Inquiry with forgetmenot

[forgetmenot]

Hello Allen,

The commentator in life feels so close, familiar and intimate. It feels like it's me. But I can see that it is thought that is claiming all this.

Have a look at the ‘feeling’. Is it an actual sensation or simply a thought? Does a feeling actually know anything? Or is it a thought interpretation?

At times it will be clear that the commentator is just a stream of thought and at other times it will seemingly feel like it’s a ‘me’ that is actually commentating. But as you have observed…thoughhts simply arise and subside on their own volition.

However, it seems some things in life require thought? Sorry Kay, here comes a bunch of thoughts about thoughts!

Isn't thought required for communication between me and you? Isn't it required for me to understand and carry out your instructions? To reply to you?

Here’s an interesting experiment. I would like you to sit somewhere where you know you are alone and close your eyes and just become aware of thought.
Then start to talk out loud…about anything...talk about a tree...any thing. Get a good flow of words going and then I want you to look and see if you can find ie are aware of any thoughts arising in the moment that you seem to be driving what you are saying out loud.
Let me know what you find.

But then again, that there's a you, a me, communication between us, and an inquiry going on is all thought story and not AE.

Where is this you and me exactly? Did you check those assumptions against actual experience? Or did you just go along with thought and its content?

Should thought just be ignored? I'm just not quite sure what to make of all this.

These questions are built on the premise that you are thinking those thoughts. Did you question that? Did you investigate that? If necessary go back and redo the thought exercise and see if you are the author of thought.

When you take another look at that exercise, let me know if you find a thinker of thought.
When there is a gap between thoughts, can a thinker of thought be found?

viewtopic.php?p=321241&sid=89a27f2ff469 ... 37#p320919

Thoughts, in an of themselves are meaningless, however, if you don't 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.

You have to apply everything that we are doing here on a daily basis…and not just when it seems like a good idea. So throughout your day...check to see if you are authoring thought. You have to check everything with actual experience. Yes…tedious stuff...however, there is no other way for you to get that everything is simply happening and there is no you who is doing, thinking, feeling or saying.

Kay

[Allen12]

Hi Kay,

I'm going to take some more time to look again.

Thanks for all the tips!

Allen

[Allen12]

Hi Kay,

I noticed my perspective has changed a little bit as I keep trying to stay as the observer of thought. It feels like a lot of work at times, and I can tell that there's still a lot more looking that needs to be done.

The commentator in life feels so close, familiar and intimate. It feels like it's me. But I can see that it is thought that is claiming all this.

Have a look at the ‘feeling’. Is it an actual sensation or simply a thought? Does a feeling actually know anything? Or is it a thought interpretation?

It's just a thought on top of a sensation. It doesn't really know anything. It's not alive.

Here’s an interesting experiment. I would like you to sit somewhere where you know you are alone and close your eyes and just become aware of thought.
Then start to talk out loud…about anything...talk about a tree...any thing. Get a good flow of words going and then I want you to look and see if you can find ie are aware of any thoughts arising in the moment that you seem to be driving what you are saying out loud.
Let me know what you find.

I couldn't find any thoughts that were driving what I was saying. It's impossible to have verbal thoughts when I'm speaking. There were some visual thoughts that popped up relating to what I was saying. Also there were thoughts that were an understanding of what I was speaking about, which I could only deduce were present, since everything spoken seemed to make sense and wasn't just noise.

But then again, that there's a you, a me, communication between us, and an inquiry going on is all thought story and not AE.

Where is this you and me exactly? Did you check those assumptions against actual experience? Or did you just go along with thought and its content?

We only exist in the thought story. You and me are not known in AE. I can't find us in the experience of sight, sound, sensation, taste, smell, thought.

When you take another look at that exercise, let me know if you find a thinker of thought.
When there is a gap between thoughts, can a thinker of thought be found?

I can't find a thinker of thought or anything that is creating it. From what I see, it just appears. Also thought itself is not aware. It doesn't have awareness. It isn't a live thing that is aware.

Kay, is this whole thing about getting to a point where I can stay as the observer permanently without effort? I find it's still easy to go back to operating from the perspective of a "me". It's easy to go into the thoughts. Is this just about looking at everything from awareness permanently?

I also find it's hard to be the observer when I have to do something that requires a lot of focus or when I'm interacting with someone.

Thanks,

Allen

[forgetmenot]

Hello Allen,

I noticed my perspective has changed a little bit as I keep trying to stay as the observer of thought. It feels like a lot of work at times, and I can tell that there's still a lot more looking that needs to be done.

