The Gate

Hi Kay,

You said:

Can you see then, how THIS is indescribable"? Without thought stories overlaying THIS... there is simply THIS appearing as everything.
I don't know if I get this fully. I find this statement very deep. So much to expand on. Do you think it's valid to say:
Thought gives a certain meaning to things that in actuality they don't have. As an objects appears, thought appears. Apart from the facts i.e. AE! Thought labels these objects with meanings, as to describe the objects. I don't know how to put this, but as I see for instance my mobile, thought comes in and starts commenting as if it knows something. How can a thought know anything. It doesn't, it only comments.

But for example, when I see cash ( notes and coins), although it's only colour,sensation (when touched) it also means something in the world. Would this be thought then? But like whatever thought says I know what to do with it, but again this is thought articulating. Would you agree?

When you also say "there is simply THIS appearing as everything" - what do you mean exactly???
Is it that if there is no thought or thought is ignored, then there is only "what is appearing"? Not one thing but THIS? Beause only thought says One as opposition to THIS??
Can you please comment on this?

Kay you haven't asked any questions.
I'll wait for your response :)

Thank you

Love,
CLaudia

Hey Claudia,

I didn’t highlight any particular questions in my last post because I was giving you the opportunity to answer any of them that were posed if you felt you were unclear about something. I am going to do the same with this post and only highlight one question.

Can you see then, how THIS is indescribable"? Without thought stories overlaying THIS... there is simply THIS appearing as everything.

I don't know if I get this fully. I find this statement very deep. So much to expand on. Do you think it's valid to say:

Thought gives a certain meaning to things that in actuality they don't have.

The actual experience of thought isn't any different just because the content of the thought is different...the content of thought is thought! If thoughts were expressed via the tweeting of birds or an unknown language, how would you know what they meant? What meaning is given to thoughts are only just thoughts about thoughts. Thought appears that ‘tell stories’, and thoughts appearance is not thought but experience/THIS itself showing up as thought.

As an objects appears, thought appears. Apart from the facts i.e. AE! Thought labels these objects with meanings, as to describe the objects. I don't know how to put this, but as I see for instance my mobile, thought comes in and starts commenting as if it knows something. How can a thought know anything. It doesn't, it only comments.

Yes, thought knows nothing…it is not aware. It is only another appearing thought that says thought knows something. The knowing ABOUT something is thought, while the knowing AS (the appearance ie sound, colour etc) is direct.

An example of the difference between actual experience, and thought ABOUT actual experience: If I had to ask you to describe the actual experience of “sitting on a chair with eyes closed,” you may say, “Blackness, some sound coming from the room next door, and pressure of the backside on the chair.” But that is NOT actual experience. That is what thought says about actual experience. In actual experience, there is only experience which thought labels “blackness”, “sensation”, “sound”, and “thought.” And THOUGHT is saying that the sensation is located in a backside, and that it is caused by a backside on chair, and that sound is coming from a room next door. But all of that thought story is completely empty of any ‘content.’ It is nothing more than the appearance of abstractions referring to other abstractions.

The actual experience of “blackness”, “sound”, and “sensation” says absolutely nothing, in itself, about a chair, or a backside, or location. Sound itself, says nothing about location – only thought says something about its location. Sensation says nothing about location – only thought says something about its location. “Location” consists PURELY of thought about other thought, and has absolutely no reference in the actual experience labelled “blackness”, “sound”, and “sensation.” And sensation says nothing about cause and effect – only thought says that the sensation is caused by the backside on the chair.

“Cause and effect” consist PURELY of thought about other thought, and has absolutely no reference in the actual experience labelled “blackness,” “sound,” and “sensation.”

But for example, when I see cash ( notes and coins), although it's only colour,sensation (when touched) it also means something in the world. Would this be thought then? But like whatever thought says I know what to do with it, but again this is thought articulating. Would you agree?

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

So, for example: thought says: “There is sound.” Now, replace the thought with “blahblahblah.” Look at experience, with thought only saying “blahbahblah.” Is there still sound? If yes, that thought is referring to actual experience. That’s a “bare bones” thought, with all additional story layers stripped.

Now, if thought says: “I am hearing that sound,” replace the thought with “blahblahblah.” Look at experience, with thought only saying “blahblahblah.” Is there a person hearing, without the thought saying so? If no, then you know that the thought has added “virtual layers.” It’s fantasy, and it isn’t confirmed as actual experience, because what it was saying didn’t remain when the thought was replaced with “blahblahblah.”

That’s the inquiry. So for every thought that comes up, to determine whether it is referring to actual experience or whether it is pure fantasy, replace it with “blahblahblah” and check whether what it was referring to remains.

When you also say "there is simply THIS appearing as everything" - what do you mean exactly???

Is it that if there is no thought or thought is ignored, then there is only "what is appearing"? Not one thing but THIS? Beause only thought says One as opposition to THIS??

Yes, if there were no thoughts, then what is appearing is THIS exactly as it is. It is only thought that divides this into sound AND taste AND sensation AND smell AND thought AND colour. There are no divisions...there is no AND.

