Here we go...

[RavenMed19]

"Here is a cup" is the thought; the ensuing thoughts of what a cup is and does, what it is made from etc are the content of that thought. What do those thoughts point to exactly? Do they point to colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound? Or do they simply point to actual experience of thought and thought only?

The ensuing thoughts point to actual experience of thought and thought only.

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

Yes.

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

Example 1
Someone from the online group I’m participating in sent me a lovely note telling me that I bring joy and wisdom to the group for someone my age and that she thinks I’m “special.”

AE = Image of what AE of thought labeled “words” that landed in my “inbox”

Thought: “I don’t know how to respond to this.”
Thought: “It almost makes me uncomfortable.”
Thought: “Why? Because I’ve spent too much time in my life getting ‘lifts’ from other people’s perceptions of what I am.”
Thought: “There is no ‘I’ to be special or to ‘bring’ joy and wisdom or to be likeable-- so what is it that brings joy and wisdom?”
Thought: “I don’t know.”
Thought: “What if I say – there is no me and there is no you- but thank you anyway!”
Thought: “HAHA”
Thought: “But why would I say even thank you?”
Thought: “Because that’s what normal people do.”
Thought: “Why am I thinking so much about this?”
Thought: “Because Kay has me looking at all this stuff more closely and how it all unfolds.”
Thought: "What is it that is looking?"
Thought: "Excellent question. I don't know."

In this example, I would say all of the content of thought is not really happening, it is pure imagination. There was the initial IMAGE that thought labeled “words,” which was happening. Then there were all the ensuing thoughts that came afterward, which were also happening (as AE of thought). But the content of all those thoughts was pure imagination.

Question: Kay, in the above example, are all of the thoughts after the initial thought of “words” considered what you call “ensuing thoughts”? Does the distinction matter? AE of thought is AE of thought, whether it’s the original thought that arose or the ones that came after? You’ve used the term “ensuing thoughts” so just want to get that distinction if it’s important to do so.

Example 2

I hear a sound (AE – this is happening).
Thought: “the neighbor is using a leaf blower” = also happening as AE thought.
Ensuing thought = “No, wait, is that a leaf blower? Or something else?”
Thought = “Who cares, it’s annoying.”
Thought = “Really? Is it really ‘annoying’? Or is that just a story you are telling about the sound?”
Thought = “It’s just a story I’m telling about the sound.”

In this example, everything that came after the AE sound was just AE of thought / imagination.

Example 3
I’m looking at my coffee mug.

AE= image/color.
Thought = “it is yellow”
More Thoughts = “Wait, when Kay talks about “points to”… does yellow point to the AE of color? Or does it just describe it? Are pointing to/describing/labeling the same thing?“
More thoughts = “Yes, “yellow” may point to the actual experience (AE) of the color (which is happening/real) but the word itself ‘yellow’ is only the actual experience of thought and does not itself contain any experience. It only ‘points to’ experience.”
More thought = "But how do I know it's "experience"? What is experiencing it? Why is it called experience? People talk about 'awareness being aware of itself' - is this the same thing as 'experience being aware of itself'? Experience being aware of experience? Just different words for the same unknown?"

In this example, AE image/color = real. AE thoughts = real. All the rest: imagination.

Love,
Raven

[forgetmenot]

Hello R,

Lovely examples of breakdowns into AE, Raven. Thank you for looking so diligently.

"Here is a cup" is the thought; the ensuing thoughts of what a cup is and does, what it is made from etc are the content of that thought. What do those thoughts point to exactly? Do they point to colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound? Or do they simply point to actual experience of thought and thought only?
The ensuing thoughts point to actual experience of thought and thought only.

Yes, exactly!

Example 1
Someone from the online group I’m participating in sent me a lovely note telling me that I bring joy and wisdom to the group for someone my age and that she thinks I’m “special.”

AE = Image of what AE of thought labeled “words” that landed in my “inbox”

Thought: “I don’t know how to respond to this.”
Thought: “It almost makes me uncomfortable.”
Thought: “Why? Because I’ve spent too much time in my life getting ‘lifts’ from other people’s perceptions of what I am.”
Thought: “There is no ‘I’ to be special or to ‘bring’ joy and wisdom or to be likeable-- so what is it that brings joy and wisdom?”
Thought: “I don’t know.”
Thought: “What if I say – there is no me and there is no you- but thank you anyway!”
Thought: “HAHA”
Thought: “But why would I say even thank you?”
Thought: “Because that’s what normal people do.”
Thought: “Why am I thinking so much about this?”
Thought: “Because Kay has me looking at all this stuff more closely and how it all unfolds.”
Thought: "What is it that is looking?"
Thought: "Excellent question. I don't know."

