Take two!

[forgetmenot]

Hi Bob,

Just as background, there was a crisis in my family a few weeks ago that I've been very preoccupied with. Things should settle down by next weekend.

I hope all goes well.

The thought that "this tension is a self" is sometimes so subtle that its hard to disassociate it from the actual feeling- almost as if the tension comes prelabeled with a self label. It helped to visualize the sentence "this tension is a self" as simply letters floating in space - letters that couldn't possibly be a self.

Wonderful! So just really become aware of thought and the content of thought, which if just further thought.

So the difficulty for me is in seeing with certainty that "this tension is a self" Is just a thought. I recognize though that this vague sense that "head tension = self" isn't an AE. I'll persist with this.

Is not the label "head tension" not just another thought? And what is that thought pointing to? It is pointing to a sensation labelled 'tension'.

Does the thought "head tension" know anything about a sensation or a 'head' or 'tension'?
Take a very close look at sensation. Without the idea that it is dependent upon a body, and without the idea that it has a specific location, is there "head tension" or just sensation appearing. Does it actually have a location?


What is AE of sensation "tension"?
Is it clear that the sensation is NOT the actual experience of 'tension', but the actual experience of SENSATION?
Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that it is 'tension' or it is 'tense'? What about the sensation says that it is tense? Does the sensation "tension" know anything about "tension"?
Does a sensation have any attributes or characteristics?
Does a sensation itself convey any sort of information?

Yes, the story about "head tension being a self" is known, but can a self be found in the sensation itself? Have a good look at the tension and see if you can find a self anywhere in the sensation or behind the sensation.

Is it true that thought is trying to understand something, that it knows something, and that it is having a hard time digesting something? Or are thoughts simply repeating their story, with variations about something trying to figure out the story?


Love, Kay
xx

[Bobf]

Hi Kay,

Things have settled down a bit.

Take a very close look at sensation. Without the idea that it is dependent upon a body, and without the idea that it has a specific location, is there "head tension" or just sensation appearing. Does it actually have a location?

I guess not. The reason I say "guess" is that the sensation of "head tension" appears to be followed almost instantaneously by the idea that its in a particular location. Hard to separate the two. But the pure sensation appears to have no location.

What is AE of sensation "tension"?
Is it clear that the sensation is NOT the actual experience of 'tension', but the actual experience of SENSATION?

Yes.

Does the pure sensation itself suggest in any way that it is 'tension' or it is 'tense'? What about the sensation says that it is tense? Does the sensation "tension" know anything about "tension"?

No, the pure sensation has nothing to do with the label tension and doesn't know anything.

Does a sensation have any attributes or characteristics?

Not sure. Even in the absence of thought, the sensation labeled "head tension" feels different than the sensation labeled "bird cheeping".

Yes, the story about "head tension being a self" is known, but can a self be found in the sensation itself? Have a good look at the tension and see if you can find a self anywhere in the sensation or behind the sensation.

When there is focusing on the sensation, there is no thought of self. When that focusing ends, the self thought returns. But of course, as you've pointed out, that thought isn't around all the time.

Is it true that thought is trying to understand something, that it knows something, and that it is having a hard time digesting something? Or are thoughts simply repeating their story, with variations about something trying to figure out the story?

Thoughts are just thoughts. They don't know anything or do anything.

Bob

[forgetmenot]

Hello Bob,

Take a very close look at sensation. Without the idea that it is dependent upon a body, and without the idea that it has a specific location, is there "head tension" or just sensation appearing. Does it actually have a location?

I guess not. The reason I say "guess" is that the sensation of "head tension" appears to be followed almost instantaneously by the idea that its in a particular location. Hard to separate the two. But the pure sensation appears to have no location.

And are you the thinker of thought? Can you control or stop the thought/idea that the sensation labelled “head tension” is in a particular location appearing? Can you stop/control thought from appearing that says there is a ‘foot’ that is located “down there”? Can you control or stop any thought from appearing?