To simplify it….look at a table. Now thought will say that the colour labelled ‘brown’ (or whatever colour your table is) is a table and it has a description of the table having four legs, a level top and is used for eating food upon etc.

Now…IGNORE all thoughts about what it says the colour ‘brown’ is ie being a table, and you are left with the label ‘brown’. Now IGNORE the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now IGNORE the label ‘colour’ and what is there is THIS/experience. Try this same exercise with sound, sensation, taste, smell and thought. Let me know how you go.

Experience/THIS is appearing as soundcoloursensationsmelltastethought and not the other way round.

Love, Kay
xx

Hey Kay,

Thank you for your points in relation to actual experience, content of thoughts etc. I am clearer on those.

I also read our previous posts and I think I got when you said that experiencing is not knowing. I can never know experience I can only experience it.
As I hear a sound, only sound is present. As I see a sight, image all I experience is colour. I can only experience whatever IS.

The trickier point for me is to see thought as thought. Usually I go Straight to thought content, instead of discriminating thought from thought content. Thought content is always just thought!!! I usually believe it to be Something real. This is my struggle.

I find myself during the day completely lost in thought. I know that if I am aware that I am lost in thought then that's noticed and is also a thought but until THAT POINT I am competely lost in the illusion of thought, it is as if thought as a life of its own. I don't know why this happens like that. Why am I not always aware that thought content is only thought why do I still believe thought as it happens.

The exercise:
Now ignore the label colour and what is there is THIS/experience.
As I ignore the label colour I still see colour/shape. Even ignoring the colour what is there remains without label but "something" . I see that is thought that's says colour is there, and is thought that says it is a table. But apart from that what is there to see? What is THIS that you speak about? Can you help me further here Kay?

Thank you
all my Love
Cláudia

Hello Claudia,

I also read our previous posts and I think I got when you said that experiencing is not knowing. I can never know experience I can only experience it.
As I hear a sound, only sound is present. As I see a sight, image all I experience is colour. I can only experience whatever IS.

Hmmm…experience/knowing/awareness are synonymous…they are all just another word for THIS. There cannot be an experiencer of experience…that would mean that there is two of something.

For a sound to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ of sound! Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ of the sound and the sound itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?

Let’s go back to the first post I posted about looking at AE.



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

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

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

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

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

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known? Actual experience is known but, an apple is not known. What is known is colour, sound (crunch), taste, smell, sensation (touch) and label/thought which points to all of these and labels as an apple. So they are all known (actual EXPERIENCE) …but is an ‘apple’ actually known?

The trickier point for me is to see thought as thought. Usually I go Straight to thought content, instead of discriminating thought from thought content. Thought content is always just thought!!! I usually believe it to be Something real. This is my struggle.

Really? Where is this “I” that is believing thought content to be real? How is this known? Even though you don't choose what thought appears, can you separate the knowing of the thought from the thought itself? Is there a border where thought stops and you start?


You always know exactly 'what is' by being directly aware of what is, including being directly aware of thought. Are you never not aware of thought when it appears? Even the thought “I usually believe it to be something real. This is my struggle”? You aren't the least bit confused or deluded - it's just *thought* that doesn't know what is going on!

I find myself during the day completely lost in thought. I know that if I am aware that I am lost in thought then that's noticed and is also a thought but until THAT POINT I am competely lost in the illusion of thought, it is as if thought as a life of its own. I don't know why this happens like that. Why am I not always aware that thought content is only thought why do I still believe thought as it happens.

Again..where is this “I”? If you were actually lost in thought, how would you find your way out of it? How would you know you were lost in thought if you were actually lost in it?

But, to answer your question….LOOKING needs to happen…to continue to happen consistently and diligently every day throughout each day until it becomes an automatic happening. And it will. It is like learning to ride a bike…you practice everyday until you no longer fall off the bike…and once it is learned it is never unlearned! LOOKING will begin to happen by itself.

The exercise:
Now ignore the label colour and what is there is THIS/experience.
As I ignore the label colour I still see colour/shape. Even ignoring the colour what is there remains without label but "something" . I see that is thought that's says colour is there, and is thought that says it is a table. But apart from that what is there to see? What is THIS that you speak about? Can you help me further here Kay?

No…I didn’t ask you to ignore what was appearing…I asked you to ignore ALL the labels including the label ‘colour’. And when you ALL thoughts about table, brown, and colour…all that is is THIS which thought is labelling as ‘colour’ and further labels as the ‘colour brown’ and further labels as a ‘table’.

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

Love, Kay
xx

Hi my dear Kay,

"There cannot be an experiencer of experience ... that would mean there is two of something"
Then you also said : " for a sound to be known then there must be a knowing of sound" .

Isn't the above separation? To have the knowing of sound, there is something that knows the sound. I'm confused. Experiencer= knowing/ act of knowing and experience = sound. See two things.

Can a dividing line be found between the knowing of sound and the sound itself? Or is it 'knowingknown'?
Yes it's knowingsound.

Is there really an apple here , or only colour and a thought about apple?
Colour and thought about apple.

Can apple be found in AE?
No, only colour can be found.

Is an apple actually known?
No apple by itself is known. Colour and shape, plus taste smell sensation is found.

