The Gate

Hi Suma,

So what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT resistance. Is resistance actually known?

No, it is not known. There are thoughts, there are sensations and that’s it.

Does the sensation itself, labelled as ‘resistance’, suggest in any way that it is in resistance or knows anything about resistance?

Yes, there is no ‘head’. So what is the AE of ‘head’?

There is he AE of thoughts ( „Where is the head?”),
and there is AE of sensations, they can’t be defined as this or that.

The AE of 'head is thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it 'head', but as you have seen there is no 'head', so thought is pointing to thoughts about a 'head' which is pure fiction.

2) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just 'sensation'?

There is just sensation. And there is AE of sensation of pressure in the head.

That’s interesting since the exercise is about putting a hand on desk! :)

Do you notice ‘one thing feeling another thing’. In other words do you notice a hand feeling a desk or is there just sensation?

3) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just 'sensation'?
What do you find?

There is just sensation. And there is AE of sensation of pressure in the head.
There is AE of thought (saying: This can’t be)
Actually experienced is only one sensation.

No head was suggested for this exercise. It was about placing a hand on a desk.

Do you find an “I/body/hand feeling” or is there just simply sensation?

If that is all, and no INHERENT FEELER is found . . . would anything that is suggested as the feeler be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

No, the feeler is a concept/idea/thought. Astonishing to see that.

Wonderful!

Now go back to the 'head' exercise. Can a hand be found touching a head? Or there are thoughts about a hand touching the head, but what is actually appearing is simply sensation?

It is actually simply sensation. I’ve done that exercise several times, yesterday, today, and it is really always so astonishing to clearly see that there is just sensation, nothing more.

Lovely, Suma.

(I'm really having a hard time doing this quote thing nicely. It is quite complicated as the gap of often mismatched. I'm doing it again and again and then I'm getting totally confused about the text passages)

You will get the hang of it!


Okay, just to finish off with thoughts, let's have a look at how thought narrates what appears as life which makes it seem like the story is about a 'you'.

The following link is a 7 minute clip of a soccer game. If you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with. Do this exercise several times before answering the questions. The purpose of this experiment is to see how thoughts are like the commentator in the following clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5pL-myDzw

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice, seems to feel as though they can influence somehow what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome, the commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off. Without thought and looking at AE, what is actually appearing/happening?

Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?

And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

Does the sensation itself, labelled as ‘resistance’, suggest in any way that it is in resistance or knows anything about resistance?

No.

Do you notice ‘one thing feeling another thing’. In other words do you notice a hand feeling a desk or is there just sensation?

No hand, no desk, only sensations are felt.

Do you find an “I/body/hand feeling” or is there just simply sensation?

There is simply sensation.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off. Without thought and looking at AE, what is actually appearing/happening?

There are physical entities interacting and showing a broad range of emotional expressions. Running around, kicking this round thing again and again into that fenced area (the goal).
Sometimes it is possible, sometimes not. Turning on the commentator a lot of blah-blah with great excitement is added to the scene.
I’ve been watching this clip a number of times. First in the suggested manner, than the whole thing in silence, several times, and then the volume tuned on the whole clip. The latter was most revealing. The talking was going on but there were only words passing by. It was not necessary to listen to it, it was just there. It was just one more phenomena added to the scene.

Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?

Not at all. The play has happened anyway before and the commentator had been added to this summary later. But also in live events the running commentary has only the role of constant blah-blah which is supposed to never stop as the audience might get bored; the excitement has to be kept on a most possible high level.

And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

No, it is not.
This example really matches it. Thought is commenting all the time to keep the level of excitement high. “This thought is so important therefore it must come always into the first place. Look at me, look at me!” It wants to cause a constant emotional interference, raising temper. But actually it is only useless blah-blah. However, this has to be kept in secret; otherwise the whole thing would collapse. The ridiculousness of it in the whole play would become obvious.

Thank you very much
greetings
suma

Hey Suma,

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off. Without thought and looking at AE, what is actually appearing/happening?

There are physical entities interacting and showing a broad range of emotional expressions. Running around, kicking this round thing again and again into that fenced area (the goal).

This is all thought description, Suma. What is actually appearing when looking with AE?

