What's here?

[forgetmenot]

Hi Veda,

If you say "I want you to think of an apple", the thought of an apple arises immediately, which makes it seem that I'm actually choosing the thought of apple. However I notice that if you just say "apple" the thought of apple also arises - and that seems less like I'm choosing the thought and more like just an automatic thought arising in response to the word apple. The fact that you also say "I want you to think of...." makes it SEEM like there has been an agent ('I') that has chosen the thought in response to your command, but actually the thought just arises automatically in hearing (AE) the word apple. It's that labeling machine again!

In this…how did you choose to think “I want you to think of an apple”? Did you even choose that thought, or did that thought just appear on its own as well? Where did you go to find that thought …to bring that particular thought to the forefront of your mind, in order for you to become aware of it, to then think “I want you to think of an apple? Where was this thought stored? How did you know that you wanted that thought to think? In that moment of the thought “I want you to think of an apple”…the thought about apple has already happened…has it not? Where was the agent who thought they wanted to think “I want you to think of an apple”?

Here is something you can ponder:-

1. Please describe how you decide/intend which thought/s you are going to think?
2. Describe where in your mind you go exactly, to retrieve a particular thought, or set of thoughts to think?
3. Describe the location where are all thoughts are stored, so you can go to the thought pool/container and retrieve the thought you have decided/intended to think?
4. Describe, in precise detail, how you then bring that thought from the thought pool to the forefront of the mind for you to become aware of it?
5. Without being aware of the thought you want to retrieve, how would you know what thought you are going to retrieve to think it? And how can you retrieve it when you are already aware of it?

So how do you do it? How do you create a thought? How do you think?

Here’s an experiment.

Think of a 2-digit number.
Why did you choose that number? Why not the previous number, or the next one? Do you know? If not, why don’t you know? If you are the thinker of thoughts then you must know how you create them. Repeat the experiment as necessary.

So now going back to "think a better thought" - first what happens is a negative thought randomly arises. This is followed by the thought "Oh, I need to think a positive thought". Then a positive thought arises that APPEARS to be in response to the command, but ACTUALLY is just a response to the thought/words "positive thought". Is that right?

What is it that labels a thought ‘negative’ or ‘positive’?

I have no idea how thought works ie why particular thoughts are thought that make everything seem coherent, cohesive and relevant in the moment…so that it seems there is a ‘me’ who is the agent of ‘my thoughts, my life’. That, to me, is the same as asking why mosquitoes suck blood and not nectar. However, the point of this exercise and all exercises is to see if you can find the agent.

Can you find a thinker of thoughts, or do thoughts just arise and subside? When observing thoughts for that 20-30 minutes…did you observe a thinker of thought at any time, or was there a subtle or not so subtle suggestion via thoughts and feelings that there was a ‘you’ who was observing thoughts that you are thinking?

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Hi Kay,

I can see I'm going to have to be more specific in my responses as it's obvious you misunderstood my last post. Here's what I said "If you say "I want you to think of an apple". However I was referring to you, Kay, i.e. "If you, Kay, say I want you, Veda, to think of an apple"....etc.
So your questions about how I came up with the thought "I want you to think of an apple" etc don't make much sense in that context.
But let me try and respond to the gist of your questioning:

Here's what is known here so far - please correct me where I'm off base:
I don't choose my thoughts. Period. Thoughts happen, they don't even come from somewhere and go somewhere, they just happen. I don't go somewhere to find a thought, I can't be aware of a thought before it happens. Thoughts aren't stored anywhere, they are not objects, they have no existence absent the process of thinking - it's even a bit confusing to call them thoughts, what seems closer is "thinking". Thinking happens, and then thinking stops, and then thinking starts again, over and over. The awareness of this thinking is what we label a thought, but that term implies an objective existence that is not there in fact. We use the term 'thought' only as a handy label in language that's readily understood. At least that's how this all appears to me. Tell me if I'm missing something here.

Secondarily there is no thinker, at least that I can find. This runs in the face of my life-long tendency to assume that everything that 'I' do must be done by an agent, an 'I' - but 'I' can't find one. See, there's the crazy-making statement right there!- here I am saying "'I' can't find 'I'". Sheesh...
Oh well, that's what this exploration is all about so I'm counting on you to help me figure this out Kay - LOL!

OK. moving on to your questions:

1. Please describe how you decide/intend which thought/s you are going to think?

I don't. I have no idea what I'm going to think, I can't predict my next thought.

2. Describe where in your mind you go exactly, to retrieve a particular thought, or set of thoughts to think?

I don't know what you mean by 'mind'? Doesn't exist as far as I can tell. I can't retrieve a thought, although I can have a thought about a prior thought that might look like retrieval.

3. Describe the location where are all thoughts are stored, so you can go to the thought pool/container and retrieve the thought you have decided/intended to think?

Thoughts are not independent objects that can be stored, there's no pool or container. And I don't/can't decide or intend to think a thought

5. Without being aware of the thought you want to retrieve, how would you know what thought you are going to retrieve to think it? And how can you retrieve it when you are already aware of it?

I can't retrieve a thought, I can only have a new thought about a prior thought.

So how do you do it? How do you create a thought? How do you think?

I don't do it. I don't create a thought. A thought happens without any apparent agent. And I don't think - thinking happens.

Think of a 2-digit number.
Why did you choose that number? Why not the previous number, or the next one? Do you know? If not, why don’t you know? If you are the thinker of thoughts then you must know how you create them. Repeat the experiment as necessary.

This was such a fun experiment! It's clear I didn't choose the number - the number appeared out of nowhere. Almost truer to say the number chose me rather than I chose the number! Except that I can't find a chooser of the number. I can't find a thinker of the thoughts. Now the thought arises that it's even becoming a stretch to call them MY thoughts.

So now going back to "think a better thought" - first what happens is a negative thought randomly arises. This is followed by the thought "Oh, I need to think a positive thought". Then a positive thought arises that APPEARS to be in response to the command, but ACTUALLY is just a response to the thought/words "positive thought". Is that right?
What is it that labels a thought ‘negative’ or ‘positive’?

Great question Kay. It's simply another thought that labels a thought negative or positive or mine or yours or ...! Wow! It's thoughts all the way down - LOL!

Can you find a thinker of thoughts, or do thoughts just arise and subside? When observing thoughts for that 20-30 minutes…did you observe a thinker of thought at any time, or was there a subtle or not so subtle suggestion via thoughts and feelings that there was a ‘you’ who was observing thoughts that you are thinking?

No, I absolutely can't find a thinker of thoughts, it's clear that thoughts just arise and disappear. BUT yes, there's the rub - there IS a subtle suggestion that there is a 'me' observing the thoughts that are just arising. Wow - I hadn't seen that. Tricky - it just stepped back one level.
So in looking at that it seems that the sense of 'me' that is observing thoughts .... IS ITSELF A THOUGHT! Is that right? Oh my god! I think that's right - that it's my thought saying that it's not my thoughts! Hahahahahahaha! That's hilarious! Wow.....

Love and hugs to you Kay!

