The Gate

Hi there Kay :)

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight, meaning that the sensation is ‘coming from’ the sight (labelled as ‘hand’) or only thought and mental constructs link them?

The feeling of ‘hand’ is separate from seeing of ‘hand’ in AE, though thought labels both ‘my hand.’

Yes, nice observation. Here’s an interesting clip about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... e=youtu.be

Hah! What a cool experiment and it shows that thought has linked the fake hand with the sensation, as that is what is seen. Looking at and feeling the ‘hand’ while going cross-eyed is similarly confusing for thought, as it doesn’t know which seen ‘hand’ is the correct one (when looking without glasses haha).

Have been watching ‘thought’ and ‘sensation’ throughout my days, though it’s been noticed that when caught up in work or social activities, watching/noticing experience becomes more difficult and ‘self’ comes to the fore (identification with thought). Have noticed the degree to which complete identification with thought creates suffering – the labelling of sensations, identification with those labels and thought loops/stories create separation between ‘me’ and everyone else.

Yes, it SEEMS that when identifying with thought suffering appears.
What is it exactly that is “identifying with thought”?

Hmmm…a question for the ages. Attention/awareness is sticking to thoughts – the same awareness that can also witness thoughts without sticking to them. Beyond that, nothing can be found.

Does the word (= thought) suffering contain any actual suffering?

No, ‘suffering’ is empty and contains nothing. It is a label that thought ‘sticks’ on a sensation.

Does the word 'suffering' have any meaning at all?

NO. “Suffering”= gobbledygook

Okay, so when you look on the right, the view on the right is seen (whatever that is).
When you look on the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).
And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the view in front is seen (ie ‘black space’).
So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

No, seeing cannot be turned off. What is seen is seen – there is no control over what is seen.

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?

Same on the left.

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?

Cannot NOT see the black space – no control over what is seen.

Can you turn off seeing?

Nope – no control there.

What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?

No ‘chooser’ chose anything. There is only seeing AE – no seer to be found.

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

There is no choosing what to be aware of. Sensations, sights, sounds, smells and thoughts are all happening in awareness in the moment with no doer or chooser to be found. Wow!

Thought may seem to be a useful tool for negotiating the illusion of a 'person in the world', but it's still all conceptual knowledge about an illusory world - it can't give you any genuine knowledge about reality. Yet you know *everything* about reality by being *directly aware* of it.

Great insight, thanks Kay.

Can a dividing line be found between experience and ‘experiencer’? In other words can a dividing line be found between the known and the known ie knowingknown?

NO - No dividing line can be found between experience and experiencer - nada, zilch. There is ONLY experiencing in the moment. This is the biggest insight yet - thank you.

Lee xoxo

Hi Lee,

Yes, it SEEMS that when identifying with thought suffering appears.
What is it exactly that is “identifying with thought”?

Hmmm…a question for the ages. Attention/awareness is sticking to thoughts – the same awareness that can also witness thoughts without sticking to them. Beyond that, nothing can be found.

How do you know there is a witness, apart from just the obvious process of witnessing or observation? How is there a witness as an entity? Where is it? Does it actually exist?

Is there such a thing as awareness in which things appear? Is awareness ever actually experienced, or is it just an idea, an abstraction? Does it actually exist?

Can you find anything/anyone that is actually ‘awaring’? For something to be ‘awared’ means that there is a subject - the ‘awarer’ and the object – the ‘awared’.


Let’s give this exercise a go and see if a witness/observer/awarer can be found.

With eyes closed, take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust.
Then notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?
3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or is there just 'black’ to be found?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?

Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Okay….then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply colour?
Is there anything that is witnessing colour? Or is seeing and colour synonymous?

The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

No, seeing cannot be turned off. What is seen is seen – there is no control over what is seen.

Exactly!

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

There is no choosing what to be aware of. Sensations, sights, sounds, smells and thoughts are all happening in awareness in the moment with no doer or chooser to be found. Wow!

Fantastic and yes, it certainly is a Wow when it is seen!

Can a dividing line be found between experience and ‘experiencer’? In other words can a dividing line be found between the known and the known ie knowingknown?

NO - No dividing line can be found between experience and experiencer - nada, zilch. There is ONLY experiencing in the moment. This is the biggest insight yet - thank you.

And even look at the idea of ‘experiencing’. Experiencing is a verb…it is a doing. Can you find anyone/anything that is actually experiencing thought, sound, taste, smell, colour, sensation? Does not ‘experiencing’ still point to an experiencer of experience? Where does experience end and you begin?