I’ve been watching this clip a number of times. First in the suggested manner, than the whole thing in silence, several times, and then the volume tuned on the whole clip. The latter was most revealing. The talking was going on but there were only words passing by. It was not necessary to listen to it, it was just there. It was just one more phenomena added to the scene.

Lovely, yes….just like thought is superfluous to what is happening to the seeming life of “Suma”. With the commentary off, everything is just happening. There is no one who can predict what is going to happen, or how the commentary will go! It can only base itself on what has already happened. And even future thoughts are based on past thoughts!

Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?

Not at all. The play has happened anyway before and the commentator had been added to this summary later. But also in live events the running commentary has only the role of constant blah-blah which is supposed to never stop as the audience might get bored; the excitement has to be kept on a most possible high level.

Exactly! Glad you noticed that when the video was muted there was a feeling of neutrality towards the apparent happenings on screen; while the commentary version of the game kind of sucked you into the story that the commentator was telling. And this is what happens with the seeming story of “Suma”.

And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

No, it is not. This example really matches it. Thought is commenting all the time to keep the level of excitement high. “This thought is so important therefore it must come always into the first place. Look at me, look at me!” It wants to cause a constant emotional interference, raising temper. But actually it is only useless blah-blah. However, this has to be kept in secret; otherwise the whole thing would collapse. The ridiculousness of it in the whole play would become obvious.

And has it become obvious to you now?


Here is a humourous look at thought…the perpetual commentator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4qc34kYHdM


Okay, let’s move on and have a look at the idea of choice/decisions/control.

1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down.
2. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

Watch like a hawk.

Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire…

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

This is all thought description, Suma. What is actually appearing when looking with AE?

It is AE of seeing – colour.

And has it become obvious to you now?

It is like watching this clip with the commentator voice on. Thoughts are there telling their thing and along with that the total stupidity of it is felt. It’s not really necessary to change anything. The commentator can carry on or not. In between something like a noisy silence is felt – I don’t know how to name it better. Something that is there always. It is just beside the whole play going on.

Here is a humourous look at thought…the perpetual commentator.

Thanks for that. Great fun.
Here finally the voice succeeded. And most of the time it was even telling the truth as an omniscient narrator. The voice itself was intelligent; it was most of the time telling honestly what was hidden. Therefore the folks finally believed in it and reacted.

Referring to thoughts the perpetual commentator is just stupid. But anyway, reacting to thoughts as if they come from a central omniscient narrator is totally insane. Oh man - and the news are just filled with that. There’s a feeling of urgency to just drop that insanity instantly at least to the system which is writing here presently. And then maybe others just follow.

Now to the second part:

How is the movement controlled?

I can’t say that. For sure not by thought.

Does a thought control it?

No thought involved in that.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No.

How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.

There’s nothing to track. What it is to make the hand turn over? It is a mystery.

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is choosing when to turn the palm up or down?

No, nothing like that.

Thank you very much for everything
All the best
suma

Hey Suma,

This is all thought description, Suma. What is actually appearing when looking with AE?

It is AE of seeing – colour.

Lovely, yes. Make sure you continue to break things down into AE on a daily basis.

And has it become obvious to you now?

It is like watching this clip with the commentator voice on. Thoughts are there telling their thing and along with that the total stupidity of it is felt. It’s not really necessary to change anything. The commentator can carry on or not. In between something like a noisy silence is felt – I don’t know how to name it better. Something that is there always. It is just beside the whole play going on.

Yes, so thought can appear saying that “my name is Suma and I am wearing such and such today and I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, and I know my body is this height and this weight….etc etc etc”. Does it make it so?

Here is a humourous look at thought…the perpetual commentator.

Thanks for that. Great fun.
Here finally the voice succeeded. And most of the time it was even telling the truth as an omniscient narrator. The voice itself was intelligent; it was most of the time telling honestly what was hidden. Therefore the folks finally believed in it and reacted.

How is the voice telling the truth? The voice is simply AE of sound. It is only a thought that says that the voice is verbalising thoughts!

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is talking thought aloud (verbalising thoughts)?
Does sound know anything about thoughts?