In this example, I would say all of the content of thought is not really happening, it is pure imagination. There was the initial IMAGE that thought labeled “words,” which was happening. Then there were all the ensuing thoughts that came afterward, which were also happening (as AE of thought). But the content of all those thoughts was pure imagination.

Bingo…yes! :)

Question: Kay, in the above example, are all of the thoughts after the initial thought of “words” considered what you call “ensuing thoughts”? Does the distinction matter? AE of thought is AE of thought, whether it’s the original thought that arose or the ones that came after? You’ve used the term “ensuing thoughts” so just want to get that distinction if it’s important to do so.

Yes, it is important. The content of thought is rather compelling and is what pulls you into the story of being a self, and how life is happening to a self. So, yes…it is all AE of thought…but it is important to remember that content of thought is simply AE of thought and is fairytale. You will see the benefit of this when an emotion appears, or something happens in life and it FEELS so convincing, that what the content of thought is saying… is happening to a you. It’s not always easy to remember or separate the face value of thought eg thought “Cinderella”, and the content of that thought that automatically appears with it…is a fairytale and is not true!

Example 2

I hear a sound (AE – this is happening).
Thought: “the neighbor is using a leaf blower” = also happening as AE thought.
Ensuing thought = “No, wait, is that a leaf blower? Or something else?”
Thought = “Who cares, it’s annoying.”
Thought = “Really? Is it really ‘annoying’? Or is that just a story you are telling about the sound?”
Thought = “It’s just a story I’m telling about the sound.”

In this example, everything that came after the AE sound was just AE of thought / imagination.

Lovely!

Okay…we are going to be moving onto thoughts next…and this is a great opportunity to have a look at these thoughts that you have written in lovely order.

Thought A: “the neighbor is using a leaf blower” = also happening as AE thought.

Thought B = “No, wait, is that a leaf blower? Or something else?”

Thought C = “Who cares, it’s annoying.”

Thought D = “Really? Is it really ‘annoying’? Or is that just a story you are telling about the sound?”

Thought E = “It’s just a story I’m telling about the sound.”

Now when you look at this, do you find thought E has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all? Does thought A have any knowledge of thought B, C, D and E? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

Have a look at all the thoughts you wrote in example 1, and look and see if the first thought knows what thoughts will follow or did follow; and look to see if the last thought knows anything about the previous thoughts.
Without thought saying so, how is it known that these thoughts are in some sort of ordered sequence?

Love, Kay

[RavenMed19]

when you look at this, do you find thought E has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all? Does thought A have any knowledge of thought B, C, D and E? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

When you look at each thought sequentially from the top it can seem as though there is a thread of ongoing narrative, you can see some degree of logic. However, taken / looked at separately, thought A seems to have no knowledge of thought E - and vice versa - same with the others. Each thought that arises doesn’t even necessarily seem to relate to “leaf blower” unless read together in sequence. My god WTF! It looks like insanity actually. Haha.

Have a look at all the thoughts you wrote in example 1, and look and see if the first thought knows what thoughts will follow or did follow; and look to see if the last thought knows anything about the previous thoughts. Without thought saying so, how is it known that these thoughts are in some sort of ordered sequence?

Hmmm without thought saying so, it would not be known that they are in ordered sequence. It is the same as the other example. Thought says to read these thoughts in order from top down - and thought that says they “make sense” (sort of) when read this way, but, taken on their own, they do not seem to relate to one another / have knowledge of each other.

Love, R

[forgetmenot]

Hey Raven,

when you look at this, do you find thought E has any knowledge of any of the other thoughts, let alone them all? Does thought A have any knowledge of thought B, C, D and E? It seems that way, but when we look closely, what is found?

When you look at each thought sequentially from the top it can seem as though there is a thread of ongoing narrative, you can see some degree of logic. However, taken / looked at separately, thought A seems to have no knowledge of thought E - and vice versa - same with the others. Each thought that arises doesn’t even necessarily seem to relate to “leaf blower” unless read together in sequence. My god WTF! It looks like insanity actually. Haha.

