The Gate

Hi Ben,

Thank you for being so considerate in letting me know that you won't be in contact as frequently, I really do appreciate it. Have a great day back at work :)

Love, Kay

So it is clear that thoughts and sensations are known but are not owned or controlled by anyone or anything?

I feel that a lot of this has lifted. I can feel a massive change to my life in nearly every part of it. I look around and just can't experience hatred, and would never want to hurt someone in any way. A lot of the motivations I have for parts of my life have simply vanished or changed into something else. I feel so much love and appreciation for those around me. I look at "myself" in the mirror and it just doesn't look like "myself" anymore. That heavy feeling in the arms and legs that I used to have is gone.

However I'm still experiencing anxiety with thoughts and the racing heart, so I'm guessing it's not complete yet. I know a lot has dropped, however I can still tell that I'm referring to "my anxiety", "my thoughts" and so on. I'm anxious about everything have being changed, about becoming a "new person" in basically an instant, and how this will affect life. Is it possible or common for things to be part-way there? So much has changed, but I definitely know there's a fair way to go until I'm at complete peace with these changes.

So to answer your question, thoughts are known, sensations are known, colours are known, sound is known, but there is no "knower" of these. It cannot be found anywhere. But i still habitually apply it to some things, so I will work at this until I've got it.

How can colours/image labelled 'body' become tired? Do colours know anything about being ‘tired’?

Colours can not know anything about "tired".

Do sensations know anything about being tired?

Sensations can not know anything about "tired". They are simply sensations.

Does thought know anything about being tired?

The thought "tired" can not be "tired". It is just a label. The actual experience of the thought "tired" is just the AE of thought.

So the dog doesn’t exist...what is really there is thought + sound + colour/image + sensation.
Is this clear?

Yes. As with the fan or the dog, a dog or a fan is just a story, the ae of a story being a thought.

Have a look carefully at one object in the room you are in. What says that what you see is in 3D? It is only colour and shapes that give the illusion of 3D! And shapes themselves are only a particular pattern of colour. Let me know what you notice.

Yes so I can see that 3D is only a story, I can see that shapes are just pattern of colour, and that black and white is still just colour. However I'm having trouble seeing that a mental picture of something is still the AE of colour. I see a mental picture as the AE of thought.

There is no ‘you’ experiencing anything. Please find where this ‘you’ who is experiencing is and describe the location to me in precise detail.

I cannot find a "me" in anything. A thought isn't me. A sensation isn't me. A sound isn't me. A colour isn't me. There is no experiencer, only experience.

What exactly is it that that says a mental image and a magazine picture and an image in a mirror and what is ‘visually’ seen are different? Are they not all actual experience of colour/image?

There is a different quality. Sound, thought, seansation and colour are all different actual experiences. A mental image is the AE of thought, an image on a magazine is the AE of colour. I know this will probably be incorrect, but that's what I feel that I can see right now.

Can you see a head? Look now…can you see ‘your’ head at all or is there only a thought ABOUT a head?

Only thought. If I was to look in a mirror, it would only be the AE of colour. Right now there is only sensation.

Thought can’t label AE. Thought can’t do anything. Thought can’t think or do.
Labels point to either actual experience or to more thought.

Ok got it. Thought doesn't do anything. Thought has no meaning and doesn't label things. Thought is an AE, has no more meaning or activity than the AE of colour, sound or sensation.

Work was hard today, sounds are very loud, and some people I find very difficult to deal with, and others very easy. Is this common? Does it get easier?

Much appreciated Kay!

With love

Ben

Hi Ben,

I wondered how you went at work today as you were a little concerned about that. It seems you made it and got through the day okay, even if it did seem a little hard. :)

So it is clear that thoughts and sensations are known but are not owned or controlled by anyone or anything?

However I'm still experiencing anxiety with thoughts and the racing heart, so I'm guessing it's not complete yet. I know a lot has dropped, however I can still tell that I'm referring to "my anxiety", "my thoughts" and so on. I'm anxious about everything have being changed, about becoming a "new person" in basically an instant, and how this will affect life. Is it possible or common for things to be part-way there? So much has changed, but I definitely know there's a fair way to go until I'm at complete peace with these changes.

Really LOOK each time when a seemingly disturbing thought appears and check:
Did you make a particular thought appear?
Did you want that thought to appear in the first place?
Did you choose that thought to appear?
Do you have ANYTHING to do with any thoughts?

What exactly is it (entity/thing) that is ‘anxious’?

You may or may not become “at complete peace with these changes”.
Can you find anyone/anything that has control over whether or not ‘you’ will be at complete peace and what exactly is it (entity/thing) that wants to be at peace?

What is the AE of peace?

