The Gate

Hi Wes,

Thought is also actual experience. Thought is experience which comes and goes just as sound, taste, sensation, sound and smell. So thought is actual, but the content of thought (what the thought is ABOUT) is just story. Is this clear?

AE is visual image/color, sound, taste, smell, tactile sensation, and thought, however the content of thought, the information contained in the thought is pure story and story is fiction. I see this, its not just accepted, I do see this.

AE is colour, sound, sensation, smell, taste and thought
Colour = visual and mental images. Actually there are no images - just colour. The shapes are defined by content of thought and shapes are just particular pattern of colour.

Sound is what is heard ie birds, car horns, wind, music etc + voices and the ‘voice in the head’!

AE of sensation does not only refer to tactile sensation but also the sensations that are felt 'in the body’ which are labelled as pain/ouch,fear, goosebumps, headache, excitement, hunger, thirst, movement, emotions and so on.

The question you posed earlier comes up.."What is here if all thought is ignored?" Well, is anything known without thought content? When looking in AE how is it known what is being seen? Is anything known in actual experience? Is there a difference in knowing in actual experience vs the knowing that comes from thought? Knowing that comes from thought content is not truly knowing. I know this process isn't about you answering my questions, these are just coming up...

Yes…thought itself is AE and the content of thought is made up of thought which is AE but what thought points to is story. Even Actual Experience is a concept, but it’s useful in that it’s pointing to what is happening now, not to what is imagined. If there was no idea what the meaning of a thought/label was, all there would be is sound (ie voices and the ‘voice heard in the head’) and/or colour, ie black squiggly lines that are labelled as sentences which are just ‘written thoughts’!

However, is not colour, sound, taste, smell, thought and sensation known? If all meaning/definition ABOUT them were dropped…would they disappear….would they be unknown?
When experience is vroomvroomyummyyummyouchouch, do you need thought to know that experience? Isn't it fully known without thought?

Knowing about something is thought while the knowing AS (the appearance) is Actual

How is it known that there are a variety of different sensations...because a thought said so?

Sensation is divided by thought and located by thought, it is easier to notice with eyes closed because a 3 dimensional image is there locating the sensation and designating a form (ie hand) 'source'. When eyes are open, the visual field appears 3 dimensionally (by thought??) and a certain sensation is sourced from some form in the visual field..the form is isolated and labeled by thought.

Hmmm…what’s a rather confusing thought story…but still a thought story!
How can a thought locate a sensation? Where in a thought can a ‘do-er’ or ‘creator’ be found? A thought is a thought – a thought cannot think, do, control, decide, gain or create anything!
A thought is experience just like sound, taste, smell, sensation and colour….can any of those create or do either? So why is thought any different?

Have you ever looked at thought? Really looked at it? Have you noticed that it doesn't have a voice? You can't hear it. You can't see it. You can't feel it. You can't taste it. You can't smell it. You are aware of it, though. In fact, if you try to describe thought, it's quite impossible.

What’s the AE of “a 3 dimensional image”?
How is it know that object/images are 3 dimensional….because a thoughts says so?


Sensation is sensation….the only difference is the content of story ABOUT the sensation!

If you drop all labels and images of appearing sensation…is there different experiences of
sensations or just sensation (singular)?

Sensation would just be there, it wouldn't be coming from some thing located somewhere.

That’s not the question. The question is…is there multiple sensations ie different kinds of sensations (plural) or just sensation (singular) with different stories (content of thought) attached to them? The idea of ‘different’ is just a concept.

Is there sensation AND the content of the sensation?
What is the content of a sensation?

Yes…and isn’t the thought “when the eyes are closed there is a mental image there in place of the visual image” be the thought that placed the location of the hand image and felt sensation together spatially?

Yes, I see that now

Good. Keep doing the exercise as often as you can. Do it with your foot, a finger etc.

