Seeing reality as it is

[zarina]

Dear Kay,

Are there really shapes, or does thought say that the ‘brown trunk’ and the ‘green leaves’ are the shape of a tree? If you dropped completely even the concept of shapes…what is seen? Just colours?

I will look at this more. I think I was able to see this briefly a few times, but mostly I still see colors in different forms- even if those shapes aren't labeled "trunk" or "leaves" or as any concept.

So, if there is no ‘person/Zarina/I/entity (green) and there is only EXPERIENCE (red) is there anyone/anything that can ever be anything else but EXPERIENCE? Is there a dividing line between ‘experience-er’ and experience?

No - the I/me/mine/Zarina is just a label, and in the same way that fear or anger as labels (or green) can be shown to not exist in actual experience, the same can be said for these labels of I or me. There is just the actual experience.

Thought is not "I" and can't be "I". Sensation is not "I". Sound, colours aren't I.

Labels can seem to change the actual experience. For example, the very same sensation can seem to be different if labeled "anxiety" instead of "anticipation". But in reality, the experience is exactly the same. This is why if a label of "I" is put on something or not, the experience can seem to change, can seem to be different, even though in reality it isn't.

There is just experience, not an experience-er - this experience-er is just a label on thoughts or sensation or images, but can't be found in AE.

So is everything clear about the AE of thought and the content of thought? Do you have any questions or are unsure about what thoughts are?

I think I probably will have more questions but will get back to you on this tomorrow. Right now, can't think of any.

Thank you Kay.

Love,
Zarina

[forgetmenot]

Hello Zarina,

I will look at this more. I think I was able to see this briefly a few times, but mostly I still see colors in different forms- even if those shapes aren't labeled "trunk" or "leaves" or as any concept.

It’s rather impossible to see what has already been seen. This is good news when it comes to seeing through the illusory self, but not for seeing through shapes!

A good way of seeing it is through an optical illusion. What do you see in this picture? A young woman or an old woman? If you see the old woman, see if you can see the young woman and vice versa. Let me know how you went!

There is just experience, not an experience-er - this experience-er is just a label on thoughts or sensation or images, but can't be found in AE.

Yes. If there were an experience-er experiencing that would mean that that there is omebody/something that is experiencing something else which would make separation/duality real and that there is a subject object split. There is only experience AS (not OF, but AS) sound, thought, sensation, taste, smell and colour.

Okay, so let’s move on! Here is an exercise looking at decision and control.

1. Place both hands on a table in front of you, palms down.
2. When you have done that, rest for a moment and then raise one hand in the air but not the other.

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

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?
Can you find a separate individual or anything that is doing the choosing?
What is it that is controlling the hand?
Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?
Can anything be found that makes the hand move?
How is the decision made?


Do this exercise as many times as you can throughout your day and look carefully.

Have fun with both of these exercises!

Love, Kay

[zarina]

Dear Kay,

Thank you!

It’s rather impossible to see what has already been seen. This is good news when it comes to seeing through the illusory self, but not for seeing through shapes!

I wasn't totally clear on this. Do you mean that it's impossible to unsee what has already been seen? If not, would you mind explaining further?

A good way of seeing it is through an optical illusion. What do you see in this picture? A young woman or an old woman? If you see the old woman, see if you can see the young woman and vice versa. Let me know how you went!

I have seen this before. At first, I saw a young woman. In a short time of looking (because I knew I'd seen the old woman before) I saw the old woman. I see how just a slight adjustment in perception/perspective (and without any real control over it) the seeing can shift between old woman and young woman.

I'll continue doing the hand exercise tomorrow morning. Here are my initial answers.

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?

It seems to just be happening. Sometimes it seems like a thought is "choosing" because a thought comes before the hand raising. But really, it's just happening.

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is doing the choosing?

I cannot find anything that's actually choosing which hand to raise. On occasion, there was a sensation directly prior to the hand raising. This sensation, along with a thought, was said by thought to be choosing something. On closer look, it was just sensation and thought. I hope this makes sense, and can elaborate on it if not.

What is it that is controlling the hand?

I really can't find anything at all that is controlling the hand. Thoughts like "this is very strange" arise.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

Since I can't find what is controlling, I also can't find any "controller."

Can anything be found that makes the hand move?

No, not when I look closely. Sometimes it appears that thoughts or other sensations are making the hand move, or waver. (i.e. the thought says "left" or "stop" and the right hand moves but wavers while doing so). I want to look more at this, because I think this "thought/movement" combination leads to thoughts that "I" am doing something.