Let’s look further at the idea of 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?

Kay

Hi Kay,
I may not answer this straight away as there is a lot here to look at.

Lee xx

Hey Lee...yes, there is a bit to look at...so yes, take the time your need.

Kay

Hello Kay,

Yes, it SEEMS that when identifying with thought suffering appears.
What is it exactly that is “identifying with thought”?

Hmmm…a question for the ages. Attention/awareness is sticking to thoughts – the same awareness that can also witness thoughts without sticking to them. Beyond that, nothing can be found.

How do you know there is a witness, apart from just the obvious process of witnessing or observation? How is there a witness as an entity? Where is it? Does it actually exist?

Looking hard turns up nothing – no witness to be found. The ‘sticking’ to thought is done by thought itself – analyzing and commenting on itself.

Is there such a thing as awareness in which things appear? Is awareness ever actually experienced, or is it just an idea, an abstraction? Does it actually exist?

Have written and rewritten this multiple times and am just seeing what this means. ‘Awareness’ is a label that connotes a ‘witness’ or ‘watcher,’ therefore an entity of some kind. A witness or entity labelled ‘awareness’ has not been found.

Can you find anything/anyone that is actually ‘awaring’? For something to be ‘awared’ means that there is a subject - the ‘awarer’ and the object – the ‘awared’.

No – a separate ‘awarer’ cannot be found of objects that are ‘awared,’ because hearing, seeing, smelling, sensation and thought are arising right now and that is all that is known.

Let’s give this exercise a go and see if a witness/observer/awarer can be found.
With eyes closed, take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust.
Then notice there is the experience of 'blackness'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.
1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is simply AE of colour labelled ‘black’?

yes

2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than seeing ‘black’?

No

3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?

Thought keeps saying “I am seeing” but that is just thought. Cannot find any entity that is seeing black. Only seeing.

4)Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?

Only sensation is felt where thought labels ‘eyes.’ Am looking and looking and cannot find a person or “I” that is seeing – drawing a blank. Sensation labelled ‘confusion’ arising.

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or is there just 'black’ to be found?

There is only black to be found – cannot find an actual witness.

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?

A dividing line cannot be found between seeing/colour. The thought/image of ‘closed eyes’ is there; sensation is there; colour labelled ‘blackness’ is there/seen.

Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

NO see-er can be found anywhere in the AE of colour.

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

In AE, no see-er can be found and it can only be a concept/thought/idea. Thought passes by, claiming to be “I” – that is all that can be found.

Okay….then open the eyes and look around.
Is there a difference between the ‘black’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply colour?

Both are colour plus thought labels.

Is there anything that is witnessing colour? Or is seeing and colour synonymous?

They are synonymous when focus is there. When focus is not there, all ‘colour’ becomes labelled objects outside of a ‘self’ again – sensation labelled ‘frustration’ arising (being honest here Kay).

And even look at the idea of ‘experiencing’. Experiencing is a verb…it is a doing. Can you find anyone/anything that is actually experiencing thought, sound, taste, smell, colour, sensation? Does not ‘experiencing’ still point to an experiencer of experience? Where does experience end and you begin?

Thank you for pointing out that there is still identification here. Looking turns up no “I” who is doing the ‘eperiencing.’

Let’s look further at the idea of 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?

Woah! Have no idea! Thought keeps saying “I” am controlling it.

Does a thought control it?

No, because the movement happens with or without thought, or when thought is thinking about something totally unrelated.

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No it can’t. Sensation labelled ‘confusion’ arising again. Sensation and colour arising when “hand” is moved, that is all that is known.

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.

This is confusing. Thought itself is not making the decision to turn the hand over, yet it appears to “know” what will happen before it happens. Need to explore this further today.

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

Cannot find a “decision maker” anywhere.
All of this has been challenging, as "I" is very sticky and inserts itself cleverly into every exercise. Need to practice all of it more.

Lee xox

Good morning Lee,

Is there such a thing as awareness in which things appear? Is awareness ever actually experienced, or is it just an idea, an abstraction? Does it actually exist?

Have written and rewritten this multiple times and am just seeing what this means. ‘Awareness’ is a label that connotes a ‘witness’ or ‘watcher,’ therefore an entity of some kind. A witness or entity labelled ‘awareness’ has not been found.

Exactly…it is just a matter of looking right now to see if a “witness/awarer” can be found.
Thought can be found but can a “witness/awarer” be found in thought itself?
Sound can be found but can a “witness/awarer” be found in sound itself?
Colour can be found, but a “witness/awarer” be found in colour itself?
Sensation can be found, but can a “witness/awarer” be found in sensation itself?
Smell can be found, but can a “witness/awarer” be found in smell itself?
Taste can be found, but can a “witness/awarer” be found in taste itself?