So to answer your question, thoughts are known, sensations are known, colours are known, sound is known, but there is no "knower" of these. It cannot be found anywhere. But i still habitually apply it to some things, so I will work at this until I've got it.

That's right, there is no 'knower' of experience...there is only the knowing of what is known. and knowing/known are one and the same (knowingknown).

There is an expectation that thought will change. Thought doesn't stop telling you that it's your car, your job, your body, your craving, your preference, your pain, your happiness, your this and your that.

Why would thought stop saying something just because it's seen that you are not a separate individual/person? It's never been any other way. There was no ‘you’ before this exploration started and thoughts were ABOUT a ‘you’, so why would thoughts be different now?

Have a look carefully at one object in the room you are in. What says that what you see is in 3D? It is only colour and shapes that give the illusion of 3D! And shapes themselves are only a particular pattern of colour. Let me know what you notice.

Yes so I can see that 3D is only a story, I can see that shapes are just pattern of colour, and that black and white is still just colour. However I'm having trouble seeing that a mental picture of something is still the AE of colour. I see a mental picture as the AE of thought.

Are not mental images ‘memories’ of images ‘seen’? How could a mental image of a tree appear unless a tree has been seen? If I asked you to imagine a wobblydegongberry, would you know what that looked like...so could you imagine it?

Ultimately everything is thought…but mental images are AE of colour/image. Even when seeing the sentence/thought in your mind’s eye “The sky is overcast today”. Unless you know what those words looked like, you would not be able to mentally imagine those words. And in AE these words are also AE of colour…because what you are seeing, as a visual, is the colour black.

The idea that thoughts come from the head/mind is what gives the idea that mental images are thoughts. Are not mental images seen just as visual images are seen?

There is no ‘you’ experiencing anything. Please find where this ‘you’ who is experiencing is and describe the location to me in precise detail.

I cannot find a "me" in anything. A thought isn't me. A sensation isn't me. A sound isn't me. A colour isn't me. There is no experiencer, only experience.

Nice looking!

What exactly is it that that says a mental image and a magazine picture and an image in a mirror and what is ‘visually’ seen are different? Are they not all actual experience of colour/image?

There is a different quality. Sound, thought, seansation and colour are all different actual experiences. A mental image is the AE of thought, an image on a magazine is the AE of colour. I know this will probably be incorrect, but that's what I feel that I can see right now.

If there were NO thought, how would you distinguish between "sound" and "sensation", for example? Give me a concrete answer as to how exactly you would know there were multiple things there without any thought at all telling you so.

What is it exactly that says experience is divided into sound, sensation, thought, smell, taste and colour/image?
Where is the dividing line that separates sound, sensation, thought, smell, taste and colour/image?

Can you see a head? Look now…can you see ‘your’ head at all or is there only a thought ABOUT a head?

Only thought. If I was to look in a mirror, it would only be the AE of colour. Right now there is only sensation.

Nice :)

Thought can’t label AE. Thought can’t do anything. Thought can’t think or do.
Labels point to either actual experience or to more thought.

Ok got it. Thought doesn't do anything. Thought has no meaning and doesn't label things. Thought is an AE, has no more meaning or activity than the AE of colour, sound or sensation.

Yes :) Thought is just an appearance the same as colour, sound, sensation, taste and smell :)

Work was hard today, sounds are very loud, and some people I find very difficult to deal with, and others very easy. Is this common? Does it get easier?

That sounds pretty normal to me…finding some people difficult to deal with and others very easy! Yes, I found sounds became more clearer as well.

Love, Kay

Hi Kay

Really LOOK each time when a seemingly disturbing thought appears and check:
Did you make a particular thought appear?
Did you want that thought to appear in the first place?
Did you choose that thought to appear?
Do you have ANYTHING to do with any thoughts?

No, there's no "me" that chooses or wants thoughts. But sometimes for some reason the "stories" that thoughts bring are listened to.

What exactly is it (entity/thing) that is ‘anxious’?

Anxiety is just sensation labelled with thought as anxiety. In actuality this is the AE of sensation and the AE of thought. They are not linked in any way, only another "thought" story would say this.

You may or may not become “at complete peace with these changes”.
Can you find anyone/anything that has control over whether or not ‘you’ will be at complete peace and what exactly is it (entity/thing) that wants to be at peace?

Anything that would want to be at peace with what is is just a label, a story that points to what actually is, which is the AE of colour, sound, sensation and thought.

What is the AE of peace?

There is no AE of peace, the AE of the label peace is thought.

There is an expectation that thought will change. Thought doesn't stop telling you that it's your car, your job, your body, your craving, your preference, your pain, your happiness, your this and your that.

Why would thought stop saying something just because it's seen that you are not a separate individual/person? It's never been any other way. There was no ‘you’ before this exploration started and thoughts were ABOUT a ‘you’, so why would thoughts be different now?