How is the decision made?

It seems like there is no decision being made. Not which hand to raise nor when to raise it. If a sensation/thought combination, or even just thought or just sensation, arises before the hand raises, it can appear that this sensation or thought "made" the decision. For example, the thought "left hand now" comes up and then the left hand raises. It appeared that "I" directed the hand. But where did that thought come from? It just arose too. And it's thought saying "the left hand raised because you thought "left hand now"".

Love,
Zarina

[forgetmenot]

Dear Zarina,

I wasn't totally clear on this. Do you mean that it's impossible to unsee what has already been seen? If not, would you mind explaining further?

Haha..sorry! Yes, what I meant that it is impossible to unsee what has already been seen. I have been having word difficulties of late – both written and oral!

I have seen this before. At first, I saw a young woman. In a short time of looking (because I knew I'd seen the old woman before) I saw the old woman. I see how just a slight adjustment in perception/perspective (and without any real control over it) the seeing can shift between old woman and young woman.

All that is there is, is black + white. How is it known that there are shapes and that the shapes are labelled ‘old woman’ or ‘young woman’?

What is it exactly that is choosing which hand to raise?

It seems to just be happening. Sometimes it seems like a thought is "choosing" because a thought comes before the hand raising. But really, it's just happening.

Can a thought choose anything? But it’s quite tricky in that the thought “I will raise my right hand” seems to arise before the action. So there is the immediate ownership of “I” choosing and doing.
And also, how is it known that the thought comes before the hand raises?
If this were truly the case then time would be real as would cause and effect and object/subject split.

Can you find a separate individual or anything that is doing the choosing?

I cannot find anything that's actually choosing which hand to raise. On occasion, there was a sensation directly prior to the hand raising. This sensation, along with a thought, was said by thought to be choosing something. On closer look, it was just sensation and thought. I hope this makes sense, and can elaborate on it if not.

Yes, it makes sense….nice looking :)

What is it that is controlling the hand?

I really can't find anything at all that is controlling the hand. Thoughts like "this is very strange" arise.

Wonderful! Can a thought, smell, taste, sound, colour or sensation control anything or do anything at all for that matter?

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

Since I can't find what is controlling, I also can't find any "controller."

Now, that would have been strange, if you had found a controller without finding what is controlling ;) :-)

Can anything be found that makes the hand move?

No, not when I look closely. Sometimes it appears that thoughts or other sensations are making the hand move, or waver. (i.e. the thought says "left" or "stop" and the right hand moves but wavers while doing so). I want to look more at this, because I think this "thought/movement" combination leads to thoughts that "I" am doing something.

There is an exercise below that might help you with this.

How is the decision made?

It seems like there is no decision being made. Not which hand to raise nor when to raise it. If a sensation/thought combination, or even just thought or just sensation, arises before the hand raises, it can appear that this sensation or thought "made" the decision. For example, the thought "left hand now" comes up and then the left hand raises. It appeared that "I" directed the hand. But where did that thought come from? It just arose too. And it's thought saying "the left hand raised because you thought "left hand now"".

Nice noticing that the thought just appeared of “left hand now” and ‘you’ had no control over that thought appearing! And how is it known that the thought came before the hand raised?

Okay, so let’s take a look at sensation-sight with the following exercise:

1. Close the eyes and hold up one of the hands. 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 actually, is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘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?

Love, Kay

[zarina]

Dear Kay,

A quick note that today (Monday afternoon for me) I leave on a two day work retreat. We'll be up in the mountains skiing, doing team building exercises, eating all our meals together. I hope to have internet access, but I may be writing from my phone, in which case I may not be able to use the quote button. I return Wednesday evening so will be able to write from my computer again that evening.

How is it known that there are shapes and that the shapes are labelled ‘old woman’ or ‘young woman’?

It is just thought saying it - "old woman, young woman, that's an ear, that's the head, etc"

And also, how is it known that the thought comes before the hand raises?

A though like this did come up while I was doing the exercise, and all I could see was one thing happening before another. Now, am seeing more. It is thought that says "this comes before that." Thought also as mental image - a mental image that the left hand raised before the right hand, for example. Without thought - this wouldn't be known.

Can a thought, smell, taste, sound, colour or sensation control anything or do anything at all for that matter?

No.