The story about there being a someone/something that is witnessing/awaring thought, colour, sensation, smell, and taste can be found, but can a “witness/awarer” actually be found? Or is “witnessing/awaring” just happening, but not happening to a someone/something?

Can you find anything/anyone that is actually ‘awaring’? For something to be ‘awared’ means that there is a subject - the ‘awarer’ and the object – the ‘awared’.

No – a separate ‘awarer’ cannot be found of objects that are ‘awared,’ because hearing, seeing, smelling, sensation and thought are arising right now and that is all that is known.

Are you aware of a person, objects, and space at all? Or are you only knowing of/as experience?
For a colour to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ of/as colour! Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ of colour and colour itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?


Coloursoundthoughtsensationtastesmell = experience itself. Thought seemingly divides experience into these categories…but is colour different to sound? Is colour ‘made of’ something different to sound…or are they ‘made of’ the same ‘substance’ ie experience itself?

3) Can what is seeing ‘black’ found?

Thought keeps saying “I am seeing” but that is just thought. Cannot find any entity that is seeing black. Only seeing.

Story cannot be changed, if it could, you'd be a thinker of thought.

Thought says many things, but unless it is pointing to AE, then it is simply a story.So in that sense, not everything is story. It looks like it could be until you look a little closer.
Sound labelled "tweettweet" isn't story, it is the AE of sound, but story can say that a blue bird down the street made that sound.
Taste labelled "sweet" isn't a story, it is AE of taste, but story can be, "I love chocolate ice cream."
Colour isn't story, but thought could say, "Wow! What a spectacular sunset!"
Now, if image labelled "spectacular sunset," isn't experience as you presently find it to be, then it IS story.
Can you see the difference?

4)Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ ‘black’?

Only sensation is felt where thought labels ‘eyes.’ Am looking and looking and cannot find a person or “I” that is seeing – drawing a blank. Sensation labelled ‘confusion’ arising.

Nice looking! :)

Have a look at what the AE of ‘confusion’ is.

The label ‘confusion’ is AE of thought and not AE of confusion
The sensation labelled ‘confusion’ is AE of sensation and not AE of confusion
The colour labelled ‘me/I/body’ is AE of colour and not AE of a confusion me.
The arising thoughts about ‘confusion’ ie what it is, why it appeared and who it is happening to are AE of thought and not AE of someone confused.

So what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thought…but can anything actually be found that is ‘confused’?

Are you not aware of all of the above? Are you ever confused when label, sensation and colour, and the story about a ‘me’ who is confused appear? Knowing about something is thought, whereas the knowing AS (the appearance) is direct. You always know exactly 'what is' by being directly aware of what is. You aren't the least bit confused or deluded - it's just *thought* that doesn't know what is going on because thought knows nothing! Confusion is showing up in the show that is never confused about what shows up in it. :)

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘black’? Or is there just 'black’ to be found?

There is only black to be found – cannot find an actual witness.

Yes, exactly, if there anything to be found in the blackness that is an actual witness, it would be easily seen, yes?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?

A dividing line cannot be found between seeing/colour. The thought/image of ‘closed eyes’ is there; sensation is there; colour labelled ‘blackness’ is there/seen.

So seeing and knowing are one and the same. Seeing of colour and seeing of seeing are one and the same = colour
Are seeing and knowing separate or are they one and the same. Is seeing of colour and seeing of seeing different, or are they are one and the same ie colour?

Is there anything that is witnessing colour? Or is seeing and colour synonymous?

They are synonymous when focus is there. When focus is not there, all ‘colour’ becomes labelled objects outside of a ‘self’ again – sensation labelled ‘frustration’ arising (being honest here Kay).

Are you the author of thought? Can you control what labels/thoughts appear or when they appear?

Is there expectation here, that ALL thoughts and labels will eventually fall away and all there will be is silence, and that no seeming objects will be seen…that somehow everything just becomes one big abstract universe or some such? There has NEVER been a separate self – a Leeself, ever, not even one now who is reading this, and yet thoughts/labels have always appeared….so why would that change? All that changes is that you see the stories that labels/thoughts tell for what they really are ie stories.

If thought appears saying “I am frustrated”. Does the thought “I am frustrated” contain any actual frustration? Replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains. Let me know how you go.

Does a thought control it?

No, because the movement happens with or without thought, or when thought is thinking about something totally unrelated.