You're right, I realise now I had this expectation that thought would change. I guess this being because SO MUCH had changed. It feels like magic really, just this one second and BOOM, everything is gone. Thoughts seem so much louder now though, and I feel the effects that they have on the body so much more clearly. I don't know, it all just seems so paradoxical, I know and feel that I'm not a separate part of things now, but I still function pretty much as normal, talking to people and doing my job. It's baffling really.

I kinda feel like a baby that's just been born kicking and screaming, I'm fumbling around trying to figure out how to use my new body and thoughts, and how to function in a world that was built for something that isn't there anymore.

Are not mental images ‘memories’ of images ‘seen’? How could a mental image of a tree appear unless a tree has been seen? If I asked you to imagine a wobblydegongberry, would you know what that looked like...so could you imagine it?

Ultimately everything is thought…but mental images are AE of colour/image. Even when seeing the sentence/thought in your mind’s eye “The sky is overcast today”. Unless you know what those words looked like, you would not be able to mentally imagine those words. And in AE these words are also AE of colour…because what you are seeing, as a visual, is the colour black.

The idea that thoughts come from the head/mind is what gives the idea that mental images are thoughts. Are not mental images seen just as visual images are seen?

"Ultimately everything is thought..." this confuses me. So there's no AE of sensation or sound, it's all thought?
I get that it's another thought that gives the idea that mental images are thoughts. So really, the only AE is the AE of thought?

If there were NO thought, how would you distinguish between "sound" and "sensation", for example? Give me a concrete answer as to how exactly you would know there were multiple things there without any thought at all telling you so.

There would be nothing that would distinguish anything as different from anything else. It would all just be pure experience.

What is it exactly that says experience is divided into sound, sensation, thought, smell, taste and colour/image?
Where is the dividing line that separates sound, sensation, thought, smell, taste and colour/image?

Only thought would say this. Same as only thought would attribute and "I" to an AE. Thought creates a story that labels two AE's as different. Without thought then there is no difference whatsoever, there is only AE.

I am so grateful for everything you are doing Kay :)

Ben

Hi Ben,

No, there's no "me" that chooses or wants thoughts. But sometimes for some reason the "stories" that thoughts bring are listened to.

What exactly is it that is “listening to thoughts and stories”?
Thoughts are appearing, but what are they appearing to?
Can you find someone/something that the thoughts are appearing/happening to? Or is the knowing of a thought just known?

Thoughts don’t bring stories. Thoughts appear. Stories are literally made up of the face value of thought, but what the thoughts are ABOUT are fiction.

What is the AE of peace?

There is no AE of peace, the AE of the label peace is thought.

Yes, the label “peace” is the AE of thought :)

"Ultimately everything is thought..." this confuses me. So there's no AE of sensation or sound, it's all thought?
I get that it's another thought that gives the idea that mental images are thoughts. So really, the only AE is the AE of thought?

What I mean by that is that without thought there would be no division. Experience is NOT divided into different experiences including thought (only in the seeming dream are there divisions). Experience is whole and indescribable. Actual experience is itself a concept but it points to WHAT IS and not to what is imagined (ie thought stories).

Let’s look at a doughnut as an analogy. A doughnut is round and is ‘made up’ of experience. The doughnut has a label, is soft, has a smell, a taste and is round, golden-brown and sprinkled with sugar. Where the middle of the doughnut ‘should be’ there is no doughnut…thought says that the hole is empty of doughnut therefore it is empty of experience. Thought would say that experience doesn’t exist where there is no doughnut, but has experience disappeared or become non-existent just because the hole isn’t showing up as doughnut? Or are the hole and the doughnut still ‘made up of’ experience and therefore exactly the same? When the doughnut disappears…is the hole left on its own! Was there ever a doughnut or was there only ever just pure experience and the doughnut was just an appearance of experience as experience itself?

If there were NO thought, how would you distinguish between "sound" and "sensation", for example? Give me a concrete answer as to how exactly you would know there were multiple things there without any thought at all telling you so.

There would be nothing that would distinguish anything as different from anything else. It would all just be pure experience.

Yes, exactly!

What is it exactly that says experience is divided into sound, sensation, thought, smell, taste and colour/image? Where is the dividing line that separates sound, sensation, thought, smell, taste and colour/image?

Only thought would say this. Same as only thought would attribute and "I" to an AE. Thought creates a story that labels two AE's as different. Without thought then there is no difference whatsoever, there is only AE.

Yes. But just remember, thought can’t create anything, it only seems that way. It is only thought that says thoughts are in sequential order and that one thought follows another to make a story.

Here is another way of looking at thought and at experience itself.