The visual field being 3 dimensions is thought. Since mental images also appear 3 dimensionally I can see this. A mental image is pure thought and if it can have 3 dimensions then the 3 dimensional quality of it must be thought. In fact yes, space (3D) is thought! What is real?? Not sure what to say about seeing this

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

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

So can you ever be what thought says you are?

There is no thing being anything, thought says whatever it says, it has no bearing on what is. It appears some thought is useful but the majority of it is just the rantings of a mad man

What is it exactly that is interpreting thought and defining thought as just the ranting of a mad man. Is that not just another thought appearing that you are aware of?

Love, Kay

Hi Wes,

I hope I was able to clear this up for you! Haha….I know my head is spinning trying to put into words that point to making sense.

Are you aware of your thoughts, colours and sensations etc, or are they just thoughts, colours and sensations that are known?

I thought (mistakenly, I think) you were asking is there 'awareness' or is it 'known' what there is in AE. I answered it is known because 'awareness' doesn't actually exist. But knowing doesn't either after looking again...

Yes….’awareness’ doesn’t exist nor does ‘knowing’ as that would mean that there has to be something that is ‘knowing’ OF something. But we have to use language…otherwise there is no way of pointing! However, to keep it clear because there is so much attached to the word ‘awareness’, that I use the word ‘knowing’. There is no point in me pointing you to seeing through the illusory ‘person’ if you then start to identify as ‘awareness’ aka something that is aware of something else. At LU we guide out of identification. We don't give new ID’s, but get you to see that there is nothing there for any ID to stick to.

Then you replied..
Yes…no owner/author of thoughts or experience-er can be found, there are only thoughts ABOUT an owner/author/experience-er.
If colour was not known...how then would you be 'aware' of colour? So yes, all is just known.

I think you were making the point that there is not a 'someone' 'aware', but I'm confused by your second statement... If colour was not known...how then would you be 'aware' of colour? So yes, all is just known.

I'm confused about what knowing is. What is meant that there must be knowing in order for there to be awareness? Do you mean the label--color or the AE of color?

Can there be colour without the knowing of it? And I don’t mean the label colour. I am talking about colour itself. You can call it (colour) by another label and it won’t make any difference, it is still the knowing of experience (colour) which is known as experience. Experience knows itself as colour, sound, taste, smell, thought and sensation.

The AE of color being present, awareness of the presence, and knowing it is present is the same thing isn't it?

Yes, knowing and known are one and the same. There is no separation – no object/subject split. There is knowing of/as colour therefore it is known (knowingknown). Is "knowing" (consciousness), separate from what is “known", or are they one and the same experience?

If color is not present there is not awareness of color and color can not be known. You would have to go to thought in order to say color is known outside of it being present.

Yes exactly! “If color is not present there is not awareness (knowing) of color and color can not be known.”

It can be said that if color was not known then 'you' cannot be 'aware' of it, but if it is not present you cannot be aware of it either, to say that it known without it being present is the same as saying "I'm aware of what color is." aware and known have the same meaning and it is thought based.

It is thought that divides experience into sound, thought, colour, sensation, taste and smell.
Let’s use the painting of the Mona Lisa as an analogy - the paint being experience itself. Is there a division between the paint and what is painted? Is not the paint and the image one and the same? Is not the paint (the ‘known’) knowing of the ‘mona lisa’ (as itself)?

Colour is experience and as experience it is known. For the sake of language the word ‘aware’ or ‘knowing’ is used to point to what is ‘known’ and what has always been ‘known’ is experience itself.

In actual experience, "knowing" is just another word for "known"? There is no dividing line between ‘knowing’ and ‘known, they are one and the same. Experience-er of experience is the same as knowing and known. When you looked for the dividing line between knowing and known, did you find one? Are you able to separate a thought, which is a known (not talking about content of thought…just the appearance of thought itself) from the “knowing” of it? Are you able to separate sound, colour and so on from the ‘knowing” of it?

