First day at school

[AndyKay]

Is it totally clear that there is no such thing a chooser?
Is it totally clear that there is no such thing as choice or free will?
If not, please write some examples when it seems to be otherwise.

There absolutely is neither choice nor chooser over and above the illusion of choice and chooser.
There absolutely is no free will over and above the illusion of free will.
There absolutely is NOTHING that could wield choice and free will over and above the illusion of that wielder.
But it seems to be otherwise most of the time! This because of the deeply embedded conviction that "I can choose whether to have tea or coffee of my own volition, my own free will". But this "me" of "my own volition" IS NOT THERE in AE. It is nowhere to be found. And yet the conviction still floats around, untethered to AE and in seeming defiance of the fact that this "me" of "my own volition" IS NOT THERE in AE, like it has a life of its own.

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 - the 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?

With eyes closed the main aspects of bodily sensation are tactile. There is the contact between my tongue and the roof of my mouth. Sounds. Hunger. Tongue and mouth are not there. Tallness is not there. Weight and volume are not there. Shape is not there. There is the sensation of clothes moving against skin, but neither clothes nor skin are there. There is the pressure of buttocks against chair but neither buttocks nor chair are there. There is no 'inside' or 'outside'. With eyes cosed there is nothing in AE to which the word 'body' may refer. The ACTUAL experience of the body amounts mostly to the set of tactile and audible sensations from which the thought of a body may be abstracted. (Much more convincing with eyes open because the limbs can be seen.) But the body only appears when thoughts appear... the thought of shuffling to relieve discomfort; The thought of eating to relieve the hunger. The stream of AE when thoughts are not arising is disembodied.

[Vivien]

Hi Andy,

There absolutely is neither choice nor chooser over and above the illusion of choice and chooser.
There absolutely is no free will over and above the illusion of free will.
There absolutely is NOTHING that could wield choice and free will over and above the illusion of that wielder.
But it seems to be otherwise most of the time! This because of the deeply embedded conviction that "I can choose whether to have tea or coffee of my own volition, my own free will". But this "me" of "my own volition" IS NOT THERE in AE. It is nowhere to be found. And yet the conviction still floats around, untethered to AE and in seeming defiance of the fact that this "me" of "my own volition" IS NOT THERE in AE, like it has a life of its own.

All right. So are you saying the although it’s clearly seen that there is nothing that could have free will or choice, the illusion is still there, more often than you expect?

So there is an expectation that the illusion of the chooser will stop appearing? Or when it appears it will never be taken as real?

The ACTUAL experience of the body amounts mostly to the set of tactile and audible sensations from which the thought of a body may be abstracted. (Much more convincing with eyes open because the limbs can be seen.) But the body only appears when thoughts appear...

Great looking!

With eyes closed, put one of the hands on a desk or a table. Pay attention only to the pure sensation.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only touching?
When all mental images and thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all, or is there only touching (pure sensation)?

Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Now, let’s see if there is a connection between a visual image and sensations.

Here is an exercise that helps to see how the illusion of the body is ‘created’, so to speak. Normally we believe that sensation is coming from sight (colour), meaning the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’ (colour labelled as ‘hand’).


1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. 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 if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the sight? In other words, is the sensation ‘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?

So you can repeat this with all of the body parts below, one-by-one.
- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

What do you find?

Vivien

[AndyKay]

So are you saying the although it’s clearly seen that there is nothing that could have free will or choice, the illusion is still there, more often than you expect?

So there is an expectation that the illusion of the chooser will stop appearing? Or when it appears it will never be taken as real?

There is no expectation, just the illusion. It is amusing in a way to see how an illusion can be so persistent even after it has been "seen through". It reminds me of the Necker cube illusion, where a 3D wire-frame cube is perceived when viewing a 2D pattern of lines drawn on paper. Every time I see a Necker cube I "see it from above". With a little practise I can "see it from below". But it takes tremendous effort to see the 2D pattern of lines instead. (It can be done if I regard it instead as a top view of a hexagonal gemstone with seven faces on its top side, the central face being rectangular and the other six faces sloping away from it, but I can't sustain it for long.) (But I digress.)(Apologies.)

With eyes closed, put one of the hands on a desk or a table. Pay attention only to the pure sensation.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that the hand is doing the touching?
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that there is a hand (subject) that touching the table (object), or is there only touching?
When all mental images and thoughts are ignored is there a ‘hand’ or a ‘table’ at all, or is there only touching (pure sensation)?

With eyes closed, there is neither hand nor table in AE, just the pure sensation.

Can an ‘INHERENT FEELER’ be found?
Would anything that is suggested as the ‘feeler’, be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

The 'feeler' is absent from AE. It is not there until the thought of the 'feeler' arises.

Normally we believe that the sensation is coming from the sight, the ‘object’ seen (hand).
But if you look, is there any link between the sensation and the sight? In other words, is the sensation ‘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?

Yes, when the hand remains immobile on the table with nothing else happening, the hand and the sensation are 'beside' each other in AE.

The only thing that indicates a link between them is a consistent correlation of events -- i.e. when there is contact between a part of the hand and something else, there is a very local correlated sensation. By 'local' I mean that even with eyes closed I can tell (from past experience) which part of the hand has been involved in the contact.

So you can repeat this with all of the body parts below, one-by-one.
- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

What do you find?

Everything is 'beside' everything else in AE. But then, looking in the mirror, I say to myself "I will now open the mouth", and the mouth opens. Again there is a correlation of events but this time between the mouth and this persistent thought of a 'doer' (the Necker cube illusion again).