Surely, if there were a separate entity ‘me’, who was the thinker, surely that self would have it organised to think thoughts that were clear and full of wisdom and knowing. Why would you create thoughts that were confusing and doubtful?

Does a sensation have any attributes or characteristics?

Not sure. Even in the absence of thought, the sensation labeled "head tension" feels different than the sensation labeled "bird cheeping".

Since “head tension” is a sensation and “bird cheeping” is a sound, then yes, from that PERSPECTIVE, they are different. Bird cheeping isn’t ‘felt’, it is ‘heard’.

However, where does a sensation end and a sound begin? Where does sensation “head tension” end and the sound “bird cheeping” begin?

How is it known that the sensation labelled ‘itch’ is different to the sensation labelled ‘scratch’?

Yes, the story about "head tension being a self" is known, but can a self be found in the sensation itself? Have a good look at the tension and see if you can find a self anywhere in the sensation or behind the sensation.

When there is focusing on the sensation, there is no thought of self. When that focusing ends, the self thought returns. But of course, as you've pointed out, that thought isn't around all the time.

I don’t want you to believe anything I am saying. I want you to LOOK for yourself. If the self thought was present 24/7 would you not be aware of it 24/7?

Are you able to have more than one thought at a time?

That is why I wanted you to become aware of the nature of thought. For the next few days do the following exercise as many times as you can throughout your day

Sit for 5-10 minutes, as often as you can throughout your day. Close your eyes and just notice thoughts by just letting whatever thoughts cross your mind come into awareness, each to be noticed for a moment, and then replaced by the next. Try not to establish any kind of hierarchy among them. Watch them come and go as dispassionately as possible. Don't focus on any one in particular, but try to let the stream move on evenly and calmly, without any special investment on your part.
Let me know how you go.

Is it true that thought is trying to understand something, that it knows something, and that it is having a hard time digesting something? Or are thoughts simply repeating their story, with variations about something trying to figure out the story?

Thoughts are just thoughts. They don't know anything or do anything.

And yet you still get hooked on what thought says. “Oh this thought might be telling the truth”! You are wanting thought to tell you the truth…thought is thought. It is up to you to LOOK and see if what thought is saying/pointing to is actual experience or just thought about thought ie fairytales.

Thought is not aware, so it's useless as a means of knowing the truth. Stick with what is actually aware. It's only you (not Bob) that can discriminate what's true from what is false. Thought is incapable of doing such a thing.

Thought does not know what 'blue sky' refers to...only you know. 'Blue sky' may refer to actual experience of colour labelled 'blue sky' that is appearing as your current experience, or to pure fantasy about 'blue sky'.

If thought says that you saw a spectacular sunrise yesterday…is that sunrise experience as you presently find it? No…so it is just thought story ie ‘imagination’. If however, the colours labelled ‘spectacular sunrise’ is experience as you presently find it (ie now), then thought is pointing to actual experience as you presently find it That is, that the colour thoughts refer to a 'sunrise' are what are actually appearing now. Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to further thought about actual experience which is not the current experience which then equates to just story...thought fluff.
Is this clear?


Love, Kay
xx

[Bobf]

Hi Kay,

And are you the thinker of thought? Can you control or stop the thought/idea that the sensation labelled “head tension” is in a particular location appearing? Can you stop/control thought from appearing that says there is a ‘foot’ that is located “down there”? Can you control or stop any thought from appearing?

No, thoughts can't be controlled - they just arise.

However, where does a sensation end and a sound begin? Where does sensation “head tension” end and the sound “bird cheeping” begin?

Its hard to discern this, but it appears that there can only be focusing on one thing at a time -either the sensation or the sound.

How is it known that the sensation labelled ‘itch’ is different to the sensation labelled ‘scratch’?

Not sure what you mean - I think of scratching as an action, not a sensation. Different sensations just arise. Hard for me to say if they have different attributes in AE. Sensation of heat definitely feels different than sensation of cold. But I guess in the absence of thought, that judgement doesn't get made.

Are you able to have more than one thought at a time?