Yes, exactly! :)

Can a ‘controller’ of any description be located?

No it can’t. Sensation labelled ‘confusion’ arising again. Sensation and colour arising when “hand” is moved, that is all that is known.

Now might be a good time to revisit the exercise we did about looking to see if sensation is coming from sight - the object seen, in that exercise and this exercise…the ‘hand’.

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.

This is confusing. Thought itself is not making the decision to turn the hand over, yet it appears to “know” what will happen before it happens. Need to explore this further today.

Have you ever found yourself idly scratching an itch without being aware of any thought about scratching it or being aware of any movement to scratch it? Or when driving have you ever gotten ‘lost in thought’ but then noticed that somehow you travelled safely on a busy highway, lost all sense of "I am driving" and somehow still got to your destination perfectly safe?

All of this has been challenging, as "I" is very sticky and inserts itself cleverly into every exercise. Need to practice all of it more.

The experience is often that there is an illusory 'me', but is it clear that this is always a thought about a 'me'?

Seeing through the illusion of “I” doesn’t mean you will lose the “I” and with it your whole identity. The “I” doesn’t exist and never has.

With love, Kay

Morning Kay,
it's coming - just taking some time to really contemplate these questions.

Lee xox

The story about there being a someone/something that is witnessing/awaring thought, colour, sensation, smell, and taste can be found, but can a “witness/awarer” actually be found? Or is “witnessing/awaring” just happening, but not happening to a someone/something?

No witness/awarer can be found in any of the sensations or thought – they are just happening – the seeing, the hearing, the smelling, the sensations, the thoughts. A revelation came during contemplation of this; that what was always thought of as “I” moving attention and awareness around the body to notice sensations in meditation is actually just thought projecting a mental image of the ‘body part’ – not ‘awareness’ or ‘attention’ at all. This is the same mental image of the self that is projected 'out' into the world. Realisation deepening Kay, just slowly here haha.

Can you find anything/anyone that is actually ‘awaring’? For something to be ‘awared’ means that there is a subject - the ‘awarer’ and the object – the ‘awared’.

No – a separate ‘awarer’ cannot be found of objects that are ‘awared,’ because hearing, seeing, smelling, sensation and thought are arising right now and that is all that is known.

Are you aware of a person, objects, and space at all? Or are you only knowing of/as experience?

When AE is focused on, there is only the seeing, the hearing, the thoughts etc – there is no person, objects or space. The illusion of person, objects and space is still being believed in off and on throughout the day, though it has been recognized that no separate entity exists “inside” a body.

For a colour to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ of/as colour! Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ of colour and colour itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?

There is ‘knowing’ of colour labelled ‘black’ (the known) – and there is no dividing line to be found between the two (they are not two – they are one).

Coloursoundthoughtsensationtastesmell = experience itself. Thought seemingly divides experience into these categories…but is colour different to sound? Is colour ‘made of’ something different to sound…or are they ‘made of’ the same ‘substance’ ie experience itself?

All coloursoundthoughtsensationtastesmell arise out of and pass away into emptiness – they are all made out of this ‘emptiness’ whether on the apparent outside or the apparent inside. Apparent ‘colour’ is arising out of the same ‘substance’ as apparent ‘sound’ and being labelled by ‘thought’ which is also arising out of the same ‘substance.’

Thought says many things, but unless it is pointing to AE, then it is simply a story.So in that sense, not everything is story. It looks like it could be until you look a little closer.
Sound labelled "tweettweet" isn't story, it is the AE of sound, but story can say that a blue bird down the street made that sound.
Taste labelled "sweet" isn't a story, it is AE of taste, but story can be, "I love chocolate ice cream."
Colour isn't story, but thought could say, "Wow! What a spectacular sunset!"
Now, if image labelled "spectacular sunset," isn't experience as you presently find it to be, then it IS story.
Can you see the difference?

Everything that is not a direct label by thought of what is being experienced is a story ‘outside’ of direct experience, and a fabrication of thought. “loud engine” is the label for direct experience right now. “I reckon the loud engine I hear revving out there is that hoon with the hotted up V-8 who lives round the corner” is a story.

Have a look at what the AE of ‘confusion’ is.
The label ‘confusion’ is AE of thought and not AE of confusion
The sensation labelled ‘confusion’ is AE of sensation and not AE of confusion
The colour labelled ‘me/I/body’ is AE of colour and not AE of a confusion me.
The arising thoughts about ‘confusion’ ie what it is, why it appeared and who it is happening to are AE of thought and not AE of someone confused.
So what is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thought…but can anything actually be found that is ‘confused’?