Where is the "I" that is believing thought content is real?
No separate I is found. What I found was that, it's all thought speaking here. Not that thought can do anything.

I don't know if I exist outside of thought. But then all I know is thought, so this can't be. No matter how hard I try there is this need to find out what I am. All I know is thought, but I am not a thought because thought does not know.. I know thought and not the other way around.
This must be impossible to know what I am. I can only know what I am NOT. But this does not make it any easier.. there is no realisation in this.
sorry Kay, I am speaking out loud.. I am a little frustrated today.. this need to be self realised and to see what you are pointing is stronger some days!! Some days it's like I cannot wait to end this and to see once and for all reality as it is and not be deluded by thought.

The only way I know to know objects is to have a subject-object relationship, I know, I see, I hear.. always some "thing" .. even to look at the apple.. it's like " I AM looking AT the apple". OR " I AM looking AT colour". There is always a ME experiencing SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kill me now!


Is there a border where thought stops and you start?
Great question! NO. There is nothing apart from me. Thought cannot exist without me! But I am not a thought! I know a thought. A thought does not know me, ever!

I loved when you said
" it's just thought that doesn't know what is going on!"
Sometimes I just wish thoughts would stop and leave me alone! I don't want to be searching and feeling incomplete anymore!

What separates things?
Thought does.

What mAkes up the borders?
Thought.

Can we pluck a thing out of then scenery in front of us?
No. You see? I know thought is powerless in a way because it can't do anything, but ME or whatever knows Thought, and whatever saw the doodle above is also powerless!! I can only be aware. I can't do anything. KAy why do I think I act through thought? You see, as I try to articulate my responses here there is something here, thinking, articulating these words.. telling you my point of view. What is this?

If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?
Hum.. it is thought (..). I see no other way.

Are there objects existing inside the screen or is it the image a seamless whole?
It's a seemless whole.

What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture?
Omg! Thought!!!!!!

Are they truly separated?
No. They are thought. They are Made of the same substance as thought. Thought is not separated. Thought is known my me.

All my love and gratitude to you
Claudia

Hey Claudia,

"There cannot be an experiencer of experience ... that would mean there is two of something"
Then you also said : " for a sound to be known then there must be a knowing of sound" .

Isn't the above separation? To have the knowing of sound, there is something that knows the sound. I'm confused. Experiencer= knowing/ act of knowing and experience = sound. See two things.

LOOK carefully here. Where does sound (known) stop and the knowing (experience) of it begin/start? Where is the dividing line between the two? In other words are you able to separate a sound (known) from the “knowing” of it?

Sit quietly and close your eyes. Notice a sound…now try and find where sound ends and experience begins. Can you find a division between the sound and the experience of sound? Is the knowing (experience) of sound separate to the sound itself?

Is "knowing" (consciousness/experience/awareness/THIS), separate from what is “known" (sound, thought, smell, taste, colour sensation), or are they one and the same experience?

Can a dividing line be found between the knowing of sound and the sound itself? Or is it 'knowingknown'?

Yes it's knowingsound.

See my answer above. Sound, like thought, smell, taste, sensation, colour are KNOWN….they are ACTUAL, as in actual EXPERIENCE and you are aware (ie knowing) of/as actual experience. Knowing ABOUT something is thought; while the knowing AS (the appearance) is direct. You always know exactly 'what is' by being directly aware of what is (ie the known which is sound, thought, sensation etc)

Experience/knowing/awareness/consciousness/THIS (whatever you call it) is appearing as sound, thought, smell, sensation, taste, colour and not the other way round. Experience = soundcolourtastesmellthoughtsensation…they are one and the same ‘thing’.

Listen for a sound…now ignore all thoughts and images about what the sound is, and all there is….is experience labelled ‘sound’. Now drop the label ‘sound’ and all there is …is experience/THIS/knowing/awareness appearing as what thought labels ‘sound’. Can you see this?

I don't know if I exist outside of thought. But then all I know is thought, so this can't be. No matter how hard I try there is this need to find out what I am. All I know is thought, but I am not a thought because thought does not know.. I know thought and not the other way around.
This must be impossible to know what I am. I can only know what I am NOT. But this does not make it any easier.. there is no realisation in this.

Yes exactly… you ARE but you certainly are not a thought, otherwise you would disappear when the “I’ thought, and thoughts about an “I” disappeared!

Thought is experience and experience is always here! It is just thought that says thought is something other than experience. It is only thought that says experience is appearing as thought! So, thought never appears it is always here as thought is experience!

Experience/THIS is not a thought, the thought is THIS/experience.
And there is that subtle difference which is so easily overlooked!
All these ‘things’, will always be THIS/experience but THIS/experience will never be one of those things that it SEEMS to appear as.

Is there a border where thought stops and you start?

Great question! NO. There is nothing apart from me. Thought cannot exist without me! But I am not a thought! I know a thought. A thought does not know me, ever!

YES…so where is the confusion? The only problem is that because you can’t clearly define what you are…that you are becoming frustrated with it all. What you are has NO identity!

