I am, but there is no me

[forgetmenot]

Hey Swaram,

Does the palm need a thoughts labelled as ‘a decision thought’ to turn? Even when the thought “turn the palm” appears, does the palm always turn or not? So is a decision needed to turn the palm?

No. The palm just turns. No, the palm turning doesn't depend on the thought—not at all. A decision is a thought (or thoughts = feeling + thought).

What are you referring to as feelings when you say “thoughts + feeling + thought”?

Thoughts are appearing about an “I”, but can you actually find an “I” in any shape or form? If you do, where is it?

No I cannot. Just an "I" thought.

Yes, so there are thoughts appearing ABOUT a ‘me/I’, but they are AE of thought and not AE of a ‘me/I’.

Does a subject of any kind give orders?

"Subject giving orders" is a thought.

Yes, exactly. The AE of subject is thought!

What does this subject look like and where does it reside exactly?

The subject is sensations (forehead, eyes, chest) + images (body image, face image, even the letter "I") + thoughts (stories about the "I") + color (body).

No, there is no subject. The subject is AE of thought ONLY. The sensation and colours are not a subject, they are simply sensation and colours. It is the thoughts about sensation and colours that SEEM to point to them being a subject, but they are not.
Is this clear?

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

No. They just appeared. They came up from experience, from knowing the drinks. While the qualities were being enumerated a preference popped up by itself.

Good!

And how is it known that the drinks are already known? That implies time and there is no time.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

No. It just happened. The counting taking front stage was simply a reaction to the instructions.

Is this true? If a thought does not control the palm turning, then how can a thought instigate a reaction to the instructions?

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

No. A feeling is like a thought. It is an appearance. It is just here. It just comes up and then goes away. 'Choice' is the label and 'feeling' is the sensation.

This is where there is some confusion for you. A sensation is a sensation which SEEMS to be felt in the ‘body’. When a fearful thought arises and there is a response in the body..ie a sensation, or when something is touched, there is a sensation. These are AE of sensation. .

If there are no bodily sensations at all, and a ‘feeling’ arises, it is simply thought. “I have a feeling that I have seen that person before”. There are no body sensations that go with that thought at all, so there is no AE of sensation, it is simply a thought.
Is this clear?

Do you have any choice, whatsoever, about what you're aware of?
If you think that you do, think about this:

If thoughts say, "I can change what I'm aware of by closing my eyes", and suddenly eyes seem to close, and you are aware of only colour black.

Did you REALLY have any choice about being aware of all of that?
Did you have any choice about being aware of the thoughts, or the apparent closing of eyes, or the colour black?
Could you have chosen not to have thoughts about closing eyes?
Could you have chosen for the colour to be green instead?

Love, Kay

[Swaram]

Hi Kay,

Hope you had a good weekend. Here is my feedback.

What are you referring to as feelings when you say “thoughts + feeling + thought"?

I meant to say that a decision is in AE one or more thoughts.

No, there is no subject. The subject is AE of thought ONLY. The sensation and colours are not a subject, they are simply sensation and colours. It is the thoughts about sensation and colours that SEEM to point to them being a subject, but they are not. Is this clear?

Yes. The continuity of "I" is another illusion. Last night, after closer examination, there was a clear perception that the "I" thought comes and goes, just like other thoughts. There can only be one thought at a time. There's another thought that very cleverly and subtly affirms the continuity of the "I" thought, and unexamined it was believed.

And how is it known that the drinks are already known?

You're right. "Drinks already known" is a thought. The qualities just appeared.

Is this true? If a thought does not control the palm turning, then how can a thought instigate a reaction to the instructions?

No. A thought cannot control or instigate anything. Running into the 'cause and effect' illusion here once again. The 'instructions' just happen and the 'palm turning' just happens.

If there are no bodily sensations at all, and a ‘feeling’ arises, it is simply thought. “I have a feeling that I have seen that person before”. There are no body sensations that go with that thought at all, so there is no AE of sensation, it is simply a thought. Is this clear?

Yes. Thank you for clarifying this issue. Without examining deeply, I may have been under the impression that a feeling was always felt in the "body" and would therefore be a sensation. But your example makes it clear that it is not always the case. I'll examine this more closely.