Nope, confusion is just an appearing thought/colour/sensation arising out of emptiness.

Are you not aware of all of the above?

Just slow at fully realizing what it is. Realization is also coming and going with the day – sometimes it is clearer than others.

Are you ever confused when label, sensation and colour, and the story about a ‘me’ who is confused appear? Knowing about something is thought, whereas the knowing AS (the appearance) is direct. You always know exactly 'what is' by being directly aware of what is. You aren't the least bit confused or deluded - it's just *thought* that doesn't know what is going on because thought knows nothing! Confusion is showing up in the show that is never confused about what shows up in it. :)

Yes, I see it is thought that ‘thinks’ it is confused.

There is only black to be found – cannot find an actual witness.

Yes, exactly, if there anything to be found in the blackness that is an actual witness, it would be easily seen, yes?
If there was a witness to be found in the ‘blackness’ “it” would be showing up in some form or other that would be recognized.

Yes, a witness would be easy to find/recognise if there was one.

A dividing line cannot be found between seeing/colour. The thought/image of ‘closed eyes’ is there; sensation is there; colour labelled ‘blackness’ is there/seen.

So seeing and knowing are one and the same. Seeing of colour and seeing of seeing are one and the same = colour
Are seeing and knowing separate or are they one and the same. Is seeing of colour and seeing of seeing different, or are they are one and the same ie colour?

‘Seeing of seeing’ (knowing) cannot be distinguished in AE from ‘seeing’ of colour. Same as if “fingers” touch the “computer” – knowing of the sensation cannot be distinguished from the sensation itself – the sensing IS the knowing of it.

Is there anything that is witnessing colour? Or is seeing and colour synonymous?

They are synonymous when focus is there. When focus is not there, all ‘colour’ becomes labelled objects outside of a ‘self’ again – sensation labelled ‘frustration’ arising (being honest here Kay).

Are you the author of thought? Can you control what labels/thoughts appear or when they appear?

No control here over what labels/images/thoughts appear. Thoughts arise and pass – there is no author of them.

Is there expectation here, that ALL thoughts and labels will eventually fall away and all there will be is silence, and that no seeming objects will be seen…that somehow everything just becomes one big abstract universe or some such? There has NEVER been a separate self – a Leeself, ever, not even one now who is reading this, and yet thoughts/labels have always appeared….so why would that change? All that changes is that you see the stories that labels/thoughts tell for what they really are ie stories.

Not quite. More a desire to know emptiness even while engaged in work/interaction with others, and not the sticking to thought that leads down the rabbit hole of illusion. But it is seen that even ‘desire’ is a projection of thought into the future coupled with sensation – a story, as you say that is not labelling any AE.

If thought appears saying “I am frustrated”. Does the thought “I am frustrated” contain any actual frustration? Replace that thought with “blahblahblah” and see what remains. Let me know how you go.

No, ‘frustrated’ is just a label, no different in content to ‘blahblahblah.’ What is experienced is sensation only plus label plus thought story about ‘frustration.’

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.

This is confusing. Thought itself is not making the decision to turn the hand over, yet it appears to “know” what will happen before it happens. Need to explore this further today.

Have you ever found yourself idly scratching an itch without being aware of any thought about scratching it or being aware of any movement to scratch it? Or when driving have you ever gotten ‘lost in thought’ but then noticed that somehow you travelled safely on a busy highway, lost all sense of "I am driving" and somehow still got to your destination perfectly safe?

Definitely all of the above. This type of exploration into ‘how the ship is being steered’ is where the feeling of an “I” is the stickiest. Thought is clearly not the author of movement, as thought can be telling the hand adamantly to move, while the hand stays still. Years of societal conditioning has reiterated free will in every facet of society and suddenly this is being challenged to the core. The central experience is that there is no “I’ yet the feeling is hardest to shake when it comes to how apparent choices are really made (ie; there is no choice whatsoever). AE says that nothing is ‘making’ the hand move, yet there is a strong feeling of an “I’ making a choice. Will continue observing this vigilantly.

The experience is often that there is an illusory 'me', but is it clear that this is always a thought about a 'me'?

Yes, it is clear that this is always a thought/image or assumption about a ‘me.’

Hello Lee,

The story about there being a someone/something that is witnessing/awaring thought, colour, sensation, smell, and taste can be found, but can a “witness/awarer” actually be found? Or is “witnessing/awaring” just happening, but not happening to a someone/something?