Veda-the-thought

[forgetmenot]

Hi Veda,

Secondarily there is no thinker, at least that I can find. This runs in the face of my life-long tendency to assume that everything that 'I' do must be done by an agent, an 'I' - but 'I' can't find one. See, there's the crazy-making statement right there!- here I am saying "'I' can't find 'I'". Sheesh...

And those “I” statements aren’t going to go away. It looks and feels like there is an “I” who is looking. The question is, can you find that which is looking….or is looking simply happening? The idea of the separate self does not disappear…however, when it becomes crystal clear that there is no Vedaself…which will take time even after the realisation…there is simply a knowing that you are not the Vedaself. You are still expecting, perhaps that somehow your thoughts will change and the self referencing...the “I” word will disappear along with the idea that there is an “I” who is walking, shopping, eating, typing. Anything that you can observe and are aware of, is ultimately, not you. It just becomes known that you are not the doer, sayer, feeler or thinker...but that takes time. There are not many who have an instant awakening like Eckharte Tolle and Byron Katie.

3. Describe the location where are all thoughts are stored, so you can go to the thought pool/container and retrieve the thought you have decided/intended to think?

Thoughts are not independent objects that can be stored, there's no pool or container. And I don't/can't decide or intend to think a thought

No, thoughts are not independent objects. Thoughts are not as thought describes themselves to be.

Is there any substance present in thinking other than the knowing of it?
- Go to the experience of thinking and go to the experience of knowing about thinking. Are they two different experiences or is it the same experience?

So now going back to "think a better thought" - first what happens is a negative thought randomly arises. This is followed by the thought "Oh, I need to think a positive thought". Then a positive thought arises that APPEARS to be in response to the command, but ACTUALLY is just a response to the thought/words "positive thought". Is that right?
What is it that labels a thought ‘negative’ or ‘positive’?

Great question Kay. It's simply another thought that labels a thought negative or positive or mine or yours or ...! Wow! It's thoughts all the way down - LOL!

Yes, exactly. It is thought that divides THIS/Awareness into different sense and then labels them as colour, smell, taste, sensations, sound + thought. Thought then further divides those into many different objects, each with their own purpose and story and this is how we perceive the world…through thoughts. That is why we notice thoughts as actual experience...but we don’t just automatically believe what they say. We check with AE to see if thought is pointing to what IS, or to story.

We can look at how thoughts overlay actual experience (what IS) with stories.

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. The purpose of watching this clip is for you to notice how the narrator of the game is no different to the narrator labelled as ‘my voice in the head’ or ‘my thoughts/thinking’.

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

1. Watch the clip for 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 and notice what the actual experience is.

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

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator offers lots of know-how and advice about what the players should or shouldn’t be doing and how they should be playing the game - as if thought can somehow influence what is going on - as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary seems to heighten feelings, and calls for loyalty with one team or another and expounds the importance of this choice, and further expounds the importance of the game and its outcome.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary. Just watch the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Just notice what is happening as actual experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know the commentator is talking about, (and ignore all of your own thoughts as well), and just notice the actual experience of sound.

Let me know how you felt when the sound was turned on. Did you get caught up in the moment with the excitement of the crowd, and/or the excitement of the commentator and his commentary of the game?
How did you feel when the sound was off and there was no commentary at all.

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 find a thinker of thoughts, or do thoughts just arise and subside? When observing thoughts for that 20-30 minutes…did you observe a thinker of thought at any time, or was there a subtle or not so subtle suggestion via thoughts and feelings that there was a ‘you’ who was observing thoughts that you are thinking?

No, I absolutely can't find a thinker of thoughts, it's clear that thoughts just arise and disappear. BUT yes, there's the rub - there IS a subtle suggestion that there is a 'me' observing the thoughts that are just arising. Wow - I hadn't seen that. Tricky - it just stepped back one level.

Yes…and this subtle suggestion is what will keep pulling you back into the idea that there is a Vedaself…the personal “I”….but the clearer you become that you cannot find this Vedaself…then the less and less you get pulled back into the story of being a Vedaself who is a finite separate being.

So in looking at that it seems that the sense of 'me' that is observing thoughts .... IS ITSELF A THOUGHT! Is that right? Oh my god! I think that's right - that it's my thought saying that it's not my thoughts! Hahahahahahaha! That's hilarious! Wow.....

Yes…nice LOOKING! Observing is happening…but can a ‘me’ be found anywhere that is doing the observing. So thought points to the subtle sense of self…and says ‘that’s me” and I am observing and doing the looking.

If you close your eyes and ignore all thoughts about the body and ignore all mental images about the body, what remains? What is the actual experience?

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Dear Kay,

Is there any substance present in thinking other than the knowing of it?
- Go to the experience of thinking and go to the experience of knowing about thinking. Are they two different experiences or is it the same experience?

No, the experience of thinking and knowing of thinking is exactly the same. In fact as I extend that to all actual experiencing, the actual experiencing and the knowing of actual experiencing is always the same. Seeing is the same as knowing of seeing. Hearing is the same as knowing of hearing, etc..
Which all means that all experiencing is simply knowing. This is huge. For some reason this seems like it should have a bigger impact on me than it seems to be having. Why is that?

Let me know how you felt when the sound was turned on. Did you get caught up in the moment with the excitement of the crowd, and/or the excitement of the commentator and his commentary of the game?

This was a powerful experiment! Yes, when the sound was turned ON I got all emotional in a way that I hadn’t moments before with the sound turned OFF. I realized to my surprise that my emotional response wasn’t in fact to the action of the game, but to the voice of the commentator. Had the voice of the commentator been simply monotone I wouldn’t have got so emotional even when a goal was scored.

How did you feel when the sound was off and there was no commentary at all.

It was surprising just how boring and distant it seemed – I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to view a whole game like that. But a thought arises – so is that what AE in life feels like without my internal commentary, without thought? Boring and distant? It sometimes seems like that but more often it just feels peaceful. This has me puzzled. What’s the attraction of AE then, if life without thought ends up as peaceful but distant or boring? Oh dear, have I just revealed myself as being a shallow, hopeless thought-junkie?

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

NO! The commentary is going on separate from the game and has absolutely no impact on it. Hmmm, so my thought-commentary has no impact on the play of my experiencing? Is that true? I look and see that thoughts can’t act. But they can seem to have an influence. Ah, no, they don’t really – it’s only the I-sense that claims ownership and imbues the thought with apparent significance. When I’m hungry I get up and go to the fridge but that happens automatically without any thought. Thought comes in afterwards and claims ownership. When I swerve to avoid the squirrel in the road, again that happens at the body level automatically, thought isn’t needed although it comes in afterwards and claims agency.

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

Well, this is a great question! I think I discovered above, that the narration of thought is not in fact necessary for the play of life. The thought process happens AFTER the action (and is where the emotion comes in too, just like the football commentary). What about less concrete examples, like getting an email saying that a friend has died? My reactions are shock (AE of sensation = pressure as I hold my breath), sadness (AE of sensation = feeling of warmth in heart area) and then thoughts arise like what can I do for the spouse, etc… but as I look at this it seems that all these happen automatically. But it has me wondering if emotions like sadness, grief, etc are purely thoughts or AE or both?