There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But they don't. It is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

Here is an interesting exercise in how labels do not have a one-to-one correspondence with reality:

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Love, Kay

Good evening Kay

The anxiety has lessened and things are much clearer and calmer now. I'm not sure what happened over the past week but there was some kind of battle happening. Now I feel a sense of acceptance and focus. But "I" look in the mirror and what I see just isn't "me" anymore. It's amazing, really. Thank you to yourself and this website in general, what you're all doing for the world is just incredible, and something that's never been seen before, and for free.

What exactly is it that is “listening to thoughts and stories”?
Thoughts are appearing, but what are they appearing to?
Can you find someone/something that the thoughts are appearing/happening to? Or is the knowing of a thought just known?

I think this is a something that still needs to be seen clearly for me. Thought is just known, there is nothing that knows thought. I can't find an entity that is separate from thought, thought is just known.

Thoughts don’t bring stories. Thoughts appear. Stories are literally made up of the face value of thought, but what the thoughts are ABOUT are fiction.

This is a distinction I can't see clearly. I know there's no "me" inside believing thought stories. But somehow thought appears as stories and they are still "believed". I know the AE of labels, stories, memories is thought, but I look for myself and sometimes the belief in stories switches on, and sometimes it switches off. But it's a thought that says that, and a memory that says that it's happened before, which is another thought story.

What I mean by that is that without thought there would be no division. Experience is NOT divided into different experiences including thought (only in the seeming dream are there divisions). Experience is whole and indescribable. Actual experience is itself a concept but it points to WHAT IS and not to what is imagined (ie thought stories)

I see that. The only inactual-experience is thought-stories. The AE of thought-stories is thought. The inactual experience of colour is a thought-story that labels colour a tree. AE can not be described, but language must be used to point to AE by using a thought-story called "AE".

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?

The AE of the word label "green" is colour.

Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?

There is no red or green colour experienced, just the AE of colour.

Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?

The word-labels do not correspond with reality as the AE of all word labels are "colour". Even the image of a word in thought is the AE of colour.

Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?

They cannot suggest anything in AE. They are just "colour".

Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

There is no inherant attributes of the experience of the colour red, the AE of the colour red is colour.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

No. It is still just the AE of colour.

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

The labels have no effect whatsoever on reality. Only thought-stories seemingly affect reality.

With love

Ben

Hi Ben,

The anxiety has lessened and things are much clearer and calmer now. I'm not sure what happened over the past week but there was some kind of battle happening. Now I feel a sense of acceptance and focus. But "I" look in the mirror and what I see just isn't "me" anymore. It's amazing, really. Thank you to yourself and this website in general, what you're all doing for the world is just incredible, and something that's never been seen before, and for free.

That is really good to hear that the anxiety has lessened and that calmness has appeared. Thank you for your appreciation and you are more than welcome 

What exactly is it that is “listening to thoughts and stories”?
Thoughts are appearing, but what are they appearing to?
Can you find someone/something that the thoughts are appearing/happening to? Or is the knowing of a thought just known?

I think this is a something that still needs to be seen clearly for me. Thought is just known, there is nothing that knows thought. I can't find an entity that is separate from thought, thought is just known.

There seems to be a flip flopping between ‘remembering’ that thoughts are just thoughts and in and of themselves are meaningless, but this flip flopping just occurs….but it is not occurring to anyone. The thoughts about flip flopping are just thoughts as well. Are you not aware of all thoughts, even when thought says “I forgot”? Are you not aware of that thought itself as well? There can never be ‘getting lost in thought’ because you are always aware of all thoughts. Even the thoughts that make up a story…you are aware of those thoughts…and the thought that says “I think this is something that still needs to be seen clearly for me”.

Thoughts don’t bring stories. Thoughts appear. Stories are literally made up of the face value of thought, but what the thoughts are ABOUT are fiction.

This is a distinction I can't see clearly. I know there's no "me" inside believing thought stories. But somehow thought appears as stories and they are still "believed". I know the AE of labels, stories, memories is thought, but I look for myself and sometimes the belief in stories switches on, and sometimes it switches off. But it's a thought that says that, and a memory that says that it's happened before, which is another thought story.

Yes. And is there an idea/expectation that this flip flopping will cease? From my experience it continues to happen. Are you not ‘knowing’ of the thought:
“But somehow thought appears as stories and they are still "believed". I know the AE of labels, stories, memories is thought, but I look for myself and sometimes the belief in stories switches on, and sometimes it switches off. But it's a thought that says that, and a memory that says that it's happened before, which is another thought story”?

What I mean by that is that without thought there would be no division. Experience is NOT divided into different experiences including thought (only in the seeming dream are there divisions). Experience is whole and indescribable. Actual experience is itself a concept but it points to WHAT IS and not to what is imagined (ie thought stories)

I see that. The only inactual-experience is thought-stories. The AE of thought-stories is thought. The inactual experience of colour is a thought-story that labels colour a tree. AE can not be described, but language must be used to point to AE by using a thought-story called "AE".