But actually, is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘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?

There really isn't a link - thoughts make it so. I do see that sight and sensation appear separately and equally, no link, no hierarchy -i.e. no "this than that", no "this because of that". And that it is thought saying "where" a sensation is - i.e. in the hand, in the arm, outside the body. It is thought that claims that a sensation is where it is and that it is "of the hand". Am seeing this is true of also sensation and taste. Sensations happen (thought says: chewing a pear slice) and taste happens. Appears to be simultaneous, but will have to look more. I am seeing that both can seem to be known at once - what isn't clear is whether the knowing of them arising simultaneously or not.

Love,
Zarina

[forgetmenot]

Hi Zarina,

Thank you for letting me know about your work retreat. If you are unable to respond, I will know why! Have fun!

How is it known that there are shapes and that the shapes are labelled ‘old woman’ or ‘young woman’?

It is just thought saying it - "old woman, young woman, that's an ear, that's the head, etc"

Yes, so it is just thought that says a particular shape is a tree, or a cloud, or a body and so on…all that is actually there is colour.
Is this clear?

And also, how is it known that the thought comes before the hand raises?

A though like this did come up while I was doing the exercise, and all I could see was one thing happening before another. Now, am seeing more. It is thought that says "this comes before that." Thought also as mental image - a mental image that the left hand raised before the right hand, for example. Without thought - this wouldn't be known.

Nice looking.

But actually, is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘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?

There really isn't a link - thoughts make it so. I do see that sight and sensation appear separately and equally, no link, no hierarchy -i.e. no "this than that", no "this because of that". And that it is thought saying "where" a sensation is - i.e. in the hand, in the arm, outside the body. It is thought that claims that a sensation is where it is and that it is "of the hand". Am seeing this is true of also sensation and taste. Sensations happen (thought says: chewing a pear slice) and taste happens. Appears to be simultaneous, but will have to look more. I am seeing that both can seem to be known at once - what isn't clear is whether the knowing of them arising simultaneously or not.

Wonderful! Since there is no time, as that is just a thought concept...then there isn’t anything arising simultaneously…it just IS.

How is it known that there is a ‘time gap/distance’ between sounds, between tastes, between smells, between sensations, between thoughts, between colours/images?

Love, Kay

[zarina]

Dear Kay,

Writing from my phone so won't use the quote button.

It is pretty clear that there is just color and only thought creates concepts and shapes and that really only color is there. It's easier for me to see when things are moving - in a car or snow coming down. However there is some doubt - which I also see as thoughts.

How is it known there is a time/gap distance - it's only because of thought! Since experience is only here and now, thought needs to say 'this happened a moment ago' or 'this happened yesterday' or even to follow someone else's conversation thought is needed - i.e. Thought 'Now I will respond to what was just said' - but that can't be known (meaning that it isn't known that anything was just said or that there was saying or a person saying it) unless thought says 'this is what was said'. otherwise it is just the experience in the moment and in the moment there can be no actual experience of anything but that moment. Therefore thought creates time and distance.

Today on the ski slopes was observing all sensation just as sensation (not as cold, pain, etc) and seeing thought just as thought (not needing to do anything about it) and then thought arose (doubt) saying things like: don't believe this! If you don't do all the things you normally do when you're cold then bad things will happen, you could freeze, and it will be because you aren't doing the right things that you need to do to stay warm, (because you think there is no cold and warm!) you're just going along feeling sensations and at some point you will just freeze to death or some equally bad outcome because you weren't paying attention. All this to just say that thoughts labeled as doubt and fear are very effective at creating a 'me'.

Love,
Zarina

[forgetmenot]

Hi Zarina,

I hope you enjoyed your skiing retreat!

How is it known there is a time/gap distance - it's only because of thought!

Yes :)

it is just the experience in the moment and in the moment there can be no actual experience of anything but that moment. Therefore thought creates time and distance.

There are no moments either. Everything is known, there is never nothing not known. There is never anything that is not 'here/now'. Thought divides EXPERIENCE into the 5 senses + thought; however, EXPERIENCE IS...it is not ‘divided’ into anything including shape or form...so there can never be a different THIS.