So in looking at that it seems that the sense of 'me' that is observing thoughts .... IS ITSELF A THOUGHT! Is that right? Oh my god! I think that's right - that it's my thought saying that it's not my thoughts! Hahahahahahaha! That's hilarious! Wow.....
Yes…nice LOOKING! Observing is happening…but can a ‘me’ be found anywhere that is doing the observing.

So here's the problem in a nutshell - there's no me to be found but a sense of 'I' remains, mostly in the old habit of assuming that if an action or experience is happening it must be the result of an agent (me). So is this whole thing as simple as "the sense of 'I' is just a habit?"

If you close your eyes and ignore all thoughts about the body and ignore all mental images about the body, what remains? What is the actual experience?

Oh, I love this question – it’s so pure and goes to the heart of existence. Firstly, I notice that it’s actually quite difficult to divest myself of all thoughts and mental images about the body – which tells me that this is so wired in to one’s sense of who I am that it exerts enormous influence towards the notion “I am a body/separate self”. And therefore presumably needs to go or be seen through, in order for the illusion of self to be seen through. That would seem to take some doing, this body-sensation being so deeply wired in...
However when I settle down and ignore all thoughts/images of body, what remains as actual experience is something indescribable, something that I would try and describe as “This” or “Suchness” or “vastness”, something that feels familiar but not something I pay much attention to, something that has always felt like ‘background’ but I’m beginning to sense might turn out to be the true ‘foreground’.

Observing thoughts and feelings arising here of being at sea and a bit lost...but what are feelings?

Love to you dear Kay - hoping you can provide assistance...but how and to who...?
Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hello Veda,

Nice to see your return and I hope all is well with you. I have given you quite a bit to ponder and do in this post. Please take your time, a couple of days if needed, reading my post and doing the exercises.

Is there any substance present in thinking other than the knowing of it?
- Go to the experience of thinking and go to the experience of knowing about thinking. Are they two different experiences or is it the same experience?

No, the experience of thinking and knowing of thinking is exactly the same. In fact as I extend that to all actual experiencing, the actual experiencing and the knowing of actual experiencing is always the same. Seeing is the same as knowing of seeing. Hearing is the same as knowing of hearing, etc..
Which all means that all experiencing is simply knowing. This is huge. For some reason this seems like it should have a bigger impact on me than it seems to be having. Why is that?

And what exactly is it that wants to know why? It is the whying that convolutes the simplicity of it all. You are overthinking it all and this is what makes for confusion, doubt, unnecessary questions, and the going down rabbit hole! What this is, why it is…is a mystery.

How? Implies cause.
Why? Implies meaning.
Where? Implies space.
When? Implies time.
What? Implies thingness.

How did you feel when the sound was off and there was no commentary at all.

It was surprising just how boring and distant it seemed – I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to view a whole game like that. But a thought arises – so is that what AE in life feels like without my internal commentary, without thought? Boring and distant? It sometimes seems like that but more often it just feels peaceful. This has me puzzled. What’s the attraction of AE then, if life without thought ends up as peaceful but distant or boring? Oh dear, have I just revealed myself as being a shallow, hopeless thought-junkie?

And so a thought arises….so what? Are you the author of that thought?
And what is the AE of “boring” and of “distant”?
And what is it exactly that feels bored and distant?

Let’s look at the idea of “boring”.

The label “boring’ is AE of thought and not AE of boredom
Feeling labelled as “boring” is AE of thought and not AE of boredom
Sensation labelled as “bored” is AE of sensation and not AE of boredom
Colour labelled as body/I/Me is AE of colour and not AE of a me who is bored
Thoughts about ‘boredom”…what boredom means and the story of what is boring are AE of thought and not AE of boredom.

So what is actually appearing (known) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about boredom. Can boredom actually be found? Does label, sensation, colour or thought suggest in any way that they are “boredom” itself? Or what is found is that there are only thoughts about "boredom"?

Here’s an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily ACTIVITIES, OBJECTS AND EMOTIONS/FEELINGS simply as colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:

Seeing a cup, simply= image/colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell,
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation.
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought.

Just break down objects, emotions and daily activities into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go, giving some examples please.

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

Well, this is a great question! I think I discovered above, that the narration of thought is not in fact necessary for the play of life. The thought process happens AFTER the action (and is where the emotion comes in too, just like the football commentary). What about less concrete examples, like getting an email saying that a friend has died? My reactions are shock (AE of sensation = pressure as I hold my breath), sadness (AE of sensation = feeling of warmth in heart area) and then thoughts arise like what can I do for the spouse, etc… but as I look at this it seems that all these happen automatically. But it has me wondering if emotions like sadness, grief, etc are purely thoughts or AE or both?

Have a look at sadness as AE and let me know what you find.

So in looking at that it seems that the sense of 'me' that is observing thoughts .... IS ITSELF A THOUGHT! Is that right? Oh my god! I think that's right - that it's my thought saying that it's not my thoughts! Hahahahahahaha! That's hilarious! Wow.....

Yes…nice LOOKING! Observing is happening…but can a ‘me’ be found anywhere that is doing the observing.

So here's the problem in a nutshell - there's no me to be found but a sense of 'I' remains, mostly in the old habit of assuming that if an action or experience is happening it must be the result of an agent (me). So is this whole thing as simple as "the sense of 'I' is just a habit?"

Yes…it is a habit. This sense of agency, the sense of a self being the centre does fall away apparently…but it takes time.

If you close your eyes and ignore all thoughts about the body and ignore all mental images about the body, what remains? What is the actual experience?

Oh, I love this question – it’s so pure and goes to the heart of existence. Firstly, I notice that it’s actually quite difficult to divest myself of all thoughts and mental images about the body – which tells me that this is so wired in to one’s sense of who I am that it exerts enormous influence towards the notion “I am a body/separate self”. And therefore presumably needs to go or be seen through, in order for the illusion of self to be seen through. That would seem to take some doing, this body-sensation being so deeply wired in...

Yes, exactly. When I close my eyes and put aside all thoughts and mental images of the body…I am left with subtle sensations. But when I look at them closely, they do not shape a form ie they aren’t in the outline of a body or anything in particular. They are simply sensations that are appearing in no particular location…in what is called space, or the void, or one’s field of awareness.

However when I settle down and ignore all thoughts/images of body, what remains as actual experience is something indescribable, something that I would try and describe as “This” or “Suchness” or “vastness”, something that feels familiar but not something I pay much attention to, something that has always felt like ‘background’ but I’m beginning to sense might turn out to be the true ‘foreground’.

Hmmm…lots of thinking and no actual looking with actual experience was done! Actual experience is simply colour, smell, taste, smell, sensation and thought. Where in AE can you find this something that is indescribable?