Thought stories are not AE. The thought themselves are AE but what the thoughts are about ie the stories that they point to are fiction/conceptual.


With the exercise regarding the label ‘GREEN’. It is an exercise in helping to see that labels/thoughts/stories do not correspond one-to-one with reality. This exercise is about helping you to see the distinction between what thought is and what thought says! This is to help you to see that thoughts are just thoughts and do not affect anyone or anything. So, I would like for you to do it again.

What do you see? Do you see the label as the colour GREEN or as the colour red ie is the label green or red? Colours are colours ...they are seen as 'different' colours…which is amazing. Why they are seen as different colours is a mystery. There is just no separate individual or thing that colours are appearing to, they are just an appearance as experience itself. They are seen for the colours they are. This exploration is not about denying what is seen, heard, tasted etc, how can they be denied when what is actually 'seen' is the amazing array of colours and colours point back to or ARE experience/Universe (whatever you want to call it) itself. It’s to see that there is nothing experiencing these…they just ARE. There is no place beyond 'here' where colour, sounds, tastes etc don't exist. THIS is it..as it is in it's colours, tastes, sounds, etc...but they aren't divided into separate events...there is no separation. Thought divides colour into images...and this is what makes the story of images.

It is thought that says the colour green and brown make the shape of a tree. But the colours of green and brown are what is 'seen'..the image of the tree is story. If you seem to overlook the paint (colours), you will think it's the Mona Lisa that is beautiful.

Can you see this?

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘ANXIETY’ or ‘PEACE’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?


Love, Kay

Good evening Kay

There seems to be a flip flopping between ‘remembering’ that thoughts are just thoughts and in and of themselves are meaningless, but this flip flopping just occurs….but it is not occurring to anyone. The thoughts about flip flopping are just thoughts as well. Are you not aware of all thoughts, even when thought says “I forgot”? Are you not aware of that thought itself as well? There can never be ‘getting lost in thought’ because you are always aware of all thoughts. Even the thoughts that make up a story…you are aware of those thoughts…and the thought that says “I think this is something that still needs to be seen clearly for me”.

Yes. And is there an idea/expectation that this flip flopping will cease? From my experience it continues to happen. Are you not ‘knowing’ of the thought:
“But somehow thought appears as stories and they are still "believed". I know the AE of labels, stories, memories is thought, but I look for myself and sometimes the belief in stories switches on, and sometimes it switches off. But it's a thought that says that, and a memory that says that it's happened before, which is another thought story”?

Anything that isn't the AE of sensation, colour, sound or thought is a story. So if the "flip flopping" or thought doesn't change or doesn't cease, what exactly are we thing to do with this inquiry regarding thought? I would have thought with further inquiry when thought is "seen" for what it is, something must occur for there to be deeper changes. Just like how my entire world has changed already through "seeing" the self. Is there "more to see", or further delusions regarding the self to be seen through, or is thought the way it is forever? If nothing changed again I would be fine with what has happened already, it's already changed everything and it's already more than enough. But if there's potential for there to be more realisations when it comes to thought and reality then of course I'll work for it. I hope this makes sense.

Thought divides colour into images...and this is what makes the story of images.

It is thought that says the colour green and brown make the shape of a tree. But the colours of green and brown are what is 'seen'..the image of the tree is story. If you seem to overlook the paint (colours), you will think it's the Mona Lisa that is beautiful.

Can you see this?

Yes. This much is clear. It is thought that seemingly changes AE into an "image", however AE of an "image" is always colour.

What I'm not getting specifically is the difference between the AE of thought and what you're saying is the not-actual experience of thought, which is a thought-story. The AE of a thought story is a thought, I get that, so what is a thought story then? The non-actual experience of thought?

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘ANXIETY’ or ‘PEACE’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

This makes sense. However I'm not getting the distinctions I'm required to make of the colours, as the AE of all colours, green or red, are colour, the "green" or "red" distinction is just a label, thought incorrectly pointing to something that isn't there.

I get that thought labels the AE which is colour as a "tree", I get that thought labels the AE of a sensation as "racing heart" or "anxiety". I see these are stories or labels or memories.

Allow me to just write for a while and look and see what I can see, see if it helps. I'm apologise if I'm so slow in getting this! Thank you for you patience.

Colour is colour regardless of the label. Thought is thought regardless of the story, however if thought is "image" then it is colour. So thought isn't always the AE of thought, it can be "colour" as well. A word that appears in thought can be the AE of colour or it can just be a story.