Referring to thoughts the perpetual commentator is just stupid. But anyway, reacting to thoughts as if they come from a central omniscient narrator is totally insane. Oh man - and the news are just filled with that. There’s a feeling of urgency to just drop that insanity instantly at least to the system which is writing here presently. And then maybe others just follow.

Is there a ‘you’ that controls what thoughts appear and when? Is there a ‘you’ that can decide whether or not to drop anything?

Can you hold onto or let go of sound? If not, can you then hold onto or let go of thought?

How is the movement controlled?

I can’t say that. For sure not by thought.

Exactly! It is not known.

How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over and the hand turns over immediately.

There’s nothing to track. What it is to make the hand turn over? It is a mystery.

Lovely, yes. Decision is a story. Even "decision point" is an oxymoron as decision implies something preceding something else and that can´t happen when all there ever is, is NOW.

Let’s have a look to see if there is even a ‘hand’ to turn over! 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…

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?

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

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?

Thank you very much for everything

You are more than welcome. Thank you for looking :)

Love, Kay

Dear Kai,

Make sure you continue to break things down into AE on a daily basis.

Yes, Ok. Thanks for reminding.

Yes, so thought can appear saying that “my name is Suma and I am wearing such and such today and I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, and I know my body is this height and this weight….etc etc etc”. Does it make it so?

Actually no, not that way. It is more like talking to some person who is not present at moment and retelling everything that is going on. “Now I do this and then that and that happened and then, dah, dah, dah...it was like this…”As you mention it now, no, there’s hardly any thought about myself as body or person. It’s more like commenting on everything that is going on. The insanity in this is the creation of situations in the mind and then reacting to them as if they are really happening.

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is talking thought aloud (verbalising thoughts)?

Ok, catched. Yes, it is only sound.

Does sound know anything about thoughts?

No.

Is there a ‘you’ that controls what thoughts appear and when? Is there a ‘you’ that can decide whether or not to drop anything?

No.

Can you hold onto or let go of sound? If not, can you then hold onto or let go of thought?

No.

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?

Yes, I’ve never noticed that. They belong to totally different tracks. There’s no connection.

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

No link is there or any hierarchy. Clearly separate phenomena.

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?

There’s no link and also no thoughts involved in that.

Thank you
(I really mean that. This is such a valuable opportunity to go through all that.)

All the best
suma

Hey Suma,

Yes, so thought can appear saying that “my name is Suma and I am wearing such and such today and I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, and I know my body is this height and this weight….etc etc etc”. Does it make it so?

Actually no, not that way. It is more like talking to some person who is not present at moment and retelling everything that is going on. “Now I do this and then that and that happened and then, dah, dah, dah...it was like this…”As you mention it now, no, there’s hardly any thought about myself as body or person. It’s more like commenting on everything that is going on. The insanity in this is the creation of situations in the mind and then reacting to them as if they are really happening.

Aha! Great, so now you have become aware/observant of thought and seeing it as thought and not as “myself as thinker” or the thoughts belonging to a you.

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is talking thought aloud (verbalising thoughts)?

Ok, catched. Yes, it is only sound.

Lol :)

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?

Yes, I’ve never noticed that. They belong to totally different tracks. There’s no connection.

Nice!

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

No link is there or any hierarchy. Clearly separate phenomena.

Separate and yet seemingly appearing ‘simultaneously’! So let’s take that a little further.

Experience is appearing as sound, smell, taste, thought, sensation, colour and not the other way round. So is there a sound AND smell AND taste AND thought AND sensation AND colour or is there simply soundsmelltastethoughsensatoncolour = experience ie they are one and the same?

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?

There’s no link and also no thoughts involved in that.

Yes exactly. It is a false perception that one comes from the other as this video shows.

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


So let’s have a deeper look at the body.

Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

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

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.

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


(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

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

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

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

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

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

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

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

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

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

Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

Experience is appearing as sound, smell, taste, thought, sensation, colour and not the other way round. So is there a sound AND smell AND taste AND thought AND sensation AND colour or is there simply soundsmelltastethoughsensatoncolour = experience ie they are one and the same?

No, it comes all separate. Somehow one after another, but in really quick sequence.

Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Whow, that was not as easy as imagined. I’ve done it many times. First there was an intense heat felt in the body, then the image in the mirror got blurred all the time and all sort of strange things happened to the vision. Like the image changed totally its shape, it was vibrating and pulsing, changing it’s intensity in light and darkness as if a spot is going on and off. As if light would at times come from the front and then again from the back. So definitely there was a sort of connection, generated by thought. After some time of getting used and just looking there was just colour seen. No connection.

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

No.

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

No.

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

No.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

Colours and shapes. No difference between a shape or colour in the mirror or what is not mirror anymore.

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

No, there was no idea like that. There were sensations felt in the body but not in the mirror.

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

There are sensations inside the body parts. Something as subtle energy vibrating.
There is no shape or form in that.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

There are sensations. And the feeling of a rather clumsy movement.

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

The impression of clumsiness is a thought about the movement.
Body and walking as such cannot be defined.

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

Initially there was the feeling of feet touching the floor. But by looking more closely there was no dividing line of feet or floor. The room itself was not limited to the walls. It is somehow just something or rather not something.

All the best

suma

Hello Suma,

Experience is appearing as sound, smell, taste, thought, sensation, colour and not the other way round. So is there a sound AND smell AND taste AND thought AND sensation AND colour or is there simply soundsmelltastethoughsensatoncolour = experience ie they are one and the same?

No, it comes all separate. Somehow one after another, but in really quick sequence.

Without thought how it is known that they are separate and that they are different experiences?

Is there sound AND content? What is the content of sound?
Is there thought AND content? What is the content of thought?
Is there colour AND content? What is the content of colour?
Is there sensation AND content? What is the content of sensation?
Is there smell AND content? What is the content of smell?
Is there taste AND content? What is the content of taste?

Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

So definitely there was a sort of connection, generated by thought. After some time of getting used and just looking there was just colour seen. No connection.

Exactly, it is only thought that suggests that there is a connection.

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

No, there was no idea like that. There were sensations felt in the body but not in the mirror.

Yes. And it is only thought that points to the sensation and suggests that the sensations must be legs even though the colour labelled ‘legs’ are not appearing in that moment.

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

There are sensations inside the body parts. Something as subtle energy vibrating.
There is no shape or form in that.

Are there actual body parts or does thought suggest that the sensation is “inside the body parts”?

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

Initially there was the feeling of feet touching the floor. But by looking more closely there was no dividing line of feet or floor. The room itself was not limited to the walls. It is somehow just something or rather not something.

Lovely!

Okay, so now let's look a the idea of thinking and seeing.

It is generally believed that thoughts are coming from the head. 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?

Are thoughts actually generated in an area called the 'forehead/head'?


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

It's also believed that both '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)?

Do the body's eyes see?


Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

Without thought how it is known that they are separate and that they are different experiences?

Is there sound AND content? What is the content of sound?
Is there thought AND content? What is the content of thought?
Is there colour AND content? What is the content of colour?
Is there sensation AND content? What is the content of sensation?
Is there smell AND content? What is the content of smell?
Is there taste AND content? What is the content of taste?

Please excuse me, the question was misunderstood. I was referring to each sense door as a separate thing according to the exercise of seeing and feeling the hand. There is no content in any sense impression. Actually I don’t know how to answer this question.

Are there actual body parts or does thought suggest that the sensation is “inside the body parts”?

There are sensations felt in a kind of restricted area. What it is cannot be described.

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

No.

Are thoughts actually generated in an area called the 'forehead/head'?

In the forehead there are sensations felt. Actually it has nothing to do with thoughts.

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

No. I can’t tell where or how sight happens.

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

No.

Do the body's eyes see?

No, the image is not in the eye. There’s only colour, but this is also not in the physical eye. Where and how and why and what can’t be traced by me.

All the best

suma

Hello Suma,

Without thought how it is known that they are separate and that they are different experiences?
Is there sound AND content? What is the content of sound?

Please excuse me, the question was misunderstood. I was referring to each sense door as a separate thing according to the exercise of seeing and feeling the hand. There is no content in any sense impression. Actually I don’t know how to answer this question.