If you look at actual experience, are they describable?
How would you describe the colour pink to someone who is blind?
Describe to me what the taste labelled as ‘banana’ tastes like.
Describe what the smell labelled as ‘toast’ smells like.
Describe what the sensation labelled as ‘goosebumps’ are.
Describe what the sound labelled ‘tweet tweet’ is.
Describe to me what a thought is.
Are these ‘things’ at all describable?

If you drop all the labels of colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought….what remains? Let’s investigate this:-

If you look at a table, and for the sake of this experiment, let’s say it is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’ and you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what are you left with…what remains?

Observing thoughts and feelings arising here of being at sea and a bit lost...but what are feelings?

I gave you the exercise of breaking down AE into activities, objects and emotions. So now…you tell me what feelings are?

With love,
Kay

[dutton]

Hi Kay,

And what exactly is it that wants to know why? It is the whying that convolutes the simplicity of it all. You are overthinking it all and this is what makes for confusion, doubt, unnecessary questions, and the going down rabbit hole! What this is, why it is…is a mystery.

Guilty as charged. Thank you – this was helpful – I see now that I AM overthinking this. And there’s relief at the idea that it's OK to just let it be unknowable. .

And so a thought arises….so what? Are you the author of that thought?
And what is the AE of “boring” and of “distant”?
And what is it exactly that feels bored and distant?

No, Looking shows that I’m not the author of that thought, not even the thinker of that thought. The AE of “boring” and “distant” is just thought. I see that the AE of any adjective is always just thought. What feels bored and distant cannot be found, there is no-one there – all that is found is AE of more thought.

So what is actually appearing (known) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts about boredom. Can boredom actually be found? Does label, sensation, colour or thought suggest in any way that they are “boredom” itself? Or what is found is that there are only thoughts about "boredom"?

No, boredom cannot be found, just the AE of thought. All that is found is that there only thoughts about boredom, nothing else. I see that abstract nouns like peace, justice, wisdom, etc are also just AE of thought.

Just break down objects, emotions and daily activities into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go, giving some examples please.

Emptying the dishwasher:
Walking in to kitchen = sensation and hearing (my footsteps on floor)
Seeing stainless steel object = image
Label “dishwasher” happens = thought
Thinking “Oh that needs emptying” = thought
Bending down to open dishwasher = image and sensation and smell (of dish soap).
Picking out clean plates = image and sensation
“These go in the top left cupboard” = thought
Placing plates in cupboard = image, sensation and hearing.
Making lunch:
Feeling hungry = sensation (of empty tummy)
Looking at clock = image
Thinking “Oh, it’s 12.30 already, time for lunch” = thought
Thinking “What shall I have for lunch?” = thought
Go to fridge = sensation and hearing
Open fridge door = sensation and image and hearing
Scanning the contents = image
Thinking “do I want the chicken from yesterday?” = thought
Reaching for the chicken = sensation
Scanning the other items = image
Seeing the rice = image
Thinking “Rice, yes that would be nice” = thought
Thinking “Need some vegetables” = thought
Looking at broccoli and asparagus = image
Hand reaches out for the asparagus = sensation
And so on…
Going for a walk:
Thinking “I’d like to go for a walk” = thought
Putting shoes on = image, sensation, hearing
Walking down driveway = image, sensation, hearing, smell
Feeling peaceful = thought and sensation
Thinking “I wonder how neighbor is doing” = thought
Notice I’m thinking = thought
I’m going to return to AE = thought
Returning to AE of walking = sensation, image, hearing, smell

Have a look at sadness as AE and let me know what you find.

I found this exercise surprisingly difficult, but here’s what I came up with as a result of looking closely: Sadness is comprised of AE of sensation and AE of thought, nothing else. My lifelong tendency to “worship at the altar of feeling” as I used to put it, had me convinced that feelings were something special, something quintessentially ‘me’.
But when I look, nope, feelings are just plain old sensations and thoughts and nothing more. Kinda took away the ‘magic’ of feelings but what to do …. that’s all I could find, just AE of sensation and thought.

However when I settle down and ignore all thoughts/images of body, what remains as actual experience is something indescribable, something that I would try and describe as “This” or “Suchness” or “vastness”, something that feels familiar but not something I pay much attention to, something that has always felt like ‘background’ but I’m beginning to sense might turn out to be the true ‘foreground’.
Hmmm…lots of thinking and no actual looking with actual experience was done! Actual experience is simply colour, smell, taste, smell, sensation and thought. Where in AE can you find this something that is indescribable?

Oof – you’re right – I did kind of get poetical about this didn’t I, and yes it was all just thought. In my defence I did start out by doing the exercise but got lost in thought trying to describe what I thought was indescribable. So let me try the exercise again:
OK, if I close my eyes and ignore all thoughts about the body and mental images about the body, what remains is AE of image, a subtle sense of darkness that is located nowhere and AE of sensation, a subtle sense of movement or ‘aliveness’ that is also located nowhere.

If you look at actual experience, are they describable?
How would you describe the colour pink to someone who is blind?
Describe to me what the taste labelled as ‘banana’ tastes like.
Describe what the smell labelled as ‘toast’ smells like.
Describe what the sensation labelled as ‘goosebumps’ are.
Describe what the sound labelled ‘tweet tweet’ is.
Describe to me what a thought is.
Are these ‘things’ at all describable?

Wow, no, they are not at all describable. I hadn’t realized just how much of our everyday existence is just indescribable. And that this is OK.

If you drop all the labels of colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought….what remains?

If I understand you correctly, if I drop all labels of colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation and thought, all that remains is experiencing. By no-one. Just life happening.

If you look at a table, and for the sake of this experiment, let’s say it is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’ and you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what are you left with…what remains?

If all labels are removed, what remains is experiencing by no-one.
If only colour is removed as you seem to suggest, then what remains are subtle sensations appearing nowhere of slight pressure (breathing) and also a very subtle AE of sensation, the feeling of subtle movement of the pulse in the body. At first I described this subtle sense of movement as a ‘sense of being’ – because when I looked closely I saw this is an experiencing, not a thought. The label “sense of being” that I use to try to describe it comes from thought but the actual experience seems to be simply a ‘knowing’ or ‘awareness’ and is not personal. But when I looked again and again, it might simply be the AE of sensation of the motion of blood in the veins that I am putting the label of ’sense of being’ on.

Love to you
Veda

[forgetmenot]

Good morning Veda,

Another lovely post to read and thank you for the due diligence you have given all questions and exercises.

And so a thought arises….so what? Are you the author of that thought?
And what is the AE of “boring” and of “distant”?
And what is it exactly that feels bored and distant?

No, Looking shows that I’m not the author of that thought, not even the thinker of that thought. The AE of “boring” and “distant” is just thought. I see that the AE of any adjective is always just thought. What feels bored and distant cannot be found, there is no-one there – all that is found is AE of more thought.

Okay…so what caught my eye in your response was “what feels bored and distant cannot be found”…so what then is doing the feeling?

Please close your eyes for this exercise and just notice any ‘mental’ images and thoughts that appear about a table or hand, and put them aside ( IGNORE them).