Today on the ski slopes was observing all sensation just as sensation (not as cold, pain, etc) and seeing thought just as thought (not needing to do anything about it) and then thought arose (doubt) saying things like: don't believe this! If you don't do all the things you normally do when you're cold then bad things will happen, you could freeze, and it will be because you aren't doing the right things that you need to do to stay warm, (because you think there is no cold and warm!) you're just going along feeling sensations and at some point you will just freeze to death or some equally bad outcome because you weren't paying attention. All this to just say that thoughts labeled as doubt and fear are very effective at creating a 'me'.

Appearing thoughts seem to say a lot of things, however are you the owner or author of thoughts? Did you make these thoughts appear? Where is this ‘you’ that is “doing things you normally do”? Since there has never been a ‘you’ how could anything be different?

What are the labels “fear” and “doubt” pointing to? Are they pointing to actual experience or are they pointing to a story?

Don’t look for the ‘doubting’ or ‘fear’ to end…but LOOK for that what can ‘doubt’ and be in ‘fear’. Can you find anyone or anything anywhere in actual experience that can doubt or be in fear?

Okay, let’s look further into ‘fear’. (You can do this with ‘doubt’ also)

Okay, remember what the actual experience of ‘fear’ is?

The label ‘fear’ is the actual experience (AE) of thought and not the AE of fear.
The sensation labelled ‘fear’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of fear.
The colours labelled ‘Zarina/body’ are the AE of colour and not the AE of ‘a person in fear’.

Does the label ‘fear’ know anything about fear?
Does the label in any way suggest that it is fear or in fear?
Does the sensation labelled ‘fear’ know anything about fear?
Does the sensation in any way suggest that it is fear or in fear?
Do the colours labelled ‘Marvin/body’ know anything about fear?
Do the colours in any way suggest that they are fear or in fear?

So there is no actual experience of ‘fear’? It doesn’t exist. What is actually appearing is label + sensation + colours which thought glues together and calls ‘person in fear’.

So when next a seeming fearful thought appears and a sensation also appears….do the above.
Just remember to breathe.
Check if the ‘fearful’ thought knows anything about fear.
Check in with the sensation and see if the sensation knows anything about fear…or if there is indeed anything to be found within the sensation itself.
Have a look at what is underneath the sensation to see what is there, if anything.
And check in with the colours to see if they know anything about fear.
If you have seen that there is nothing there but label + sensation + image…then just allow the raw sensation to be…it will pass on its own.

Let me know how you go.

Love, Kay

[zarina]

Dear Kay,

I just returned this evening from the ski retreat - I really did enjoy it! Thank you. I won't write much now because am quite tired but will write more tomorrow to answer your specific questions. I have been practicing the below with fear/anxiety and other thought labels too.

When inquiry arises around a "who" is doing this or that, i.e. "who is believing?" - there is no answer, there is kind of a nothingness. Nothing arises in response.

Love,
Zarina

[zarina]

Dear Kay,

Everything is known, there is never nothing not known.

Could you expand a little more on this? I think I realized this for a moment this morning.

Appearing thoughts seem to say a lot of things, however are you the owner or author of thoughts? Did you make these thoughts appear? Where is this ‘you’ that is “doing things you normally do”? Since there has never been a ‘you’ how could anything be different?

There doesn't seem to be an owner, and no "I" made the thoughts appear. The thoughts just come on their own, long streams. Thought sometimes says that "I" am thinking and that "I" can stop thoughts or change thoughts but there is no one making thoughts appear or disappear. This "me" is only a thought.

What are the labels “fear” and “doubt” pointing to? Are they pointing to actual experience or are they pointing to a story?

They are always pointing to a story. In fact, this morning saw that all the thoughts that were arising were pointing to story. Or many stories. There was nothing in the thoughts that pointed to actual experience. I was able to see that the thoughts themselves, the stream of thoughts, was the actual experience of thoughts.

Don’t look for the ‘doubting’ or ‘fear’ to end…but LOOK for that what can ‘doubt’ and be in ‘fear’. Can you find anyone or anything anywhere in actual experience that can doubt or be in fear?

Cannot find anyone or anything anywhere in actual experience that can be in doubt, fear, anger, etc. Looking, it is thought, and sensation, and images sometimes.

So when next a seeming fearful thought appears and a sensation also appears….do the above.
Just remember to breathe.
Check if the ‘fearful’ thought knows anything about fear.
Check in with the sensation and see if the sensation knows anything about fear…or if there is indeed anything to be found within the sensation itself.
Have a look at what is underneath the sensation to see what is there, if anything.
And check in with the colours to see if they know anything about fear.
If you have seen that there is nothing there but label + sensation + image…then just allow the raw sensation to be…it will pass on its own.