You want the identification with an “I/self” to stop as proof that you have 100% clearly seen that there is no self....right? But that idea/thought is just another thought bubble and is seen in utter clarity. Even the idea that something is identifying with thought about being able to choose, decide, control is just an idea. There is NOTHING here that can identify with thought. Only thought says that something is identifying as/with anything and that there is something that is/can control, choose, decide or do.

I loved when you said
" it's just thought that doesn't know what is going on!"
Sometimes I just wish thoughts would stop and leave me alone! I don't want to be searching and feeling incomplete anymore!

Have you ever looked at thought? Really looked at it? Does thought have a voice? Does thought have sound? Does thought have an image? Does thought have a sensation? Does thought have a taste? Does thought have a smell? Can you describe a thought?

What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture?

Omg! Thought!!!!!!

YES!!!! It is only thought that divides experience into categories and then labels them as sound AND smell AND taste AND sensation AND colour AND thought. There is no AND. There is only soundsmelltastesensationcolourthought aka THIS/experience.

Are they truly separated?

No. They are thought. They are Made of the same substance as thought. Thought is not separated. Thought is known my me.

Yes, thought which is known, is known by 'the' knowing. There is no knowing and known...where is the dividing line between knowing and the known? Are they made from different substances?

And the 'me' that you are referring to is not the self labelled as “me/I/Claudia/person/character”. If you were actually the character called Claudia..you would cease to exist when the character ceased to exist. In every moment are you aware of the character called Claudia? No, only when thoughts appear that point to a Claudia doing something etc!

It is the same when Santa Claus was seen to be a mythical character. When that was seen did Santa disappear off the face of the earth, or was it simply known that he wasn't real? When he appears at Christmas time or any other time for that matter...is it a problem?

Love, Kay
xx

Hi Kay,

where does the sound (known) stop and the knowing (experience) of it begin/start?
One is not without the other. Sound=knowing.

Where is the line between the two?
No line.

In order words are you able to separate a sound (known) from the "knowing" of it?
No. This is clear. No separation found either.

Is the knowing (experience) of sound separate to the sound itself?
No. Sound would not exist without the knowing of it.

Is "knowing" (consciousness/experience/awareness/this) separate from what is "known" (sound,thought,smell, taste,colour,sensation) or are they one and the same experience?
One and the same experience, but thIs, I, am not a sound,taste,colour,sensation.. humm..

When you ask to ignore all the labels including sound etc what I find is experience as it is. Thought calls it sound., but.. is THIS. Sound is thought also right?

Kay you said:
You ARE but certainly are not a thought, otherwise you would disappear when the "I" thought and thoughts about an "I" disappeared!
This actually did stop my mind for 2seconds or so. Thought was confused as to not being able to atribute a certain meaning to the above statement. For a quick moment I had a glimpse where there are no I present. It was like I as ONE with experience. But quickly thought appeared again.

Kay I don't think I got this:
Thought never appears it is always here as thought is experience.
So is sound,taste,smell etc thoughts too? As you say thought is always here but so is taste,smell,sound,colour etc.

Also,
Experience/THIS is not a thought, the thought is THIS/experience.


Does thought have a voice?
No.
Does it have a sound?
No.
Does thought have an image?
No.
Does it have a sensation?
No.

Kay it's NO to all the above but, please can you clarify something.
I think that thought is different than a sound,taste,smell but I don't know if these appear in the form of thoughts or is it just Knowing AS sound, taste, smell , thought.

The hardest question ever:
can you describe thought?
😨 I'll do my best. I think thought is an internal commentary. It can appear as an image also. My dads image came to mind now.
Also, as I look at the glass, the first thing is that it appears as a thought.

Kay you also said:
There is no knowing and known..
Ok, so all there is is knowing/known right??? Please can you let me know here. Yes they are made of the same substance. It seems thought substance.


Ok so all I need to see is that claudia is the same as Santa Claus. It is not real. I know that simply denying it will not do it. I need to really see it for myself. Then no problem.

Hi Kay,

We've gone beyond the realms of exploring the concept of there being no separate self. This is now delving into a conversation that is done in the 'further investigations' forum, after the recognition of no inherent self has been seen. Seeing what you are not is what leads you to see what IS.

Is "knowing" (consciousness/experience/awareness/this) separate from what is "known" (sound,thought,smell, taste,colour,sensation) or are they one and the same experience?

One and the same experience, but thIs, I, am not a sound,taste,colour,sensation.. humm..

The simplicity is right there, Claudia. Put aside what thought labels as sound, labels as sensation, labels as thought, labels as colour, labels as taste, labels as smell. All there is…is THIS (which in itself is a label...but language is needed to point). If there were no thoughts....how could you possibly describe experience labelled 'sound' or 'smell' etc?

When you ask to ignore all the labels including sound etc what I find is experience as it is. Thought calls it sound., but.. is THIS. Sound is thought also right?

The LABEL‘sound’ is thought…YES. The label 'sound' is AE of thought!
Without the label ‘sound’…all there is, is THIS which is indescribable.
Describe the ‘sound’ labelled ‘wind blowing’. Is there really 'wind blowing' or is that experience which thought is describing as 'wind blowing'?