Place a hand on a table.
Now 'go to' the sensation which we would normally refer to as 'hand on table' and answer from what you can FIND.

1) How many things do you find? Are there two things - hand and table? Or is there simply AE of sensation?
2) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'sensation'?
3) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'sensation'?
What do you find?

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

Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt' – AE sensation?

If that is all, and no INHERENT FEELER is found . . . would anything that is suggested as the feeler be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Have a look at sadness as AE and let me know what you find.

I found this exercise surprisingly difficult, but here’s what I came up with as a result of looking closely: Sadness is comprised of AE of sensation and AE of thought, nothing else. My lifelong tendency to “worship at the altar of feeling” as I used to put it, had me convinced that feelings were something special, something quintessentially ‘me’.

But when I look, nope, feelings are just plain old sensations and thoughts and nothing more. Kinda took away the ‘magic’ of feelings but what to do …. that’s all I could find, just AE of sensation and thought.

Wonderful looking Veda! Yes, emotions are simply sensation + thought. But isn’t it amazing what we like to identify as….even as emotions. This is me, 'sadness'!! It is this identifying as something that keeps us locked into the separate self. The whole journey is about unlearning to identify as anything at all. The innateness of who we are is peace, joy and love…but these are not brought about by gaining or changing anything that is ‘out there’ in the world, or by any particular attribute of the me. The peace, joy and love that we are has no reason to be…they simply ARE.

But let’s look even closer to see if a thought is linked to sensation.

Put aside 10 or so minutes in a quiet place and sit with your eyes closed. Take a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and then think of a thought that seems to create sensations in the body. Something simple, but not a thought that overwhelms you with sensations as you need to be able to sit with these sensations when they arise (yep paradoxes abound!). Notice where in the body the sensation is felt predominantly ie chest, solar plexus, abdomen.

Then LOOK very carefully with your eyes still closed to see if you can find/see something that links the thought to the sensation. So you are looking for an actual link. If the sensation starts to weaken, then bring the thought to mind again and continue to look to see if you can find an actual link between the thoughts and sensation. Do this exercise at least 3-4 times throughout your day, and if needed, do it for a couple of days.
Let me know what you find.

Hmmm…lots of thinking and no actual looking with actual experience was done! Actual experience is simply colour, smell, taste, smell, sensation and thought. Where in AE can you find this something that is indescribable?

So let me try the exercise again:
OK, if I close my eyes and ignore all thoughts about the body and mental images about the body, what remains is AE of image, a subtle sense of darkness that is located nowhere and AE of sensation, a subtle sense of movement or ‘aliveness’ that is also located nowhere.

Hmmm…so I asked you to ignore ALL thoughts and mental images and just stay with what remains. So, putting aside the image and idea of darkness, what remains is the AE of sensation.

What is it that overlays the sensation with “a subtle sense of movement”…what is that in actual experience?
And what is it that overlays the sensation with “aliveness”…what is that in actual experience?

If you drop all the labels of colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought….what remains?

If I understand you correctly, if I drop all labels of colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation and thought, all that remains is experiencing. By no-one. Just life happening.

Yes, exactly…nice looking! However, experiencing is a verb which implies that someone/something is experiencing something. All there is, is experience itself aka THIS/awareness/ Source/Knowing…whatever you like to call It.

All that remains is THIS appearing exactly as it is. Thought divides and labels THIS into sound AND smell AND taste AND sensation AND colour AND thought. There is no AND.

Soundsmelltastesensationcolourthought = THIS appearing exactly as it is. They are synonymous.

If only colour is removed as you seem to suggest, then what remains are subtle sensations appearing nowhere of slight pressure (breathing) and also a very subtle AE of sensation, the feeling of subtle movement of the pulse in the body. At first I described this subtle sense of movement as a ‘sense of being’ – because when I looked closely I saw this is an experiencing, not a thought. The label “sense of being” that I use to try to describe it comes from thought but the actual experience seems to be simply a ‘knowing’ or ‘awareness’ and is not personal. But when I looked again and again, it might simply be the AE of sensation of the motion of blood in the veins that I am putting the label of ’sense of being’ on.

What is the AE of ‘slight pressure’?
What is the AE of “motion of blood in veins”?

When you drop ALL labels, thoughts, mental images and images, there is a subtle vibration which we call the body/me/I.

Within those sensations can you find anyone or anything that resembles an I? Can you find any object at all within those sensations?
Do the sensations themselves suggest in any way that they are a body, an I or a me?
Are the sensations even tangible? Do they actually form a shape of a body?
Is there such a thing as an ‘inside’ and an outside’ of a body?

So what the AE of ‘sense of self’? Are you not aware of that sense of self, and is that sense of self in your awareness 24/7 or just intermittently?

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Hi Kay,

Thanks as always for your insightful and very direct comments and questions. And for all your wonderful exercises.

Your latest post gives me many different exercises to do and I'd like to take a full day for these and report back tomorrow if that's OK?

Love, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hello Veda,

Take as much time as you need.

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Hello Kay,

Pressures of work here today so will be reporting first thing tomorrow not today.
But some good looking happening!

"Got to be good looking 'cos it's so hard to see..." John Lennon

Love, Veda

[dutton]

Dear Kay,

What feels bored and distant cannot be found, there is no-one there – all that is found is AE of more thought.
Okay…so what caught my eye in your response was “what feels bored and distant cannot be found”…so what then is doing the feeling?

Oh, great question - indeed, what IS doing the feeling? Aha - looking reveals that no-one is doing doing the feeling. In fact just as thinking is not evidence of a thinker, so I see that also, a feeling is not evidence of a feeler. There is no feeler - feeling just happens and the AE of that feeling is just sensation and thought, happening nowhere and to no-one.

Place a hand on a table.
Now 'go to' the sensation which we would normally refer to as 'hand on table' and answer from what you can FIND.

1) How many things do you find? Are there two things - hand and table? Or is there simply AE of sensation?

No there aren't 2 things, in fact there isn't even one 'thing' - there is just the AE of sensation

2) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'sensation'?

No there is not one thing feeling another thing - there is simply sensation.

3) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'sensation'?

There is neither an 'I', a body or a hand - there is no objet at all - there is simple the experience of sensation in AE.

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

There is no dividing line - Feeling and sensation are 2 labels for the same thing although sensation is a more accurate label, since the word feeling implies a story or a thought attached. What is experienced is that there is only sensation and when feeling is examined carefully it is revealed to be just the AE of sensation.

Can a ‘feeler’ be found in 'what is being felt' – AE sensation?

No feeler can be found because no feeler exists - feeling is experienced simply as an experience of sensation and requires no agent, in the same way as thinking happens without any thinker

If that is all, and no INHERENT FEELER is found . . . would anything that is suggested as the feeler be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

No, anything that is considered to be a feeler or agent is merely the experience of thought - it's that labeling machine playing its tricks again.

Think of a thought that seems to create sensations in the body. Then LOOK very carefully with your eyes still closed to see if you can find/see something that links the thought to the sensation.
Let me know what you find.