Things that are 'beside' each other in AE become connected by consistent and repeated correlations of events. These RELATIONS seem to be as REAL a part of AE as the parts that are 'beside' each other in AE.

[Vivien]

Hi Andy,

The only thing that indicates a link between them is a consistent correlation of events -- i.e. when there is contact between a part of the hand and something else, there is a very local correlated sensation. By 'local' I mean that even with eyes closed I can tell (from past experience) which part of the hand has been involved in the contact.

And does this information coming only from the pure sensation labelled ‘hand’?
Doe this sensation come self-labelled that ‘I am the little finger’ or ‘I am the elbow’?
How is it known exactly that this sensation is a little finger and not the elbow?
Does the sensation itself tell anything of being a little finger or an elbow?
Or is there a subtle mental image (with closed eyes) show the location of that sensation?

But then, looking in the mirror, I say to myself "I will now open the mouth", and the mouth opens. Again there is a correlation of events but this time between the mouth and this persistent thought of a 'doer' (the Necker cube illusion again).

So the correlation is ‘made’ by thoughts only.
Is there a correlation when all thoughts are ignored?

Things that are 'beside' each other in AE become connected by consistent and repeated correlations of events. These RELATIONS seem to be as REAL a part of AE as the parts that are 'beside' each other in AE.

If all thoughts are ignored, is there a correlation?
Does AE show any correlation at all?

Here is a fascinating experiment showing that correlation between sensations and images is just a fabrication ‘of the mind’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... q0RhEFGLeA

Pay attention to the sensation labelled ‘face’.

Investigate the border of the sensation. Thoughts and images ‘say’ that where the face ends, at the same spot or line the outside world starts. Try to find the edge, where the sensation labelled ‘face’ ends, and the sensation of the ‘world’ begins.

Is there a sensation for the outside world at all?
Is there a sensation for ‘air’?
Is there another sensation for ‘skin’?
How many sensations are there?

Now pay attention to the sensation labelled ‘face’, where it ends (where the ‘outside world’ begins).

Can you fine an ending line for the sensation labelled ‘face’?
Does the sensation labelled ‘face’ ends at all?

In order to say that there is inside and outside, both of them has to be found. You have to be able to find the edges of inside, and you also have to be able to find the edges of outside.

Can you find the edge of inside?
Can you find the edge of outside?
Can you find any sensation that is the ‘outside world’?

Vivien

[AndyKay]

The only thing that indicates a link between them is a consistent correlation of events -- i.e. when there is contact between a part of the hand and something else, there is a very local correlated sensation. By 'local' I mean that even with eyes closed I can tell (from past experience) which part of the hand has been involved in the contact.

And does this information coming only from the pure sensation labelled ‘hand’?

No, this information comes also from sight labelled 'stick' and sensation labelled 'touch'.

Doe this sensation come self-labelled that ‘I am the little finger’ or ‘I am the elbow’?

No, sight of "little finger" or sight of "elbow" do not come with their own labels. Labels become associated by repeated correlations of sounds (words) and sights (objects).

How is it known exactly that this sensation is a little finger and not the elbow?

It is known by the establishment of associations between different kinds of sensation in AE and different kinds of sight (visual image) in AE.

Does the sensation itself tell anything of being a little finger or an elbow?
Or is there a subtle mental image (with closed eyes) show the location of that sensation?

The sensation of "little finger being touched" and the sensation of "elbow being touched" tell nothing about being a little finger or about being an elbow. The location of the sensation is a thought that has been established by correlations with the various parts of the thought "my body".

But then, looking in the mirror, I say to myself "I will now open the mouth", and the mouth opens. Again there is a correlation of events but this time between the mouth and this persistent thought of a 'doer' (the Necker cube illusion again).

So the correlation is ‘made’ by thoughts only.

The correlation above involved the thought "I will now open my mouth", but also the visual experience in AE of face opening mouth.

Is there a correlation when all thoughts are ignored?

Not in the above case since "I will now open my mouth" is a thought. But to take another case, regardless of whether or not I'm thinking about it, whenever 'hand' and 'flame' meet in AE, pain also arises in AE.

Things that are 'beside' each other in AE become connected by consistent and repeated correlations of events. These RELATIONS seem to be as REAL a part of AE as the parts that are 'beside' each other in AE.

If all thoughts are ignored, is there a correlation?
Does AE show any correlation at all?

Whenever 'hammer' thoughtlessly hits 'thumb' there is pain.

Here is a fascinating experiment showing that correlation between sensations and images is just a fabrication ‘of the mind’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... q0RhEFGLeA

Great video, but this just demonstrates the establishment of a correlation -- just not the one the guy was expecting. So even though his thought denies it, the correlation persists.

Pay attention to the sensation labelled ‘face’.

Investigate the border of the sensation. Thoughts and images ‘say’ that where the face ends, at the same spot or line the outside world starts. Try to find the edge, where the sensation labelled ‘face’ ends, and the sensation of the ‘world’ begins.

Is there a sensation for the outside world at all?
Is there a sensation for ‘air’?
Is there another sensation for ‘skin’?

I cannot find a sensation of "the outside world". I cannot find a sensation of "skin". There is sensation "sunlight on skin" but no sensation of sunlight and no sensation of skin. There is sensation "wind against face" but no sensation of wind and no sensation of face.

