). Or maybe you are.

Look at this doodle. It looks like there are a lot of separate things…right?

I really like this picture and what it helps to show. Which I am seeing. As you say reality just one big homogeneous soup that our mind makes different 'things' out of. And of course it is really one big thing when you think about it (as we will discuss more below). Of things that are not really separate at all - in terms of our direct, Actual Experience, as opposed to thought.

Never read any Alan Watts but heard of him. There's only so much of this stuff you can read and I am enjoying absolutely not reading anything while following your guide. Refreshing. Look for myself.

None of it is separated except through thought because all of the images present are just one big canvas. Sounds overlap and intrude on each other, and there is a thought that says “I can separate bird song from car horns. Look! See? I've just named them!” But what is actually appearing is sound, with perhaps an image of a bird and an image of a car, and thoughts ABOUT sound appearing as a bird and car!

Not necessarily what you are talking about but a few weeks ago as I was sat in my garden listening to cars moving outside my house while one of my dogs at my feet, I had a very strong sense of both of those things (car sound and dog) being not different. Hard to describe, but coming from the same energy. I wouldn't want to make too much out of it but the feeling was there. It wasn't a thought. Certainly wasn't an overall oneness but because what I happened to be focusing on sort of simultaneously, they constituted a kind of "mini-oneness" for me in that moment. Its sort of what you are saying about the different sounds being not different but I thought it was quite cool to feel across the senses.

Nice! A ‘mental’ image (impression) of a ‘me’ may appear. Is that image an actual ‘me’? Or is it simply an image which thought suggests is a ‘me’?
Does the impression/image itself know anything about a ‘me’?
Do any of the other ‘senses’ know anything about a ‘me’?

It's funny but I don't think a mental image of me really describes it. Because if someone asked me what my image of me is, I wouldn't be able to say because I don't know. I think even people who don't think about these kind of things would have a hard job giving an image of their true self (which they are sure exists), because I don't think even normal people really think their self is their outer body. More the inner self and that doesn't have an image, more a sense. But of course this is all immaterial because whether you look for the self of the image or the self of the sense it ain't there. I think I'm preaching to the converted. ;-)
The sense of me doesn't know anything about me because it is a sense (I quite like that, feels somehow important)
No, seeing definitely doesn't know anything about a me and the seeing isn't my own personal property. Or anyone's.

1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?
2. Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniture’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug and furniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’, ‘furniture’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just simply colour?
What do you find?

I will treat these together. Very interesting, I have been looking at this throughout the day in quiet moments.
Firstly as someone who draws a lot, the line between one thing and another, or one edge and another, is the staple of what I do. I'm looking for lines all the time. It's what you work with. And that, I guess is what I use to define separate things.

But looking at it again, from an actual experience point of view rather than resting on my previous preconceptions, what I am looking out on, is a wall of colour. The "junction" from one so called thing to another is just what my mind defines as a change in colour but it's all colour, just colour. Colour is continuous along the spectrum of my vision. And much as I said to you the other day about watching cars and they weren't known, named objects, just colours moving, you can extend that and say the colours aren't known, separate, colours (because that's in the mind) but rather just colour. And when it's all seen as a solid palette of colour, it ceases to be a list of identifiable things. At the end of the day it is all just light. It's light energy.

Same with sound, It's all just sound energy. And like I said with my experience of the dog and the car sounds taken as one, it's all just...

Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?

This is cool. Distance, space, in our perception is partly based on the sharpness of objects near us and the more blurred objects in the distance. And also on the way the lens in our eye adjusts to light coming from different distances (to gauge how far away they are). But when you can perceive it all as just a canvas of colour, let's say, or light, it doesn't matter if that light is in a sharp or blurred format, then space and distance disappear. It is light but not only just light, it is NO DISTANCE AWAY. And yes, as we've said before, the seeing of that colour and the colour itself are not different. Another thought did occur to me. Given that the stuff we are talking about is light waves, and those light waves are hitting our cornea, at the point where experience is happening (consciousness of colour) it factually IS no distance away. Light wave hits sensors in the eye, boom!, here we go. Don't trust me, I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, but the idea feels cool to me. The colour/light is no distance away from us. Even the light from distant start are hitting our cornea, touching us. Becoming us.

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

It's just colour. With my seeing. I do however feel sensations in those legs. But interestingly, it is not possible for me to accurately "box" those feelings into the colour formations in front of me. They are just feelings. Somehow floating and cloudy. Real, but certainly not something that neatly fits into the tubes of my leg and seems to go beyond them somehow. But I know I'm drifting a bit off message.

There has never been a ‘me’ so how would not ‘feeling like a me’ feel like exactly?

You do a mean line in mind twisting riddles. And you know you do!

My guess is it would feel exactly like things have always felt. Like things feel right now.

Back over to you.
We're into the weekend (you before me) and I have plenty of time so hit me with both barrels...

John