Is gold separate from what it appears as. Is the form of a ring separate to the gold it is made from? Or are they both the same thing? Does the gold change, or does it still remain as gold…no matter if it is a ring, necklace, ear rings etc? If you melt down the ring and then make it into a bracelet…does the substance it is made from change or disappear? NO. Only the form changes…but the substance never does.

When watching a program on the TV. Does the screen change at all when the pictures on the screen change? Or does the screen remain the same and what changes it what appears on it?

You ARE but certainly are not a thought, otherwise you would disappear when the "I" thought and thoughts about an "I" disappeared!

This actually did stop my mind for 2seconds or so. Thought was confused as to not being able to atribute a certain meaning to the above statement. For a quick moment I had a glimpse where there are no I present. It was like I as ONE with experience. But quickly thought appeared again.

Thought can’t be confused. Thought is not a self aware 'thing'/entity. Confusion is appearing in this moment..but if you LOOK can you find anyone/anything that is actually confused? Are you not perfectly aware that thought appeared saying “I am confused”, or “this confuses me”? Confusion is an appearance but can an actual I/me be found that is confused?

Notice that all thoughts, are simply known in utter clarity, and notice, especially, that NO thoughts are believed.
They are simply known, as they show up, at face value...even the thought "I believe I am a person" i seen with utter clarity. But what does that thought point to? Does it point to AE of a person or does it point to stories about AE of colour, sound, sensation? If you're aware of this sentence, then the thoughts that you are aware of, right now, are the only thoughts in existence. Nothing other than’you’ is aware of thoughts, but ‘you’ do not direct thoughts, any more than ‘you’ direct the flickering of flames in a fire. Can you see this?

can you describe thought?

I'll do my best. I think thought is an internal commentary. It can appear as an image also. My dads image came to mind now.
Also, as I look at the glass, the first thing is that it appears as a thought.

No…you are describing thinking about what thoughts are saying ie content of thought - thoughts about though describing thought. I asked you to describe a thought. What does it smell like, taste like, look like, feel like, where is it found? What is it made of? I want you to describe what a thought is.

While you are at it, I want you to describe the taste of ice-cream for me. Not what is made from ie milk or that it is cold, tastes creamy, vanilla, chocolate and I don’t want you to describe what the ‘taste’ refers to…I want you to describe the experience of/as taste. , there is no taste, there is only experience which thought is describing as taste.


Love, Kay
xx

Hi Kay,

I am a little schoked that we have already gone beyond the concept of there being no separate self. It seems like we only started to chat a few days ago 😊! It was so enjoyable and liberating for me! I am a little scared now! What am I going to do without you!!

You said:
If there were no thoughts .. how could you possibly describe experience labelled 'sound' or smell etc?
I read and ponder this a lot today. It's really incredible the power that thought has in all this illusion. Not that thought can do or have powers I am not saying that, but don't we need thought tho? If there were no thoughts then I would not have an idea of a self even!! Is this right Kay? Sorry if I keep Asking and talking about the same subjects as I really don't want to bother you or annoy you with the same questions but this thought, and content of thought, and actual expericence of thought , are the really tricky parts for me!!

You said before and I agreed that thoughts have nothing on them but, thoughts is so real at Times as to fool me. Fool me in thinking things are real, is an apple! There is no apple only, colour etc. I see people on the street , again thoughts says people but actual experience says colour etc.
When I said before that I find myself lost in thought, this is what I meant. I start really good at the beginning of the day, like "remembering" that there is no actual people but colours etc, well it's not actually remembering, it's more like I am in a way more aware of actual experience and thought it's not there to confuse me, but during the day, I don't know how , there's me, comunicating to other people as "A SOMEONE" , assuming there is another someone answering me, asking me things etc!
I don't seem to get past this. Then I am totally confused again. I remind myself but wait " I am only a thought appearing, I only see colour as a body etc.
KAy I hope you don't mind me speaking out loud like this, I just want you to know where I am at.

Describe the sound labelled "wind blowing". Is there really "wind blowing" or is that experience which thought is describing as "wind blowing"?
Yes that's it exactly. You see how thought is ? Fools everyone! It's sooo easy to miss the actual experience and be fooled by the illusion. YES! I see that wind blowing is for example a sensation or a sound. Wind blowing does not know anything, and a sensation or sound also does not know about the wind blowing. Thought labels it. Sound is and sensation is. :)

When watching a program on TV. Does the screen change at all when the pictures on the screen change?
No. The images depend on the screen but the screen as well as being the images is also independent from the images.

Yes the screen remains the same and what changes is what appears on it.

Kay you also said:
But if you look can you find anyone/anything that is actually confused?
I wanted to say, as confusion is appearing in this moment - then I am confused. There is something wrong in this statement. You gave an example before about sound and hearer. I could see then there is no sound without hearer and no hearer without sound. As one is the other is -hearing/sound.
Do you think the same approach can be used here?
Confusion/awareness. I am not confused because as confusion happens ,awareness of it happens. When does the I ends and the confusing starts?
I is only assumed.
Kay can you please say something or maybe you have a different approach to this.

