The Gate

Hey J,

Sorry for the delay yesterday. I really wanted to do this thoroughly.

No problem, I had an inkling you were doing them both thoroughly. Thank you for being so willing to be thorough in LOOKING...it makes guiding so much more pleasurable :)

Now compare the two ways of labelling experience- is one truer than the other? If so, which one? What is here without labels? Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

Without the label 'I' nothing changes. The 'I am' is superfluous. It is just an arbitrary label assigned to experience.

Lovely!

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

All I can notice is sensations of energy or something.

There is AE of sensation. Energy is just another label. What is the AE of energy?

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?

There is only sensation, no possibility of determining what is outside or inside of sensation, just sensation. Occasionally there is a mental image of a boundary, but it is just an image.

Nice! So since there is no inside or outside of a body, can there possibly be a ‘me’ here and an object there?

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

It is a label placed on images/colour and sensations and movement.

Yes, exactly! :)

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Just pure sensation, mental image, colour, movement (which is also sensation) and an assumption that these sensations belong to a me.

Nice LOOKING, Jeannet! Nice pick up on movement being AE of sensation!
The actual experience of the body is thought. It is thought that points to image/colour and sensation and labels it ‘body’, but there is no body.

Here is an interesting exercise on body sensation and sight.

1. Close the eyes and hold up one of the hands. Pay attention only to the felt sensations ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Normally we believe that the sensation is coming from the sight, the ‘object’ seen (hand).

But actually, is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

You can repeat this with all of body parts below, one-by-one. Spend a considerable amount of time on each of them:

- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

Let me know how you go and what you notice.

Love, Kay
xx

Hi Kay

Spent most of the day looking and here is what is noticed.

There is AE of sensation. Energy is just another label. What is the AE of energy?

Energy is just another label. But so are all descriptors such as buzzing, bubbling, fizzing. From the perspective of AE it is just motion which is sensation.

Nice! So since there is no inside or outside of a body, can there possibly be a ‘me’ here and an object there?

There is sensation (mainly in the head) that I associate with a 'me', I label 'me'. I spent quite a bit of time looking at this 'me' and it is persistently stuck there, even when the sensations moved from top the head to behind the eyes, it still feels like 'me'.

But actually, is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

I spent a bit of time on this and the whole body and its 'part' labels. It is definitely thought and a mental construct and a mental image that links them. The labelling is so fast that I have to do a double take and see it only as sensation.

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

I can see that sight and sensation are separate. They are not coming from one another but hand (or other body part) label invariably arises. I can see that sight links them because they are simultaneously appearing. Will do some more with this.

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

I have to be extremely vigilant to see them as completely separate. When I go back to sight as imagery it helps. There is a knowing that these are separate but will keep working on this coz the linking keeps happening.

Let me know how you go and what you notice.

With the head I can look in the mirror and that image doesn't have anything to do with 'me'. It is just an image which I was told is me, but is it? I only assume that because when I look at other people I see that they have a head, body etc.

'Me' is persistent.

Cheers J

Hello Jeannet,

There is AE of sensation. Energy is just another label. What is the AE of energy?

Energy is just another label. But so are all descriptors such as buzzing, bubbling, fizzing. From the perspective of AE it is just motion which is sensation.

Yes, it is simply sensation which is labelled as ‘energy’. However, is that energy there 24/7 or only when there seems to be a focussing on the so called body? If not then, how is it known that this energy is there constantly?

Nice! So since there is no inside or outside of a body, can there possibly be a ‘me’ here and an object there?

There is sensation (mainly in the head) that I associate with a 'me', I label 'me'. I spent quite a bit of time looking at this 'me' and it is persistently stuck there, even when the sensations moved from top the head to behind the eyes, it still feels like 'me'.

It is generally believed that thoughts are coming from the head somewhere around the forehead. When we try to trace back the origin of a thought, it is often believed that it's coming from the forehead, because the attention automatically goes to the sensation of the forehead. Investigate this carefully as often as you can throughout the day.

What is the forehead in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead), right?

So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?

Have a very deep look here... the forehead is one of the 'residence' of the SENSE of self. Or rather, the sensation that is labelled as forehead is believed to be one of the location of the sense of self.

Furthermore, it's also believed that both the 'visual sight' and 'mental images' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and at the same time the image 'of the eyes' appear with it.

So another SENSE of self is linked to the sensation 'of the eyes'.

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image, right?

Can sight come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)?