How many sensations are there?

Sensations are countless since different sensations invoke different thoughts about their cause and their location, but neither cause nor location are in AE -- just the countless different sensations that constitute AE.

Now pay attention to the sensation labelled ‘face’, where it ends (where the ‘outside world’ begins).

Can you fine an ending line for the sensation labelled ‘face’?
Does the sensation labelled ‘face’ ends at all?

No, I cannot find any such ending line, or any place where 'face' ends.

In order to say that there is inside and outside, both of them has to be found. You have to be able to find the edges of inside, and you also have to be able to find the edges of outside.

Can you find the edge of inside?
Can you find the edge of outside?
Can you find any sensation that is the ‘outside world’?

I cannot find the edges of the inside, nor the edges of the outside. I cannot find the 'outside world' as a sensation, but only as the content of thought.

[Vivien]

Hi Andy,

V: How is it known exactly that this sensation is a little finger and not the elbow?

A: It is known by the establishment of associations between different kinds of sensation in AE and different kinds of sight (visual image) in AE.

But is there an AE of ‘association between sensations and images’?

What is the AE of ‘association’?

The correlation above involved the thought "I will now open my mouth", but also the visual experience in AE of face opening mouth.

But is there an actual experiential correlation between the thought “I will now open my mouth” and image of ‘face opening the mouth’?
How the correlation between the thought and the image is actually experienced?
Can correlation as such be experienced at all?

But to take another case, regardless of whether or not I'm thinking about it, whenever 'hand' and 'flame' meet in AE, pain also arises in AE.

Let’s break this down.

There is a visual image labelled ‘flame’.
There is a visual image labelled ‘hand’.
There is also a sensation labelled ‘hand’.
Then there is a ‘new’ image of ‘hand touching the flame’.
Then a sensation, labelled ‘pain’.

Does the sensation labelled ‘pain’ itself suggest in any way that the sensation (labelled ‘pain’) is caused by the image (labelled ‘hand touching the flame’)?

Without thought, can it be known at all that the image ‘flame’ caused the sensation labelled ‘pain’?

V: If all thoughts are ignored, is there a correlation?
Does AE show any correlation at all?

A: Whenever 'hammer' thoughtlessly hits 'thumb' there is pain.

There is a visual image labelled ‘hammer’.
There is a visual image labelled ‘thumb’ + a sensation also labelled ‘thumb’.
Then there is a new image labelled ‘hammer hitting the thumb’.
There is a sensation labelled ‘pain’.

Does the sensation labelled ‘pain’ itself suggest in any way that the sensation (labelled ‘pain’) is caused by the image labelled ‘hammer’?

Without thought, can it be known at all that the image ‘hammer’ caused the sensation labelled ‘pain’?

Can correlation as such be REALLY experienced, or only thoughts suggest so?

Great video, but this just demonstrates the establishment of a correlation -- just not the one the guy was expecting. So even though his thought denies it, the correlation persists.

Correlation as such cannot be experienced.
Correlation happens ONLY as the CONTENT of thoughts. And the ‘content’ of thoughts cannot be experienced.
Can you see this?

Vivien

[AndyKay]

But is there an AE of ‘association between sensations and images’?

What is the AE of ‘association’?

The AE of 'association' is that we can say specific events are "beside each other" in AE, just as we can say specific images are "beside each other" in AE.

But is there an actual experiential correlation between the thought “I will now open my mouth” and image of ‘face opening the mouth’?
How the correlation between the thought and the image is actually experienced?
Can correlation as such be experienced at all?

There is the experience of 'togetherness' or 'besideness' or 'clustering' in AE.

Let’s break this down.

There is a visual image labelled ‘flame’.
There is a visual image labelled ‘hand’.
There is also a sensation labelled ‘hand’.
Then there is a ‘new’ image of ‘hand touching the flame’.
Then a sensation, labelled ‘pain’.

Does the sensation labelled ‘pain’ itself suggest in any way that the sensation (labelled ‘pain’) is caused by the image (labelled ‘hand touching the flame’)?
No, the sensation 'pain' does not suggest any way that it might be caused by "hand touching flame". But causation is not correlation. Correlation is just 'togetherness' in experience, whereas causation is a highly abstract concept.

Without thought, can it be known at all that the image ‘flame’ caused the sensation labelled ‘pain’?

No, since 'cause' is a thought. But correlation is just part of experience, and is the ground upon which the thought of causation is triggered (we ask "Why is this experienced correlation arising?... What underlies this "togetherness in experience?")

There is a visual image labelled ‘hammer’.
There is a visual image labelled ‘thumb’ + a sensation also labelled ‘thumb’.
Then there is a new image labelled ‘hammer hitting the thumb’.
There is a sensation labelled ‘pain’.

Does the sensation labelled ‘pain’ itself suggest in any way that the sensation (labelled ‘pain’) is caused by the image labelled ‘hammer’?

Without thought, can it be known at all that the image ‘hammer’ caused the sensation labelled ‘pain’?

No, since 'cause' is a thought.

Can correlation as such be REALLY experienced, or only thoughts suggest so?

The togetherness of events in AE is what triggers the thoughts, the demands for explanation, and is what thereby engenders the entire (abstract) causal nexus.

Correlation as such cannot be experienced.
Correlation happens ONLY as the CONTENT of thoughts. And the ‘content’ of thoughts cannot be experienced.
Can you see this?