Do you have any choice, whatsoever, about what you're aware of?

Not at all.

Did you REALLY have any choice about being aware of all of that?

No. This is the same as the palm turning exercise we were discussing above. The thought says something, but awareness is completely independent of thought.

Did you have any choice about being aware of the thoughts, or the apparent closing of eyes, or the colour black?

No. Not even awareness about the thoughts.

Could you have chosen not to have thoughts about closing eyes?

No. Only on hindsight.

Could you have chosen for the colour to be green instead?

No. Things are as they are and 'choice' is a thought.

[forgetmenot]

Hello Swaram,

Hope you had a good weekend.

I had a lovely weekend, thank you! :) And you?

No, there is no subject. The subject is AE of thought ONLY. The sensation and colours are not a subject, they are simply sensation and colours. It is the thoughts about sensation and colours that SEEM to point to them being a subject, but they are not. Is this clear?

Yes. The continuity of "I" is another illusion. Last night, after closer examination, there was a clear perception that the "I" thought comes and goes, just like other thoughts. There can only be one thought at a time. There's another thought that very cleverly and subtly affirms the continuity of the "I" thought, and unexamined it was believed.

Yes, those subtle thoughts can be tricky to see…but you are on it! :)


Let's just take a further look at this. There is nothing here in actual experience that is separate from experience. Just this. Always now.

Let's do a little experiment that won't even take much of your time. All you need is 20 minutes, a pen and paper.

First write what you are experiencing right now using words “I” and “me”. Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just plain description of here now.

Like this-
I am laying in bed. I am hearing the rain, I am typing these words, I am thinking

Do it for 10 minutes.
Watch the body; are there any sensations of tightening or relaxing?

Then for next 10 minutes write without words “I” and “me”. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs:

Typing, breathing, blinking, hearing rain, writing, thinking

Again watch what is happening in the body.

Now compare the two ways to label 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?

And how is it known that the drinks are already known?

You're right. "Drinks already known" is a thought. The qualities just appeared.

Lovely!

Could you have chosen for the colour to be green instead?

No. Things are as they are and 'choice' is a thought.

Yes, exactly, choice is just a thought.

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

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

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

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

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

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

Love, Kay

[Swaram]

Hi Kay, my weekend was great. Thanks for asking! Here are my answers:

Now compare the two ways to label 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?

With the 'I' - Body seems kind of heavy. All these things "I" am doing! All stories.
Only verbs - Much more of a flow, seems lighter, more relaxing.

Well, not sure I would say 'truer', but the second way describes experience better; it is 'closer' to experience. Without labels there just the actual experiencing. Labels just describe the experience. They cannot affect anything.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

Height is a thought created by labelling color. Without color, there is no such thing as 'height.'

Does the body have a weight or volume?

Again, volume is a thought. Weight is also a thought, a story about labels called 'gravity' and 'body.' I was examining 'weight' the other day. With eyes closed, 'weight' is just the AE of sensation.

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

No. It is just an amorphous sensation. The funny thing here is that if eyes are open, it can now be seen that a sensation labelled, say, 'rubbing palms together' really is completely independent from the color labeled 'sight of palms being rubbed together'.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing? Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

If eyes are closed, 'body' and 'clothing' or 'body' and 'chair' are really just one sensation.

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?

No. There's only the AE. The question doesn't even make sense. There is just awareness.

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

Color + sensation + sound + thought

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Ever-changing, shapeless, formless, sensation.

[forgetmenot]

Hello Swaram,

Now compare the two ways to label 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?

With the 'I' - Body seems kind of heavy. All these things "I" am doing! All stories.
Only verbs - Much more of a flow, seems lighter, more relaxing.
Well, not sure I would say 'truer', but the second way describes experience better; it is 'closer' to experience. Without labels there just the actual experiencing. Labels just describe the experience. They cannot affect anything.

Everything is just happening, there is no “I” needed to makes things happen. Is an “I” needed for thoughts to appear and be known?

Do labels actually have a one-to-one correspondence with reality?