This was fascinating. When I think a thought that seems to have a feeling attached and then look carefully at them both, there is NO connection - it doesn't even feel that they are close or even related. It's weird. It's like the control tower thinking it's flying the plane. The thought happens and then a split second later a bodily sensation happens that is then followed by more thought, and then the sensation increases etc.... now, there's a recipe for suffering.
[THINKING BREAK: And this is why AE is such a powerful tool because if one is observant enough to catch the first thought or sensation as it arises the chain is broken because it is seen for what it is, simply the experience of thought or sensation and the content of the thought is seen as not a reflection of reality]
BACK TO LOOKING:

What is it that overlays the sensation with “a subtle sense of movement”…what is that in actual experience?

Well, this is clearly a thought overlaid over sensation. The words "a subtle sense of movement" clearly came from thought.

And what is it that overlays the sensation with “aliveness”…what is that in actual experience?

Same here. "Aliveness" is a thought label overlaid over the AE of sensation.

What is the AE of ‘slight pressure’?
What is the AE of “motion of blood in veins”?

AE of 'slight pressure' is simply AE of thought overlaid over the AE of sensation. Same with "motion of blood in veins"

When you drop ALL labels, thoughts, mental images and images, there is a subtle vibration which we call the body/me/I.

This has me puzzled - when all labels are dropped, is the 'subtle vibration' you refer to an AE of something, like sensation or is it somehow outside AE (is that even possible?)

Within those sensations can you find anyone or anything that resembles an I? Can you find any object at all within those sensations?

No, I can't find an 'I' (crazy statement) - let me rephrase that: what's looking can't find an 'I'. Neither can it find any object.

Do the sensations themselves suggest in any way that they are a body, an I or a me?

No when examined closely these sensations remain simply as sensations - and don't suggest a body or an I or a me. (For that to happen thought is required - is that correct?)

Are the sensations even tangible? Do they actually form a shape of a body?

No the sensations are simply sensations that are intangible and form no shape. Any notion of body or shape must come from thought, and are not part of the sensations at all.

Is there such a thing as an ‘inside’ and an outside’ of a body?

Ha! Trick question - since there is no such thing as a body, there is no such thing as an inside or outside the body. (I have to say - it feels very weird (but accurate) to write the words 'there's no such thing as a body'. I'm still getting used to that one. Wow. Just a cluster of sensations with a label)

So what the AE of ‘sense of self’? Are you not aware of that sense of self, and is that sense of self in your awareness 24/7 or just intermittently?

This feels like a big question - what is the AE of 'sense of self'?
1) If you mean 'sense of self' as a sense of a separate self that we call 'I', then the answer is that there is NO AE of this - it's just a story, a thought label placed over a cluster of sensations. In fact, this raises a question that's being arising a lot recently - can the illusion of 'I' exist without thought? Is thought or the believed content of thought the ONLY thing keeping the illusory 'I' intact?

2) Now, if you mean 'sense of self' as the subtle vibration of "I AM" or "awareness" that is experienced somehow when all labels are dropped, then I actually can't tell what the AE of that is. Could we call it the AE of sensation? But that makes it an object and so that can't be awareness. Is it possible to for any experience to happen that is outside of AE? Is "awareness" outside of AE?
Stuckness happening here (AE of sensation and thought)

Hoping you'll enlighten 'me', dear Kay!

Love, Veda

[forgetmenot]

Hello Veda,

I so enjoy reading your posts. I can see that you are looking so diligently, and it is such a pleasure to guide someone who is willing to look, and to look more than once. Thank you!

What feels bored and distant cannot be found, there is no-one there – all that is found is AE of more thought.

Okay…so what caught my eye in your response was “what feels bored and distant cannot be found”…so what then is doing the feeling?

Oh, great question - indeed, what IS doing the feeling? Aha - looking reveals that no-one is doing doing the feeling. In fact just as thinking is not evidence of a thinker, so I see that also, a feeling is not evidence of a feeler. There is no feeler - feeling just happens and the AE of that feeling is just sensation and thought, happening nowhere and to no-one.

Great looking! Experience (ie sensation, for example) and the awareness of the experience are not two things? There is no experience AND awareness. Experience is self-aware and needs no separate things to know that it is self-aware.

Or to put that in question form so that you can ask yourself the question when sensations appear is:-

Is the experience (ie sensation) and the awareness of the sensation two things? Is there experience AND awareness, or is experience self-aware without a separate thing which is aware?

1) How many things do you find? Are there two things - hand and table? Or is there simply AE of sensation?

No there aren't 2 things, in fact there isn't even one 'thing' - there is just the AE of sensation

Yes! ‘in fact there isn’t one thing’ - lovely looking!

Think of a thought that seems to create sensations in the body. Then LOOK very carefully with your eyes still closed to see if you can find/see something that links the thought to the sensation.
Let me know what you find.

This was fascinating. When I think a thought that seems to have a feeling attached and then look carefully at them both, there is NO connection - it doesn't even feel that they are close or even related. It's weird. It's like the control tower thinking it's flying the plane. The thought happens and then a split second later a bodily sensation happens that is then followed by more thought, and then the sensation increases etc.... now, there's a recipe for suffering.

Beautiful! :) If thought is causing sensations - they must be separate and other than experience itself!

When you drop ALL labels, thoughts, mental images and images, there is a subtle vibration which we call the body/me/I.

This has me puzzled - when all labels are dropped, is the 'subtle vibration' you refer to an AE of something, like sensation or is it somehow outside AE (is that even possible?)

Yes…’vibration’ is just a description overlay of sensation. So it’s AE of sensation.

How can there be anything outside of AE? Let’s see if the following will clear this up for you!



Looking at this picture and just working with the colours, thought says that the yellow, peach and green areas in this picture are an object called ‘me’. Thought also calls these colours your body. Thought also says that the other colours are something else.

Is there a division between the body and not-body, or is that division imagined? And seeing that divisions are only ever imagined, could a body ever really be present at all?

Thought also says that the blue and tan colour is called a ‘door’, and that there is something behind the door. How is it known that there is something behind the door?

Soundcoloursmellsensationtastethought = experience = awareness = Knowing = THIS appearing exactly as it is.

Do the sensations themselves suggest in any way that they are a body, an I or a me?

No when examined closely these sensations remain simply as sensations - and don't suggest a body or an I or a me. (For that to happen thought is required - is that correct?)

I am not going to answer your question. Instead, I am going to get you to watch the following silent movie. As you know a silent movie has no sound or story..it is just images.

So, watch the clip several times and observe closely how your thoughts (the inner narrator) interprets, labels, describes, judges and gives meaning to everything that is going on in the clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo2EKNR ... A&index=13

What did you find doing this experiment?

Are the sensations even tangible? Do they actually form a shape of a body?

No the sensations are simply sensations that are intangible and form no shape. Any notion of body or shape must come from thought, and are not part of the sensations at all.

Exactly…thoughts point to sensations and overlays them with a story. Without thoughts there are no stories. There is just raw experience as it appears.

Is there such a thing as an ‘inside’ and an outside’ of a body?