This is where I still struggle:

Even the thought " I believe I am a person" is seen with utter clarity. But what does that thought point to?
It points to the person, the fictional caracter. Not the real, or a real person. The only real things are colour,taste,sound,smell etc. These things don't know a person, can't see, smell, taste A person. Only thought can do this.

Does it point to the AE of a person or does it point to stories about AE of colour,sound,sensation?
It points to stories.

Yes I can see that I don't direct thoughts. Thoughts are only an appearance. Thoughts appear by themselves.

Kay just one thing I don't get with thoughts:
While articulating the answers to give you, and being sure here that I do not command thought, how, what is articulating all these answers in an order etc?????
I can't figure out.

You also said:
I asked you to describe a thought.
Thought is a narration. Thought is story. How would you describe a thought 😅?

What does it smell like, taste like,look like, feel like, where is it found?
Thought has no properties. It's only something I am aware of. It's not found anywhere. It can describe the location, or describe the smell, taste of apparent objects - thought content. There is never a thought without a content.

I want you to describe the taste of ice cream?
Indescribable unless thought is used I.e - flavour of the ice cream, it's cold,made with milk. Again thoughts!
It's like you said, there is no taste, there is only experience.

Thank you Kay,
All my love
Claudia 💕

Hey Claudia,

What exactly is it that you are expecting or wanting? In other words what is it that you are SEEKING to get from seeing through the illusory self? What do you think seeing through the illusory self should/will bring you...what should it look like, feel like?

Your keep harping back to what thoughts are saying. Go back and read the thread from the beginning. Do the exercises all over again...especially the exercises that do with thought.

Love, Kay

xx

Good Morning Kay,

I am reading the thread everyday from the beginning more than once a day, and I also pondering the exercises.

In my last post there were doubts that I can't seem to see through.

You ask me what do I expect , what I am seeking..
In a way I wanted see see past those doubts. You asked me things in that previous posts that I am not yet able to answer.

If you think I should read the thread again I will. I will also do the exercises. If I get to the same conclusion as the last post i will not reply back as it is a waste if time for you and probably you will give me the same answer. It also just came to mind that probably there are other people that you could be helping.

I will get back to you when I will have Something else to say or get past those doubts with clarity. I will do the thought exercise you gave me etc.

Thanks for your time.

Love
CLaudia

Hi Claudia,

I have actually run out of ways to point to show you the nature of thought. To me there is either an expectation that is hindering you from just looking at thought and seeing it for what it is, or there is fear that if thought just comes and goes and has no power and is controlling nothing/no one, then your life might just fall a part. I don't know...only you can know if there is fear lurking in the background here. Fear of actually seeing through the illusory self may be in play...but once again only you can know that.

LOOKING is not the same as seeking. Seeking is always towards something that is not present, or trying to get away from something that is present. Looking is investigating what is present (ie actual experience); it's for no reason other than itself. It's done for its own sake. If you're expecting something from LOOKING, then you're not LOOKING, you're seeking for what you expect LOOKING will give you.

While articulating the answers to give you, and being sure here that I do not command thought, how, what is articulating all these answers in an order etc?????
I can't figure out.

And there in case is you trying to figure something out instead of LOOKING. You did the thought exercise and you watched the sports video...go back and redo those and you tell me if you can find anyone or anything that is controlling, directing or creating thought, and how it is known that thought comes in some sort of sequential order. Can you not see "While articulating the answers to give you, and being sure here that I do not command thought, how, what is articulating all these answers in an order etc????? I can't figure out" is an appearing thought? You are not seeing thought as thought. To you there seems to be some thoughts that have relevance, importance and wisdom and there are other thoughts that are meaningless. There is no hierarchy in thought. No thought is more important than another and one doesn't have more meaning to another...they are just pure and simply an appearance....just like a cloud appears and passes in the sky.

I can't give you the reassurances you want...that is why I can only point...it is you that must LOOK and see the answer for yourself. I am not here to convince you of anything, it is up to you to LOOK and if you don't see what I am pointing at, or if you want some other way of seeing it, then I can't help you...it is not up to me to change your mind for you.

This is where I still struggle:

Even the thought " I believe I am a person" is seen with utter clarity. But what does that thought point to?

It points to the person, the fictional caracter. Not the real, or a real person. The only real things are colour,taste,sound,smell etc. These things don't know a person, can't see, smell, taste A person. Only thought can do this.

What real person? Are you saying that there is a fictional character called Claudia and then there is a real person called Claudia and that it is thought that confuses the two? If there are real people then Santa Claus must also be real. The thought "I believe I am a person" points to the actual experience of thought and nothing more. Where in the actual thought itself is there a person?

I asked you to describe a thought.

Thought is a narration. Thought is story. How would you describe a thought 😅?

"Thought is narration" and "thought is a story" are both thoughts. Can you describe those thought at all? WITHOUT THE CONTENT OF THOUGHT CAN YOU DESCRIBE ANYTHING?
Without the content of thought can you describe the thought "thought is story"?
Without further thought, can you describe what that thought actually is? The content of thought is thought.

What does it smell like, taste like,look like, feel like, where is it found?
Thought has no properties. It's only something I am aware of. It's not found anywhere. It can describe the location, or describe the smell, taste of apparent objects - thought content. There is never a thought without a content.