Yep, exactly! So it is only thought that says thoughts are in a sequential order and that each thought gives meaning to prior or incoming thoughts! If thoughts were expressed via the tweeting of birds or an unknown language, how would you know what they meant, or that they were ordered? What meaning is given to thoughts, are only just thoughts about thoughts.

Look carefully when doing the following exercise, and do it several times if necessary. Please answer each question individually.

Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Where are they coming from and going to?

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
Can you predict your next thought?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?
Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?
Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

Although we have addressed this question…no harm in asking it again!
It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

Love, Kay

[RavenMed19]

I will do the exercise again later, and throughout the day, but after my first 30 minute stint, here are my conclusions:

Where are they coming from and going to?

They seem to come out of nowhere and go nowhere.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

No, they seemed to arise on their own without any involvement from "me."

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead? Can you predict your next thought?

No.

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

No, but as an experiment to test this, I told myself I would only think positive thoughts for the next 5 mins. Then I heard a train. (AE= sound / AE= thought label "train".) My immediate next thought was: "What if someone threw themselves in front of that train?" Seriously? Haha. Nuts. So, no, I can't force in positive thoughts and/or to select only from positive ones. In fact, trying to do so may even seem to trigger only the opposite.

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

No.

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

No.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

No to both. It would seem that thought has a "mind of its own," so to speak-- and cannot be prevented or stopped from arising.

Although we have addressed this question…no harm in asking it again!
It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence. Or is it just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that "one thought follows another thought"?

Is it just another thought that says 'these thoughts are in sequence'.

However - here's a question... and forgive me if I'm "intellectualizing" and/or just ignore if I'm getting ahead of myself. But the other day I had a printer problem. (Image/object - thought/label "printer" - thought "something isn't working right.") So I go online and download a set of steps to take in order to fix the problem. I followed the steps, in order, and it fixed the problem. Had I not followed the steps in order, it wouldn't have fixed the problem. So in this example, is not thought ordered and logical?

Thanks, Kay - hope you had a nice weekend.

[forgetmenot]

Hi Raven,

Thank you...I had a lovely weekend. Week days and weekends all seem to meld into one endless flow.

So when doing the thought exercise, did you happen to find the thinker of thought when looking as each thought came and went? Was one to found amidst the thoughts, or inbetween each thought?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

No, but as an experiment to test this, I told myself I would only think positive thoughts for the next 5 mins. Then I heard a train. (AE= sound / AE= thought label "train".) My immediate next thought was: "What if someone threw themselves in front of that train?" Seriously? Haha. Nuts. So, no, I can't force in positive thoughts and/or to select only from positive ones. In fact, trying to do so may even seem to trigger only the opposite.

Haha.,..love it! Plus it is only a thought that labels thoughts as negative or positive. Without thought, how could this be known?

However - here's a question... and forgive me if I'm "intellectualizing" and/or just ignore if I'm getting ahead of myself. But the other day I had a printer problem. (Image/object - thought/label "printer" - thought "something isn't working right.") So I go online and download a set of steps to take in order to fix the problem. I followed the steps, in order, and it fixed the problem. Had I not followed the steps in order, it wouldn't have fixed the problem. So in this example, is not thought ordered and logical?

And without thought, how would all of this be known? Thought may seem to be a useful tool for negotiating the illusion of a 'person in the world', but it's still all conceptual knowledge about an illusory world - it can't give you any genuine knowledge about reality. Yet you know *everything* about reality by being *directly aware* of it.

Actually the following exercise will answer your question :)

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.

This exercise is to help you see that narrator of the game is no different to the narrator labelled as ‘my thoughts’, and that the game played is no different to life unfolding.

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 and notice what the actual experience is.

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 and advice about what the players should or shouldn’t be doing and how they should be playing the game - as if thought can somehow influence what is going on - as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome. The commentary seems to heighten feelings, and calls for loyalty with one team or another, and expounds the importance of this choice, and further expounds the importance of the game and its outcome.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary. Just watch the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Just notice what is happening as actual experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know the commentator is talking about, (and ignore all of your own thoughts as well), and just notice the actual experience of sound.

Let me know how you felt when the sound was turned on. Did you get caught up in the moment with the excitement of the crowd, and/or the excitement of the commentator and his commentary of the game?
How did you feel when the sound was off and there was no commentary at all.