Experience has nothing. Anything it supposedly has, it actually IS (Knowingknown)
Does it have colour ? No, it IS colour.
Does it have taste ? No, it IS taste.
Does it have sound ? No, it IS sound etc. etc.

Can you see that there is no knower of knowing…that would need a subject and an object which = two, which = separation. There is just experience that is showing up as colour, sound, taste, smell etc. Experience is not made up of colour, taste, smell etc, they are experience itself. Without experience they would not exist. In other words, experience is not derived from colour, taste, smell etc, they are derived from experience.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be clear on what you mean. :)

I get that you want clarity…and that is great. But don’t believe anything I write…LOOK for yourself. Finding words and ways of pointing can be challenging at times because words are limited, that is why seeing can’t be done through intellectual means...it is experiential.

Much love, Kay

Hello Kay,

I posted another message while you were replying to this one that you might not have seen. Some of the questions I posted were becoming clear after I asked them.

However, is not colour, sound, taste, smell, thought and sensation known? If all meaning/definition ABOUT them were dropped…would they disappear….would they be unknown?

Yes! There does not need to be a thought explaining what it is, or a label for it to be known. It would not disappear and it would not be unknown without thought.

When experience is vroomvroomyummyyummyouchouch, do you need thought to know that experience? Isn't it fully known without thought?

Yes!

How is it known that there are a variety of different sensations...because a thought said so?

Yes, no story needed..because thought said so

Hmmm…what’s a rather confusing thought story…but still a thought story!

Sorry about that, I will avoid stories from here on. It wasn't my intention to convey what I was seeing so inaccurately.

How can a thought locate a sensation?

It cannot, simply says "This is the location of the sensation" or something to that effect.

Where in a thought can a ‘do-er’ or ‘creator’ be found?

Neither exist. There is just thoght about a 'do-er or 'creator' or the way a thought is worded a 'do-er or 'creator' is implied

A thought is a thought – a thought cannot think, do, control, decide, gain or create anything!

Yes, I see this.

A thought is experience just like sound, taste, smell, sensation and colour….can any of those create or do either? So why is thought any different?

No, and a thought cannot either. It is clear that thought is experience just like sound, taste, smell, sensation and color.

What’s the AE of “a 3 dimensional image”?

The AE of a 3 dimensional image is thought

How is it know that object/images are 3 dimensional….because a thoughts says so?

Yes, it is that simple

The question is…is there multiple sensations ie different kinds of sensations (plural) or just sensation (singular) with different stories (content of thought) attached to them?

Just sensation (singular) Any difference comes from thought content, but this thought is not attached to sensation except by thought content (not saying thought does anything).

Is there sensation AND the content of the sensation?

No, there is just sensation

What is the content of a sensation?

There is not a content of sensation

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

looking at the visual field there is a lot of thought present, but if I look at my laptop computer thought says "This is the border or form" thought labels it 'laptop computer' thought says that it is black, etc and it just keeps going, there are many many thoughts about this 'laptop computer'. It can be moved out of the visual field, but it cannot be removed as a separate thing.

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

No, nothing can be plucked out of the scene, there is nothing existing inside the screen and the image is a seamless whole. Again it is thought that says there are separate objects and they are not truly separated.

Doing this was very helpful, I saw clearly that there is nothing but color in the visual field, and that each type of experience is not related in any way to the other. ie a color cannot be felt, tasted, heard etc. It was very good.

What is it exactly that is interpreting thought and defining thought as just the ranting of a mad man. Is that not just another thought appearing that you are aware of?

Thanks I needed to see that. It is just a thought that appeared.

love, Wes

Hi Wes,

I responded to both of your posts. You might want to have a look. As I wrote on the last post I posted that trying to find words and pointers was challenging.

I will respond to your latest post, tomorrow.

Love, Kay

Hey Wes,

Whew! Three posts in a day! You're a slave driver ;)

However, is not colour, sound, taste, smell, thought and sensation known? If all meaning/definition ABOUT them were dropped…would they disappear….would they be unknown?