But actually, is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as hand) or only thoughts and mental constructs link them?

I spent a bit of time on this and the whole body and its 'part' labels. It is definitely thought and a mental construct and a mental image that links them. The labelling is so fast that I have to do a double take and see it only as sensation.

Yes, this is why breaking everything down into AE is beneficial. Just stop and see what is actual.

The label ‘hand’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of a hand
The thoughts about a ‘hand’ is AE of thought and not AE of a hand
The sensation labelled ‘hand’ is AE of sensation and not AE of a hand
The image (be it visual or mental) labelled ‘hand’ is AE of colour and not AE of a hand

What is actually appearing is label/thoughts + sensation + colour.
So in AE is a hand known or only thought s about a hand?

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

I can see that sight and sensation are separate. They are not coming from one another but hand (or other body part) label invariably arises. I can see that sight links them because they are simultaneously appearing. Will do some more with this.

Yes, just because they are simultaneously appearing doesn’t mean that one causes the other or that they go hand in hand. For there to be cause and affect points to there being separate objects ie separation and points to concept of time.

Thought will always appear saying that they are connected. Don’t just go along with ANYTHING thought says, without checking its claims against actual experience.

So they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

I have to be extremely vigilant to see them as completely separate. When I go back to sight as imagery it helps. There is a knowing that these are separate but will keep working on this coz the linking keeps happening.

And the linking will keep happening, that doesn’t mean that it’s true. As above, thought will always appear saying that they are connected. Don’t just go along with ANYTHING thought says, without checking its claims against actual experience.

Let me know how you go and what you notice.

With the head I can look in the mirror and that image doesn't have anything to do with 'me'. It is just an image which I was told is me, but is it? I only assume that because when I look at other people I see that they have a head, body etc.

And what is the AE of ‘anothers head and body’?

'Me' is persistent.

There is an expectation here that the idea of a separate self labelled ‘me/I’ will disappear completely. There has never been a separate self and yet this idea has always appeared, as has the label “I” and thoughts about an “I”. You are not the author of thought and nor can you predict what thoughts will or won’t appear. However, when you have LOOKED have you found an “I” anywhere? That is why the LOOKING is important, because that is what will confirm whether or not what thoughts and so called ‘feelings’ are pointing to are either actual experience or just plain fiction.


Say out loud the word ‘I’ several times. At the same time try to trace back where the word ‘I’ points to. Try to localise where is the ‘I’ exactly.

You can observe that whenever the word ‘I’ is said or even thought about the focus of attention goes automatically to the bodily sensations (usually somewhere to the upper body or head or both). So there is a direct, automatic association between the word ‘I’ and the felt sensations in the body.

So the word ‘I’ and the bodily sensations are welded together, creating the SENSE of ‘me’. The ‘sense’ part is coming from the felt sensations, and ‘me’ part is coming as a thought. When this is not seen, BAM! The illusion of ‘me’ is created. Can you see this?


Love, Kay

Hi Kay

Again sorry for the delay. I'm really determined and take my time with the practices.

I spent a very long time with the 'I sense'. And it was very clear for most of the afternoon and evening. Then I had to work and run a meeting.

It is amazing the 'I sense' was not believed in anymore although it was still there. However, I awoke this morning and the ' believing/identifying' with the 'I sense' seems to be back. When I focus on the one particular spot in the head it seems unstable as a 'me'. But when I look at the rest of the body and head the 'me' is still there. Can this fade? How can it be unseen? What can I do now?

The method I used was really focusing on the 'I sense' in the head. I began by seeing it all as just sensation, mental image etc but this seemed too cumbersome so I changed it to just everything being an 'appearance'. And then there was no 'me' just appearances. Instead of really pushing it, I also relaxed quite a bit, and just watched the appearances.

However, I will answer your questions as follows:

Yes, it is simply sensation which is labelled as ‘energy’. However, is that energy there 24/7 or only when there seems to be a focussing on the so called body? If not then, how is it known that this energy is there constantly?

It is impossible to know whether the sensation labelled energy is always there. Seeing or knowing needs to be present to know.

So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?

Thoughts cannot come from a sensation or a mental image. Thoughts arise. Yesterday I could see they do not arise from 'me' and are independent from me. Today I feel a bit more welded to them.

Can sight come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

No sight is just happening.

Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)?

Again no, mental images just appear. Yesterday they were no problem.