The AE of everything is just AE. There are no distinctions. Thought is thought. Thought can label or it can "remember". But it's still thought. There is no thinker, its just an AE that appears to no-one. It's just part of experience. Thought has no meaning, appears to no-one. Colour has no meaning and appears to no one. Experience is just experience, reality is just reality, which is experience. Thought is the only thing that creates something that isn't really there. What isn't really there? A story isn't really there. A story is made of thought.

What is the other factor that makes a story seem like it's something that is there when it is not? I'm not seeing this. It seems like the answer is "more thought", but I'm not seeing this clearly.

With love

Ben

sorry Kay, I made a mistake and pressed submit before I could quote everything properly on the last post. I'm not sure how to edit it as it doesn't seem to give me that option. Apologies for the confusion :)

Hi Ben,

Anything that isn't the AE of sensation, colour, sound or thought is a story. So if the "flip flopping" or thought doesn't change or doesn't cease, what exactly are we thing to do with this inquiry regarding thought? I would have thought with further inquiry when thought is "seen" for what it is, something must occur for there to be deeper changes. Just like how my entire world has changed already through "seeing" the self. Is there "more to see", or further delusions regarding the self to be seen through, or is thought the way it is forever? If nothing changed again I would be fine with what has happened already, it's already changed everything and it's already more than enough. But if there's potential for there to be more realisations when it comes to thought and reality then of course I'll work for it. I hope this makes sense.

What deeper changes are you looking for? Since there was no separate ‘you’ before this inquiry started…then why would thoughts change? Thoughts have already changed just by seeing that thought is just thought and contains no experience whatsoever as what thoughts are ABOUT (content) is fiction. What changes, is that you see thought for what it is…AE of thought and you don’t seemed to get hooked as often or as deeply and so don’t go down the rabbit hole with thought as often. So the more you LOOK and see thought just as thought and see the content of thought as story, then the less suffering there is because what thought is saying no longer gets to be believed in so easily or quickly. But that doesn’t mean that believing thoughts will not happen! It may or it may not…who knows! The more you LOOK what seems to happen is that LOOKING begins to happen automatically and there is less efforting of remembering to LOOK.

What I'm not getting specifically is the difference between the AE of thought and what you're saying is the not-actual experience of thought, which is a thought-story. The AE of a thought story is a thought, I get that, so what is a thought story then? The non-actual experience of thought?

You’ve lost me here. ALL thought is AE of thought and all stories are thought stories. I have no idea what you mean by “non-actual experience of thought”.

The story: “I got wet walking in the rain”.
The literal thought “I got wet walking in the rain” itself is AE of thought because ‘you’ are ‘aware’ of the thought, just as ‘you’ are ‘aware’ of sensation, taste, smell, sound and colour. But what the thought is pointing to….the story of what the thought is telling is fiction.

So the thought “I got wet walking in the rain” is the AE of thought and NOT the AE of an “I” getting wet by walking in the rain.
(What is the AE of “I”? What is the AE of “walking”? What is the AE of “wet”? What is the AE of “rain”?)

The sensation that is associated with rain that SEEMS to be ‘felt on the skin’ is the actual experience (AE) of ‘sensation’ and NOT the AE of ’getting wet in the rain’.

The sound that rain seems to make is the AE of ‘sound’ and is not the AE of ‘rain’ or ‘hearing’.

Rain that is seemingly ‘seen’ is the AE of ‘colour/images’ and not the AE of ‘rain’

The seeming smell of rain is the AE of ‘smell’ and not the AE of ‘rain’

The seeming taste of rain is the AE of ‘taste’ and not the AE of ‘rain’.

So the thought “I am walking in the rain” exits but what it points to doesn’t exist.

There is no ‘person getting wet walking in the rain….because none of that exists. It is a thought story…it is a story made up of thoughts. What is actually appearing as actual experience is the thought itself (“I am getting wet walking in the rain) + sensation + colour + smell + taste + sound.

Is this clear? Is this what you were asking about?

This makes sense. However I'm not getting the distinctions I'm required to make of the colours, as the AE of all colours, green or red, are colour, the "green" or "red" distinction is just a label, thought incorrectly pointing to something that isn't there.

How did you draw this conclusion? Thought either points to AE or it points to thought stories. I gave you an example of the thought ‘blue sky’.

The label ‘blue’ which is AE of thought points to colour which is actual experience (AE) (plus the AE of thought)
The label ‘sky’ which is AE of thought points to further thought stories about a blue sky that has white fluffy clouds and where the sun shines down from – which is all story. There is no such things as a ‘sky, white fluffy clouds, or sun shining down from anywhere’. All there is, is colour – blue, white, yellow…the rest is story. (The labels, blue, white, yellow not only point to AE of colour but they also point to AE of thought – the face value of thought)

Yes, if you drop all labels then all there is, is colour…but there is still the experience of colour. Colour doesn’t disappear just because you don’t call it something…the experience of colour still occurs as colour exists. So the label ‘blue’ is a thought that points to something that is real, whereas the label ‘sky’ points to story – to something unreal.