Ha! Trick question - since there is no such thing as a body, there is no such thing as an inside or outside the body. (I have to say - it feels very weird (but accurate) to write the words 'there's no such thing as a body'. I'm still getting used to that one. Wow. Just a cluster of sensations with a label)

Yep! The “I” is simply a cluster of thoughts and sensations!

So what the AE of ‘sense of self’? Are you not aware of that sense of self, and is that sense of self in your awareness 24/7 or just intermittently?

This feels like a big question - what is the AE of 'sense of self'?
1) If you mean 'sense of self' as a sense of a separate self that we call 'I', then the answer is that there is NO AE of this - it's just a story, a thought label placed over a cluster of sensations. In fact, this raises a question that's being arising a lot recently - can the illusion of 'I' exist without thought? Is thought or the believed content of thought the ONLY thing keeping the illusory 'I' intact?

The illusory separate self that seemingly suffers is a movement of thought. But because of the content of thought, it isn’t seen or experienced as thought, but rather, translates into the sense of who we are, in that moment, when it’s present. So the dissolving of that is the dissolving of a particular type of thinking.

2) Now, if you mean 'sense of self' as the subtle vibration of "I AM" or "awareness" that is experienced somehow when all labels are dropped, then I actually can't tell what the AE of that is. Could we call it the AE of sensation? But that makes it an object and so that can't be awareness. Is it possible to for any experience to happen that is outside of AE? Is "awareness" outside of AE?
Stuckness happening here (AE of sensation and thought)

How is awareness actually experienced? How can awareness experience awareness? Isn’t that something you are and not something you do?

The sense ‘I am’ is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it -- body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not.

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Hello Kay

Beautiful warm sunny morning up here in the Rockies.

Is the experience (ie sensation) and the awareness of the sensation two things? Is there experience AND awareness, or is experience self-aware without a separate thing which is aware?

No, every experience is one with the knowing of it. This is taking some getting used to and needs practice. Feeling happy here at the simplicity of this.

Looking at this picture and just working with the colours, thought says that the yellow, peach and green areas in this picture are an object called ‘me’. Thought also calls these colours your body. Thought also says that the other colours are something else.

Is there a division between the body and not-body, or is that division imagined? And seeing that divisions are only ever imagined, could a body ever really be present at all?

No there is no division between body and not-body (or indeed between anything and anything else) - the AE is of colour only and it is only AE of thought that supplies the labels of body, dog, door, etc. It is also AE of thought only that supplies the story that there is a body that is separate from the space in which it appears.

Thought also says that the blue and tan colour is called a ‘door’, and that there is something behind the door. How is it known that there is something behind the door?

It isn't known that there is something behind the door - but it is thought that interprets the blue marks as 'rain' and creates the story that therefore the 'rain' must be 'behind' the door. In point of fact the blue marks could also be flies in front of the door, or decorations on the door. But these too would merely be stories created solely by thought. What is actually there is AE of colour only.

By extension from this experiment, what this means is that things or objects do not exist, since all that can be experienced is colour or sensation etc. Any imagine thing or object is the content of thought and therefore "divorced from reality". Just like it was seen last time that "there is no such thing as a body", now I have to add to that list "there is no such thing as a thing". Objects do not exist! Wow.
I remember years ago trying to understand that phrase from Suzanne Foxton "Nothing exists, despite appearances". Now I'm beginning to understand how this might be true. Haven't quite figured out the implications of this yet, although it feels huge.

So, watch the clip several times and observe closely how your thoughts (the inner narrator) interprets, labels, describes, judges and gives meaning to everything that is going on in the clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo2EKNR ... A&index=13

What did you find doing this experiment?

What I saw was that it's so obvious that it's thought alone that supplies all the meaning and story to life's raw experience. What I also found was a sort of admiration for the amazing interpretative ability of thought, to take what is just the raw experience of colour, hearing, sensation, etc and construct a world of 'meaning' out of this. And now the thought arises "do we 'need' this story-making capability in some way or can we get along just with raw experience?

How is awareness actually experienced? How can awareness experience awareness? Isn’t that something you are and not something you do?

This is where I get stuck. I see that I don't actually experience awareness. But somehow I know awareness exists. And when you say "Isn't that something you ARE, not something you DO?" there is a huge relief, an "of course, that explains everything!" If I AM awareness then of course I know it exists. But where I get stuck is how AE then comes into it - didn't we just see that AE of coloursensationsoundtastesmell is also what I am? Aargh - I can see that I'm trying to THINK my way through this and I've already come to see that THOUGHT is not reflective of reality, so not the tool to use here.

Let me come at this in a different way - You said something powerful earlier:

Soundcoloursmellsensationtastethought = experience = awareness = Knowing = THIS appearing exactly as it is.

OK, I get that Soundcoloursmellsensationtastethought = experience. I think where I'm struggling is experience = awareness....Oh, wait a minute, that's what we discovered with the experiment on "the raw experience is identical with the knowing of it". OOOHHH, now I get it, I can see I got sidetracked by the notion "Awareness is what I AM, not what I DO" - I can see that then thought came in and turned that I AM into small separate self again, i.e "Oh, now I'm awareness", when the truth is that I don't exist, that all that exists is raw experience, the cluster of sensations I mentioned earlier and it's thought that comes in and muddies the water with the story of an 'I' that isn't needed at all for life to go on.

INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT:
After writing the above I took a break for lunch and as I was moving about the kitchen a shift happened - I suddenly saw that "Oh, "I" is just a THOUGHT". Now I know you've been saying that for the last few posts but somehow I suddenly GOT it, and then what happened is where the sense of 'I' had been was replaced with emptiness, or rather just raw experience, hands washing the lettuce, body moving to the stove, even talking to my wife, but all without anyone being there or doing it. Then I noticed a quiet euphoria, the peace of not-being (so to speak). We sat down to lunch and the feeling of emptiness persisted strongly for about 30 minutes and then quietened down a bit but is still there.
After lunch I was sitting on the couch and noticed thoughts arising, is this it?... wait till I tell Kay...but what if I lose it? And BOOM, immediately saw that for what it was, just another thought that had no intrinsic power or merit - and the quiet emptiness returned. Since then I've noticed that whenever 'I' seem to reappear if I just say the phrase "No 'I' needed" the emptiness returns.

Some time later: I'm feeling the lifelong habit of identification and I-thought trying to reassert itself. The sense of there being an 'I' is seen as just a thought and so what's left feels wonderfully empty, but somehow there still seems to be a sense of a "person", just not me - if that makes sense. It's as if there's a sense of "an experiencer" but it's not personal, it's not "me-as-experiencer". But what it's not is just "experience". Maybe I have a false expectation that I should be feeling just "empty experience" rather than "empty experiencer".
But I've already seen that experience is not evidence of an experiencer, so... maybe I just need more time to get used to the emptiness of just being in AE and ignoring thought.

Some time later still: Well, the sense of emptiness is still there when I look - but I have to look, otherwise the lifelong habit of thought just steps in and takes over and assumes an 'I'. It's getting easier however to see through the I-thought habit more quickly and as a result the emptiness of no-I takes center stage.