Let me know how you go.

Am doing this, and the exercise is helpful. When able to check into this, I see that fear (or anger, or doubt) is just thought + sensation. Sometimes image too. And the sensations and thoughts fade, or sometimes don't fade right away but there is just seeing of thought and sensations. Sometimes, however, I am not able to do this, something feels caught by the fear or the doubt, or there is what thought labels "resistance", or the believing of thoughts happens. But, when asking the question, "who is believing?" there is no answer. And the resistance, too, appears as just thoughts + sensation. So, not sure what is caught, exactly.

Love,
Zarina

[forgetmenot]

Hello Zarina,

Everything is known, there is never nothing not known.

Could you expand a little more on this? I think I realized this for a moment this morning.

Is there anything in actual experience that is not known? Right now, is there anything not known to you?
I am not talking about the illusional story of Zarina and her life, I am referring to actual experience.

What, exactly, are you not knowing of right now?
Is there ANYTHING that you're not knowing of right now?
Is there anything that is unknown?

Is the knowing of actual experience separate from what is known as actual experience, or is knowing/known one and the same?

There doesn't seem to be an owner, and no "I" made the thoughts appear. The thoughts just come on their own, long streams. Thought sometimes says that "I" am thinking and that "I" can stop thoughts or change thoughts but there is no one making thoughts appear or disappear. This "me" is only a thought.

You begin your sentence with “doesn’t seem to be an owner”. Have a very very good look and see if you can find an owner. When you have had a good look, then come back with either a definite yes or no to whether an owner or author of thoughts can be found anywhere.

What are the labels “fear” and “doubt” pointing to? Are they pointing to actual experience or are they pointing to a story?

They are always pointing to a story. In fact, this morning saw that all the thoughts that were arising were pointing to story. Or many stories. There was nothing in the thoughts that pointed to actual experience. I was able to see that the thoughts themselves, the stream of thoughts, was the actual experience of thoughts.

YES! NICE LOOKING! Every thought in the stream of thoughts is the actual experience of thought!

I think I gave an example earlier on, where some thoughts point to AE and other thoughts just point to thoughts. The example was the thought ‘blue sky’. The label ‘blue’ points to the AE of colour whereas the label ‘sky’ points to more thoughts ABOUT the ‘blue sky’.

Don’t look for the ‘doubting’ or ‘fear’ to end…but LOOK for that what can ‘doubt’ and be in ‘fear’. Can you find anyone or anything anywhere in actual experience that can doubt or be in fear?

Cannot find anyone or anything anywhere in actual experience that can be in doubt, fear, anger, etc. Looking, it is thought, and sensation, and images sometimes.

Yes, exactly. There is no AE of doubt or fear (or resistance, sadness etc etc), all that is KNOWN is sensation + label/thought + image.

Am doing this, and the exercise is helpful. When able to check into this, I see that fear (or anger, or doubt) is just thought + sensation. Sometimes image too. And the sensations and thoughts fade, or sometimes don't fade right away but there is just seeing of thought and sensations. Sometimes, however, I am not able to do this, something feels caught by the fear or the doubt, or there is what thought labels "resistance", or the believing of thoughts happens. But, when asking the question, "who is believing?" there is no answer. And the resistance, too, appears as just thoughts + sensation. So, not sure what is caught, exactly.

I don’t want you to ask the question “who is believing" ask instead "what exactly is it that is believing" and then I want you to actually LOOK to see if you can find anyone/anything that is believing. Each time you LOOK and can’t find anyone/anything, you are loosening the ties that bind you to the belief that you are a separate individual living in world of .........(fill in the blank). The same goes for “resistance”. Don’t ask the question “who is resisting” but ask instead "what exactly is it that is resisting" and then go and have a LOOK to see if you can find this 'what'. Break it down into actual experience.

Love, Kay

[zarina]

Dear Kay,

What, exactly, are you not knowing of right now?
Is there ANYTHING that you're not knowing of right now?
Is there anything that is unknown?

I would like more time to look more at this. Today I saw that there is nothing that I am not knowing of right now - anything that thought says that I am not knowing is simply a thought (content/story). Actual experience is just known, now. I am not sure I am describing this well - but the only thing that I might "not know" is just content of thought - story.

Is the knowing of actual experience separate from what is known as actual experience, or is knowing/known one and the same?

Still looking at this.