No witness/awarer can be found in any of the sensations or thought – they are just happening – the seeing, the hearing, the smelling, the sensations, the thoughts. A revelation came during contemplation of this; that what was always thought of as “I” moving attention and awareness around the body to notice sensations in meditation is actually just thought projecting a mental image of the ‘body part’ – not ‘awareness’ or ‘attention’ at all. This is the same mental image of the self that is projected 'out' into the world. Realisation deepening Kay, just slowly here haha.

Awesome revelation! I think your pace of realisations is great! You are not rushing, you are looking carefully and realisations are happening. When a realisation happens it cannot be unrealised no matter if thought appears saying that at times realisations seems to ‘be lost’. So realisations appear to be lost, but then realisations also appear to reappear, it is just how the show is appearing, as the show is fluid and seemingly changes constantly.

Are you aware of a person, objects, and space at all? Or are you only knowing of/as experience?

When AE is focused on, there is only the seeing, the hearing, the thoughts etc – there is no person, objects or space. The illusion of person, objects and space is still being believed in off and on throughout the day, though it has been recognized that no separate entity exists “inside” a body.

Nice! Yo-yoing, the seeing of and then the veiling of what has been realised happens and will continue to happen for some time, even after the no self has been realised. It is part and parcel of the whole process. Thoughts will continue appearing about being a person, as will thoughts that point to colour and then label them as some object, and none of that matters. What eventually happens is that it just becomes a knowing, no matter what thought says or seemingly “feels” like, that there is no person. But that does take time and will not happen during our exploration. Looking still needs to happen after we are done exploring.

For a colour to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ of/as colour! Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ of colour and colour itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?

There is ‘knowing’ of colour labelled ‘black’ (the known) – and there is no dividing line to be found between the two (they are not two – they are one).

Yes, so is colour, sound, thought, sensation etc actually arising, or they are simply experience itself/THIS appearing exactly as it is?

Can you see the difference?

Everything that is not a direct label by thought of what is being experienced is a story ‘outside’ of direct experience, and a fabrication of thought. “loud engine” is the label for direct experience right now. “I reckon the loud engine I hear revving out there is that hoon with the hotted up V-8 who lives round the corner” is a story.

Nice and clear, Lee!

Are you not aware of all of the above?

Just slow at fully realizing what it is. Realization is also coming and going with the day – sometimes it is clearer than others.

That’s okay…it’s my role to be the ‘nagging’ pointer who keeps on pointing so your realisation deepens 

Is there expectation here, that ALL thoughts and labels will eventually fall away and all there will be is silence, and that no seeming objects will be seen…that somehow everything just becomes one big abstract universe or some such? There has NEVER been a separate self – a Leeself, ever, not even one now who is reading this, and yet thoughts/labels have always appeared….so why would that change? All that changes is that you see the stories that labels/thoughts tell for what they really are ie stories.

Not quite. More a desire to know emptiness even while engaged in work/interaction with others, and not the sticking to thought that leads down the rabbit hole of illusion. But it is seen that even ‘desire’ is a projection of thought into the future coupled with sensation – a story, as you say that is not labelling any AE.

Emptiness is nothing but an idea, however the inherent 'emptiness' of appearances can be realised but the knowing NEVER shows up "empty". The knowing always only shows up with what is known. One cannot be without the other - since they are one and the same thing! And the stories about colour, sensation, etc being a character called Lee is known, it is not?

Have you ever found yourself idly scratching an itch without being aware of any thought about scratching it or being aware of any movement to scratch it? Or when driving have you ever gotten ‘lost in thought’ but then noticed that somehow you travelled safely on a busy highway, lost all sense of "I am driving" and somehow still got to your destination perfectly safe?

Definitely all of the above. This type of exploration into ‘how the ship is being steered’ is where the feeling of an “I” is the stickiest. Thought is clearly not the author of movement, as thought can be telling the hand adamantly to move, while the hand stays still. Years of societal conditioning has reiterated free will in every facet of society and suddenly this is being challenged to the core. The central experience is that there is no “I’ yet the feeling is hardest to shake when it comes to how apparent choices are really made (ie; there is no choice whatsoever). AE says that nothing is ‘making’ the hand move, yet there is a strong feeling of an “I’ making a choice. Will continue observing this vigilantly.

Let’s say that you have lost your keys and you swear that you left them in your coat. You go to look and check all the pockets - the keys are not there. You swear they must be as that was the last place you remember them. You have a vivid memory of putting them there after you left the house. But when you check they are not there. At this point you can keep believing the keys are in your pocket or you can admit you were mistaken. This is just like that. You may see clearly that the self is an illusion but still feel a sense of self - just like the keys. But feeling something to be true and seeing that it is or is not is different. This is why we may find ourselves coming back to your expectations at the start and at the end.