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

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Does the body have a weight or volume?

Again, volume is a thought. Weight is also a thought, a story about labels called 'gravity' and 'body.' I was examining 'weight' the other day. With eyes closed, 'weight' is just the AE of sensation.

Weight is the AE of thought! A sensation is simply a sensation and has nothing to do with weight. It is only a thought that says the sensation is a weight, so the AE of weight is thought.

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

No. It is just an amorphous sensation. The funny thing here is that if eyes are open, it can now be seen that a sensation labelled, say, 'rubbing palms together' really is completely independent from the color labeled 'sight of palms being rubbed together'.

Terrific Swaram! Even though you have seen that, I will still post the exercise on sigh-sensation correlation.

This exercise helps to see how the illusion of the body is ‘created’, so to speak. Normally we believe that sensation is coming from sight - the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’.

1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensation ‘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…

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

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing? Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

If eyes are closed, 'body' and 'clothing' or 'body' and 'chair' are really just one sensation.

Nice!

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

Color + sensation + sound + thought

The WORD/LABEL ‘body’ actually refers to the AE of thought.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Ever-changing, shapeless, formless, sensation.

The body is AE of thought. Colour is not a body, sound is not a body and sensation is not a body. Thought points to them and says they are a body, so body is the AE of thought.

So that AE and content of thought become clearer, here is an which points out the difference between actual experience and content of thought.

There are two types of thoughts:
(1) Thoughts with words “Here is cup”
(2) Visual mental images of a ‘cup’

So I invite you to do this exercise:
Think of a cup. Get a very clear picture in your mind. See clearly the size, shape, colour and volume of the cup. Notice whether it is decorated or plain. Notice whether it has a handle. Notice whether it is heavy or fragile. Do you have a clear picture in mind?

Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?

Is there a ‘real’ cup or just an image of a cup?
Is there an appearing mental image?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?

The thoughts and mental images are real (actual experience) only as arising thoughts and mental images, their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what are they about (like the cup) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

Love, Kay

[Swaram]

Hello Kay,

Here are my comments. In gratitude, Swaram.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience? Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?

The actual experience is the color red.

Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?

While the label may suggest something else other than the AE, when the word 'green' is read it is like it is an empty, meaningless label.

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

It is just a word label on the experience.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests? Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Labels have no effect on 'reality.' As I read the words 'green', 'good' or 'bad' the AE of the red color remains unchanged. Funny how the meaning of the word comes up as an AE of thought, but the AE of color remains in the background untouched. Two completely different things.

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

No link whatsoever. When the eyes are closed, there is often a mental image enforcing the 'creation' of the illusion, but it can be seen that the scheme is basically the same. It does get harder to see that there's no link when there's emotion present or when the sensation is painful, for example.

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

There are thoughts about the AE, such as complaints or commentaries about an itch or a pain. There are thoughts that 'create' the immediate surroundings such as notion of a room and body when eyes are closed. There are thoughts that label color, sound, and sensations, as well as other thoughts happening now. But mostly the thoughts are fantasies, stories about things that have nothing to do with the AE. They might even be triggered by an AE, but the thread soon wonders off. These happen more often than not.

[forgetmenot]

Good afternoon Swaram,

Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?

While the label may suggest something else other than the AE, when the word 'green' is read it is like it is an empty, meaningless label.

I like this exercise because it shows how thought does that with AE continuously, yes? Like labelling colour “apple” etc.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests? Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Labels have no effect on 'reality.' As I read the words 'green', 'good' or 'bad' the AE of the red color remains unchanged. Funny how the meaning of the word comes up as an AE of thought, but the AE of color remains in the background untouched. Two completely different things.

Yes, as thought describes them, they are different, however, experience appears as thought and colour, so from that perspective are they different? Is there really thought AND colour? If you drop the label ‘thought’ and the label ‘colour’, what remains?

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

No link whatsoever. When the eyes are closed, there is often a mental image enforcing the 'creation' of the illusion, but it can be seen that the scheme is basically the same. .