A desire/expectation that realisation; therefore bliss, peace and happiness, without much effort should happen and quickly! I wonder what it is exactly that is desiring this? :)

The commentator in life feels so close, familiar and intimate. It feels like it's me. But I can see that it is thought that is claiming all this.

Have a look at the ‘feeling’. Is it an actual sensation or simply a thought? Does a feeling actually know anything? Or is it a thought interpretation?

It's just a thought on top of a sensation. It doesn't really know anything. It's not alive.

Great! Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about a feeling or a commentator, or thought for that matter!

Looking needs to happen constantly. I will end up sounding like a broken record, but looking needs to happen constantly. And yes, the mind will groan, resist, become frustrated, impatient angry at having to look constantly. Have a look if you can find that one that is all those things…and then keep looking - constantly!

Here’s an interesting experiment. I would like you to sit somewhere where you know you are alone and close your eyes and just become aware of thought.

Then start to talk out loud…about anything...talk about a tree...any thing. Get a good flow of words going and then I want you to look and see if you can find ie are aware of any thoughts arising in the moment that you seem to be driving what you are saying out loud.
Let me know what you find.

I couldn't find any thoughts that were driving what I was saying. It's impossible to have verbal thoughts when I'm speaking. There were some visual thoughts that popped up relating to what I was saying. Also there were thoughts that were an understanding of what I was speaking about, which I could only deduce were present, since everything spoken seemed to make sense and wasn't just noise.

We are looking at what thoughts are and how they seemingly work. Or in this case, not work. You are wanting to go into the nitty gritty of how and why. That is the mind trying to work it out…trying to make sense of it all…and the mind never will. If this brings up resistance, frustration, irritation etc...then I would like you to let me know so that we can have a look a these emotions together. Actually, if at any time you feel any of these...let me know so we can look at them.

So understanding of thoughts happen. But can you find anyone that is doing the understanding? Or is understanding simply happening?

Are thoughts actually driving what you are saying, or are the words seemingly being spoken just happening?
What is the AE of ‘spoken words’, or as you call them verbal thoughts?

But then again, that there's a you, a me, communication between us, and an inquiry going on is all thought story and not AE.

Where is this you and me exactly? Did you check those assumptions against actual experience? Or did you just go along with thought and its content?

We only exist in the thought story. You and me are not known in AE. I can't find us in the experience of sight, sound, sensation, taste, smell, thought.

Yes, we, as we think ourselves and others to be, ie the finite separate self (Allenself and Kayself), cannot be found.

When you take another look at that exercise, let me know if you find a thinker of thought.
When there is a gap between thoughts, can a thinker of thought be found?

I can't find a thinker of thought or anything that is creating it. From what I see, it just appears. Also thought itself is not aware. It doesn't have awareness. It isn't a live thing that is aware.

Yes, exactly! Thought B has no idea what thought A said, or that there was a thought A, or that it is thought B and that there might also be a thought C!

So a thinker of thought cannot be found…so let’s take a closer look at what thought is. Thought isn’t what thought says it is. It is only thought that posits that it is something called a thought and tells a story/gives meaning to what thoughts are.

A thought is known, yes…as is colour, smell, taste, sensation and taste? You (not Allenself) are the knowing of thought, yes? So look carefully….
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? Is there distance between the knowing of thought and the thought itself or are they one and the same? Can a thought ever appear without the knowing of it? Is knowing and known two separate things or there is just knowingknown ie no dividing line?

Kay, is this whole thing about getting to a point where I can stay as the observer permanently without effort? I find it's still easy to go back to operating from the perspective of a "me". It's easy to go into the thoughts. Is this just about looking at everything from awareness permanently?

As I wrote above about constantly looking. The mind is going to object and it will object strongly! Look to see if you can actually find an objector! Yes, eventually observation becomes second nature and you are just simply aware of thoughts as they arise. But, for the time being, it will take a concerted effort to do so.

I also find it's hard to be the observer when I have to do something that requires a lot of focus or when I'm interacting with someone.

And that’s okay. You just do the best you can. Rome wasn’t built in a day!

Kay

[Allen12]

Hi Kay,

Thanks for the encouragement! Thoughts have definitely been objecting to the constant looking. It's so great to have a guide for this process. Without one I would probably just believe thought when it says that this is impossible, too hard, I have other things to do, there are other ways, etc. It would have been really easy to quit. Finding the objector has been helpful, it stops the objecting thoughts for a little while.

So understanding of thoughts happen. But can you find anyone that is doing the understanding? Or is understanding simply happening?

No, I can't find anyone doing the understanding, it's just happening.

Are thoughts actually driving what you are saying, or are the words seemingly being spoken just happening?
What is the AE of ‘spoken words’, or as you call them verbal thoughts?