I can't see that Vivien. If we can say that sensations and images are 'beside' each other in AE, then why can't we say that events happen 'beside' each other in AE?

[Vivien]

Hi Andy,

V: Correlation as such cannot be experienced.
Correlation happens ONLY as the CONTENT of thoughts. And the ‘content’ of thoughts cannot be experienced.
Can you see this?

A: I can't see that Vivien. If we can say that sensations and images are 'beside' each other in AE, then why can't we say that events happen 'beside' each other in AE?

If you mean by word ‘event’ the appearance of sensation and image, then yes.
But if you mean more than that, like burning my hand with the flame, then no.

With the second interpreation, there is no AE of events.
AE is only sound, image/color, taste, smell, sensation and thought.
Event is just a conceptual overlay on AE.

Correlation:
It depends what how we interpret the word correlation. For me, correlation means that certain appearances, like the image labelled ‘hand’ and the sensation labelled ‘hand’ have some kind of connection or relationship between them, therefore when one arises the other arises as well. But if we say that the image and the sensation just appear ‘beside’ each other, then a connection is not assumed. They might appear together accidentally, but not because there is a link between them.

Saying that the image labelled ‘hand’ and the sensation labelled ‘hand’ correlate (there is a link between them), is not an AE, since there is no AE of link or connectedness.

Also, to make the conclusion that 2 appearances appear together because they correlate (are linked) then there has to be a memory of a previous event when they appeared together, which is nothing else then a mental construct. The current appearance of image + sensation also has to be conceptualized in order to compare the two events, and make the conclusion that they correlate.

But if your definition of correlation is different, then the above explanation might not apply.

But even when I say that the image and the sensation appear beside each other, is not actually true.
Since breaking up experience into 6 elements is artificial. We do it only for the sake of the investigation. We use this only as a tool to see the difference between what can be directly experience and thoughts about AE.
So I say that they appear beside each other only to emphasize that one doesn’t come from the other or contained in the other, as usually assumed.

‘In reality’ experience doesn’t have 6 elements, it isn’t divided up into sections.
This division can be done only conceptually, only in thoughts.
Without thought, without the conceptual overlay there is no division in experience.
The elements are ‘blended’ together into one seamless experience.

Does this explanation help?

Let’s look at this experientially.

Where does a thought end and a sensation starts?
Is there a border or a dividing line between a thought or a sensation?
Where does a sound end and a thought starts?
Is there a dividing line or a border between sound and thought?
Or just take a thought. Does it have edges, or an outline?
And what about a sound? Does a sound have edges or an outline?

See in experience that there aren’t any lines or borders where one part of the experience ends and an another one starts. Can you see this?

Vivien

[AndyKay]

Hi Vivien,
I've deferred the greater part, the more discursive part of your latest post to the end of this reply so that you can ignore my response to it if you consider it a distraction. So taking the 'exercise' part of your post first...

Let’s look at this experientially.

Where does a thought end and a sensation starts?
Is there a border or a dividing line between a thought or a sensation?
Where does a sound end and a thought starts?
Is there a dividing line or a border between sound and thought?
Or just take a thought. Does it have edges, or an outline?
And what about a sound? Does a sound have edges or an outline?

See in experience that there aren’t any lines or borders where one part of the experience ends and an another one starts. Can you see this?

Yes I can see this. But if I might be permitted to introduce yet another mental construct, I would describe AE as inhomogeneous. If it weren't so then AE would not be amenable to being fractured into categories, to being diced up in thought (which is itself just another category into which AE has been diced up... now that's a bit of a mind-bender... thought seems to "pull itself up by its own bootstraps").

So now to my ramblings...

If we can say that sensations and images are 'beside' each other in AE, then why can't we say that events happen 'beside' each other in AE?

If you mean by word ‘event’ the appearance of sensation and image, then yes.
But if you mean more than that, like burning my hand with the flame, then no.

With the second interpreation, there is no AE of events.
AE is only sound, image/color, taste, smell, sensation and thought.
Event is just a conceptual overlay on AE.

Whatever choice of word we employ implies a conceptual overlay, so let me choose an alternative to 'event'. How about a 'happening'? I want to say that AE is constantly changing, a series of happenings, but that too implies a conceptual overlay. Also that some changes happen quickly and some more slowly; that some changes are regular and some less regular; that some happen conjunctively (i.e. are correlated) and some disjunctively. If we are to talk about AE at all then we must use language, and all language implies conceptual overlay, so it seems that if we want to avoid all conceptual overlays then we can't even use the words 'sound', 'image', 'taste', 'smell', 'sensation', and 'thought'. The only option left would be to remain silent.

It depends what how we interpret the word correlation. For me, correlation means that certain appearances, like the image labelled ‘hand’ and the sensation labelled ‘hand’ have some kind of connection or relationship between them, therefore when one arises the other arises as well. But if we say that the image and the sensation just appear ‘beside’ each other, then a connection is not assumed. They might appear together accidentally, but not because there is a link between them.

Saying that the image labelled ‘hand’ and the sensation labelled ‘hand’ correlate (there is a link between them), is not an AE, since there is no AE of link or connectedness.

I understand the word 'correlation' to imply a strong conjunction of certain events in AE -- i.e. correlation is an experience. On a more abstract level we might say it is an 'observation', but it is nothing more. In AE there are occasions when an image (e.g. 'lightening') and a sound (e.g. 'thunder') repeatedly occur together. The mechanism underlying this observed 'togetherness' is not at issue YET... this is merely an observation in immediate experience (AE).