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

[RavenMed19]

So when doing the thought exercise, did you happen to find the thinker of thought when looking as each thought came and went? Was one to found amidst the thoughts, or inbetween each thought?

I just did the 30 min sit again -- although admittedly it was more like 15 :). This time, I found my thoughts seemed to be "directed" towards thinking through a situation. This am, I got an email from a family member. AE = image / words. Before even reading it, I felt sensation in my stomach / thought "dread." Ensuing thoughts: "Ugh, there is bound to be drama here." "There is always drama with this person." ETC. So when I was sitting quietly, all my thoughts were chewing on this.

"Why does a simple email arriving have the ability to take me out like this?"
"Because past experience has taught you that there IS always drama/pain with this person."
"She's always trying to suck you into it."
"But is there really drama? Was there even any drama in the past? Really? Or was it nothing more than thoughts then - and nothing more than thoughts now?"
"OMG, it was/is nothing more than thoughts."
"The drama never even existed!"
"There appeared to be drama, but what thought labels "drama" is just a thought? "Past pain" is just a thought. There have been experiences that thought labeled "painful" but was there ever any AE of drama or pain there, ever, in reality?"
"NO! There wasn't! Ha! It was all just thoughts about thoughts about thoughts about thoughts about thoughts. A giant snowball of thought begetting thought. There was no there-there to the drama. And there is no there-there to it now. Only thought."

:) It felt revelatory to see that this idea that I react the way I do to certain family members because of "past pain/drama/dysfunction" - is just a thought. There was never any drama! Only thought says there was/is. But we'll see if I get another email tomorrow, how I react - if I will be able to, in the moment, see it the same way. Still, it felt very freeing!

Anyway, so, back to the exercise -- in this session, the thoughts didn't seem as random as in my other session because they all seemed to be directed toward thinking through this particular issue with the email/family member. That said, the thoughts still just arose "on their own" without any prompting on "my" part. And if they seemed to have some sort of logic, it was only thought that said so.

Looking forward to watching me some soccer game tomorrow!

Thank you!

[RavenMed19]

Hi, again, Kay --

Let me know how you felt when the sound was turned on. Did you get caught up in the moment with the excitement of the crowd, and/or the excitement of the commentator and his commentary of the game?

Yes, it made me laugh - how it shows exactly how thought operates. It was easy to get caught up in the sensation of "excitement." The "fast" pace (sound) and elevated pitch (sound) of the commentator's voice is so compelling, it draws "me" in.

How did you feel when the sound was off and there was no commentary at all.

I felt at peace, it was quite nice just watching the images/colors with no yapping. Maybe that elevated sense of "excitement" wasn't there but I didn't miss it!

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

No, the play goes on, with or without the commentary.

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

No, thought just overlays the AE / play of life. If only there was a mute button for real. HAHA

Such a brilliant exercise. Thank you!

[forgetmenot]

Hey Raven,

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

No, thought just overlays the AE / play of life. If only there was a mute button for real. HAHA

Once you just learn to observe thought instead of going down the rabbit hole with thought, it is seen that thought is not the enemy. And isn’t it funny how it’s a thought that seems to denigrates thoughts! Unless you begin notice the difference between what thought says about reality, and how you find reality to actually be, you won't notice your innate peace and freedom. In order to notice that difference, the very first thing you have to notice is whether, or not, you are the author of thoughts. Or whether ANYTHING is authoring thoughts. The second thing you need to notice is whether thought is aware of what it says, or not. Once you are sure of the answers to those questions, the differences between what thought says about reality, and how you find reality to ACTUALLY be, will reveal themselves, and what thoughts then appear becomes of no never mind.

So as you saw how thought seems to be the predominant experience, however, if you just allow (watch/observe) thought without actually following thought, you see that thought is just a constant stream of commentary that has a story about everything, and overlays actual experience continuously with stories. Did you get how thought does the same with the colour labelled ‘Raven’ and ‘her life’?

Enjoy the following clip…it’s just to have a laugh and to lighten the load of this exploration.

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

:) It felt revelatory to see that this idea that I react the way I do to certain family members because of "past pain/drama/dysfunction" - is just a thought. There was never any drama! Only thought says there was/is. But we'll see if I get another email tomorrow, how I react - if I will be able to, in the moment, see it the same way. Still, it felt very freeing!

Isn't it wonderful when you get to see thought for what it actually is...just phenomena arising that is no different than colour, smell, taste, sensation and sound.