Whew - this is like wrestling with eels.

Much love to you Kay

Veda (or what's left of him)

[forgetmenot]

Good morning dear Veda,

Is the experience (ie sensation) and the awareness of the sensation two things? Is there experience AND awareness, or is experience self-aware without a separate thing which is aware?

No, every experience is one with the knowing of it. This is taking some getting used to and needs practice. Feeling happy here at the simplicity of this.

Yes…the simplicity of it all…it’s just the mind that thinks everything needs to be complicated!

Is there a division between the body and not-body, or is that division imagined? And seeing that divisions are only ever imagined, could a body ever really be present at all?

No there is no division between body and not-body (or indeed between anything and anything else) - the AE is of colour only and it is only AE of thought that supplies the labels of body, dog, door, etc. It is also AE of thought only that supplies the story that there is a body that is separate from the space in which it appears.

Lovely…so let’s take it a step further and do an experiment in real time, so to speak.

Have a look at the following picture. Thought says that the door is open and that there is space between the edge of the door that is seen and the wall behind the door. But is there?



Now, go open your front door like it is in this picture and have a look. Is the open door actually taking up ‘space’? And is there ‘space’ between door and the wall behind the door? What is actual experience?

Thought also says that the blue and tan colour is called a ‘door’, and that there is something behind the door. How is it known that there is something behind the door?

It isn't known that there is something behind the door - but it is thought that interprets the blue marks as 'rain' and creates the story that therefore the 'rain' must be 'behind' the door. In point of fact the blue marks could also be flies in front of the door, or decorations on the door. But these too would merely be stories created solely by thought. What is actually there is AE of colour only.

And, without thought, how is it known that the colour blue and tan is a door! The other interesting thing to look at, is to see if there are actually many different colours. If we drop all the colour labels…all there is, is 'colour'. Where is the dividing line between colours? Can one actually be found or is it a mental construct?

By extension from this experiment, what this means is that things or objects do not exist, since all that can be experienced is colour or sensation etc. Any imagine thing or object is the content of thought and therefore "divorced from reality". Just like it was seen last time that "there is no such thing as a body", now I have to add to that list "there is no such thing as a thing". Objects do not exist! Wow.

Yes! Lovely! So THIS appears as every ‘thing’ and yet is none of those things! So, you can see how the idea of emptiness comes in. Emptiness is nothing but an idea, but the inherent 'emptiness' of appearances can be realised. THIS/Knowing NEVER shows up ‘empty’. The knowing always only shows up with what is known.

I remember years ago trying to understand that phrase from Suzanne Foxton "Nothing exists, despite appearances". Now I'm beginning to understand how this might be true. Haven't quite figured out the implications of this yet, although it feels huge.

Yes, another phrase is: Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.

And do you need to figure out the implications…or can you just allow the implications to show themselves?

What did you find doing this experiment?

What I saw was that it's so obvious that it's thought alone that supplies all the meaning and story to life's raw experience. What I also found was a sort of admiration for the amazing interpretative ability of thought, to take what is just the raw experience of colour, hearing, sensation, etc and construct a world of 'meaning' out of this. And now the thought arises "do we 'need' this story-making capability in some way or can we get along just with raw experience?

Are you the author of thought? If you aren’t, then how can thoughts be controlled, stopped or changed? Thoughts change as the layers of the idea of the finite separate self fall away, but as you saw for yourself when doing the exercises with thought…that there is no thinker of thought; therefore there is no controlling thought…they simply arise and subside.

Thoughts aren’t actually ‘things’ either. It is only thought that describes itself as thought and a definitive stand-alone object. A thought isn't known because of its appearance or its content...it is known because it is THIS/experience. Just as colour isn’t known because it is a colour, or that it is an appearance...it is known because it is THIS appearing exactly as it is.

How is awareness actually experienced? How can awareness experience awareness? Isn’t that something you are and not something you do?

This is where I get stuck. I see that I don't actually experience awareness. But somehow I know awareness exists. And when you say "Isn't that something you ARE, not something you DO?" there is a huge relief, an "of course, that explains everything!" If I AM awareness then of course I know it exists. But where I get stuck is how AE then comes into it - didn't we just see that AE of coloursensationsoundtastesmell is also what I am? Aargh - I can see that I'm trying to THINK my way through this and I've already come to see that THOUGHT is not reflective of reality, so not the tool to use here.

This is because there is subject/object split that we see as soon as we wake up in the morning. And I have a suspicion you are waiting for that subject/object split to dissolve so that you find yourself one with every thing. What things exactly? This is all about a perception shift…not something actually physically changing out in the world, or you merging permanently with every thing where you are experiencing yourself as a tree and never seeing a tree again…but becoming it! It is how you perceive the world that changes.

But let’s have a look at this with an experiment.

Look at the display before you.
When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, can you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses?

Let me come at this in a different way - You said something powerful earlier:
Soundcoloursmellsensationtastethought = experience = awareness = Knowing = THIS appearing exactly as it is.
OK, I get that Soundcoloursmellsensationtastethought = experience. I think where I'm struggling is experience = awareness....Oh, wait a minute, that's what we discovered with the experiment on "the raw experience is identical with the knowing of it". OOOHHH, now I get it, I can see I got sidetracked by the notion "Awareness is what I AM, not what I DO" - I can see that then thought came in and turned that I AM into small separate self again, i.e "Oh, now I'm awareness", when the truth is that I don't exist, that all that exists is raw experience, the cluster of sensations I mentioned earlier and it's thought that comes in and muddies the water with the story of an 'I' that isn't needed at all for life to go on.

I DO not exist is completely different to the I DOES not exist. So, the “I” that perceives itself to be small, finite and separate is a particular thought system, a particular form of narrative is the I that doesn’t exist. YOU (not Veda) do exist.

Some time later still: Well, the sense of emptiness is still there when I look - but I have to look, otherwise the lifelong habit of thought just steps in and takes over and assumes an 'I'. It's getting easier however to see through the I-thought habit more quickly and as a result the emptiness of no-I takes center stage.

Lovely to read about your shift! Don’t be surprised when the full blown idea of self returns. It is wonderful that you had the shift and you have realised that there is no separate self as such, however, now comes the undoing of all beliefs, patterns and conditioning that seems to keep the idea of the separate self in place. And there is no time frame to this, as many years of conditioning doesn’t get swept away in one fowl swoop overnight. We all wish it did! There will be a yo-yoing of clarity and then there will be times of doubt and confusion. It is all normal.

Love, Kay

[dutton]

Thanks Kay - your post was reassuring, on 2 points:

1) The distinction between I Do Not Exist and I Does Not Exist. I see now that I do exist, just not as me or Veda or a separate self.

2) Thanks so much for the reminder that the yo-yoing back forth is normal. I was feeling a little nuts here with the 'I' being seen through one moment and then the 'I' reappearing next minute. But I'm on to it! Looking is my refuge....

I'll report on the other exercises tomorrow

Love to you

Kay