When you have had a good look, then come back with either a definite yes or no to whether an owner or author of thoughts can be found anywhere.

Still looking at this.

I don’t want you to ask the question “who is believing" ask instead "what exactly is it that is believing" and then I want you to actually LOOK to see if you can find anyone/anything that is believing.

Am doing this now. Cannot find anything/anyone when I look with actual experience. Is it also okay to ask "what exactly is the "I"? Or is there another good question to ask when thoughts centered on "I" arise?

Thank you Kay.

With love,
Zarina

[forgetmenot]

Hi Zarina,

What, exactly, are you not knowing of right now? Is there ANYTHING that you're not knowing of right now?
Is there anything that is unknown?

I would like more time to look more at this. Today I saw that there is nothing that I am not knowing of right now - anything that thought says that I am not knowing is simply a thought (content/story). Actual experience is just known, now. I am not sure I am describing this well - but the only thing that I might "not know" is just content of thought - story.

Yes! Nicely seen, and you have described it well. Actual experience is always known and can never be unknown, what is unknown is always a story.

Is the knowing of actual experience separate from what is known as actual experience, or is knowing/known one and the same?

Still looking at this.

I have an exercise below that may help you with this.

When you have had a good look, then come back with either a definite yes or no to whether an owner or author of thoughts can be found anywhere.

Still looking at this.

I am wondering what is going on for you, Zarina? Is there resistance to LOOKING? You did the ‘thought exercise’ and saw that thoughts come and go, and that you were unable to control any thoughts and you were unable to find a controller of thoughts. So where is the difficulty factor now in LOOKING at AE to see if there is an author or owner of thoughts?

I don’t want you to ask the question “who is believing" ask instead "what exactly is it that is believing" and then I want you to actually LOOK to see if you can find anyone/anything that is believing.

Am doing this now. Cannot find anything/anyone when I look with actual experience. Is it also okay to ask "what exactly is the "I"? Or is there another good question to ask when thoughts centered on "I" arise?

“What exactly is it that………..(fill in the blank)?”
“What is the AE of “I”?

Breaking emotions, problems, stories, thoughts and so on into AE brings you back to the bare bones of what is actually ‘experienced’ as in AE.

For example you are having an argument with someone. What is actually appearing? Colours + sound + sensation (anger, sadness, tears, etc) + thought.

BUT THE KEY IS TO LOOK. Just asking the question intellectually without LOOKING is not what this process is about. LOOKING is the key. It is actually LOOKING to see if you can find anyone/anything and not just negate something with a thought! Thought is what created the ‘mess’ in the first place!

Do you see this?

A nice cup of tea/coffee

Make yourself a cup of tea/coffee.
Have a look at what is now appearing.
It seems to be a thing that can exist in itself.
An object in the world.
But is it really?

Taste the tea/coffee.
Notice that the taste is experience.
Could that taste exist if you weren't aware of it?
Could a taste float along by itself somehow unknown to you?

Smell the tea/coffee.
Notice that the smell is experience.
Could that smell exist if you weren't aware of it?
Could there be a smell, existing and yet somehow 'unknown'?

Touch the cup.
This time the experience is smoothness, hotness and hardness.
Could the feeling of smoothness exist if you weren't aware of it? The sensation of hardness? The hotness?

Look at the cup.
A bunch of colours.
Could the colours exist if you weren't aware of them?
Can colours just exist somehow all by themselves?

Aren't you an *essential* component for every aspect of the cup of tea to be?
What part of the cup of tea could possibly exist without you?
The taste? The colours? The hotness?
Seeing that all aspects of the cup can only exist because you are aware of them, could the cup of tea/coffee "in itself" exist without you?
Furthermore, can you really say there is a cup of tea/coffee at all other than as an idea?
And what about the rest of the world of objects?
Aren't they just like the cup of tea/coffee?
Can you find anything in *any* object other than experience?
That which does not appear within you cannot appear elsewhere...
Have a look and see what you find?

Let me know how you go with this exercise and what you find.

Love, Kay
 

[zarina]

Dear Kay,

So where is the difficulty factor now in LOOKING at AE to see if there is an author or owner of thoughts?