I haven't experienced having more than one thought at a time, so I suppose the answer is no.

Sit for 5-10 minutes, as often as you can throughout your day. Close your eyes and just notice thoughts by just letting whatever thoughts cross your mind come into awareness, each to be noticed for a moment, and then replaced by the next. Try not to establish any kind of hierarchy among them. Watch them come and go as dispassionately as possible. Don't focus on any one in particular, but try to let the stream move on evenly and calmly, without any special investment on your part.
Let me know how you go.

Will do.

If thought says that you saw a spectacular sunrise yesterday…is that sunrise experience as you presently find it? No…so it is just thought story ie ‘imagination’. If however, the colours labelled ‘spectacular sunrise’ is experience as you presently find it (ie now), then thought is pointing to actual experience as you presently find it That is, that the colour thoughts refer to a 'sunrise' are what are actually appearing now. Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to further thought about actual experience which is not the current experience which then equates to just story...thought fluff.
Is this clear?

Yes, its clear.

Best wishes,
Bob

[forgetmenot]

Hi Bob,

And are you the thinker of thought? Can you control or stop the thought/idea that the sensation labelled “head tension” is in a particular location appearing? Can you stop/control thought from appearing that says there is a ‘foot’ that is located “down there”? Can you control or stop any thought from appearing?

No, thoughts can't be controlled - they just arise.

Exactly. And do thoughts know anything? Are thoughts aware or is it ‘you’ (not Bob) that is aware of sound, colour, smell, taste, sensation, and thoughts actual experience ie thoughts about ‘colour blue’ being a sky etc?

However, where does a sensation end and a sound begin? Where does sensation “head tension” end and the sound “bird cheeping” begin?

Its hard to discern this, but it appears that there can only be focusing on one thing at a time -either the sensation or the sound.

Is it? If I close my eyes and just become aware of the sensation that is labelled ‘body aliveness’, I can also become aware of sounds happening at the same time. So I am asking you to do the same and then tell me where the sensation ends and the sound begins….where is the dividing line?

Is there sound AND the content of the sound?
What is the content of a sound?

Is there taste AND the content of the taste?
What is the content of a taste?

Is there smell AND the content of the smell?
What is the content of a smell?

Is there sensation AND the content of the sensation?
What is the content of a sensation?

Is there colour AND the content of colour?
What is the content of a colour?


Does the sound ‘tweettweet’ suggest in any way that it is a bird?
Does the sensation ‘brrrr brrrr’ suggest in any way that it is cold?

How is it known that the sensation labelled ‘itch’ is different to the sensation labelled ‘scratch’?

Not sure what you mean - I think of scratching as an action, not a sensation. Different sensations just arise. Hard for me to say if they have different attributes in AE. Sensation of heat definitely feels different than sensation of cold. But I guess in the absence of thought, that judgement doesn't get made.

When you scratch an itch, does it not feel different to the actual itch that made you scratch it in the first place? However, how is it known that the sensation labelled ‘itch’ and the sensation labelled ‘scratching itch’ are different?

Do the labels know anything an itch or scratching?
Do the sensations themselves know anything about an itch or scratching?
Do the sensations themselves suggest in any way that one is an itch and the other is a feeling of scratching?
Do the sensations labelled ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ suggest in any way that they are hot or cold?

Are you able to have more than one thought at a time?

I haven't experienced having more than one thought at a time, so I suppose the answer is no.

So, if you cannot have more than one thought at a time, then the thought about being a separate self is not always present. If thought about 'self' is not always present, then is the 'sel'f actually present 24/7 as thought claims? And when thought claims that there is a 'self', do you actually LOOK to see if what thought is pointing at is AE or just thought story about AE? And if you look when thought claims there is a 'self' what do you actually find?

Love, Kay
xx

[Bobf]

Hi Kay,

Exactly. And do thoughts know anything? Are thoughts aware or is it ‘you’ (not Bob) that is aware of sound, colour, smell, taste, sensation, and thoughts actual experience ie thoughts about ‘colour blue’ being a sky etc?