Without thought, how is it known that a thought/thought story is what evokes reactions (ie sensations) in the body? Let’s have a look at this idea.

Put aside 10-15 minutes and sit quietly somewhere, where you won’t be disturbed. Take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and then close your eyes.

1. Think of a story that brings up a bodily sensation, be it a sensation labelled as anxiety, fear or dread, but one that you can feel in the body that it not too intense that it overwhelms you, but one that you are definitely aware of.

2. Then with your eyes still closed, I want you to LOOK very very carefully to see if you can find/see an actual link between the thought and the sensation. You are looking to find if there is something that actually links the thought/story with the sensation labelled as ‘anxiety, fear or dread’.

3. If the sensation starts to dissipate, then bring the story to mind again until the sensation is felt clearly again, then continue looking to see if you can see/find a link. You are looking for an actual link that connects the thought/story with the sensation.
4. If you find yourself following thought instead of looking carefully for the link, just bring your attention gently back to the sensation and continue looking.

Do this exercise of looking for the link between thought story and sensation at least 3-4 times throughout each day, for the next 2-3 days, making sure to look very carefully. Let me know what how you go and what you find.

Love, Kay

[RavenMed19]

Once you just learn to observe thought instead of going down the rabbit hole with thought, it is seen that thought is not the enemy. And isn’t it funny how it’s a thought that seems to denigrates thoughts! Unless you begin notice the difference between what thought says about reality, and how you find reality to actually be, you won't notice your innate peace and freedom. In order to notice that difference, the very first thing you have to notice is whether, or not, you are the author of thoughts. Or whether ANYTHING is authoring thoughts. The second thing you need to notice is whether thought is aware of what it says, or not. Once you are sure of the answers to those questions, the differences between what thought says about reality, and how you find reality to ACTUALLY be, will reveal themselves, and what thoughts then appear becomes of no never mind.

YES, this makes so much sense and is such a relief. I find myself scratching my head, why it took "me" so long to get this distinction. I've been on a path of observing/learning how to separate story/narrative from reality for years, yet I feel like somehow I missed the whole point!! Yes: the only thing that makes it truly possible is realizing that not only am "I" not the author of thoughts, but it all seems to be operating on automatic. Will continue observing this. Thank you so much, Kay.

[RavenMed19]

So as you saw how thought seems to be the predominant experience, however, if you just allow (watch/observe) thought without actually following thought, you see that thought is just a constant stream of commentary that has a story about everything, and overlays actual experience continuously with stories. Did you get how thought does the same with the colour labelled ‘Raven’ and ‘her life’?

Yes, absolutely.

Without thought, how is it known that a thought/thought story is what evokes reactions (ie sensations) in the body? Let’s have a look at this idea.

Do this exercise of looking for the link between thought story and sensation at least 3-4 times throughout each day, for the next 2-3 days, making sure to look very carefully. Let me know what how you go and what you find.

When I first did this, thought said there would be a link between thought and sensation because the exercise itself suggests as much. If you can “think” of a situation or story from the past that evokes a sensation/“emotion” now, it would seem there is a link between the thought/story and the sensation; otherwise, the exercise wouldn’t work. If a thought/story of dread can produce a sensation of “dread,” then there must be a link.

BUT!

Upon close looking, I realized the sensation itself is either barely there—or simply “neutral.” If you take away the thought/story that says it is "emotion" there is no “emotion” so to speak. There is only thought about emotion (just like the thoughts about "apple"-- when in reality there is only color/image, smell, taste of "apple"). So, NO, there is no link. When thought layers “pleasant” / “unpleasant” – “happy” or “unhappy” etc. on top of the sensation that it calls "emotion," it makes it seem like there is a link between story and the "emotion" that follows but there isn’t. (W.T.F.!) I mean, I always knew my emo was more related to a story “I” was telling (and believing) than anything else, but it would seem "emotion" is itself just another thought. The actual sensation is barely there - only the story gives it weight/meaning/magnification. Therefore, without thought it can't be known that thought/story evokes sensation in the body.

So, looking at this more, I went back through time, conjuring up thoughts of all the times in my life where I was so completely rabbit holed by the thought story and what I thought was overwhelming emotion – letting myself look/feel at all of them to the extent possible (it wasn't always "easy" because I'm feeling pretty chill these days). All I could find was the phenomena of thought… and then further content of thought, aka fiction. "Emotion" is just another story. A compelling story! But a story.