Does sound have a content, or is it simply sound? It is only thought that gives sound a content. Is there anything in sound but sound itself? The sound “woof woof” is simply sound - a dog cannot be found in the sound labelled as “woof woof”.

It is only thought that divides experience into categories ie sound, taste, smell, etc.and then further breaks them down into specific objects. Experience/THIS is whole, complete and seamless.

A map shows how a country is seemingly divided into states. Is the map made of those divisions? Or are those divisions simply the map being the map? Can you see the analogy between a map and experience/THIS itself?

Are there actual body parts or does thought suggest that the sensation is “inside the body parts”?

There are sensations felt in a kind of restricted area. What it is cannot be described.

Go back and redo the body exercise, Suma and then answer the following question:-

How is it known that those sensation are “felt in a kind of restricted area”?

Are thoughts actually generated in an area called the 'forehead/head'?

In the forehead there are sensations felt. Actually it has nothing to do with thoughts.

Yes, the 'forehead' has nothing to do with thoughts.

Can you find a ‘forehead’ in actual experience? Is a ‘forehead’ known? Or is thought pointing to sensation and then labelling it a ‘forehead’ that is part of a ‘head’?

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

No. I can’t tell where or how sight happens.

Look at whatever is in front of you. It is seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes) or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?


Just a little humour!



Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

well, somehow it slowly dawns on me what you are trying to point at.
There’s no me in the physical appearance, no me in any sort of career or seeking for anything,
no me in the forehead and also not in the heart area or anywhere located in the body. What is really there is that constant feedback between sense impression and mental makeup. This is what this me seems to be. Anything may go, but this mechanism has to stay. Actually this is all my pride. This recognizing is what differentiates me from an animal. In seeing there is a constant and immediate feedback loop going on. It’s not static as suggested in the picture above but like a constant roll over, endless feedback loops. See – check – cognize - see – check - cognize – see – check - cognize….See – know – see – know – see – know….

When I was in my early twenties a peculiar thing had happened. I was sitting in the kitchen gazing at a red teapot on the woodstove. Suddenly the image of teapot just disappeared and along with that everything else as well. There was just nothing, no sense impression at all.
There was only a kind of insight as: ”Oh man, it is all just mind made. All this was just there in the mind.” Sometime later the sense impressions came back. I had to go to a shop to buy something. However, it was impossible to fetch anything out of the shelves because everything was just one and the same. This was totally odd and after some time I just tried to define any separateness to choose what I came to buy in the shop. This thing went on for maybe two or three days and then it went back to “normal”. I felt quite good to have this labelling mechanism back, no not good, but in a weird way back on a safe track.
Actually I had never mentioned this to anybody yet as it was too weird.
At the same time it was also nothing special, not worth mentioning.

And now I find myself again in a place where I might loose my dear labelling mechanism.
I know it is not dangerous as it had been already seen. But to smash the house again (and I had a number of houses, one by the way had been really demolished) which had been built so nicely, although it is substance less anyway, is causing a great agitation, resistance and all that stuff. I’m just cleaning the whole house to keep the body somehow busy and to refrain from any further investigation. No, enough is enough. I better run away.

A map shows how a country is seemingly divided into states. Is the map made of those divisions? Or are those divisions simply the map being the map? Can you see the analogy between a map and experience/THIS itself?

Yes, in seeing is only seeing.

How is it known that those sensation are “felt in a kind of restricted area”?

By feeling the sensation and the connected mental feedback: “This is something separate.”

Can you find a ‘forehead’ in actual experience? Is a ‘forehead’ known? Or is thought pointing to sensation and then labelling it a ‘forehead’ that is part of a ‘head’?

Thought is pointing to sensation and gives it the label. Without thought there is nothing like ‘forehead’

Look at whatever is in front of you. It is seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes) or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

It is seen like a windscreen view. There is seeing and the awareness of the feedback loops in the mind. Actually seeing is just seeing.

All the best and thank you for all

suma

Hello Suma,

Please take your time reading this post and doing the exercises. If you need a couple of days..that is fine.

well, somehow it slowly dawns on me what you are trying to point at.

There’s no me in the physical appearance, no me in any sort of career or seeking for anything,

Yes, there is no Suma-self who is a separate independent entity. However, that doesn’t mean that there is no You.