Also, to make the conclusion that 2 appearances appear together because they correlate (are linked) then there has to be a memory of a previous event when they appeared together, which is nothing else then a mental construct. The current appearance of image + sensation also has to be conceptualized in order to compare the two events, and make the conclusion that they correlate.

I'm not saying that "two appearances appear together because they correlate (are linked)" but rather that two appearances are correlated because they appear together. But your comment about memory stands firm. The concept of memory is indeed a mental construct, but aren't memories per se (recollections) themselves aspects of AE? Can we not add memories to your list of categories into which AE can be divided? And even imagination... try to NOT imgagine a triangle now that I have used the word and you will find that some triangle or other has intruded into AE. How about emotions? I think I would have a very hard time trying to argue that joy, fear, rage, disgust, etc. are not aspects of immediate experience (AE).

But even when I say that the image and the sensation appear beside each other, is not actually true.
Since breaking up experience into 6 elements is artificial. We do it only for the sake of the investigation. We use this only as a tool to see the difference between what can be directly experience and thoughts about AE.
So I say that they appear beside each other only to emphasize that one doesn’t come from the other or contained in the other, as usually assumed.

Yes, we need these tools in order to conduct the investigation, and I'm guessing that we're headed towards an understanding that the investigation is a kind of trick which, if it works, reveals that even the tools themselves are part of the illusion.

‘In reality’ experience doesn’t have 6 elements, it isn’t divided up into sections.
This division can be done only conceptually, only in thoughts.
Without thought, without the conceptual overlay there is no division in experience.
The elements are ‘blended’ together into one seamless experience.

I'm guessing that we can also say the distinction between AE and thoughts is itself artificial, and the 'artificiality' of this "fracturing of reality" will only become a lived experience when these inherently divisive thoughts are silenced. And that logic and language, being part and parcel of this "fractured" world, cannot apprehend what lies on the other side of that transition and so nothing can be said about it. Language must be used skilfully as a 'trick' to bring about this transition.

Does this explanation help?

Vivien, if I have this right then I understand where you're trying to take me. I'm not there yet so let me once again apologise for my ramblings and thank you for your patience.

[Vivien]

Hi Andy,

How about a 'happening'? I want to say that AE is constantly changing, a series of happenings, but that too implies a conceptual overlay. Also that some changes happen quickly and some more slowly; that some changes are regular and some less regular; that some happen conjunctively (i.e. are correlated) and some disjunctively.

The problem with both event and happening is that they imply the passing of time or change as you say.
And there is NO AE of time or change at all.

We will investigate the notion of time soon.

The concept of memory is indeed a mental construct, but aren't memories per se (recollections) themselves aspects of AE? Can we not add memories to your list of categories into which AE can be divided?

No. Memory is NOT AE.

Memory is nothing else than a thought appearing ‘now’ about a content labelled as ‘memory’.
The thought about the memory is AE, but the content is not.

We will investigate memory when we will look at time.

And even imagination... try to NOT imgagine a triangle now that I have used the word and you will find that some triangle or other has intruded into AE

No. Imagination is definitely NOT AE.

Do you remember that we made a distinction between the appearance of a thought (‘container’ – as a phenomenon), and what the thought is about (content)?
This distinction is very important, since taking the content as AE is one of the holding pillars of the illusion of the self.

When there is an imagined triangle, that it is the AE of a mental image only, but NOT the AE of a ‘triangle’.
‘Triangle as such cannot be experienced.
Only the presence of a mental image is experienced.
But what the mental image is about, a ‘triangle’ is NOT experienced. It’s just a fiction, a fantasy. It’s not there, not happening.
Can you see this clearly?

How about emotions? I think I would have a very hard time trying to argue that joy, fear, rage, disgust, etc. are not aspects of immediate experience (AE).

No. Emotions are quite tricky illusions, and one of the strongest pillars of the illusion of the self.

So let’s look at emotions, what they really are. Bring up an emotion, feel it, and let’s examine what is really going on.

An appearing ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has three ‘components’:

(a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
(b) a mental label stuck to (layered over) the sensation, like “this is fear” or “this is contraction in the stomach” or “unpleasant” or “I am happy”
(c) and simultaneously appearing mental images (pictures) about a certain body parts, like picture about the stomach or the chest

So when an emotion is present, identify these three components, and investigate them:

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?

Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’ are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Vivien

[AndyKay]

No. Imagination is definitely NOT AE.

Do you remember that we made a distinction between the appearance of a thought (‘container’ – as a phenomenon), and what the thought is about (content)?
This distinction is very important, since taking the content as AE is one of the holding pillars of the illusion of the self.

When there is an imagined triangle, that it is the AE of a mental image only, but NOT the AE of a ‘triangle’.
‘Triangle as such cannot be experienced.
Only the presence of a mental image is experienced.
But what the mental image is about, a ‘triangle’ is NOT experienced. It’s just a fiction, a fantasy. It’s not there, not happening.
Can you see this clearly?

I can see that 'triangle' is an abstraction, a thought that arises when three lines appear in AE in a certain configuration; and this is yet another layer of abstractions ('three', 'line', 'configuration'); and even "mental image" is an abstraction. But my stumbling block is that there could be no such abstraction as 'triangle' without some aspect of AE that this abstraction "points to" (what you refer to above as "mental image") -- i.e. this is not just "thought content". I acknowledge that thoughts do indeed arise where the content has no counterpart in AE, thoughts that have "broken loose" or "become untethered" from AE such as the thought of pain when none is arising in AE. But I can't yet see how this applies to ALL thoughts (the thought 'triangle' being a case in point where, unlike pain, a mental image does indeed arise).