Then I had an interesting experience of joy when a piece of music came on. I've heard this song so many times before and it didn't evoke this "sensation" in me but for some reason this day I felt completely taken with it. The sensation I felt of "joy," and my heart wide open, was so BIG in my body. Here, there was definitively no link between thought and sensation because the sensation came directly from the music ("sound"). Thought said it was "joy" and "pleasurable" but, in this case, the bodily sensation was so much bigger than the sensations I was able to conjure / revisit in meditation, but still no link.

Thanks Kay!

[forgetmenot]

Hello Raven,

What a joyful post to read - thank you! Wonderful looking :) Yes, there is absolutely no link between thought and sensation. The only thing that SEEMS to link them is a thought...and thoughts know nothing. Sensations labelled as emotion/feelings are AE of sensation and not AE of emotions. There are thoughts ABOUT emotions, but they are AE of thought and not AE of emotions. It seems like a convincing story that sensations go hand-in-hand with thoughts...until you have a close look.

I really didn't get a clear answer to the following question, so I am reposting it again.

So when doing the thought exercise, did you happen to find the thinker of thought when looking as each thought came and went? Was one to found amidst the thoughts, or inbetween each thought?

Kay

[RavenMed19]

Ah, okay.

So when doing the thought exercise, did you happen to find the thinker of thought when looking as each thought came and went? Was one to found amidst the thoughts, or in between each thought?

No thinker can be found as each thought comes and goes, amidst the thoughts, or in between -- just the phenomena of thought arising.

Question, though, and if we will get to this later, happy to table it and go with the steps. At one point you said "there is no dividing line between experience/experiencer/experiencing…they are all one and the same thing = THIS/experience exactly as it is." So then there is no dividing line between thinker/thinking. Meaning: there is no "thinker," only thinking?

[forgetmenot]

Hey Raven,

Question, though, and if we will get to this later, happy to table it and go with the steps. At one point you said "there is no dividing line between experience/experiencer/experiencing…they are all one and the same thing = THIS/experience exactly as it is." So then there is no dividing line between thinker/thinking. Meaning: there is no "thinker," only thinking?

We will look at this a little later. Without a thinker, there is no thinking…what exactly is it that is thinking. But just so you can scratch the itch a little….

A thought is known, yes…as is colour, smell, taste, sensation and sound. Where does thought (known) end, and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between the knowing of thought and the thought itself? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line?

Then look at colour and see if you can find where colour ends and you begin.
Look at sound…where does sound end and the knowing of it begin
Look at sensation. Where does sensation end and the knowing of it begin.
Look at taste and smell as well.
Let me know what you find.

Okay, so we have become aware of what actual experience is, and how looking is done with AE. We have looked at how thoughts work. These are two important keys to the whole guiding, as you need to see what actually IS as opposed to what thought says IS. It is a given now that you know how to LOOK to see what IS and you are aware of how thought overlays AE with stories.

From here on in you need to implement the exercises given, into your daily life. It is no good just doing the exercises so you can respond to your thread. You need to put the exercises into use throughout your day as you go about your day….ie put the seeing into daily seeing/knowing through constant practice of exercises given!

So let’s begin to have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions.

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

[RavenMed19]

A thought is known, yes…as is colour, smell, taste, sensation and sound. Where does thought (known) end, and the knowing of it begin? Can you find a dividing line between the knowing of thought and the thought itself? Or is there simply knowingknown – ie no dividing line?

It seems there is no dividing line between the “knowing” of thought as a phenomena (AE) and thought itself. There is simply knowingknown. And something about that feels true.

However, I feel like I’m tripping over the word “known” a bit, maybe unnecessarily so. How can these things we call “actual experience” be “known”? For example, right now I hear what thought labels “crickets” -- AE sound. But do I know for sure that what we call AE of “sound” exists? If this is an illusory world, how do “we” know “sound” is actually there? Or is “known” just another thought/label layered on top of what can only be “unknown”? Put another way: is what we are calling actual experience (AE) "real"? Or is actual experience itself just another label/thought pointing to the unknown, which is the only "real"? Aaaaaaah, sorry if I’m going down a rabbit hole with this – every time I see the word “known” this seems to pop up for me so I figured I should address it with you.

Thank you so much, Kay!!