What is really there is that constant feedback between sense impression and mental makeup.

This is how it SEEMS, however, that is also seeing it from the point of view of being a separate self. There are no “sense impressions”.

What exactly is it that is sensing or using “mental makeup”? Can you find anyone/anything that is "sensing" or using "mental makeup"? Is there a you who makes sound, smell, thought, sensations etc appear? And do you create images or thoughts that are called "mental makeup"?

Let’s have a look at the idea of there being a ‘you’ who is sensing things.

With eyes closed, there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness'?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing the blackness be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?

Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the see-er, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Okay….then open the eyes and look around. There is a world of colours.

Is there a difference between the ‘blackness’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

When I was in my early twenties a peculiar thing had happened. I was sitting in the kitchen gazing at a red teapot on the woodstove. Suddenly the image of teapot just disappeared and along with that everything else as well. There was just nothing, no sense impression at all.

Lovely, all there is, is THIS/experience/knowing, that appears as sound, colour, smell, taste, sensation, thought. Experience is not divided, as you experienced, it is complete, whole and seamless. Soundcoloursmelltastesensationthought = experience.

And now I find myself again in a place where I might loose my dear labelling mechanism.

Everything that appears is simply that…and appearance. The disappearance of all ‘senses’ was an appearance. Experience appearing as no ‘thing’, however there is never a time when experience never IS…no matter if it appears as nothingness or as sound, colour, smell etc All appearances/experiences come and go, even the experience of seeing nothing.

although it is substance less anyway, is causing a great agitation, resistance and all that stuff. I’m just cleaning the whole house to keep the body somehow busy and to refrain from any further investigation. No, enough is enough. I better run away.

Keep busy so as not to feel the sensations is a defense mechanism. The only way through these experiences is to actually stop and feel the sensation. So I want to address this ‘anxiety’. You can replace the word ‘anxiety’ with ‘resistance’ or any other emotion that appears.

The label ‘anxiety’is the AE of thought and not the AE of anxiety
The sensation labelled ‘anxiety’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of anxiety
The colour labelled ‘me/I/body’ is the AE of colour and not the AE of anxiety
The thoughts ABOUT anxiety are AE of thought and not AE of anxiety

So, is there actual experience of ‘anxiety’ or what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT anxiety?

Label ‘anxiety’ is known and thoughts about ‘anxiety’ are known, however, is ‘anxiety’ actually known?

When ‘anxiety’ appears, close your eyes and do the following:

1) Look at the label/thought ‘anxiety’ itself. See the label/word ‘anxiety’ as a typewritten word in the ‘mind’s eye’ across the forehead

Does the label ‘anxiety’ know anything about anxiety, or is the word just a bunch of letters?
Is the label ‘anxiety’ itself anxious?
Can you find anyone/anything in the word itself that is anxious?

2) Then look at the sensation and ignore everything else but the sensation itself.
Inquire into the sensation and ask if the sensation itself knows anything about ‘anxiety’.

Look and see if the sensation itself is the anxious self. If the words ‘yes’ , or ‘yes, this is the self’ appears, go back to Step 1 and see the words across the forehead and repeat step 1.

And then look to see if there is anyone/anything in the sensation or behind the sensation that can be ‘anxious’.

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

3) Look at the mental image/outline labelled body.
Does the image/outline itself know anything about ‘anxiety’.
And then look to see if there is anyone/anything in the colour itself that knows anything about ‘anxiety’ or that can be ‘anxious’.

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

4) With eyes still closed look everywhere and see if you can find anyone or anything that is anxious.

When you have done this and if no one/no thing is found, then just sit with the sensation. Just breathe normally, notice the thoughts and images that appear and let them pass on by unless they seem to hang around, then do the appropriate steps above. Allow the sensation all the room it needs in the body without pushing it aside or judging it. If it becomes too intense just take a couple of deep breaths into the sensation itself, and then notice the floor under your feet, notice your backside on the chair and then notice what is in the room you are sitting in and name them out loud, while being aware of the sensation and remember to breathe normally. If the sensation does not dissipate at all or only dissipates a little, that is okay, just notice it, without doing anything with it and just go about your day.