No. Emotions are quite tricky illusions, and one of the strongest pillars of the illusion of the self.

So let’s look at emotions, what they really are. Bring up an emotion, feel it, and let’s examine what is really going on.

An appearing ‘emotion’ like ‘fear’ or ‘happiness’ has three ‘components’:

(a) a pure bodily sensation, like contraction or relaxation
(b) a mental label stuck to (layered over) the sensation, like “this is fear” or “this is contraction in the stomach” or “unpleasant” or “I am happy”
(c) and simultaneously appearing mental images (pictures) about a certain body parts, like picture about the stomach or the chest

So when an emotion is present, identify these three components, and investigate them:

Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that this is ‘sad’, ‘happy’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’, ‘bad’ or ‘good’?

Or ‘happy’, ‘sad’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’ are just mental labels on the pure sensation?

No.
"[T]here is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." [Hamlet, Act2 Scene2].

Does the pure sensation have any innate attributes, or is it totally NEUTRAL?

Is there REALLY ‘sadness’ or ‘sorrow’ or ‘suffering’, or are there only thoughts about ‘sadness’ or ‘suffering’?

So if you look very closely, you’ll see that there is neither sufferer, nor suffering. There are only thoughts ABOUT a sufferer and suffering. Can you see this?

Yes I can see this. But all such thoughts "point to" the pure ('bodily') sensation -- i.e. the thoughts remain tethered to AE, even though there is no 'body' in AE, no suffering and no sufferer.

[Vivien]

Hi Andy,

But my stumbling block is that there could be no such abstraction as 'triangle' without some aspect of AE that this abstraction "points to" (what you refer to above as "mental image") -- i.e. this is not just "thought content". I acknowledge that thoughts do indeed arise where the content has no counterpart in AE, thoughts that have "broken loose" or "become untethered" from AE such as the thought of pain when none is arising in AE. But I can't yet see how this applies to ALL thoughts (the thought 'triangle' being a case in point where, unlike pain, a mental image does indeed arise).

Yes, a mental image (of triangle) arise, but ONLY as a mental image as a ‘container’, or as a phenomenon.
But the content of a mental image (the triangle) has nothing to do with AE.
But the mental image itself (as a phenomenon) is actually experienced.

You might say that the content of a mental image is based on the memory of actually seeing 3 black lines on a paper.
But referring back to a so called memory, is nothing else than the presence of a thought with the content ‘this is based on memory’.

But even if there were a paper in front of you with a ‘trinagle’ on it, then still there would be the AE of colur ONLY, and nothing more.
And when the ‘triangle’ is just imagined, that is the AE of a mental image only.

There is NO difference between the content of a thought or the content of a mental image.
Both (contents) are just ‘imagined’. Their only ‘reality’ is just the ‘container’ themselves (the phenomenon of thought or mental image).
Can you see this?

If you’re into seeing how even the visual image is the AE of color only and nothing else, we can investigate this later.

But all such thoughts "point to" the pure ('bodily') sensation -- i.e. the thoughts remain tethered to AE, even though there is no 'body' in AE, no suffering and no sufferer.

The presence of the thought label ‘sensation’ is ALREADY ‘part of’ AE.
The presence of the thought label is actually experienced (as an appearing phenomenon).

Now let’s examine the pure sensations without the labels. In reality, there are only 3 types of sensations. Pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. But usually the neutral ones are ignored, we hardly notice them. All the negative emotions generate unpleasant sensations, and in reality there is no difference in sensation of ‘sadness’, ‘anger’, ‘fear’, etc. There might be differences of the location and the intensity of the sensations, but the ‘feeling’ is the same. All these sensations feel contracted (actually the muscles are contracted). That’s why they are unpleasant.

The pleasant sensations are just the opposite of contraction, they feel open, expanded (because the muscles are relaxed) That’s why they feel pleasant. ‘Love’, ‘peace’, ‘calmness’, ‘gratitude’… these are all expanded sensations. The pure sensations of them are the same. There might be difference in location and intensity, but that’s all.

For the exercise you’ll have to bring up certain emotions, both pleasant and unpleasant ones. You don’t have to dive deeply into the unpleasant ones, you just bring up them lightly, just enough intensity that you can observe the underlying sensations.

So bring up the memory of ‘sadness’. When the sensation is present, don’t pay attention to the thought story, just stay with the pure sensation for a minute.
After about a minute let go of the sensation labelled ‘sadness’, and try to slightly feel ‘fear’ (just gently). Let go all thoughts, and just feel the pure sensation.
Now try to feel the sensation of ‘anger’ for a little while. Then let it go. Let your body calm down.
So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Now bring up the feeling of ‘love’, and pay attention only to the pure sensation. Let it be there for a while.
Then bring up the feeling of ‘peace’, observe the sensation carefully.
Now bring up the feeling of ‘gratitude’, and stay with a sensation as long as you like.
So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

And now the last step. Bring up just the feeling of an unpleasant sensation. You don’t even have to label it, just feel it. When the sensation is present observe it very carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?

Now, bring up a pleasant sensation, stay with it for a while, and observe it carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?