The label ‘red’ points to colour. Do you not see the colour 'red'? How can the colour ‘red’ not exist if it can be seen? Same goes for the colour ‘green’. Colours in all their variety exist and are actual experience so how can they not exist? Are you saying that a ‘tree’ isn’t green and brown?

Here is a picture of a rainbow. Is there really a rainbow in the sky or are both the rainbow and the sky just a story and what is actually appearing is just colours?



The rainbow is the story but the colours green, orange, red, purple, pink, yellow and blue are still seen because they exist. Colour is colour it is only thought that says colours differ to each other…how can they differ when they are all ‘made from’ the same ‘substance’ – Experience Itself!

Sound, thought, colour, sensation, smell and taste ARE and do exist…that is why they are called ACTUAL EXPERIENCE and not STORY!

Has this made it any clearer?

That is why at the beginning of this exploration I asked you to do the following exercise…so you could see what is actual experience.

Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label each experience simply image/colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation or thought.

So as you become aware of:
Seeing a tree, simply= colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell,
Feel the wind on your face, simply = sensation.
Tasting toothpaste on your toothbrush, simply = taste
Hearing a car drive by, simply = sound
Thought about work, simply = thought.

Just break down all experiences into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go.

Love, Kay

Good evening Kay

I will get to the questions, but I just have some practical questions first if you don't mind me asking.

I quit the gym today, it's been such a huge part of my identity for 10 years now, making myself look good and feel good, but now I go and I just look at myself and it's nothing. So I quit. It was hard, I didn't want to do it, but then I did it and felt a sense of relief. Things are just disappearing.
My job is different. I used to like the complexity and the high impact and intensity, but now it's different. The drive that made me want to do it just isn't there anymore. I can tell that it's on its way out, but it's good money and I've worked hard to get where I am. It's reasonable for me to want to live in comfortable conditions, but my will to bring these conditions about is just gone. Sometimes I feel like just walking away from everything and sitting in a park and just doing nothing, but I would starve to death and die.
How did you deal with this kind of stuff when you first went through this? Did you change or alter your work or the way you got your income in some way? Is there a "knack" to this way of being that I'm yet to figure out?

What deeper changes are you looking for? Since there was no separate ‘you’ before this inquiry started…then why would thoughts change? Thoughts have already changed just by seeing that thought is just thought and contains no experience whatsoever as what thoughts are ABOUT (content) is fiction. What changes, is that you see thought for what it is…AE of thought and you don’t seemed to get hooked as often or as deeply and so don’t go down the rabbit hole with thought as often. So the more you LOOK and see thought just as thought and see the content of thought as story, then the less suffering there is because what thought is saying no longer gets to be believed in so easily or quickly. But that doesn’t mean that believing thoughts will not happen! It may or it may not…who knows! The more you LOOK what seems to happen is that LOOKING begins to happen automatically and there is less efforting of remembering to LOOK.

I understand. I was just clarifying what we are trying to do, and I now get that we are trying to look and see what thoughts actually are. The more this is seen then the less thought stories are believed. Thank you for clarifying that :)

Is this clear? Is this what you were asking about?

Yes, this is clear now. The AR of Thought is always thought, regardless of whether it is a label, story, or memory.

Has this made it any clearer?

I don't think I explained myself clearly. What I was referring to is that you asked me to make a distinction between the colour red and the colour green, any distinction between the colours is just a story, a label given by thought. There is no difference between red and green in AE, it is all just the AE of colour. The rest is very clear.

Just break down all experiences into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go.

This is very clear and I'm doing it every day. I have a much greater clarity regarding thought now because of your explanation at the start of this post. I was stuck on this but now I see what is going on. I appreciate your patience and help with all of this.

With love

Ben

Hi Ben,

I quit the gym today, it's been such a huge part of my identity for 10 years now, making myself look good and feel good, but now I go and I just look at myself and it's nothing. So I quit. It was hard, I didn't want to do it, but then I did it and felt a sense of relief. Things are just disappearing.

So where is this “I” that made a decision to “quit the gym”?

My job is different. I used to like the complexity and the high impact and intensity, but now it's different. The drive that made me want to do it just isn't there anymore. I can tell that it's on its way out, but it's good money and I've worked hard to get where I am. It's reasonable for me to want to live in comfortable conditions, but my will to bring these conditions about is just gone. Sometimes I feel like just walking away from everything and sitting in a park and just doing nothing, but I would starve to death and die.