Thoughts don't know anything. There is just awareness of sounds, etc.

Is it? If I close my eyes and just become aware of the sensation that is labelled ‘body aliveness’, I can also become aware of sounds happening at the same time.

When I focus on the body, I'm not aware of a sensation "body aliveness". What I experience is a sequence of sensations - a tingling in the arm followed by sensation in stomach, followed by etc. (I realize that "arm" and "stomach" are just labels added after the fact). When a sound arises, awareness immediately shifts to that sound, but the body sensation appears to no longer be present. So only one sensation at a time here.

So I am asking you to do the same and then tell me where the sensation ends and the sound begins….where is the dividing line?

Is there sound AND the content of the sound?
What is the content of a sound?

Is there taste AND the content of the taste?
What is the content of a taste?

Is there smell AND the content of the smell?
What is the content of a smell?

Is there sensation AND the content of the sensation?
What is the content of a sensation?

Is there colour AND the content of colour?
What is the content of a colour?

If I understand what you're asking, for all of these examples, there is just a sensation followed by labeling. For example, there is a sensation when eating candy, followed by a label/thought "that was a sweet taste".

Does the sound ‘tweettweet’ suggest in any way that it is a bird?
Does the sensation ‘brrrr brrrr’ suggest in any way that it is cold?

When I'm perceiving or sensing, in the immediate experience there is no label. But the "tweet" perception is followed by the "that's a bird" label and the "brrr" sensation is followed by the "cold" label. So I guess these sensations must be suggesting different things.

When you scratch an itch, does it not feel different to the actual itch that made you scratch it in the first place? However, how is it known that the sensation labelled ‘itch’ and the sensation labelled ‘scratching itch’ are different?

Do the labels know anything an itch or scratching?
Do the sensations themselves know anything about an itch or scratching?
Do the sensations themselves suggest in any way that one is an itch and the other is a feeling of scratching?
Do the sensations labelled ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ suggest in any way that they are hot or cold?

The labels and the sensations don't know anything about itching or scratching.

So, if you cannot have more than one thought at a time, then the thought about being a separate self is not always present. If thought about 'self' is not always present, then is the 'sel'f actually present 24/7 as thought claims? And when thought claims that there is a 'self', do you actually LOOK to see if what thought is pointing at is AE or just thought story about AE? And if you look when thought claims there is a 'self' what do you actually find?

The thought about self is only present a small fraction of the time - I see that. When thought claims there is a self, I look and I experience different things. For example, the "head tension" which I've described, which I see can't be a "self". But I still feel somewhat stuck here. For example, right now the self thought just arose. When I looked, there was a sense that "I" am located in the center of my office. But I suppose that sense isn't an AE. There are just visual images, followed by a subtle thought that "I" am surrounded by them. But confusion still arises around this.

Bob

[forgetmenot]

Bob...we are getting nowhere fast. You aren't looking and you aren't answering my questions. You guess and suppose etc and that isn't looking.

Here is a link to a youtube clip which might assist you in LOOKING.

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

If I understand what you're asking, for all of these examples, there is just a sensation followed by labeling. For example, there is a sensation when eating candy, followed by a label/thought "that was a sweet taste".

And there is the problem in one. I don't want you to think to understand an answer...I want you to LOOK. You tell me if there was no labelling/thoughts...would there be content of the following?

What is the content of sound?
What is the content of colour?
What is the content of sensation?
What is the content of taste?
What is the content of smell?

And please don't tell me it is whatever colour you are seeing ie red, or whatever smell is appearing ie coffee. That is not what the questions are pointing to. If thought says the smell is coffee, describe the smell of coffee to me. Does the smell itself suggest in any way that it is coffee. Without thought, would the smell coffee be KNOWN?

When I focus on the body, I'm not aware of a sensation "body aliveness". What I experience is a sequence of sensations - a tingling in the arm followed by sensation in stomach, followed by etc. (I realize that "arm" and "stomach" are just labels added after the fact). When a sound arises, awareness immediately shifts to that sound, but the body sensation appears to no longer be present. So only one sensation at a time here.