Speaking just happens, there's no thoughts driving it.

AE of "spoken words" is thought.

By verbal thoughts I was referring to the "voice in my head" that is imagined to be speaking. Still thought, but different than spoken words or images. Sorry, more thoughts about thought here…

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? Is there distance between the knowing of thought and the thought itself or are they one and the same? Can a thought ever appear without the knowing of it? Is knowing and known two separate things or there is just knowingknown ie no dividing line?

There's no dividing line between the knowing of a thought and the thought. They are not separate. A thought can't appear without the knowing of it. Knowing is part of it.

Knowing and known is just knowingknown with no dividing line. This is the same for the other senses as well. It's also impossible to find a dividing line between the parts of AE. When I look very carefully, it seems as though there's no location for a bit. Everything is here, but don't know where here is. It feels like I'm aware of everything that's here, so there's really no place for the "me" to hide. There's been a little less doubt from the mind about "noself" after seeing this.


Thanks!

Allen

[forgetmenot]

Hi Allen,

Thanks for the encouragement! Thoughts have definitely been objecting to the constant looking.

You're doing great! The more the mind objects is a sign that you are doing a great job of looking etc. As I mentioned previously, the mind will kick back, and resistance is it's way of doing that. Resistance is a defense mechanism, it's a form of fear. So resistance, fear, frustration and anger in some form are generally bosom buddies when exploring the idea of the separate self.

Finding the objector has been helpful, it stops the objecting thoughts for a little while.

Next time you have thoughts objecting, or there is a stream of thoughts that are babbling on about nothing….ask yourself the question, “On whose behalf do these thoughts arise?”
Let me know what happens when you do this...what do you notice?

By verbal thoughts I was referring to the "voice in my head" that is imagined to be speaking. Still thought, but different than spoken words or images. Sorry, more thoughts about thought here…

Spoken words…words that are spoken out loud (vocalised), are the AE of sound and not the AE of spoken words. It is thought that points to AE of sound and suggests that the sound is ‘spoken words’.
Thoughts that SEEM to be heard in the head are AE of thought.

Are ‘thoughts in the head’ actually heard? If so, heard by what exactly? Or are thoughts simply known?

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? Is there distance between the knowing of thought and the thought itself or are they one and the same? Can a thought ever appear without the knowing of it? Is knowing and known two separate things or there is just knowingknown ie no dividing line?

There's no dividing line between the knowing of a thought and the thought. They are not separate. A thought can't appear without the knowing of it. Knowing is part of it.

Actually Knowing (THIS/consciousness) is all there is...not a part of it. There are no parts in seamlessness.
When you sat and observed thoughts, you couldn't find where they were coming from or going to, right? The reason is because thought is not a thing. A thought isn't known because of its appearance or its content...it is known because it is Knowing/THIS/experience/consciousness, which thought labels as thought! Without thought labelling and suggesting that thought is a thought, how could this possibly be known?

Knowing and known is just knowingknown with no dividing line. This is the same for the other senses as well. It's also impossible to find a dividing line between the parts of AE.

There are no ‘parts of AE’. Knowing (THIS/Consciousness/experience/Presence) is not divided. If it were, then separation would be real. It is thought that divides Knowing and then labels it as sound AND smell AND taste AND sensation AND colour AND thought. There is no ‘AND’. There is only soundsmelltastesensationcolourthought ie Knowing.

Listen for a sound. Ignore all thoughts and images of what the sound is. Now also ignore the label ‘sound’…what remains?

When I look very carefully, it seems as though there's no location for a bit. Everything is here, but don't know where here is. It feels like I'm aware of everything that's here, so there's really no place for the "me" to hide. There's been a little less doubt from the mind about "noself" after seeing this.

Wonderful! Yes. Where could an illusory separate self hide exactly? Try this for something different:-

Instead of looking to see if you can find a self…because trying to find a self is like trying to find the elephant in the room. Instead look at what is.
What is here underneath all thinking? Not conceptual, not an image?
What is here right now?
Move attention from mind images and thoughts to actuality, this very moment, what are you noticing?

Kay

[Allen12]

Hi Kay,

Next time you have thoughts objecting, or there is a stream of thoughts that are babbling on about nothing….ask yourself the question, “On whose behalf do these thoughts arise?”
Let me know what happens when you do this...what do you notice?

When I ask this question, I don't get an answer. Thought tends to stop for a bit. I'm just left with everything that's here.

Are ‘thoughts in the head’ actually heard? If so, heard by what exactly? Or are thoughts simply known?

Thought isn't actually heard. I can't find the part that detects them. They're just known.