What is actually appearing is label/thoughts + sensation + colour.
So in AE is a hand known or only thought s about a hand?

Only the thought creates hand from sensations, and colour.

Thought will always appear saying that they are connected. Don’t just go along with ANYTHING thought says, without checking its claims against actual experience.

This is really helpful. You seriously cannot believe anything thought says, thought is just thought.

And what is the AE of ‘anothers head and body’?

Just colour, movement, thought.

So the word ‘I’ and the bodily sensations are welded together, creating the SENSE of ‘me’. The ‘sense’ part is coming from the felt sensations, and ‘me’ part is coming as a thought. When this is not seen, BAM! The illusion of ‘me’ is created. Can you see this?

I can see how they are welded together - sensation and thought, me. It was very clear but will need more gentle undoing work today.

I will keep going with the 'me' sense for now.

Thanks so much Kay

It is so much different to what I thought 'no self' meant.

Cheers

J

Hello J,

It is amazing the 'I sense' was not believed in anymore although it was still there. However, I awoke this morning and the ' believing/identifying' with the 'I sense' seems to be back. When I focus on the one particular spot in the head it seems unstable as a 'me'. But when I look at the rest of the body and head the 'me' is still there. Can this fade? How can it be unseen? What can I do now?

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, or choose what they are aware of or not.

“I awoke this morning and the ' believing/identifying' with the 'I sense' seems to be back. When I focus on the one particular spot in the head it seems unstable as a 'me'. But when I look at the rest of the body and head the 'me' is still there” is all THOUGHTS about a ‘me’.

When you LOOK can you find this ‘me’ that is believing/identifying with anything?

The method I used was really focusing on the 'I sense' in the head. I began by seeing it all as just sensation, mental image etc but this seemed too cumbersome so I changed it to just everything being an 'appearance'. And then there was no 'me' just appearances. Instead of really pushing it, I also relaxed quite a bit, and just watched the appearances.

Although breaking down the “I sense” into sensation, image etc seems cumbersome, that is the best way of doing it. Each time you do it that way, it becomes clearer and clearer that thought is just thought, sensation is just sensation, image is just image/colour, etc.

Yes, it is simply sensation which is labelled as ‘energy’. However, is that energy there 24/7 or only when there seems to be a focussing on the so called body? If not then, how is it known that this energy is there constantly?

It is impossible to know whether the sensation labelled energy is always there. Seeing or knowing needs to be present to know.

Yes, exactly. How can a sensation exist without the knowing of it? If, for example, you are unaware of this so called ‘energy’ for 5 minutes, did it exist?

It’s like the philosophical debate about a tree falling in a forest. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

And the other question is, if the colours labelled ‘tree’ and ‘forest’ aren’t actual experience now, how is it known that they exist?

So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?

Thoughts cannot come from a sensation or a mental image. Thoughts arise. Yesterday I could see they do not arise from 'me' and are independent from me. Today I feel a bit more welded to them.

Everything is running on automatic. If you watch a great movie and get sucked up in a good part, then zoom out, you see it’s just a movie, though for a few minutes the focus was completely on what was going on. This is also happening in real life. There is zooming in and out of character. Identification with the story is also part of story. Attachment to pleasure and fear of pain are also stories. There is nothing that attaches, only the story about attachment.

So the word ‘I’ and the bodily sensations are welded together, creating the SENSE of ‘me’. The ‘sense’ part is coming from the felt sensations, and ‘me’ part is coming as a thought. When this is not seen, BAM! The illusion of ‘me’ is created. Can you see this?

I can see how they are welded together - sensation and thought, me. It was very clear but will need more gentle undoing work today.

Does the sensation itself, suggest in any way that it a “sense” of something?
Can a ‘feeling’ know anything about a “sense of I”?
Does a thought know anything about an “I” or a “sense of I”?
Does a thought know anything about a sensation?

Are they welded together? How is it known that the sensation and thought are welded together…that they go hand in hand?

It is so much different to what I thought 'no self' meant

I am glad you put your expectations aside and just LOOKED :)

Love, Kay

Hi Kay

Whew. Thanks for more Looking suggestions. Clearly more work is needed.

There is NOTHING here that can identify with thought.

You are quite right. It is only thought which is labelling identification. Only a thought!

When you LOOK can you find this ‘me’ that is believing/identifying with anything?

No I can't find it. It is just sensation and mental image and thought 'me'.