Vivien

[AndyKay]

There is NO difference between the content of a thought or the content of a mental image.
Both (contents) are just ‘imagined’. Their only ‘reality’ is just the ‘container’ themselves (the phenomenon of thought or mental image).
Can you see this?

I'm still finding these propositions challenging Vivien. What I'm trying to say is that I can't see how the content of thoughts (and the content of mental images) could be inconsistent with AE. Abstractions must be abstracted (literally "drawn out", whether correctly or incorrectly) from something more fundamental, and I can't see how this fundament could be anything other than AE. If thought-content is abstracted then it must be consistent with what it has been abstracted from. I can't seem to get past this sticking point. Thanks for bearing with me Vivien.

So bring up the memory of ‘sadness’. When the sensation is present, don’t pay attention to the thought story, just stay with the pure sensation for a minute.
After about a minute let go of the sensation labelled ‘sadness’, and try to slightly feel ‘fear’ (just gently). Let go all thoughts, and just feel the pure sensation.
Now try to feel the sensation of ‘anger’ for a little while. Then let it go. Let your body calm down.
So, could you see that all the negative emotions felt very similar, contracted and unpleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Yes. That's quite a revelation.

Now bring up the feeling of ‘love’, and pay attention only to the pure sensation. Let it be there for a while.
Then bring up the feeling of ‘peace’, observe the sensation carefully.
Now bring up the feeling of ‘gratitude’, and stay with a sensation as long as you like.
So, could you see that all the positive emotions felt very similar, expanded, pleasant?
And only the labels make them seemingly different?

Yes I can see that.

And now the last step. Bring up just the feeling of an unpleasant sensation. You don’t even have to label it, just feel it. When the sensation is present observe it very carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘unpleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY unpleasant?

No, it just seems neutral.

Now, bring up a pleasant sensation, stay with it for a while, and observe it carefully.
Does the pure sensation suggest in any way that it’s ‘pleasant’?
Does the pure sensation itself is REALLY pleasant?

Again, just neutral. But I have to remind myself that you're talking about emotions here, and not intense physical pain.

[Vivien]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for bearing with me Vivien.

We will look at this until it gets totally clear, since seeing the difference between the thought and its content is essential for seeing through the illusion.

I'm still finding these propositions challenging Vivien. What I'm trying to say is that I can't see how the content of thoughts (and the content of mental images) could be inconsistent with AE.

You have difficulties because you’re trying to solve this intellectually, like thinking about a solution. But this cannot be solved on the level of thinking. We cannot use the same tool what created the illusion in the first place.

You have to put aside all thoughts (ignoring them), and just LOOK what is there without THOUGHT INTERPRETATION.
And after SEEING what is there without thought interpretation, you can use words to describe what has been seen, but only what has been seen, and not further conclusions.

Talking about abstraction or whether thoughts are consistent or inconsistent whit AE is just a REASONING.
It can happen only in thoughts. Is this clear so far?

Abstractions must be abstracted (literally "drawn out", whether correctly or incorrectly) from something more fundamental, and I can't see how this fundament could be anything other than AE. If thought-content is abstracted then it must be consistent with what it has been abstracted from.

We are NOT investigating whether thoughts are consistent or not with AE, since this can be done ONLY in thoughts.
We are investigating whether the content of thoughts, are actually experienced or not.
And for SEEING this we don’t need thoughts. We use thoughts ONLY AFTER SEEING has happened, and just for describing of what has been seen, as precisely as we can, without adding any extra stories.
And not to analyse or draw conclusion or find consistency. Since these are just thought interpretations ABOUT AE.

You have to step out from the intellectual framework to SEE this clearly. You could do this with other topics, so you can do this with this one too.

Let me explain the difference between the thoughts as containers and the content of thoughts.

Thought, in and of itself contains no experience, if it did you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’, or feel the word ‘hot’. But can you?

Thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about thoughts. Can you SEE this?

Please sit comfortably close your eyes, and imagine that it’s a sunny day and you are on a beautiful tropical beach, strolling along the wet sand as the waves comes and goes. Listen to the sound of the waves, feel the warmth of the sun and the light stroke of the breeze, the wetness of sand under your feet and the saltness of your lips.

After enjoying it for a while, open your eyes and look around.

So, all of these happened only in thoughts, only in imagination.

There were:
- mental images (of the beach)
- thought labels like ‘beach’
- ‘verbal’ thoughts “it is so nice walking on this beach”
- and mental sensation appearing, like the feet touching the wet sand or feeling of the warmth of the sun on the skin
- or mental sounds, ‘hearing internally’ the sound of the waves
- or mental tastes, imagining the saltness of the lips

But ‘imagination’ is the key word here. It is imagined saltness is it not? How can it be actual saltness? Is it the ‘real’ deal?

When you imagine a monster under the bed...is there a real monster, ..or are they thoughts ABOUT a monster?

If thought-content is abstracted then it must be consistent with what it has been abstracted from.

If going along with AE only, then how is it known exactly that thought content is abstracted from AE?

How is the process of abstraction is actually experienced?

Find the process of abstraction itself. But don’t just make a thought interpretation, but rather actually LOOK for the ‘abstraction process’ itself. Where is it exactly?
How does the ‘abstraction process’ look like?

Again, just neutral. But I have to remind myself that you're talking about emotions here, and not intense physical pain.

All right. Let’s assume that there is an intense physical pain.