When eyes are open there is seeing of colour labelled 'hand' which thought links and says sensation is coming from sight.
If this was actually the case then no sensation would be felt when the eyes were closed!! :)

Here is an interesting video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... e=youtu.be

It does get harder to see that there's no link when there's emotion present or when the sensation is painful, for example

For every thought that comes up, and to determine whether it is referring to actual experience or whether it is pure fantasy, replace the thought with “blahblahblah” and check whether what it was referring to remains. Let me know what you find.

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

There are thoughts about the AE, such as complaints or commentaries about an itch or a pain. There are thoughts that 'create' the immediate surroundings such as notion of a room and body when eyes are closed. There are thoughts that label color, sound, and sensations, as well as other thoughts happening now. But mostly the thoughts are fantasies, stories about things that have nothing to do with the AE. They might even be triggered by an AE, but the thread soon wonders off. These happen more often than not.

Yes, thought either points to AE or it points to thought stories about AE. All thought is empty of content UNLESS it is pointing to AE, for example thought “cold” is pointing to sensation “brrbrr”.

It SEEMS as though thought triggers something else, but for something to trigger something else points to two, and to cause and effect, and to time which all points to separation.

Love, Kay

[Swaram]

Hi Kay,

Latest answers below:

Yes, as thought describes them, they are different, however, experience appears as thought and colour, so from that perspective are they different?

No. Both thought and color are one experience.

Is there really thought AND colour? If you drop the label ‘thought’ and the label ‘colour’, what remains?

The AE is what remains, the AE which is here, now, and which is one. 'Thought' and 'color' is still the mind labelling and dividing experience.

When eyes are open there is seeing of colour labelled 'hand' which thought links and says sensation is coming from sight. If this was actually the case then no sensation would be felt when the eyes were closed!! :)

Yes, and the same happens with the other senses. Rubbing 'fingers' together, feeling the sensation and listening to the sound. Or looking at a plate of 'hot food', smelling it and tasting it. All separate thoughts and sensations when labelled, but all one sole experience.

Here is an interesting video!

Wow. Yes, exactly. There is a story that says color and sensation are inseparable and it is believed...until it is seen otherwise.

For every thought that comes up, and to determine whether it is referring to actual experience or whether it is pure fantasy, replace the thought with “blahblahblah” and check whether what it was referring to remains. Let me know what you find.

'It's windy and rainy outside.' = Blahblahblah. Sound is still experienced = refers to actual experience.
'It's always rainy here in the winter.' = Blahblahblah. Nothing remains = fantasy
'That train horn at a distance is very irritating.' = blahblahblah. Sound is still experienced. 'Irritation' is still experienced = refers to actual experience.
'It's getting late, I should go to bed.' = blahblahblah. Nothing remains = fantasy
Yes?

Yes, thought either points to AE or it points to thought stories about AE. All thought is empty of content UNLESS it is pointing to AE

Could you please clarify 'all thought is empty of content'?

[forgetmenot]

Hey Swaram,

For every thought that comes up, and to determine whether it is referring to actual experience or whether it is pure fantasy, replace the thought with “blahblahblah” and check whether what it was referring to remains. Let me know what you find.

'It's windy and rainy outside.' = Blahblahblah. Sound is still experienced = refers to actual experience.
'It's always rainy here in the winter.' = Blahblahblah. Nothing remains = fantasy
'That train horn at a distance is very irritating.' = blahblahblah. Sound is still experienced. 'Irritation' is still experienced = refers to actual experience.
'It's getting late, I should go to bed.' = blahblahblah. Nothing remains = fantasy
Yes?

Yes exactly. If sound ‘train horn’ was not appearing then it would be fantasy, but it is appearing so it is actual experience.
However, it is the sensation that is being experienced which is labelled ‘irritation’, so sensation labelled irritation is appearing but can ‘irritation’ be found in AE?

Yes, thought either points to AE or it points to thought stories about AE. All thought is empty of content UNLESS it is pointing to AE

Could you please clarify 'all thought is empty of content'?