Yes...and then it is up to you to LOOK to see what those thoughts are pointing to. Are they pointing to actual experience or are they pointing to only thoughts about actual experience or just further thoughts about thought?

A thought is much like a piece of graffiti scribbled on a wall. Graffiti doesn't know the wall exists. It doesn't know it is appearing on the wall. It doesn't know whether its words are true or not. It doesn't know that it is saying anything. It doesn't know anything *whatsoever*. Similarly, a thought is just a bit of decoration appearing in THIS. It appears. You are aware of it. But it knows nothing whatsoever about reality. And that is all there is to thought.

But if you look can you find anyone/anything that is actually confused?

I wanted to say, as confusion is appearing in this moment - then I am confused. There is something wrong in this statement.

The label 'confusion' is the AE of thought and not the AE of confusion
The sensation labelled 'confusion' is the AE of sensation and not the AE of confusion
The image labelled 'me/I/body' is the AE of colour and not the AE of confusion.
The thoughts ABOUT confusion is the AE of thought and not the AE of confusion.

Is 'confusion' actually known in actual experience or what is actually known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT confusion?

I don't know how , there's me, comunicating to other people as "A SOMEONE" , assuming there is another someone answering me, asking me things etc!
I don't seem to get past this. Then I am totally confused again. I remind myself but wait " I am only a thought appearing, I only see colour as a body etc.

Here is a huge expectation that somehow the idea of a person will disappear and that when you recognise that there is no inherent self that the person will somehow disappear. Did Santa Claus disappear when it was seen he was a fictional character?

Where in all of our dialogue have I said that YOU are a thought? I have said the person/separate self is the actual experience of thought, but I have never said YOU(not Claudia) are a thought. If you were a thought, then how could you possibly be aware of this sentence or aware of anything. Hence the questions like finding a dividing line between 'hearer' and sound.

Since you have never been a person, how would it feel like not to be one? How exactly, does not feeling like a person 'feel'? What it 'feels like' right now, is what it 'feels like' to not be a person. But thought doesn't know that, hence the 'expectation'. It is only through consistent and persistent LOOKING and NOT THINKING that EVENTUALLY there being no inherent self becomes a KNOWING.

You say: "But I still identify with thought! I want to STOP identifying with thought, it causes me doubt and confusion"! But that thought is just another thought bubble. And is seen in utter clarity. Even the idea that something is identifying with thought is just an idea. There is NOTHING here that can identify with thought. Only thought says that anything is identifying as anything.

Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts. First thing is to sit for at least 10-15 minutes quietly somewhere, close the eyes and just notice thoughts and do this several times throughout the day and then do the exercise throughout the day as per instructions below.

1. Notice the current thought that is present.
Like when you sit observing the body, a thought might arise “this is my feet” or “here is a pain” or “my breathing is too quick” or “I am bored with this exercise” or “I have better things to do” or any sorts of thoughts.

2. This thought will pass and another thought will come. So just observe this thought passing.

3. Then wait for the next thought to come.

4. When the next thought is present, just notice it, and see how it passes.

5. Then wait for the next thought to come.

6. Repeat #4 and #5 many-many times.

Between the 2 thoughts there is a gap. It can be very short or subtle, just a second or a few seconds before the next thought come in.

This is how to look at thoughts.
Looking how they come and go.
And observing the short gap between them.
Noticing how the current thought is passing.
And waiting for the next thought to come.

Please do the following exercise:
Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.
Let me know how you go.


Love, Kay
xx

Hello Claudia...I am checking in to see how you are going with rereading your thread?

Love, Kay
xx

Hi Kay,

I am now back home from holiday!

I read the thread a lot throughout the holiday.

There are points where I am stuck on, but you said that you don't know how to help any further as you have pointed a lot so far, and I seem to be struggling on the same aspects. I don't know why. Its not that I am afraid to see it, or anything. I have no fear at all, I just think there are some deep rooted beliefs in me that might make it harder to see what you are pointing.

I can tell that I have made a lot of "progress" in a way. I used to be obsessed to non duality stuff. Videos, books you name it. Every single day I would listen to something, more than once a day! Now those things don't make much sense anymore. Its just talk, talk.. but no actual seeing through the talk. I am now only concerned with my experience. You gave me that so Thank you.

I don't know if you want to continue with me anymore but I will write this email anyway.

LOOKING is not the same as seeking. Seeking is always towards something that is not present, or trying to get away from something that is present. Looking is investigating what is present (ie actual experience); it's for no reason other than itself. It's done for its own sake. If you're expecting something from LOOKING, then you're not LOOKING, you're seeking for what you expect LOOKING will give you.

Thank you SO MUCH for pointing this out!!! This is I think is one of the reasons why I am holding back! I dont think i was aware of it before, but I am doing that.. I am seeking instead of looking. Looking somehow seemed too plain, like I couldnt 'GET' anything out of it. I would only look when you made me do the exercises! Then, while living my life I was being run again by thoughts! I am aware of this now.
There are still doubts here tho. Lately, before engaging in thought, its like I recognize the thought. I internally go " this is thought appearing". Then I am immediately aware of what is real. Sounds,sights (images/colour) etc.