Now, I’d like to ask you to explore this SENSE of self very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING it.

Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire…

Does the sense of self have a location?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?


Love, Kay

Nice! Yo-yoing, the seeing of and then the veiling of what has been realised happens and will continue to happen for some time, even after the no self has been realised. It is part and parcel of the whole process. Thoughts will continue appearing about being a person, as will thoughts that point to colour and then label them as some object, and none of that matters. What eventually happens is that it just becomes a knowing, no matter what thought says or seemingly “feels” like, that there is no person. But that does take time and will not happen during our exploration. Looking still needs to happen after we are done exploring.

Good to know, thanks.

For a colour to be ‘known’ then there must be a ‘knowing’ of/as colour! Can a dividing line be found between the ‘knowing’ of colour and colour itself? Or is there only ‘knowingknown’?

There is ‘knowing’ of colour labelled ‘black’ (the known) – and there is no dividing line to be found between the two (they are not two – they are one).

Yes, so is colour, sound, thought, sensation etc actually arising, or they are simply experience itself/THIS appearing exactly as it is?

Knowing of sensation, thought, sound, smell etc are one with the sensations, thought, sound, smell etc (the known). The knowing and the known are the same ‘substance.’

That’s okay…it’s my role to be the ‘nagging’ pointer who keeps on pointing so your realisation deepens

The lady with the zen stick haha. Whatever it takes 😊

And the stories about colour, sensation, etc being a character called Lee is known, it is not?

Slowly becoming clearer.

Now, I’d like to ask you to explore this SENSE of self very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING it.
Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire…
Does the sense of self have a location?

Practiced different movements and sounds here while focusing on finding what was causing the movements – some completely random without any thought; some with a thought and inner ‘push’ but no actual movement (tension came up in stomach area for this one – felt like resistance); thought “commanding” movement along with sound. Also watched during the day what was happening internally while things were ‘decided’ and done. Could not find the location of what was making the movements/actions happen.

Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

Cannot find any shape or size.

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?

No, whatever is making the movements happen is beyond thought or language. Actually what was discovered is that thought is coming out of the same ‘thing,’ ‘place,’ ‘substance’ as movement, actions, speech etc. The thought that can precede a movement can feel like “I’m” making a decision, because thought is coming out of the same ‘place’ the movement is coming from – so it “comments” on what will happen before it happens, making it feel like a ‘decision’ was made internally. Kay, as this was discovered, there has been a massive energy release in the form of deep yawns that went on for about 15-20 mins.

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

No.

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

Thought only.

Hello Lee,

Yes, so is colour, sound, thought, sensation etc actually arising, or they are simply experience itself/THIS appearing exactly as it is?

Knowing of sensation, thought, sound, smell etc are one with the sensations, thought, sound, smell etc (the known). The knowing and the known are the same ‘substance.’

Great…so is anything actually arising or experience always simply IS? Can you see how thought divides experience into ‘things’ and says that they are something different and separate to experience itself and that they are all appearing at different times?

This exercise looks at the above a little closer, via the ‘sense of seeing’, if there is a ‘you’ who is the central figure, that is looking out to ‘things’ out there…that there is an inside and an outside ie a me here and an out there.

Sit in a chair somewhere quiet and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and start to notice just the ‘body’, the chair, floor, rugs, furniture and walls. Without thought, all there is, is colour which thought then labels as clothes, or body, chair, wall etc (we are only looking at colour for this exercise).

Now look carefully.
1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?
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 ‘furniturel’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour
3. 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 simply colour?
What do you find?

Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply seamless colour which thought divides into ‘things’ and further divides in into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?

Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

That’s okay…it’s my role to be the ‘nagging’ pointer who keeps on pointing so your realisation deepens

The lady with the zen stick haha. Whatever it takes 😊

Yes…I have been known to bring out the zen whip occasionally! ;) :D

And the stories about colour, sensation, etc being a character called Lee is known, it is not?

Slowly becoming clearer.

If you look right now, what do you see/find? It is as simple as that.

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

Thought only.

Nice!

So let’s try that exercise again but using the idea of a feeling like the feeling that you put your keys in your pocket but when you go to get them, they are not there…but you could swear that that is where you put the. It’s that type of feeling I want you to look at now. “Even though I look and see there is no ‘me, it still feels like there is a me”. That feeling…it’s not a sensation, but just a feeling - an imprinted idea, if you like.

Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire…

Does the sense of self have a location?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

Kay

Great…so is anything actually arising or experience always simply IS? Can you see how thought divides experience into ‘things’ and says that they are something different and separate to experience itself and that they are all appearing at different times?

Experience just is – nothing separate is arising outside experience. Thought makes everything into ‘object’ separate from ‘subject.’ Not sure what you mean by ‘they are all appearing at different times?’

Sit in a chair somewhere quiet and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and start to notice just the ‘body’, the chair, floor, rugs, furniture and walls. Without thought, all there is, is colour which thought then labels as clothes, or body, chair, wall etc (we are only looking at colour for this exercise).
Now look carefully.
1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?

No, it can’t – it is 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 ‘furniturel’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour

No – what looks like a dividing line is just more 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 simply colour?
What do you find?

No dividing line between floor and furniture – only colour. Only colour is seen between floor, furniture and wall. When looking around the ‘room’ only colour is seen in varying gradations.

Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colours” or are they just simply seamless colour which thought divides into ‘things’ and further divides in into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?

There are no dividing lines between any of the ‘colours.’ They are all varying shades of colour that thought labels into separate things, plus gives the colours names.

Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?

NO, because the seeing and the seen are one. All that is actually being experienced is seamless colour without separation. Space/distance does not exist in AE. Closing the eyes and experiencing sounds, sensation, smells as one seamless experience is no different to open eyes and experiencing all colour as blends of a whole.

Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?

‘Body’ or ‘I’ is also just colour blending in with the whole.

So let’s try that exercise again but using the idea of a feeling like the feeling that you put your keys in your pocket but when you go to get them, they are not there…but you could swear that that is where you put the. It’s that type of feeling I want you to look at now. “Even though I look and see there is no ‘me, it still feels like there is a me”. That feeling…it’s not a sensation, but just a feeling - an imprinted idea, if you like.

Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire…

Does the sense of self have a location?

It’s very strange but when the ‘feeling’ of “I” is focused on, it slips away – cannot be actually found. Have been looking at this again and again over the past couple of days and the ‘feeling’ has no actual substance. Definitely no location.

Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

No

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?

What was thought of as “self” communicating is actually just thought, so no.

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

No.

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

Sensation and thought seem to make up this sense of ‘self.’ Outside of those, nothing can be found.

Hello Lee,

Wonderful LOOKING! :)

Great…so is anything actually arising or experience always simply IS? Can you see how thought divides experience into ‘things’ and says that they are something different and separate to experience itself and that they are all appearing at different times?

Experience just is – nothing separate is arising outside experience. Thought makes everything into ‘object’ separate from ‘subject.’ Not sure what you mean by ‘they are all appearing at different times?’

It seems as if ‘things’ ie smell, taste, sensations etc are appearing at different intervals. Is what thought labels as ‘smell’ your current experience now? When a sensation appears, does not thought seemingly appear after the sensation and label it ‘pain’,’ fear’, ‘excitement’ etc? So, through the idea of division, time is born, as is cause and effect.

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?

Sensation and thought seem to make up this sense of ‘self.’ Outside of those, nothing can be found.

It is simply thought that points to sensation and then says ‘it’s the sense of self’.
Sensation labelled as 'sense of self' is AE of sensation, not AE of 'self/I'.

Does sensation itself suggest in any way that it is the ‘senses of self’?
Does sensation itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about the ‘sense of self’?
Does thought know anything about sensations or ‘sense of self’?
Does thought know anything about thoughts?


So now would be an ideal time to start to look at the idea of the body.

Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.

Kay

Hi Kay 😊

Does sensation itself suggest in any way that it is the ‘senses of self’?

No it doesn’t.

Does sensation itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about the ‘sense of self’?

No

Does thought know anything about sensations or ‘sense of self’?

No, thoughts don’t know anything about sensations or ‘sense of self.’

Does thought know anything about thoughts?

No.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

In AE, no.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

In AE, no.

In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

No, though separating the mental image of the body form from actual sensation is sticky. It can be experienced if it is sat with long enough, though it doesn’t last long before mental image comes back.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

No, only sensation and colour.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No.

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

Inside and outside are not AE – only sensation.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?

The word/label ‘body’ refers to sensation and colour.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Sensation with eyes closed; sensation and colour with eyes open.

Lee xox

Just wanted to add, strong focus on AE in meditation is bringing a sensation of the body expanded out beyond the usual sensations of a 'confined' body. All the 'senses' including sound and 'blackness' are also expanded out as one - very hard to describe.