Thought, in and of itself does not contain any experience, if it did you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’. So all thought is empty and the content of thought is more thought! However, if thought and its content is pointing to AE then it is pointing to what IS. For example the thought “I am feeling cold” arises; the ensuing thoughts of what that means is the content of that thought. If sensation brrbrr is not appearing with that thought then the content of that thought is pointing to just further thoughts. If the thought “I am feeling cold” arises and what its contents are pointing to are sensation ‘brrbrr’, then it is pointing to AE.
Is this clear?


If you were in a desert, dying of thirst, could you quench your thirst just by thinking about water (thoughts) or would you need to drink ‘real’ water?

Let’s say I’m with you in the desert and offer you two options:
(1) In my left hand there is a piece of paper with the word ‘water’ written on it, and
(2) in my right hand there is a bottle of water.

Which one would you choose to quench your thirst, the label or the water?

So, can the label ‘water’, which is actual experience (AE) of thought, quench your thirst?

Labels are ‘real’ (actual experience) as appearing thoughts but its ‘content’, what the thought is ABOUT is not ‘real’ and is NOT the AE of ‘content’.
Can you see this?


Love, Kay

[Swaram]

Hi Kay,

Thank you for your feedback. Here are my answers. S

However, it is the sensation that is being experienced which is labelled ‘irritation’, so sensation labelled irritation is appearing but can ‘irritation’ be found in AE?

Okay. 'Irritation' cannot be found in AE, so it is not experienced. However, the label does refer to actual experience because if it is replaced by blahblahblah the sensation is still experienced.

However, if thought and its content is pointing to AE then it is pointing to what IS.

Right. But thought and its content are still empty, correct?

Is this clear?

Yes. If thought does not refer to AE, then it refers to more thought. But in both cases thought is ultimately empty.

Labels are ‘real’ (actual experience) as appearing thoughts but its ‘content’, what the thought is ABOUT is not ‘real’ and is NOT the AE of ‘content’.
Can you see this?

Yes. 'Content' is just more thought. The illusion can have many levels and create a lot of confusion, but in reality it is really simple; it all comes down to examining what is actually here and now as AE.

[forgetmenot]

Hey Swaram,

However, it is the sensation that is being experienced which is labelled ‘irritation’, so sensation labelled irritation is appearing but can ‘irritation’ be found in AE?

Okay. 'Irritation' cannot be found in AE, so it is not experienced. However, the label does refer to actual experience because if it is replaced by blahblahblah the sensation is still experienced.

Yes, exactly! :) The label is pointing to AE in the moment and not to fantasy ie imagination.

However, if thought and its content is pointing to AE then it is pointing to what IS.

Right. But thought and its content are still empty, correct?

Here is a signpost that points to Moscow, London, Berlin etc. All of these signs are labels that seemingly point to something. Do the signposts have any idea what they are pointing to? Can Moscow be found in the sign/label itself, or London or Berlin?

Yes. If thought does not refer to AE, then it refers to more thought. But in both cases thought is ultimately empty.

Yep....the content of every single thought is just a story.

Labels are ‘real’ (actual experience) as appearing thoughts but its ‘content’, what the thought is ABOUT is not ‘real’ and is NOT the AE of ‘content’.
Can you see this?

Yes. 'Content' is just more thought. The illusion can have many levels and create a lot of confusion, but in reality it is really simple; it all comes down to examining what is actually here and now as AE.

Yes, exactly.

Okay, let’s move on to looking at the idea of 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

[Swaram]

Hi Kay,

The past few days have been tough. There have been thoughts of going nowhere along with some anger at the whole process, especially at not having seen clearly that Swaram is a character, that the 'I' is an illusion. Also a sadness for working so hard and not feeling at peace. However, there's a strong conviction that the entire thing is a fantasy. Just empty thoughts. Things are as they are and I just need to keep on going. Sorry, needed to get that out. Anyway, here are the answers to your questions on 'time.'

Love, Swaram.

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

Not at all. 'Now' really has nothing to do with 'time'. Like in the earlier exercise, if 'time' is substituted by blahblahblah there is nothing there to be experienced. It appears that, as a concept (thought), 'time' is based on other concepts (thoughts): 'movement' and 'change'. 'Movement' and 'change' (thoughts) are based on another construct: 'comparison'. Just one big thought mess, yes? Say I look outside and it is light. I then look outside again and it is dark. I say there has been 'change', I say there has been movement in time because I compare the AE labelled 'dark' to a memory of 'light', which is a thought. That's a fantasy.