My biggest difficulty is to see thought as thought!!! I don't know how to put this, if this recognition does not take place, then I am totally with the thought. I am not aware that I am thinking, its like I " live the thought".

But you see am I supposed to do this? In a way I recognize the thought. So, I am NOT the thought. If I am not the thought, then I am something OTHER than the thought. This makes TWO - DUALITY! No matter how hard I try I dont go past this point! How to see this?

In one of your past posts you said:

You always know exactly 'what is' by being directly aware of what is (ie the known which is sound, thought, sensation etc)

Can you please clarify something. Sometimes as I live my life, there is no sense of a me. When I am not aware of this me. For instance, I might be busy doing something. Life still happens and its ok. Other times there is something that recognizes what is happening, and it seems to be aware of itself. how is this possible? how can I have the sense of me, of I, and other times when directly engaged in something, there is no I, as there is no 'room' for this I to be. There is just experience.
Does it mean that the 'I' I am talking about here is a thought itself??

There is a HUGE sense of self in thought in my experience.
I am afraid that you might not be understanding what I am trying to say here.

Kay you gave me a thought exercise in your last post. The exercise was to notice the gap between thoughts.
I have tried to do it but I honestly couldn't.
Every time I was with a thought, it was present, then it would go, but I could not see the gap you talk about. I even only noticed it was a different thought, as the content was different. I would then internally 'say' this is a different thought. I am now thinking a different thought. That was it! but even that is a thought right?? you see? I am confused now. I dont know how to distinguish what is thought from what is not.


Kay I don't want to go much further with this email because I am not sure if you want to continue with me or not. By the last posts you wrote it was like you gave all you got to 'help me', and I appreciate it from the bottom of my heart.
Let me know how you want to proceed.

I am 100% aware that I need to see this for myself, and no matter how much effort you put it it all depends on me. I am doing my best and I know you are too, I just don't know if you are available to point until I 'make it'.

All my Love
Claudia

Hello Claudia.

Kay I don't want to go much further with this email because I am not sure if you want to continue with me or not. By the last posts you wrote it was like you gave all you got to 'help me', and I appreciate it from the bottom of my heart. Let me know how you want to proceed.

My last posts were supposed to ‘shock’ you, because you are not LOOKING..all you were doing was going round in round with the thoughts that were appearing. Instead of LOOKING at what those thoughts were pointing to, you were going into a tail spin! Have a LOOK at what thought is pointing to. If it isn’t pointing to the actual experience of just SIMPLY colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation then it is pointing to thought stories.

Did you read your entire thread from the beginning to now like I asked? If not...please do so and let me know what you find.

I am seeking instead of looking. Looking somehow seemed too plain, like I couldnt 'GET' anything out of it. I would only look when you made me do the exercises! Then, while living my life I was being run again by thoughts! I am aware of this now.

Yes, I know and here lay the problem. It is through LOOKING that realisations happen…it is not through thinking. If it were via thinking you wouldn’t be here needing someone to point to you where to LOOK to find your answers. You want me to give you the answers and I am not here to do that. If you want intellectual answers then you might as well go read a book. If you want to REALISE the answers for yourself then you will LOOK. If you don’t LOOK then this exploration can go nowhere. I am pointing and you seem to see what I am pointing at but then you aren’t connecting the dots. It’s like..yes okay…I get that BUT! Forget about the BUT and actually LOOK at what is being pointed at until the penny really drops. Don’t just LOOK for the 5 minutes it takes you to do the exercise…revisit the exercises throughout your day everyday and have a good LOOK.

But you see am I supposed to do this? In a way I recognize the thought. So, I am NOT the thought. If I am not the thought, then I am something OTHER than the thought. This makes TWO - DUALITY! No matter how hard I try I dont go past this point! How to see this?

I have pointed to this in many ways but you are not getting it. I have asked several times is there a dividing line between 'hearer' and sound, or where does thought stop and the knowing of it begin etc? I have also asked this in other ways...but because you aren't LOOKING and you are not clear what AE is, and the fact that the face value of thought is actual experience and that the content of thought is just further thought and points to nothing but the AE of thought...then you aren't seeing what I am pointing to. Plus you have some sort of expectation here. There is no magic wand...you have to LOOK...it is as simple as that. You are bypassing the simplicity of this exploration by shoving what is being pointed aside with some sort of expectation and idea that it is unimportant.. It is through what I am pointing at, no matter how useless it seems to be to you, that you will get your realisation...BUT YOU MUST LOOK. How about you get to see what I am pointing at clearly first ...there is no point in looking at this when you aren’t even seeing thought clearly. You either begin to really start LOOKING at what I am pointing at...or this exploration can go nowhere...you will keep spinning your wheels because you think what I am pointing at is not relevant to what you think you need to see to get your realisation. You are wrong.

http://liberationunleashed.com/resource ... ar-seeker/

So now, the ball is in your court. Are you willing to put aside what you think you need to know, take a deep breath instead of almost panicking about this all and actually LOOK at what I am pointing at with due diligence? Are you prepared to put aside wanting to see what you are not in order to see WHAT IS?

Love, Kay
xx