The physical pain is NOT suffering in and of itself.
The physical pain is just an ‘intense uncomfortable’ sensation.
The physical pain SEEMINGLY turns into suffering only, if there is an intense resistance to that sensation.
“I don’t want this! Why do I have to be always in pain? What if the pain will never stop, and I will suffer for the rest of my life?” – suffering is created by these kind of stories.

Can you see the difference between the physical pain (sensation) and the suffering, which is a mental story overlaying the AE of sensation labelled ‘pain’?

Vivien

[AndyKay]

I'm still finding these propositions challenging Vivien. What I'm trying to say is that I can't see how the content of thoughts (and the content of mental images) could be inconsistent with AE.

You have difficulties because you’re trying to solve this intellectually, like thinking about a solution. But this cannot be solved on the level of thinking. We cannot use the same tool what created the illusion in the first place.

You have to put aside all thoughts (ignoring them), and just LOOK what is there without THOUGHT INTERPRETATION.
And after SEEING what is there without thought interpretation, you can use words to describe what has been seen, but only what has been seen, and not further conclusions.

Talking about abstraction or whether thoughts are consistent or inconsistent whit AE is just a REASONING.
It can happen only in thoughts. Is this clear so far?

Yes, I'm happy with all of that.

Abstractions must be abstracted (literally "drawn out", whether correctly or incorrectly) from something more fundamental, and I can't see how this fundament could be anything other than AE. If thought-content is abstracted then it must be consistent with what it has been abstracted from.

We are NOT investigating whether thoughts are consistent or not with AE, since this can be done ONLY in thoughts.
We are investigating whether the content of thoughts, are actually experienced or not.
And for SEEING this we don’t need thoughts. We use thoughts ONLY AFTER SEEING has happened, and just for describing of what has been seen, as precisely as we can, without adding any extra stories.
And not to analyse or draw conclusion or find consistency. Since these are just thought interpretations ABOUT AE.

You have to step out from the intellectual framework to SEE this clearly. You could do this with other topics, so you can do this with this one too.

Let me explain the difference between the thoughts as containers and the content of thoughts.

Thought, in and of itself contains no experience, if it did you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’, or feel the word ‘hot’. But can you?

Thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about thoughts. Can you SEE this?

Yes, I can see this. I may have misinerpreted you so let me run this by you. You are NOT saying that the content of thought has NOT been abstracted from AE (i.e. that it is inconsistent with AE). You are NOT saying anything about the relationship between AE and the content of thought because to do so would be to remain at the level of thought and not at the level of AE. If I have you right then I can let go of what seemed to me a very surprising claim to make, and move on.

Please sit comfortably close your eyes, and imagine that it’s a sunny day and you are on a beautiful tropical beach, strolling along the wet sand as the waves comes and goes. Listen to the sound of the waves, feel the warmth of the sun and the light stroke of the breeze, the wetness of sand under your feet and the saltness of your lips.

After enjoying it for a while, open your eyes and look around.

So, all of these happened only in thoughts, only in imagination.

There were:
- mental images (of the beach)
- thought labels like ‘beach’
- ‘verbal’ thoughts “it is so nice walking on this beach”
- and mental sensation appearing, like the feet touching the wet sand or feeling of the warmth of the sun on the skin
- or mental sounds, ‘hearing internally’ the sound of the waves
- or mental tastes, imagining the saltness of the lips

But ‘imagination’ is the key word here. It is imagined saltness is it not? How can it be actual saltness? Is it the ‘real’ deal?

When you imagine a monster under the bed...is there a real monster, ..or are they thoughts ABOUT a monster?

I'm going to make an interpretation here that you are NOT saying that the imagined beach is NOT experienced, but rather that the imagined beach is a different kind of experience to a real beach --it is the experience of a "mental image" rather than the "physical image" of a real beach. I say this because when I imagine a beach before me, it has all of the experienced attributes of the actual beach. If it were an hallucination then it would even be taken as a real beach. Or say one is dreaming of being on a beach but unaware that it is a dream. I've had dreams that I've known were dreams and was staggered at just how convincing the appearance was, when logic told me that I was really horizontal in bed in a dark room at night. They are the most fascinating dreams. But if I were to investigate AE in such a dream I'm sure I would say that all of the necessary aspects of AE were there (the heat of the sun, the wetness of the sand on my feet, etc.)

If thought-content is abstracted then it must be consistent with what it has been abstracted from.

If going along with AE only, then how is it known exactly that thought content is abstracted from AE?

How is the process of abstraction is actually experienced?

Find the process of abstraction itself. But don’t just make a thought interpretation, but rather actually LOOK for the ‘abstraction process’ itself. Where is it exactly?
How does the ‘abstraction process’ look like?

There is no abstraction process in AE. There is AE and there is thought-content. AE says "shape, colour, heat sensation, smell" and thought-content says "cup of coffee". It is inconceivable that exactly these aspects of AE should arise and thought-content say it is a strawberry. Or an albatross.

But I have to remind myself that you're talking about emotions here, and not intense physical pain.

All right. Let’s assume that there is an intense physical pain.

The physical pain is NOT suffering in and of itself.
The physical pain is just an ‘intense uncomfortable’ sensation.
The physical pain SEEMINGLY turns into suffering only, if there is an intense resistance to that sensation.
“I don’t want this! Why do I have to be always in pain? What if the pain will never stop, and I will suffer for the rest of my life?” – suffering is created by these kind of stories.

Can you see the difference between the physical pain (sensation) and the suffering, which is a mental story overlaying the AE of sensation labelled ‘pain’?

Yes I can see this.