So you are telling me that when you hear a sound, that there is nothing else going on? That you are not aware of thought or colour or smell...that all you know in that moment is sound? Do you go blind when you hear sound or deaf when you smell or 'mentally' blank when you eat?

How about using some initiative and find other things you can use in the place of my suggestions. If you found body sensation and sound a little difficult, there are other senses you can work with. So please LOOK again and answer my question. I will write another one.

Where does thought end and sound begin? Where does colour end and sound begin? Can you find a dividing line between thought and sound? Between colour and sound? If so, describe the dividing line to me. What does it look like and where is it placed EXACTLY?

The labels and the sensations don't know anything about itching or scratching.

Do the sensations know the difference between the sensation labelled 'itch' and the sensation labelled 'scratch' or are they both just the RAW experience of sensation, WHICH THOUGHT THEN LABELS AND SAYS THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT SENSATIONS? This question goes back to the question “is there sensation AND content? What is the content of a sensation?

When I'm perceiving or sensing, in the immediate experience there is no label. But the "tweet" perception is followed by the "that's a bird" label and the "brrr" sensation is followed by the "cold" label. So I guess these sensations must be suggesting different things.

Really? And here I can tell you haven't looked! How could a sensation possibly suggest different things when you yourself said that "tweet' IS FOLLOWED BY A THOUGHT "that's a bird". SO IS IT THE SOUND THAT IS SUGGESTING WHAT THE CONTENT OF THE SOUND IS, OR IS IT THOUGHT?

And once again, a sound in not a sensation. A sensation is either through touch or body sensations such as fear. Is sound either one of those?

The thought about self is only present a small fraction of the time - I see that. When thought claims there is a self, I look and I experience different things. For example, the "head tension" which I've described, which I see can't be a "self". But I still feel somewhat stuck here. For example, right now the self thought just arose. When I looked, there was a sense that "I" am located in the center of my office. But I suppose that sense isn't an AE. There are just visual images, followed by a subtle thought that "I" am surrounded by them. But confusion still arises around this.

So in ‘your’ current experience the story of a person being in an office is appearing, with that story there SEEMS to be visual effects that prove this to be fact...ie an office with all sort of office paraphernalia ie desk, chair, computer, filing cabinets, window, walls, door etc.

When you LOOK, what is the actual experience? SIMPLY colour….right?

What also appears is the thought “I am located in the center of my office”. Without thought how would that be known? Without thought, how would the idea that the colours that are appearing is an office with objects?

When you look at the “I” that is being referred to…what is the AE of this “I”? There is colour which thought labels as the body….right?

There is a thought that appears saying “I am located in the center of my office” and “I am surrounded by them”. What is the actual experience, SIMPLY thought….right? Is what thought is pointing to actual experience or thoughts about AE of colour?

Do you have any control over what thoughts appear and what they say? If the appearing thought said instead “I am a gnome that is standing in the center of my toadstool”, would that make it a fact? Would that make it actual experience anything other than the actual experience of colour + thought?

What is the content of thought?

How is it known that there is a ‘you/person’ in the CENTER of something? Does the body’s eyes see? Is there an actual body in the CENTER of an ‘office’?


Love, Kay
xx

[Bobf]

Hi,

Have to go out unexpectedly tonight - will post tomorrow.

Bob

[Bobf]

Dear Kay,

I have a feeling I should try a different guide. I very much appreciate your directness ("tough love") and your pushing me to look and to look often - that's been very helpful. However, whether you intend it or not, your responses to me often sound harsh and angry. You may not realize it, but I am trying hard to do exactly what you say. If I fail, its not for lack of trying.

When you say things like "we're getting nowhere fast", rather than inspiring/pushing me to look more, it makes me want to give up. But more importantly, it makes me reluctant to be honest with you about what I'm experiencing since you appear to be attacking me when you don't like my answer. For example, when I looked yesterday, it did appear to me that when a sudden sound appeared, my experience of seeing was suspended - there is just the sound. Maybe I wasn't looking carefully enough and I was "wrong" about this, or maybe my AE is just different from yours. But I was doing my best and that's the answer that came up.