I was seeing yesterday that there was no author or owner of thoughts. It's just that it seemed that sometimes I knew this, saw this, and other times I didn't. So wanted to continue looking to really know. Sometimes thought and sensation (and more thought) would say that "I" was the owner. I would break it down into AE and look, and the "ownership" thought would pass. Yes, there was also thought/sensation of resistance, a lot of it. Breaking that down into AE, it was just a lot of thought and sensation. Was still happening today, just less. Just watched streams of thought, without ownership, no one creating them or causing them. The thought "I need to do something" was arising a lot, and being seen as just thought (sometimes after several seconds though, after thoughts labeled as "confusion, restlessness, aimlessness, anxiety"). No "I" who needs to do something was found, just thought and sensation. And also broke down some of these other thoughts into AE - sensation, thought, image.

BUT THE KEY IS TO LOOK. Just asking the question intellectually without LOOKING is not what this process is about. LOOKING is the key. It is actually LOOKING to see if you can find anyone/anything and not just negate something with a thought! Thought is what created the ‘mess’ in the first place!
Do you see this?

Yes. Am seeing this. Thought wants to jump in and negate something, as you say, or "cut something off" or "make sense of things". Thought is doing this a lot. But this isn't looking. What is looking is seeing the thoughts as the experience of thoughts, just arising (for example).

Let me know how you go with this exercise and what you find.

This exercise was very good.

Could that taste exist if you weren't aware of it?

No - it could not. Same with smell, sensation, colors. At first, it was hard to see this with colors. Thought said: but these colors are here, no matter what! You can go in the other room, the colors will still be here. For example, your neighbor could walk by and still see your house." Then, saw that this was all just thought. It was only thought saying that the colors would exist without me. This isn't known. Actual experience is what is known, it is all that is known.

Could a taste float along by itself somehow unknown to you?

No. In the same way, no sensation, smell, or color could just float along without being known. Nothing in actual experience could exist without being known. And the same is true of thoughts - no thought could just float along without being known. (Sometimes, though, thought says that this is happening. I will continue to look more at this - it is becoming clearer that it is just thought saying "oh that sensation was actually a thought happening by without you knowing it" and other thoughts in that vein.)

Aren't you an *essential* component for every aspect of the cup of tea to be?
What part of the cup of tea could possibly exist without you?

The knowing is an essential component. There could not be any "cup of tea" without the knowing. I was seeing that the knowing and the known of the tea (and other things, like the seeing of images while on a walk) are not separate. I am having difficulty describing it - it was just like "thought (tea, milky color), sensations, image, thought (about the sensations, about the image) - but it was just that. Image and knowing of the image weren't separate. It was like image/knowing are the same. sensation/knowing are the same. there not only wasn't a separation, there was nothing different about the two (knowing/known). (not sure if that makes sense, could elaborate more). Earlier today, there was a perception of separation, and it was seen that this perceived separation was sensation and thought. With sound, for example: thought says "I am hearing this" or "this is being heard" and "don't want this" or "too loud" - but actually, it is just sound, and not even sound being known by something else, but just sound.

Seeing that all aspects of the cup can only exist because you are aware of them, could the cup of tea/coffee "in itself" exist without you?

No, it couldn't exist. Amazing!

Furthermore, can you really say there is a cup of tea/coffee at all other than as an idea?
And what about the rest of the world of objects?

I cannot - the concept of tea only exists as a thought. The same with other objects.

Can you find anything in *any* object other than experience?

Not so far. I am not even sure I can find any real object - it is all just experience. For example, thought says "closet door leaning against the wall" - this is just image + thought. It isn't an actual object. Or, picking up the phone. Thought says "this is a real object!" But is it? It is just thought, it is sensation, it is image, more thought. It isn't a real object.

Thank you Kay.

Love,
Zarina

[forgetmenot]

Hi Zarina,

So where is the difficulty factor now in LOOKING at AE to see if there is an author or owner of thoughts?

I was seeing yesterday that there was no author or owner of thoughts. It's just that it seemed that sometimes I knew this, saw this, and other times I didn't. So wanted to continue looking to really know.

Yes, this seeming flip flopping continues to occur. There will be times when you know you aren’t the author or owner and other times it will SEEM like you are the owner/author. However, are you the author and owner of those flip flopping thoughts? The actual experience of thoughts are known to you, but what the saying are meaningless…they are content of thought and content of thought holds no experience.

