Hi J,
I was just listening to an LU podcast where a guide was interviewed. It really made me appreciate even more the time and effort and commitment you make to this guiding process. So a very heartfelt thank you.
Many thanks for the appreciation. I do enjoy guiding, especially when there is a willingness and openness to LOOK.
How do you know there is a witness, apart from just the obvious process of witnessing or observation? How is there a witness as an entity? Where is it? Does it actually exist?
I can see using the term witness is just another label for 'me'. Very funny really. I can see it is a thought that says if there is witnessing then there must be a witness. It is just an untested assumption. The difference between witnessing and me is that it does not seem to have a location, hence the use of a different word.
I will continue to look at this nonlocalised witnessing and watch the tendency of thought to assume a witness.
Does experience have a location?
If it does, where, exactly, is it located?
For example: Image of hammer hitting thumb, sensation of pain, thought saying, "ouch!!"
Where exactly did all of that happen?
Where was experience located?
Was experience of pain located in the thumb?
Was experience of images located at the thumb and hammer?
Or is experience always "closer" than even the word "here" can convey?
Does anything actually have a location?
How would you know?
What would count as evidence of actual location?
Where is the border between the ‘hearer’ and sound? If no border is found, then is there a hearer? If there is no hearer, then how can there be an experiencer of experience?
In this witnessing space there is no border between sound and hearer. All is just here.
So, ‘hearer’ and sound are one and the same, there is no border or distinction between them. So the ‘knowing’ of the known ie sound are one and the same. There is no knowing and known (which would = separation). There is only knowningknown/awarenessawared/experienceexperiencer.
Can you see this?
What is the memory ‘made of’?
I can see that memory is made up of the same thing as thoughts, imagery and words.
Yes, ‘memory’ is just thought. The label ‘memory’ is AE of thought. Thoughts appearing saying that imagery, smell, taste, sensation, sound and thoughts were known in the past from such and such a story/event/etc. So memory is ‘made up’ of thought. What happened ‘yesterday’ appears right now as just a story no more true than Cinderella.
Everything is known. There is nothing that is not known. LOOK at what is known 'right now'. There is nothing else to know. There is no past, present moment or future. There is nothing that is not already known.
Looking at colours
Thought says that the yellow, orange and green areas are you, and thought also calls these colours your body. Thought also says that the other colours are objects, and the light brown areas are animals that have their own consciousness.
Thought also says that there is something behind the door. How is it known that there is something behind the door?
WHEN does the memory appear?
The thoughts that I call memory appear now.
Yes. In actual experience....
Where is last week?
Where is yesterday?
Where is this morning?
Where is five minutes ago?
Where is one minute ago?
Where is one *second* ago?
Can you find any of these? Can you find *one second ago*?
Or can you only find *this* - *timeless*, self-aware experience?
So the thoughts are appearing now and it doesn’t matter what time the thought is pointing to…the thoughts about past or future are appearing now.
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?
This is a tricky one. Actual experience says there is no difference, a thought is a thought. But my brain argues with that. It is insisting that there is a difference. Memory has a recognition of events which have occurred before which are being relived / retrieved into now. Things that previously existed.
What is the AE of “my brain”?
And from where are these memories being retrieved from?
And from where does the thought come to retrieve these memories? How do you bring that thought to the forefront and how do you bring the memories to the forefront to be seen?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?
I can see that memory is a current thought being created now. I have no way of knowing that this recall is accurate. It may be entirely created anew. However, I know that my now deceased cat existed and I can see an image of him running etc. I know he is not here now so that tells me it is memory.
Can you actually see the colour labelled “my cat” running, or there is an idea/’mental’ image appearing of a cat running? What is the actual experience? There are thoughts about “my cat” running but is there really a cat running?
Not everything is story. It looks like it could be until you look a little closer.
Sound labelled "tweet" isn't story, but story can say that a blue bird down the street made that sound.
Flavour labelled "sweet" isn't a story, but story can be, "I love chocolate ice cream."
Colour (image) isn't story, but thought could say, "Wow! What a spectacular sunset!"
Now, if image labelled "sunset," isn't experience as you presently find it to be, then it IS story.
And story cannot be changed. If it could, you'd be a thinker of thought.
See the difference?
WHEN does the future thought appear?
It is fabricated/created in the herenow.
Who/what would be fabricating thought?
Thought is just an appearance like sound, smell, taste, sensation and colour. Can you find anyone/anything that is fabricating thought? The face value of thought is actual experience and is appearing now…no matter if the appearing thought is talking about a ‘past’ or a ‘future’. Thoughts know nothing, and are aware of nothing.
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
Sometimes thoughts refer to actual events occurring now, these are general thoughts. Like commentary. Future thoughts have a creative component. They are thoughts imagining possible herenow events in an imagined place called the future.
How is it known that a future thought has a creative component….because a thought said so?
And yes…they are imagined…so are they actual experience? Actual experience always and only happens this instant. Otherwise it can't be actual experience.....actual experiencing 'past' is not doable, all there is actual experiencing 'past' this instant, is 'thoughts of a past', likewise with 'future'. They only exist as thoughts, in actual experience.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
A lot of fear arises when I look at this question but I will persevere.
In AE they are the same. Just words and mental pictures/imagery here now. Past thoughts are more concrete, more solid. The form is easy to think. Future thoughts are more vague, with unknown fuzzy qualities.
How is the thought “I made a salad for lunch yesterday” be any more solid than a thought that says “I am making salad for lunch tomorrow”. They are both simply thought neither is more meaningful than the other. There are no hierarchy of thought….one thought is no more important than another.
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?
By the quality of the imagery - fuzzy or clear.
There is no difference and if thought says they are…then it would only be a thought saying so. A thought is a thought and it is ever only appearing now. Quality of mental imagery make no difference to whether the image appearing is about a yesterday or tomorrow…neither exist.
As you can see Kay this is a real struggle and I can still feel resistance quite strongly. However, I am taking that as a good indicator we may be onto something important.
Okay…so when you have read my post and answered the questions, if resistance, which is a form of fear is still appearing let me know and we will look at this together. I have given you abit to look at in this post…so take your time.
Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