Listen for a sound. Ignore all thoughts and images of what the sound is. Now also ignore the label ‘sound’…what remains?

The word that comes up for me is existence.

What is here underneath all thinking? Not conceptual, not an image?
What is here right now?
Move attention from mind images and thoughts to actuality, this very moment, what are you noticing?

Just existence. I think that's the closest word for me.


When I look carefully, I think I can see what you are talking about (seamlessness, etc.). Then the mind jumps in and tries to understand and conceptualize it, which is impossible for it to do. How everything exists with no concept of space is just...weird! And also pretty cool.

Thanks!

Allen

[forgetmenot]

Hi Allen,

Listen for a sound. Ignore all thoughts and images of what the sound is. Now also ignore the label ‘sound’…what remains?

The word that comes up for me is existence.

What remains, or more correctly what always IS...is Reality/experience/THIS/awareness, exactly as it is.

What is here underneath all thinking? Not conceptual, not an image?
What is here right now?
Move attention from mind images and thoughts to actuality, this very moment, what are you noticing?

Just existence. I think that's the closest word for me.

What remains, or more correctly, what IS, is coloursoundsmelltastethoughtsensation. In other words, THIS, appearing exactly as it is. It is thought that divides, labels and tells stories about the seamless whole that is coloursoundsmelltastethoughtsensation.

When I look carefully, I think I can see what you are talking about (seamlessness, etc.).

Okay, so let’s do the following experiment to see if space and distance actually separate objects.

Sit in a chair somewhere quiet and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust.

Start to notice just the body, the chair, floor, rugs, furniture, objects and walls. Without thought, all there is, is colour which thought then labels as clothes, or body, chair, wall and so on.

Now look carefully.
Just notice what is seen of the body. Notice that no head can be seen, and not all of the body can be seen either. Thought chimes in and says something like “that body is mine”, “that is me”. Just notice the thoughts and put them aside. Just notice all thoughts as they arise throughout this experiment and put them aside and just look from the place of open curiosity…not going to thoughts to tell you what is going on or what is being seen.

So, with thoughts about a body put aside, the actual experience of the body is colour.

Now look at the chair that you are sitting on. Once again ignore the thoughts and labels and notice that the actual experience of the chair is simply colour.

1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?

Continue on like this for the rest of the experiment

2. Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?

3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniture’ be found?
Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour

4. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug and furniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found?
Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’, ‘furniture’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just the actual experience of colour (seeingseen)?

5. Is there any actual dividing between any of these colours, or is there just seamless colour which thought divides into different objects, with different labels and seeming space between them; and then further divides them into different colours?

What did you find doing this experiment?

Kay

[Allen12]

Hi Kay,

I'm having some trouble with this one. I recognize that everything in the field of vision is colour. There's nothing seen that's not colour. But when you ask me to find the dividing line between 2 different colours I can see the border where the colour changes. There's no space between the 2 colours. But the borders of the shapes of colour are apparent. I guess it is the thought labeling them different colours. But it looks like there's definitely a border or contrast between colours. Even this box that I'm typing in. Even without labeling the colours white and orange, there's a point where they change that's very noticeable.

Thank you,

Allen

[forgetmenot]

Hi Allen,

Yes, thought is going to tell you about contrasts, shapes and borders. They are part of the seeming landscape which would be hard to navigate if they weren't there. However, they are all concepts. There is nothing wrong with concepts unless we believe in them.

I am not asking that you somehow see that all colours are the same and that there aren't different shapes (shapes are just different patterning of colour) or seemingly defined borders....as that would be impossible. I am asking you to put all the thoughts and ideas aside and just see that all there actually is, is one seamless landscape...that there is no space/gap between colours...that the space/gaps are actually made up of colour. We are not denying that the landscape appears as it appears...however, without thoughts labels and stories, we are able to start to see that nothing is separate and colours/shapes aren't actually stand alone separate things.

I would like for you to tell me what you expect to find/see when you do exercises given, because you seem to give yourself a rough time with them? Are you expecting, in this case, the physical landscape to change before your eyes and present itself as one seamless landscape without 'space' and 'distance'? What I am asking you to look at, and try to see, is that there is actually no space or distance, that seeming different colours meld into other colours and that the landscape is actually 2D.



When looking at this picture, thought automatically divides and labels colour into many different colours, then further names those colours into specific objects.

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels:-
Are there many colourS? Or is there simply colour?
Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’? Or is the gap actually colour?
Where does colour begin and end? In other words, can an actual dividing line be found between where one colour ends and another begins, or is that just a mental construct?