Yes, exactly. How can a sensation exist without the knowing of it? If, for example, you are unaware of this so called ‘energy’ for 5 minutes, did it exist?

I have no way of knowing if it existed or not. I assume it did, or not but that doesn't make it true.

Identification with the story is also part of story. Attachment to pleasure and fear of pain are also stories. There is nothing that attaches, only the story about attachment.

All just stories, ha ha.

Does the sensation itself, suggest in any way that it a “sense” of something?

The sensation makes no suggestion it is just thought that creates a story of a 'sense of something'.

Can a ‘feeling’ know anything about a “sense of I”?

Not at all. Again just stories/thought.

Does a thought know anything about an “I” or a “sense of I”?

Thought cannot know anything about anything. Just words/sounds.

Does a thought know anything about a sensation?

Thought can only label, commentate, make internal sounds.

Are they welded together? How is it known that the sensation and thought are welded together…that they go hand in hand?

They aren't welded together. There is sensation, mental image and then thought tells a story about it and calls it 'me'. Although there is no 'me' to be found other than the individual aspects.

Thanks so much Kay. It is good to REALLY look thoroughly and your assistance is invaluable.

Cheers
J

Hey J,

There is NOTHING here that can identify with thought.

You are quite right. It is only thought which is labelling identification. Only a thought!

Yes, sneaky little suckers, aren’t they! ;)

For 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.

Yes, exactly. How can a sensation exist without the knowing of it? If, for example, you are unaware of this so called ‘energy’ for 5 minutes, did it exist?

I have no way of knowing if it existed or not. I assume it did, or not but that doesn't make it true.

Even if thought appears saying, well I was distracted so I can’t be sure if the energy is 24/7, what is known while there is a sense of distraction? Can anything be known beyond that what is known in a moment of distraction? How can you be separate from that which is known?

Are they welded together? How is it known that the sensation and thought are welded together…that they go hand in hand?

They aren't welded together. There is sensation, mental image and then thought tells a story about it and calls it 'me'. Although there is no 'me' to be found other than the individual aspects.

Yep, it is only a thought that say a sensation and thought go hand in hand. The idea that something ie a thought follows or comes after something else (ie sensation), is the belief in time. So, let’s have a look at time.

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Any actual experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Love, Kay

Hi Kay

This was really helpful -

replace it with “blahblahblah” and check whether what it was referring to remains

Can anything be known beyond that what is known in a moment of distraction? How can you be separate from that which is known?

The knowing and the known is the only thing that can be known. I wish I could say they are the same, but I'm not there as yet.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

I can't find a now

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

All just seems to be flowing without any compartments of moments.

Any actual experience of one event following another?

Just the flow.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

I can't locate a present moment to see if it is moving, only flow.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

I can't locate in actual experience a moment. There is no division.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

All is just flowing. I want to say as a continuum but that is just thought labelling the experience of flowing.

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

I can bring up an event from the 'past' i.e. not here presently, but when that is recalled it is here in the present. The feeling of past is just memory in the present.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

What is experienced is simply thought, mental images, sensations of mental process.

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Thought says yes, experience says no.

Thanks again Kay

Cheers J

Hey J,

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

I can't find a now

Yes, you are not in the now.
You are not here.
‘Now’ doesn’t refer to a time, nor does ‘here’ refer to a place.
HereNow points to the current and evident knowledge of What IS.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

All just seems to be flowing without any compartments of moments.

Can you explain what you mean by “flowing” please?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

I can bring up an event from the 'past' i.e. not here presently, but when that is recalled it is here in the present. The feeling of past is just memory in the present.

Where are these so called memories stored?
Does a ‘feeling’ know anything about a memory?

If thought appears saying you ate an ice-cream yesterday….where is ‘yesterday’ in actual experience. When is that thought and images of eating an ice-cream actually appearing?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

What is experienced is simply thought, mental images, sensations of mental process.

The ‘past’ is actual experience of thought. The "past" is a presently appearing, self-consistent 'conceptual story', about this HereNow.

What is the AE of ‘mental process’? Where are these mental processes taking place? Can you find an inside or outside of the head/body?

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Thought says yes, experience says no.

Here's a dream analogy of how all of "time" is contained in an instant of thought.
In the "opening instant" of a dream you find yourself speeding along a highway towards the airport, because you're late for your holiday flight, because your wife couldn't find her passport.