We are not trying to get rid of the sensation labelled ‘anxiety’ or the arising thoughts or images. We are only LOOKING to see what is actually appearing (ie thought, sensation, colour/image) as opposed to what thought is saying ABOUT what actually IS.

Let me know how you go.

Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

thank you so much for all that concern and this long post.

Let me know how you go.

Yesterday and most of the night there was this being with the anxiety thing just as a sensation.
The next morning I went into the blackness exercise and there was simply just blackness.
Nothing more.
It was totally easy and in no way unknown. Actually this seeing had happened dozen or more times to me. Sitting at retreats and just looking at the students as a non person when helping on a course. Or being treated really bad and it didn’t matter at all because there was no dog to beat as there was no dog anywhere. Or just sitting at the veranda of my cabin and looking into the valley, sometimes for hours.
It appears now totally unintelligible to generate so much fuzz about it.
There was this desperate looking for someone and anything was just good enough to fill the blank space. Without this looking for something there is just not something or rather nothing. This search for something nowhere is just futile.

What exactly is it that is sensing or using “mental makeup”? Can you find anyone/anything that is "sensing" or using "mental makeup"? Is there a you who makes sound, smell, thought, sensations etc appear? And do you create images or thoughts that are called "mental makeup"?

No, nothing like that.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness'?

It is blackness.

2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?

Nothing else.

3) Can what is seeing the blackness be found?

No.

4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ the blackness? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?
What do you find?

There’s just blackness.

Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the see-er, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

There is no see-er. It is only seeing.

Okay….then open the eyes and look around. There is a world of colours.

Is there a difference between the ‘blackness’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

No.

All appearances/experiences come and go, even the experience of seeing nothing.

Thank you, that was really comforting.

So, is there actual experience of ‘anxiety’ or what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT anxiety?

Yes, the latter.

All the best

suma

Hey Suma,

Yesterday and most of the night there was this being with the anxiety thing just as a sensation. The next morning I went into the blackness exercise and there was simply just blackness.
Nothing more.
It was totally easy and in no way unknown. Actually this seeing had happened dozen or more times to me.

Wonderful…glad to hear that all is well :)

Can an INHERENT SEE-ER be found? Would anything that is suggested as the see-er, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

There is no see-er. It is only seeing.

Lovely. Seeing and knowing are one and the same. Seeing of colour and seeing of seeing are one and the same = colour
The see-er of the seen is actually never separate from the seen, it is all a singular experience.

So you saw that there is no senser of senses. Awareness doesn't come through the senses. 'Sensory' experience is the knowing ie experience/THIS/Source itself. There is no division between knowing and known. Just as there's no division between taste and sweet.


Okay, back to the last part of your previous post.

A map shows how a country is seemingly divided into states. Is the map made of those divisions? Or are those divisions simply the map being the map? Can you see the analogy between a map and experience/THIS itself?

Yes, in seeing is only seeing.

That is not what I was pointing to. I was pointing to the fallacy that experience is divided into sound, smell, thought etc which points to separation.

Is the country (the land itself) called America actually divided into many different states? Are there actual divisions, like walls on the land itself? Does the map of America as a whole change if the map didn’t show the divisions? Does the map of America as whole change when the divisions are added? Is the map separate to the divisions? Or are the divisions simply the map being the map?

How is it known that those sensation are “felt in a kind of restricted area”?

By feeling the sensation and the connected mental feedback: “This is something separate.”

Without thought, how is it known that those sensation are in a “kind of restricted area”?

Can you find a ‘forehead’ in actual experience? Is a ‘forehead’ known? Or is thought pointing to sensation and then labelling it a ‘forehead’ that is part of a ‘head’?

Thought is pointing to sensation and gives it the label. Without thought there is nothing like ‘forehead’

Exactly, so how can there be any kind of restricted area.

Look at whatever is in front of you. It is seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes) or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is there seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

It is seen like a windscreen view. There is seeing and the awareness of the feedback loops in the mind. Actually seeing is just seeing.

Are seeing and knowing separate or are they one and the same. Is seeing of colour and seeing of seeing different, or are they are one and the same ie colour?

What is the AE of “the mind”?

Love, Kay