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

No. No experience of different 'moments', only one 'now.' To quantize moments I need to think in terms of 'seconds', 'minutes', etc. And 'seconds', 'minutes', etc. are thoughts.

Any actual experience of one event following another?

Events following each other, cause and effect, movement, change, these are all constructs, illusions. Events just happen, always in the 'now'.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

The present moment does not move. It is always 'now', and 'now' points to whatever is.

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

No. It has always, it is always, it will always be 'now.'

How long does the ‘now’ last?

'Now' has no duration. It makes no sense to talk about the duration of 'now'. It is always 'now'.

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

'Now' has no beginning or end. It cannot be measured or quantified. It is ever-present.

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

Only in retrospective, as a construct, as thought (memory).

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

Memory (thought). Just as the future is imagination (thought).

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

Thoughts about 'time'. The actual experience of 'time' is the AE of thought.

[forgetmenot]

Hello Swaram,

The past few days have been tough. There have been thoughts of going nowhere along with some anger at the whole process, especially at not having seen clearly that Swaram is a character, that the 'I' is an illusion. Also a sadness for working so hard and not feeling at peace. However, there's a strong conviction that the entire thing is a fantasy. Just empty thoughts. Things are as they are and I just need to keep on going. Sorry, needed to get that out. Anyway, here are the answers to your questions on 'time.'

Frustration and anger and even resistance are a good sign, compared to no emotions at all. Something is shifting. How about putting aside the idea of having to work hard at this, and just have some fun with it? Working hard and efforting isn’t going to bring about the realisation any quicker….can you find a you who is in control of when this will happen?

Let’s look at anger (you can use this with any emotions, at any time, just replace the word ‘anger’ with whatever the emotion is, be it frustration, sadness, resistance etc).

The label ‘anger’ is the actual experience (AE) of thought and is not the AE of anger.

The sensation labelled ‘anger’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of anger.

The colours/image labelled “I/me/body” are the AE of colour/image and not the AE of ‘a person who is angry’.

Does the label ‘anger’ in any way suggest that it is angry?
Does the sensation labelled ‘anger’ in any way suggest that it is angry?
Do the colours labelled ‘I/me/body’ know anything about being angry?
Do the colours labelled ‘I/me/body’ in any way suggest that they are angry?

Is anger actually known? Or what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + the thought story that SEEMED to have triggered the anger; and the thoughts that ‘glue’ it all together and calls it ‘my story of being angry about......'?

Then see if you can find this angry self. Close the eyes and….

1. Look at the thought “I am angry”. Literally “see” the thought in your mind’s eye, as if it has been typewritten across your forehead and look to see if those words are the angry self, or are they simply letters and words? Do the letters and words know anything about being angry? Are the letters and words angry? If not, then move onto the sensation.

2. Locate and bring your attention to the sensation in the body that is labelled “angry”. Is the sensation the angry self? Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is angry? Can anything be found within the sensation itself that could be angry. Look to see if there’s anything underneath or behind the sensation that could be angry.

If random mental images appear during the noticing of the sensation, check to see if those images are the angry self. Or are they images that are simply arising and subsiding? If other loud thoughts appear, check to see if they are the angry self, as you did in step 1.

If you can’t find the angry self there, move onto step 3

3. Look at the colours/image (be it either a mental image if eyes are closed, or the ‘visual’ image) labelled “body” to see if that is the angry self. Does the image know anything about an angry self? Is the image itself angry? Can an image be angry?

If other random mental images appear during the noticing of the sensation, check to see if those images are the angry self. Or are they images that are simply arising and subsiding? If other loud thoughts appear, check to see if they are the angry self, as you did in step 1.

If you can’t find the angry self there, move onto step 4

4. Look everywhere within the “body”, literally scan the body from head to toe slowly, looking in every nook and cranny and see if you can find the angry self anywhere or find anything that is angry.

Did you find an angry self anywhere?