Since there have never been a ‘you’ driving ‘life’ ever, then what is it exactly that is driving life now? Is there an idea that AE only applies when you are doing these exercises and talking to me and that it doesn’t apply when you are out in the ‘world’. There is no ‘here’ and ‘there’.

Where is this “I” who has “worked hard to get where you are”?

I don't think I explained myself clearly. What I was referring to is that you asked me to make a distinction between the colour red and the colour green, any distinction between the colours is just a story, a label given by thought. There is no difference between red and green in AE, it is all just the AE of colour. The rest is very clear.

Yes, that’s right. But it seems that distinctions are made in the dream as we need to communicate etc. If you were asked at work to write a report in red pen, what would you do? So for the sake of deepening this exploration and for clarity, with exercises, it’s just to follow the exercise to see what you see from doing it.

So, I am going to give you the GREEN label exercise again. And just go with the exercise and answer each question individually please.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Love, Kay

Good evening Kay

So where is this “I” that made a decision to “quit the gym”?

There is no "I" that can make any decisions. It can't be located anywhere. Any "I" is just a story made of the AE of thought.

Since there have never been a ‘you’ driving ‘life’ ever, then what is it exactly that is driving life now? Is there an idea that AE only applies when you are doing these exercises and talking to me and that it doesn’t apply when you are out in the ‘world’. There is no ‘here’ and ‘there’.

Where is this “I” who has “worked hard to get where you are”?

There is no such idea. I allowed myself some "poetic license" to express some practical matters.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
The AE is of colour.

Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?

The colour red.

Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?

They do not. Anything that says they do is a story.

Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?

The labels suggest something other than what is AE, a story made of thought.

Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

It is a label, a story on the experience of the colour red.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?

It is not. It is still the experience of the colour red.

Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Labels have no effect whatsoever on reality.

With love

Ben

Hi Ben,

Since there have never been a ‘you’ driving ‘life’ ever, then what is it exactly that is driving life now? Is there an idea that AE only applies when you are doing these exercises and talking to me and that it doesn’t apply when you are out in the ‘world’. There is no ‘here’ and ‘there’.

Where is this “I” who has “worked hard to get where you are”?

There is no such idea. I allowed myself some "poetic license" to express some practical matters.

So, you are saying that even though there is no separate individual to be found anywhere, that there is still a separate individual who needs to address practical matters? (Don’t get too caught up in this, things will start to make sense. You’ve had a huge shake-up and there is bound to be questions and fears etc….but just hold steady and let it unfold. You’re doing a brilliant job with it all). There is no one figuring anything out ever and this will become clearer.

So what did you see from doing the GREEN label exercise?

Let’s take a closer look at thoughts.

And here is a little exercise. Sit for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear and notice what the thought actually is - words, images, bits of music - whatever appears.

Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying, and rather just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

- Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
- Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
- Where are they coming from?
- Where are they going?
- Can you predict your next thought?
- Can you push away any thought?
- Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
- Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?
- Can anything choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?
- Can anything pick and choose any kind of thought?
- Is it possible to control any thoughts?
- It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Please look carefully when doing this exercise and answer all questions individually using the quote function.

Love, Kay

Good evening Kay

So, you are saying that even though there is no separate individual to be found anywhere, that there is still a separate individual who needs to address practical matters? (Don’t get too caught up in this, things will start to make sense. You’ve had a huge shake-up and there is bound to be questions and fears etc….but just hold steady and let it unfold. You’re doing a brilliant job with it all). There is no one figuring anything out ever and this will become clearer.

Thank you for your kind words Kay :) I look and there is nothing there to "choose" or control anything.

So what did you see from doing the GREEN label exercise?

Labels don't correspond with reality. Labels aren't reality, they are the AE of thoughts. The AE of reality never changes despite any thought labels.

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

No. There is nothing that any "I" could do to make thoughts appear. There is no "i" or controller.

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

No. Nothing can be done to predict or change the next thought. Anything that says this is possible is another thought.

- Where are they coming from?

I don't know. Anything that says where thought comes from is just another thought.

- Where are they going?

I don't know. Anything that says it knows where they are going is another thought.

- Can you predict your next thought?

No. Anything that says the next thought can be predicted is another thought.

- Can you push away any thought?

No. There is no control over any thoughts. There is nothing that controls thoughts.

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

No. There is no "controller" that can choose this.

- Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

No. Anything that says it can stop thinking a thought is another thought.

- Can anything choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

There is no "me" that can choose this. There is no controller.

- Can anything pick and choose any kind of thought?

No. Nothing has "control" or "choice".

- Is it possible to control any thoughts?

This is impossible.

- It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

There is no order to thought. Thought refers to more thought. A memory, label, story. There is only ever AE. Anything that says otherwise is a thought-story.


With love

Ben