Now you'll notice that this is just the "opening instant" of the dream, yet it contains a whole "history" of being a person who is an adult, and married to a woman who left her passport behind, etc, etc, and it contains "memories" of having the drama with the lost passport, and it has a whole imaginary future too, in the flight and the holiday.

Love, Kay
xx

Hi Kay

Here we go:

You are not here.

There seems to be a witness, experiencing experiences.

Can you explain what you mean by “flowing” please?

I'm not sure how to explain a continuous experience using another word.

Where are these so called memories stored?

No idea. Just thoughts arising.

Does a ‘feeling’ know anything about a memory?

A feeling is a sensation with a label attached. Memory is also a label. There is a story which is labelled memory.

If thought appears saying you ate an ice-cream yesterday….where is ‘yesterday’ in actual experience. When is that thought and images of eating an ice-cream actually appearing?

A yesterday thought is a thought. In actual experience it is a thought, image. The thought and image appear just here.

What is the AE of ‘mental process’? Where are these mental processes taking place?

The AE of a mental process is a series of thoughts followed by images. They take place here.

Can you find an inside or outside of the head/body?

I struggled with this one for a while until I realised I couldn't find a head or a body only sensations. The question of inside or outside doesn't apply.

Here's a dream analogy of how all of "time" is contained in an instant of thought.

I love it. I can see how a whole back story is created from a single thought, wonderful.

Thanks Kay

Cheers
J

Hey J,

You are not here.

There seems to be a witness, experiencing experiences.

You are not here refers to a place, as in body that is living life in a world.

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?

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?

Where are these so called memories stored?

No idea. Just thoughts arising.

Exactly! Just thoughts arising in the moment. Memory is a conceptual framework that suggests there is a storage system from where thoughts and images are retrieved. Where would this storage system be located!?

If thought appears saying you ate an ice-cream yesterday….where is ‘yesterday’ in actual experience. When is that thought and images of eating an ice-cream actually appearing?

A yesterday thought is a thought. In actual experience it is a thought, image. The thought and image appear just here.

Yes, the thoughts about ‘eating ice cream yesterday’ are appearing ‘now’ in this current experience.

What is the AE of ‘mental process’? Where are these mental processes taking place?

The AE of a mental process is a series of thoughts followed by images. They take place here.

The thought ‘mental process’ and what that means is the AE of thought and not the AE of mental processes

There would have to be a head for there to be MENTAL processes. Back to the question…is there an inside and an outside of a body?

Can you find an inside or outside of the head/body?

I struggled with this one for a while until I realised I couldn't find a head or a body only sensations. The question of inside or outside doesn't apply.

Lovely! It might be an idea to go back to the body exercises, as this question was a part of those exercises.


Okay…so let’s have a look at the idea of ‘memory’.

Almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened.
That a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…

What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

WHEN does the future thought appear?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

Look at what is actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

Love, Kay

Hi Kay

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.

I need to make this a two part post which I will explain below.

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.

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.

It might be an idea to go back to the body exercises, as this question was a part of those exercises.

Will spend some time on this today and tomorrow.

This is the second section:

These memory questions brought up a lot of resistance and fear. A lot of my training about memory recall, memory processing systems etc. But here goes.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

I can see that memory is made up of the same thing as thoughts, imagery and words.

WHEN does the memory appear?

The thoughts that I call memory appear 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.

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.

What is the future thought ‘made of’?

It is thought and image again.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

It is fabricated/created in the herenow.

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 EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

This cannot be known. I can see that future thoughts are just imaginings made of thoughts and images.

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.

If there is difference, how that difference is known exactly?

By the quality of the imagery - fuzzy or clear.

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.

Thanks and Cheers J

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

Hi Kay

Thanks again for a very thorough instruction.

Does experience have a location?
If it does, where, exactly, is it located?

Experience happens here! But it doesn't have a specific location. Everything is just here. Sorry I can't be more specific.

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?

All of it happened here. No distance between the thumb and the experiencing of it. The thumb, the hammer, the image and the pain is all just here.

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?

Yes, it is closer than here. And here is actually everywhere. So nothing has a location, it may appear over there, but that is just thought. All is just here. To have a location you need a reference point from which to measure and there is none to be found. It can appear that there is experience here and over there but that is just thinking.

Can you see this?

The hearer and the sound are one thing. Only thought says it is two. I have to admit this is rather tenuous at the moment. Thought keeps wanting to separate these events. But the experience of it occurring here is more apparent.

Thought also says that there is something behind the door. How is it known that there is something behind the door?