Yes! There does not need to be a thought explaining what it is, or a label for it to be known. It would not disappear and it would not be unknown without thought.

Great! :)

Hmmm…what’s a rather confusing thought story…but still a thought story!

Sorry about that, I will avoid stories from here on. It wasn't my intention to convey what I was seeing so inaccurately.

No apologies necessary. And if you feel the need to extrapolate, that is fine, because it is always a golden opportunity to see if seeing is clear or not :)

How can a thought locate a sensation?

It cannot, simply says "This is the location of the sensation" or something to that effect.

LOL…yes! Thought SEEMINGLY points to fact and fiction, however, that in itself is also a story. But without words (stories) there would be no way to convey this! :)

Where in a thought can a ‘do-er’ or ‘creator’ be found?

Neither exist. There is just thoght about a 'do-er or 'creator' or the way a thought is worded a 'do-er or 'creator' is implied

Yes, exactly..it is implied! :)

A thought is experience just like sound, taste, smell, sensation and colour….can any of those create or do either? So why is thought any different?

No, and a thought cannot either. It is clear that thought is experience just like sound, taste, smell, sensation and color.

Terrific!

What’s the AE of “a 3 dimensional image”?

The AE of a 3 dimensional image is thought

Yes! Look at two objects that you are aware of just now. The objects appear to be a bunch of colours.
The space between them is also just a bunch of colours. The colours are real, but both the objects and the space they occupy are only a story about those colours!
Can you see this?

The question is…is there multiple sensations ie different kinds of sensations (plural) or just sensation (singular) with different stories (content of thought) attached to them?

Just sensation (singular) Any difference comes from thought content, but this thought is not attached to sensation except by thought content (not saying thought does anything).

Yes, exactly! I laughed and laughed at you’re re-iteration that you’re not saying thought does anything! Thank you for that precious moment! It was like you were saying…yep, not springing that trap again! LOL

Is there sensation AND the content of the sensation?
No, there is just sensation

What is the content of a sensation?
There is not a content of sensation

Great :)

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

looking at the visual field there is a lot of thought present, but if I look at my laptop computer thought says "This is the border or form" thought labels it 'laptop computer' thought says that it is black, etc and it just keeps going, there are many many thoughts about this 'laptop computer'. It can be moved out of the visual field, but it cannot be removed as a separate thing.

Yes. What IS, is changeless but what shows up or appears as THIS is always changing.

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

No, nothing can be plucked out of the scene, there is nothing existing inside the screen and the image is a seamless whole. Again it is thought that says there are separate objects and they are not truly separated.

Yes. It is only thought that divides colour into objects. Where does colour begin and end?

Doing this was very helpful, I saw clearly that there is nothing but color in the visual field, and that each type of experience is not related in any way to the other. ie a color cannot be felt, tasted, heard etc. It was very good.

That’s great, Wes. So can smell create a thought or vice versa? Can a thought create a sensation and so on? Is there such a thing as ‘cause and effect’?

What is it exactly that is interpreting thought and defining thought as just the ranting of a mad man. Is that not just another thought appearing that you are aware of?

Thanks I needed to see that. It is just a thought that appeared.

Haha…yes! Ranting mad men do not exist nor do sane charming one's either! ;) (Gotta love playfulness!!)

With love, Kay

Hi Kay!

Thank you so much for your diligence in responding back to me, (3 times in one day!) sleep eluded me last night so I had all that time to focus on our conversation! Now I think you deserve a short break ;) And it's been a long day and I need some rest, I have read all of your posts, but I need to spend some time with them to give you a proper response, and I will do that tomorrow! Oh, you cleared everything up nicely, really good stuff in your posts thanks so much!

much love, Wes

Thanks Wes...I hope I get holiday pay for my time off ;) (laughing) It's good that you are giving yourself some time to read and to let things settle, to read again and then to go from there.