Would it be possible for you to re-post my original request for a guide on the listserv? I am committed to this and will re-read your posts and try to follow through on all your good pointing. But I have a feeling I might click better with another person. By the way, the Scott Kiloby video was helpful.

Thanks,
Bob

[forgetmenot]

Hi Bob, I am sorry you feel that way. I am not attacking you but I can't help how you perceive things. I will ask for another guide.

Love, Kay
xx

[Matthew]

Hello Bob!

My name is Matthew and I'm happy to continue this conversation with you.
It sometimes happens that there is little resonance between a particular guide and a particular client.
No big deal. It happens.

Let us start fresh. Some questions might be repeated, but please, always have a fresh look on them.

In your own words:

What seems to be still in the way?
And:
In the way of WHAT exactly?

[Bobf]

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for volunteering to guide me - I appreciate it! No problem if we repeat old questions.

What seems to be still in the way?
And:
In the way of WHAT exactly?

In the various LU materials (the website, Ilona's book), people talk about having a sense of certainty that they've seen there is no self. I've had inklings of such seeing, but no certainty. I'm not looking for an earth-shattering experience, just being able to unequivocally say "I've looked and there's no self".

An alternative explanation is that I've looked, haven't found a self, but doubts immediately arise. By the way, Kay had sent me a link to a Scott Kiloby video in which it describes how to LOOK. I'm trying that now and it may be helpful.

Best wishes,
Bob

[Matthew]

In the various LU materials (the website, Ilona's book), people talk about having a sense of certainty that they've seen there is no self.

Having a sound background in understanding what this is about is of course a necessary prerequisite. But it can also give rise to expectations about how "it" could 'feel like' and 'be like'.
There is no possibility that the moment of this recognition can be expected by way of thought. No way. Ever.
Can you drop ALL expectations right here and right now?

An alternative explanation is that I've looked, haven't found a self, but doubts immediately arise.

So there are thoughts about doubt.
There are thoughts about food, thoughts about yesterday, thoughts about thinking...
There is all kinds of thought content. Also thought with the content "doubt".
When you look at a thought about doubt:
Can this, what apparently HAS the doubt be found?
There are thoughts about doubt, but does anything actually HAVE this doubt?

[Bobf]

There is no possibility that the moment of this recognition can be expected by way of thought. No way. Ever.
Can you drop ALL expectations right here and right now?

Yes. I could use a fresh start...

So there are thoughts about doubt.
There are thoughts about food, thoughts about yesterday, thoughts about thinking...
There is all kinds of thought content. Also thought with the content "doubt".
When you look at a thought about doubt:
Can this, what apparently HAS the doubt be found?
There are thoughts about doubt, but does anything actually HAVE this doubt?

two things:
1. When I relaxed and dropped all expectations, there was a spacious sense of just listening, just looking, etc., with no sense of self, location, etc.
2. In answer to your second question ("does anything actually have this doubt"), when I looked, I alternated between finding nothing and finding a sense of tension/feelings loosely "located" in the region of my head.


Bob

[Matthew]

I saw you've done similar inquiries with Kay before. But I want you to have a completely fresh look.

...when I looked, I alternated between finding nothing and finding a sense of tension/feelings loosely "located" in the region of my head.

For these questions, please take your time and find a comfortable spot.
Close your eyes for about 5 minutes and do nothing. You can do some calming excercise in advance if you wish to.
And then look:
Can you attend to the bodily sensations exclusively without considering thought?
Thought might tell that "you" or "your body" is lying down right now on a sofa and that you are feeling a comfortable pressure at your back and all sorts of other things.
But can you -in a relaxed way- dismiss these ideas for a moment and only notice sensations?

While attending only to sensations:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does it have a shape or a size?

Could pure sensation ever provide information like this?
Where only can this information come from?