It is only thought saying something is behind the door. Like the story of the passport thought likes to make up stuff. But this does not need to be believed.

Or can you only find *this* - *timeless*, self-aware experience?

You are right, I can only find this 'timeless, self aware experience'. Anything other than that is just thought.

What is the AE of “my brain”?

It is a mental image of a head, with a cartoon drawing of a brain, located inside a mental image of a head.

And from where are these memories being retrieved from?

Thought, memories, just appear. I have no way of knowing if they are stored somewhere, if they are actual recalled events, just a thought occurring now.

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?

They just arise by themselves. The thought to think a memory also just arises.

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?

It is an idea, a thought and mental image that creates 'my cat'. They are thoughts only.

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?

Yes I can see how only the AE of colour is the sunset and anything else is story. Story just arises to commentate or elaborate about what is experienced. There is no choice of what the story will say, it just arises.

Who/what would be fabricating thought?

As above. Thought just arises. It is another experience.

How is it known that a future thought has a creative component….because a thought said so?

Only thought says so.

There is no longer any fear or resistance arising. However, although it is quite clear at the moment. It is an active task to keep seeing clearly and not get sucked back into the story about what is appearing. Does this ever just go on automatic? Or does it clear by itself eventually?

Thanks

Cheers J

Hello J,

Does experience have a location?
If it does, where, exactly, is it located?

Experience happens here! But it doesn't have a specific location. Everything is just here. Sorry I can't be more specific.

Yes, so experience just appears/happens but it is not located anywhere…it just IS.

Or is experience always "closer" than even the word "here" can convey?

Yes, it is closer than here. And here is actually everywhere. So nothing has a location, it may appear over there, but that is just thought. All is just here. To have a location you need a reference point from which to measure and there is none to be found. It can appear that there is experience here and over there but that is just thinking.

Yes, nice. Everywhere and yet nowhere!

Can you see this?

The hearer and the sound are one thing. Only thought says it is two. I have to admit this is rather tenuous at the moment. Thought keeps wanting to separate these events. But the experience of it occurring here is more apparent.

And thought won’t stop saying that they are separate and that is okay. Once it is known that they are separate then it is known. Just like when seeing through the separate self has occurred it can not be unseen, no matter what thought says or what doubts appear. Doubts are only thoughts which are labelled as 'doubts'.

Thought also says that there is something behind the door. How is it known that there is something behind the door?

It is only thought saying something is behind the door. Like the story of the passport thought likes to make up stuff. But this does not need to be believed.

No it does not need to be believed, and what exactly is it that could believe or not believe anyway?!

Thought doesn't stop telling you that it's your car, your job, your body, your craving, your preference, your pain, your happiness, your this and your that.
Why would thought stop saying something just because it's seen what thoughts are?
It's never been any other way.
So it is only an expectation that thought will suddenly change its tune.

What is the AE of “my brain”?

It is a mental image of a head, with a cartoon drawing of a brain, located inside a mental image of a head.

The label ‘brain’ is known
The image labelled ‘brain’ is known
Thoughts about a ‘brain’ are known
However, is a brain actually known?

There is no longer any fear or resistance arising. However, although it is quite clear at the moment. It is an active task to keep seeing clearly and not get sucked back into the story about what is appearing. Does this ever just go on automatic? Or does it clear by itself eventually?

It takes constant and continuous looking day in and day out for looking to become automatic and it is well worth the effort.

It seems like there is a self that is looking….ie a doer choosing to look. Let’s have a look at the idea of self ‘doing’ and ‘choosing’.

We’ll do a little exercise on this. It has to do with the sense of seeing.

Take a few relaxed breaths to let the dust settle for a while, and then:
Look on your right.
Then look on your left.
Finally, bring your head back to centre, close your eyes and look in front.

Okay, so when you look on the right, the view on the right is seen (whatever that is).
When you look on the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).
And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the view in front is seen (ie black space).

Darkness is just a colour, like any other, no different from light. Thought labels darkness as the absence of some 'thing' but it is no less knowing/known than light is.
Empty space is no different to solid matter, it is still a some 'thing', not a lack of some 'thing'. So when the eyes are closed, what is seen is undefined, it is untrue to say that nothing is seen, there is still some ‘thing’ ie darkness/black ‘space’.

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or black space if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the blank sky?
Can you turn off seeing?

Last question, in this whole exercise, what did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?


Love, Kay