Until then...

Love, Kay

Hi Kay,

You're right I needed a day for things to settle, and there is still some settling going on :)

Look at two objects that you are aware of just now. The objects appear to be a bunch of colours.
The space between them is also just a bunch of colours. The colours are real, but both the objects and the space they occupy are only a story about those colours!
Can you see this?

Yes! And so much story about color! There are no boundries really, it is just thought that says red is different from blue for example.

So can smell create a thought or vice versa? Can a thought create a sensation and so on? Is there such a thing as ‘cause and effect’

A smell cannot create anything, nor can a thought create a smell, or a sensation. Cause and effect is purely an idea, its not true. The scent of a rose is noticed..a mental image arises of a rose with the thought 'a rose'.. then a thought story ties this together saying 'the 'rose scent' caused the 'rose image' which also implies time which does not exist either.

I hope I was able to clear this up for you! Haha….I know my head is spinning trying to put into words that point to making sense.

Yes you did. The lack of clarity was happening on my side, not from your pointing, but what I was seeing and not seeing. There was seeming confusion happening here because certain thoughts were not seen as thoughts, certain thoughts were considered by other thought 'reality'..and this 'considering' was also just thoughts LOL!(again, no thought doing anything here ;) ), but rest assured it is all becoming more clear here.

love, Wes

Hi Wes!

You're right I needed a day for things to settle, and there is still some settling going on :)

I’m glad you feel ‘rested’….ready for the next onslaught of pointing ;) (grinning wickedly!)
Yes, settling will continue to happen for some time!

Look at two objects that you are aware of just now. The objects appear to be a bunch of colours.
The space between them is also just a bunch of colours. The colours are real, but both the objects and the space they occupy are only a story about those colours!
Can you see this?

Yes! And so much story about color! There are no boundries really, it is just thought that says red is different from blue for example.

Colours appear different but they are still experience! For example, a marble cake – the layers of marble cake may be different colours, however it is still the same cake!

So can smell create a thought or vice versa? Can a thought create a sensation and so on? Is there such a thing as ‘cause and effect’

A smell cannot create anything, nor can a thought create a smell, or a sensation. Cause and effect is purely an idea, its not true. The scent of a rose is noticed..a mental image arises of a rose with the thought 'a rose'.. then a thought story ties this together saying 'the 'rose scent' caused the 'rose image' which also implies time which does not exist either.

So next time you stub your toe, see if there is really a person with a toe and an object on which the toe was kicked. Thought will say there certainly is…but LOOK! :)

I hope I was able to clear this up for you! Haha….I know my head is spinning trying to put into words that point to making sense.

Yes you did. The lack of clarity was happening on my side, not from your pointing, but what I was seeing and not seeing. There was seeming confusion happening here because certain thoughts were not seen as thoughts, certain thoughts were considered by other thought 'reality'..and this 'considering' was also just thoughts LOL!(again, no thought doing anything here ;) ), but rest assured it is all becoming more clear here.

Great! Something for you to ponder on:

Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of colour.
Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of sound.
Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of taste.
Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of smell.
Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of sensation.
Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of thought.
So where is this 'confusion'?

Okay, so let’s have a LOOK at the body.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?
Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

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

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.

Love, Kay

Hello Kay,

I'm off work on vacation so I had several opportunities to do this exercise and it was done carefully per your instruction.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

It cannot.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No

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

No

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

No

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No

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

No inside, no outside

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

Just thoughts about a body

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Just thought, there is no body!

Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of colour.
Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of sound.
Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of taste.
Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of smell.
Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of sensation.
Notice how there is no 'confusion' in the knowing of thought.
So where is this 'confusion'?

Confusion is just a thought that appears!

Thank you Kay!

love, Wes

Hi Wes,

I can see that you LOOKED carefully as per instructions and I have no further questions re the body. And yes, there is no actual experience of a body and the label 'body' is the AE of thought only.