If you have seen that there is nothing there but thought + sensation + images then just allow the raw sensations and thoughts to be as they are, without trying to change them. They may fade on their own, they may not. But just allow the raw sensation all the room that they need and allow them to be.

Let me know how this goes for you.

What is the expectation of having peace about exactly? Is there an idea that once you are at peace then you will know that you have had the realisation? Are you expecting a sign, some flashing lights or something other thing to appear when you have seen? Are you expecting thought to tell you that you have seen or confirm that you have seen. A realisation is none of those things and it certainly isn’t a thought either.

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

Not at all. 'Now' really has nothing to do with 'time'. Like in the earlier exercise, if 'time' is substituted by blahblahblah there is nothing there to be experienced. It appears that, as a concept (thought), 'time' is based on other concepts (thoughts): 'movement' and 'change'. 'Movement' and 'change' (thoughts) are based on another construct: 'comparison'. Just one big thought mess, yes? Say I look outside and it is light. I then look outside again and it is dark. I say there has been 'change', I say there has been movement in time because I compare the AE labelled 'dark' to a memory of 'light', which is a thought. That's a fantasy.

Yes, it is a fantasy. But such a clever one! The miraculousness of how everything - all the minute details that intertwine to make the idea of separation seem so real, is actually mind boggling awesome!

Love, Kay

[forgetmenot]

Hello Swaram,

I haven't heard from you in a few days. What is happening for you?

Love, Kay

[Swaram]

Hi Kay,

Sorry. Wanted to work through the exercise for a bit before replying. There has been a lot going on during this examination...

How about putting aside the idea of having to work hard at this, and just have some fun with it?

Yes. Thank you for that. There's a tendency to take things too seriously at times.

can you find a you who is in control of when this will happen?

No. Just basically thoughts and feelings of desperation shooting all over the place; thoughts and feelings of hoping things happen quicker.

The label ‘anger’ is the actual experience (AE) of thought and is not the AE of anger.

Yes. However, when it comes to strong emotions, it is perceived how the label is closely attached to the sensation and many times difficult to see as just a word. It is as if the word is 'colored' or 'clothed' by the sensation.

Does the label ‘anger’ in any way suggest that it is angry?

The label does not suggest anything. A label is just a thought and a thought cannot be angry.

Does the sensation labelled ‘anger’ in any way suggest that it is angry?

The sensation does not suggest anything. A sensation is just a sensation. It cannot be angry, tired, sad, etc.

Do the colours labelled ‘I/me/body’ know anything about being angry? Do the colours labelled ‘I/me/body’ in any way suggest that they are angry?

Colors don't know anything about anything and do not suggest anything. However, here lies a conviction that there is someone who is angry. But then again, a 'conviction' is just a sensation and 'there is someone who is angry' is a thought story.

Close the eyes and….

Thank you for this exercise. It has been very helpful. I have been practicing it with whatever emotion comes up whenever I can. However, the strong feelings, emotions, luring stories that used to come up all the time don't show themselves nearly as often. Not sure this is a good thing or a bad thing. There is not a feeling that this examination is being used to suppress anything.

Did you find an angry self anywhere?

Nope. An angry self is nowhere to be found. Though belief in the existence of an 'angry self' still arises. And that leads to more 'anger'. Funny how the 'I' thought is so bothersome. Looking at 'body' (color) and how it is just there most of the time (whenever eyes are open) and left alone. The same with "I", but in this case there is a story of 'wanting to get rid of it' attached to the thought.

What is the expectation of having peace about exactly? Is there an idea that once you are at peace then you will know that you have had the realisation? Are you expecting a sign, some flashing lights or something other thing to appear when you have seen? Are you expecting thought to tell you that you have seen or confirm that you have seen. A realisation is none of those things and it certainly isn’t a thought either.

To be completely honest, probably yes to all of the above. The expectation is that I'll be at peace when I have had the realization, and that it will somehow be known. The problem with these thoughts is that they all involve an 'I' who will be at peace, realized, etc. It is seen, though, that if there is no 'I', then 'I' do not have the slightest idea of what realization will look like, because any idea will come from the 'I' perspective.