Sometimes thought and sensation (and more thought) would say that "I" was the owner. I would break it down into AE and look, and the "ownership" thought would pass. Yes, there was also thought/sensation of resistance, a lot of it. Breaking that down into AE, it was just a lot of thought and sensation. Was still happening today, just less. Just watched streams of thought, without ownership, no one creating them or causing them. The thought "I need to do something" was arising a lot, and being seen as just thought (sometimes after several seconds though, after thoughts labeled as "confusion, restlessness, aimlessness, anxiety"). No "I" who needs to do something was found, just thought and sensation. And also broke down some of these other thoughts into AE - sensation, thought, image.

You have done some great looking and I see you are working diligently at breaking thought and thought stories down to bare bones ie AE! Well done! I am wondering if there is an idea that this type of yo-yoing will stop? Is there an expectation that once clearly seen that there is no author/owner of thoughts that thoughts of doubt, resistance, confusion, unhappiness, restlessness etc will cease? Is there a desire for what is considered ‘unpleasant’ emotions to eventually never appear again?

BUT THE KEY IS TO LOOK. Just asking the question intellectually without LOOKING is not what this process is about. LOOKING is the key. It is actually LOOKING to see if you can find anyone/anything and not just negate something with a thought! Thought is what created the ‘mess’ in the first place!
Do you see this?

Yes. Am seeing this. Thought wants to jump in and negate something, as you say, or "cut something off" or "make sense of things". Thought is doing this a lot. But this isn't looking. What is looking is seeing the thoughts as the experience of thoughts, just arising (for example).

Nice! Can thought really jump in and negate something or cut something off…or is that just a thought too? Can thought so anything ?

Could that taste exist if you weren't aware of it?

No - it could not. Same with smell, sensation, colors. At first, it was hard to see this with colors. Thought said: but these colors are here, no matter what! You can go in the other room, the colors will still be here. For example, your neighbor could walk by and still see your house." Then, saw that this was all just thought. It was only thought saying that the colors would exist without me. This isn't known. Actual experience is what is known, it is all that is known.

Haha…yes I remember ‘battling’ this too! Exceptional looking, Zarina!
How is it known that your neighbour is seeing your house? Since there is no Zarina, is there such a thing as a ‘person’ labelled ‘my neighbour’?

Could a taste float along by itself somehow unknown to you?

No. In the same way, no sensation, smell, or color could just float along without being known. Nothing in actual experience could exist without being known. And the same is true of thoughts - no thought could just float along without being known. (Sometimes, though, thought says that this is happening. I will continue to look more at this - it is becoming clearer that it is just thought saying "oh that sensation was actually a thought happening by without you knowing it" and other thoughts in that vein.)

Yes – nothing can float along with being known! Nice noticing of thoughts! Slippery little suckers at times, aren’t they! :)

Aren't you an *essential* component for every aspect of the cup of tea to be?
What part of the cup of tea could possibly exist without you?

The knowing is an essential component. There could not be any "cup of tea" without the knowing. I was seeing that the knowing and the known of the tea (and other things, like the seeing of images while on a walk) are not separate. Earlier today, there was a perception of separation, and it was seen that this perceived separation was sensation and thought.

It is thought that separates experience into sound AND thought AND smell AND taste AND colour AND sensation. There is no ‘AND’ in AE! The ‘AND’ symbolises separation but there is no ‘AND’. There is only soundthoughtsmelltastecoloursensation.

With sound, for example: thought says "I am hearing this" or "this is being heard" and "don't want this" or "too loud" - but actually, it is just sound, and not even sound being known by something else, but just sound.

Nice!

Seeing that all aspects of the cup can only exist because you are aware of them, could the cup of tea/coffee "in itself" exist without you?

No, it couldn't exist. Amazing!

Top stuff! So now LOOK...is there a ‘you’ and a ‘them’? Are the 5 senses + thought happening to you…is there an experience-er experiencing, or is there just experience of/as sound, thought, taste, smell, colour, sensation?

Furthermore, can you really say there is a cup of tea/coffee at all other than as an idea?
And what about the rest of the world of objects?

I cannot - the concept of tea only exists as a thought. The same with other objects.

Yes!

Can you find anything in *any* object other than experience?

Not so far. I am not even sure I can find any real object - it is all just experience. For example, thought says "closet door leaning against the wall" - this is just image + thought. It isn't an actual object. Or, picking up the phone. Thought says "this is a real object!" But is it? It is just thought, it is sensation, it is image, more thought. It isn't a real object.

So if you were to go look in the mirror is there really an object “Zarina”? Or is all that is there is colour? And if there is only colour…what is colour?


Love, Kay