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’?

Please answer all questions individually.

Love, Kay

Hi Kay,

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

The AE is red

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

The color red

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

No

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

The label suggests green which is not the experience of the label which is red.

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 just a word label (green) on the experience of the color red.

Z

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 red :)

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

The label has no effect on reality.

love, Wes

Hi Wes,

So, as you saw from that exercise that labels/thoughts have no affect on reality at all...not matter what a thought SEEMINGLY 'says'!

The following exercise will help with the idea of 'movement' as well as a deeper LOOK at the body.

You might want to print the step-by-step instructions or take the laptop with you to the mirror. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. You can also repeat the whole exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

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

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.
Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.
Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.
Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).
Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?


(8) Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?


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

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

Love, Kay

Hi Kay,

Here is what I found.

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

There is no connection between the image in the mirror and the felt sensation in and of themselves. This is only suggested by thought and mental images. One interesting mental image was of a white line appearing from the right eye in the image in the mirror going to where thought said the real eye was. It had an effect(sort of) of being superimposed on the actual image.

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

No

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

No, only suggested by thought

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

Not the image itself just thought. Also interesting that a thought would say 'my face'... 'your head' as if it was me talking to myself and sometimes like another talking to me. There was some laughing when this was noticed.

Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?

The image suggests nothing at all.

Or are there only colours and shapes?

There is color only. I see that thought suggests shapes.

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

There is no knowledge of legs by the image alone, but thought said there are legs along with a mental image of them and attention going to the sensations labeled 'legs' when I read this question.

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

If all thought is ignored there is just sensation, and no body anywhere.

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

there are only sensations.

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

no, it is found only in thought

Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

Yes, just thoughts about walking.

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

I walked on outside and looked at walking for a while, I noticed that there were not many thoughts at all about a body and only sporadic appearances of body parts, most of the time no part of the body is even in the visual field except for the side of the nose and its translucent :)! When looking for a body while walking only mental images, thought labels for parts of a body and thoughts about a body can be found.

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

No, and it takes a lot of thought to explain what it is.

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

There is just appearing sensations with no location, thought says that they have a location and that they are moving through and image labeled room or outside etc.

love, Wes

Good afternoon, Wes!

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

Not the image itself just thought. Also interesting that a thought would say 'my face'... 'your head' as if it was me talking to myself and sometimes like another talking to me. There was some laughing when this was noticed.

Haha! Yes! Thought having a word with itself??!! :P :)

Or are there only colours and shapes?

There is color only. I see that thought suggests shapes.

Yes…shapes are nothing but a particular pattern of colour!

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

If all thought is ignored there is just sensation, and no body anywhere.

Excellent! :)

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

there are only sensations.

Great!

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

no, it is found only in thought

Yes!

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

I walked on outside and looked at walking for a while, I noticed that there were not many thoughts at all about a body and only sporadic appearances of body parts, most of the time no part of the body is even in the visual field except for the side of the nose and its translucent :)! When looking for a body while walking only mental images, thought labels for parts of a body and thoughts about a body can be found

Yes…and the odd foot that comes into view as well!

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

No, and it takes a lot of thought to explain what it is.

Yes…it surely does!

Actual experience is self-evident (not person evident). Any evidence that is contingent upon thought, by its very definition cannot be actual experience! Or put another way; what thought is necessary to know what is known (colour, sensation, smell, taste, thought, colour)? None!

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

There is just appearing sensations with no location, thought says that they have a location and that they are moving through and image labeled room or outside etc.

Terrific LOOKING, Wes!

Okay, unless you have any questions, I think the time has come for the final questions. To me you have seen pretty clearly through the idea of a separate self. Could you please answer the following questions individually and with some detail. In question 5, please provide examples.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience.
Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this?
What is the difference from before you started this dialogue?
Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control.
What makes things happen? How does it work?
What are you responsible for?
Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?

With love,
Kay