Kay

[Allen12]

Hi Kay,

I would like for you to tell me what you expect to find/see when you do exercises given, because you seem to give yourself a rough time with them? Are you expecting, in this case, the physical landscape to change before your eyes and present itself as one seamless landscape without 'space' and 'distance'? What I am asking you to look at, and try to see, is that there is actually no space or distance, that seeming different colours meld into other colours and that the landscape is actually 2D.

I think there's just an eagerness to correctly see what the exercises are pointing to. There's an eagerness to "get it". But I don't beat myself up over it or anything like that.

I just didn't fully understand what the previous exercise was pointing to. I got a little caught up in the wording. But your explanations have cleared it up for me. I can see that there's just seamless 2D colour without any kind of separation or breaks. Space is an illusion, vision is actually 2D. No problem with this now.

Are there many colourS? Or is there simply colour?
Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’? Or is the gap actually colour?
Where does colour begin and end? In other words, can an actual dividing line be found between where one colour ends and another begins, or is that just a mental construct?

There's just colour.
The gap between the trees is colour. No actual gap.
Dividing lines can't be found, it's just seamless colour.
I can see how dividing lines and different colours are mental constructs. I can't notice them without going to thought.


I also redid the previous exercise. Here are my answers:

1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?

No dividing line can be found. It's all colour.

2. Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?

No.

3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniture’ be found?
Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour

No dividing line can be found. There's just colour, no "space" between "floor" and "furniture".

4. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug and furniture’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found?
Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’, ‘furniture’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just the actual experience of colour (seeingseen)?

No dividing line between "floor" / "furniture" and "wall" can be found. There's also no actual space between them. There's just colour.

5. Is there any actual dividing between any of these colours, or is there just seamless colour which thought divides into different objects, with different labels and seeming space between them; and then further divides them into different colours?

There are no actual dividing lines between colours. It's just seamless colour without any breaks in it.

What did you find doing this experiment?

I can see how vision is just seamless 2D colour.


Thanks!

Allen

[forgetmenot]

Hi Allen,

I appreciate your diligence in looking...it is wonderful and it benefits you greatly. Language can be a problem...so it is great that you said you weren't able to see what I was getting at with the chair exercise. This is always encouraged.


If you have any questions, or you are not clear about anything we have looked at so far, please ask.

Okay, we are now moving onto the idea of decisions, choice and 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?

Did you decide to choose which hand to hold out in front of you?

Kay

[Allen12]

Hi Kay,

Thanks for being so open to questions. But nothing from me for now!

How is the movement controlled?

I have no idea. I can't tell. It's just controlled.

Does a thought control it?

No.

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.

The decision is just made. But thought doesn't have anything to do with it.

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

No.

Did you decide to choose which hand to hold out in front of you?

No. The decision was just made. But not by anything.


I'm glad we did all that work with thought previously. Although I've done a similar exercise before, after working with thought it makes the exercise very clear and easy.

Thanks!

Allen

[forgetmenot]

Hi Allen,

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.

The decision is just made. But thought doesn't have anything to do with it.

Exactly! The hand doesn’t always turn when the thought ‘turn the hand’ appears. And for thought to turn the hand would mean that not are there only separate objects ie hand plus thought, but that there is something called time ie one thing following another, and time is also a concept. We will look at time later.

So try this out with different things throughout your day. Check to see if you can find a chooser/decider who decides what clothes to wear in the morning, to when the teeth get brushed, when the lawn gets mowed etc.

No. The decision was just made. But not by anything.

And the label ‘decision’ is just a name given to a thought, however, it is still simply a thought.

I'm glad we did all that work with thought previously. Although I've done a similar exercise before, after working with thought it makes the exercise very clear and easy.

Yes…once you start to become clear about thought and what it does…it makes looking simpler.

A great tool to use to see whether thought is adding “virtual layers” via stories about experience, is to replace the thought itself with “blahblahblah” to see if what thought is referring to remains. The more complex the idea, the more “virtual layers” have been added. So the layers of the story, which are pure fantasy need to be stripped away, until all that remains is the bare bones.

A simple example is if thought appears saying “I am confused”. Does the thought “I am confused” contain any actual confusion? Replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains.
Let me know how you go.

The following exercise is a little detour to what we are exploring at the moment, but I think it’s a good time to explore the idea of there being some sort of correlation between hand, sight and sensation, and to explore what the AE of a hand actually is.

Normally we believe that sensation is coming from sight (ie colour) - 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 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’ (colour) 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 ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?

Kay

[Allen12]

Hi Kay,

I'm finding this one to be really difficult. Thought automatically connects the image to the sensation. I'm going to spend some more time with it.

Thanks,

Allen