RiverRock

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Still struggling with accessing and navigating the site throughout today. LU only site I am having this problem with and it’s the same issue whether I try on my laptop or my phone. And when I tried a site called “Is it down right now” it tells me the problem is with LU site. If you are not having any similar comments from anyone alse let me know and I’ll look again if it’s my side.

Have a careful look and tell me what the AE of ‘emotion’ is.

AE of emotion is sensation, plain and simple. I had previously thought, perhaps stupidly, that thought and emotion were intertwined and somehow the same thing. But the more you look at it you realise that is not the case at all. It is sort of as if thought is the data running over the process (interpreting, analysing, giving meaning) and emotion (i.e. sensation) is almost something mechanical, physical, corporeal happening "beneath" it. Maybe that's not a good way to put it but they are not the same thing.

Without thought how is it known whether a sensation is pleasant or unpleasant?

It isn't. Without thought it isn't known whether anything is pleasant or unpleasant, good or bad.

I have been continuing to do my 15 minute exercises to watch thought/gaps/emotion and I find it a very useful tool. Let me share with you my experience this morning.

But maybe I can give a bit of context. My life is not ideal at the moment and hasn't been for a few years. I am trying to keep a failing business afloat and while doing so am a long way from my family. So things are not great and I often have a tense, heavy feeling in my chest which I have known in the past and have always associated with anxiety. It is often there when I wake up and there throughout most of the day although I don't always notice it.

Sitting in my session I had intended to focus again on thoughts & gaps but this feeling in my chest got my attention so I decided to stay with it a while. I have found in the past when you get unpleasant feelings, even pain, when you move into it rather than resist it, it somehow can dissolve. Anyway I sat with this sensation for quite a long time. I read somewhere in one of the LU books about talking to these feelings, so I welcomed this feeling in my chest and said it could hang around for as long as it wanted. I embraced it and sat together with it. The unpleasantness of it (associated with my failure, inadequacy) seemed to soften but the feeling itself remained. I asked it why it had come to me but didn't get any kind of answer. On closer inspection the feeling wasn't a general chest feeling but rather located at the heart, although I hadn't noticed that before. I was looking, not analysing or thinking. Just being with the feeling and trying to not think too much but still asking it questions. As a feeling, just a feeling, it was inseparable from the kind of feelings I would get with depression, or love, or even elation, just a strong bodily feeling around the chest/heart area, like a kind of soft pressure. The sensation itself, without meaning, was not unpleasant. And after a while the message that it wanted to give me, although it didn't "say" anything was this. I am just a sensation, nothing more or less. I am here for as long as I will be here and then I will be gone.

Fantastic to hear that you are starting to see that you are not the thinker of thought! That usually takes people some time to see…so you are doing great guns!

Don't give me more credit than I'm due, Kay. Starting. Maybe. Most of my experience of thought day to day is total immersion. But during the quiet watching thinking exercises, that is where the process is clearer to me and I can see I am not the thinker.

In actual experience, can you separate thought from the knowing of it?

No you can't

Is there any line where one stops and the other starts?

No there isn't. They are seamless. Although my gaps suggest to me that there is a time when they start and then finish. Although hold on a minute. When you do think about it, all experiences are always there sound, colour, taste, smell, sensation, to a greater or lesser extent, whether they happen to be in our focus or not. (I guess experience is different from attention?) So, there isn't a time when sound or colour stop and then start again. So I guess the same could be said of thought. The state of thought is always there(??).

Can you actually separate a thought from the knowing of them? Are there two things?

No you can't. They are the same thing.

Is there a dividing line between the knowing of/as thought and the thought itself?

No there isn't.

Do you ever find thought without knowing of the thought?

No, thought can't exist without experience. Knowing of it.

Do you ever find knowing of the thought without thought?

No.

I guess where all this troubles me, and it is the same with your point that the gaps and the thought are the same, is that I just want to see the thoughts float by, I have spent my whole life being those thoughts and I don't want to be them any more. I want them to be foreign things that I can brush off and, I guess, dismiss. You are suggesting that the knowing of the thought and the thought are the same thing which, at least to me, sucks me back into the thoughts again.

But, at the same time, I accept your point that in AE, the knowing of something (eg a sound) and the thing are the same thing. It is just that it is easier for me to accept that for sounds, colours, tastes, etc, than thought, coz that's what I want to get away from.

Hmmm....you couldn't see what I was pointing to. I am not taking away ‘gaps’…what I am pointing to is, if you drop the label ‘gaps’ and drop the label ‘thoughts’ what remains? Go back to the tree painting which I used as an analogy for experience itself and appearances. Did the paint become the tree or is the tree experience itself which thought then labels as ‘tree’?

That being the case is there an actual difference between a gap and thought?

If you drop the labels gaps and thoughts what remains is AE of thought, or to put it more simply, Experience. And in that sense there is not a difference between gap and thought. It is all actual experience. But I'm sure you understand my point as well which is that the gap feels nice and the thought doesn't.

Going back to your example of the tree painting we got that what was appearing was a tree but that was just thought that said there was a tree. All there was, was paint, and the paint didn't become a tree. The apparent tree was just paint. And I guess with the current subject what we would derive is that all there is, is experience (paint), and it is only thought which partitions it into gaps and thought. Is that it?

Gold SEEMS to appear in many forms, ie rings, ingots, bracelets, earrings, nuggets, necklaces, coins etc. Does the form make the gold or the gold is the form? Gold is the form In other words can a ring or bracelet etc appear on its own without the gold? No Does the gold become something else just because it seems to appear as a ring, or a necklace or an ingot etc? No Or does gold remains as gold no matter what it appears as? It remains as gold

Is gold separate from what it appears as? No Is the form of a ring separate to the gold it is made from? Or are they both the same thing? Both the same Does the gold change, or does it still remain as gold…no matter if it is a ring, necklace, ear rings etc? Remains unchanged If you melt down the ring and then make it into a bracelet…does the substance it is made from change or disappear? NO ;-) NO. Only the form changes…but the substance never does. So, is experience/THIS separate from what it appears as? It is not separate from what it appears as.

Thought it was easier to answer in text in blue.

I actually did write the paragraph above before reading the following para from you on the gold. But that leads me to believe I was indeed right. It is all experience, which never changes, and yet which is not different from the forms it appears as (gap/thought).

That is great! How does you feel now, compared to when we started this exploration?

Different yes. I am still going through and will report back with other comments (revision) another time.

Thanks for everything Kay.

John

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

Have a careful look and tell me what the AE of ‘emotion’ is.

AE of emotion is sensation, plain and simple.

The AE of ‘emotions’ is thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it ‘emotion’ and then further labels it with ‘fear’, ‘sadness’ and so on. A sensation is simply a sensation.

I have been continuing to do my 15 minute exercises to watch thought/gaps/emotion and I find it a very useful tool. Let me share with you my experience this morning.

And after a while the message that it wanted to give me, although it didn't "say" anything was this. I am just a sensation, nothing more or less. I am here for as long as I will be here and then I will be gone.

Perfect! A sensation is simply a sensation. It has no meaning and cannot harm anyone or anything…it simply is experience appearing as sensation. Experience cannot be harmed or affected by itself!

Is there any line where one stops and the other starts?

No there isn't. They are seamless. Although my gaps suggest to me that there is a time when they start and then finish. Although hold on a minute. When you do think about it, all experiences are always there sound, colour, taste, smell, sensation, to a greater or lesser extent, whether they happen to be in our focus or not. (I guess experience is different from attention?) So, there isn't a time when sound or colour stop and then start again. So I guess the same could be said of thought. The state of thought is always there(??).

Hmmm…if sound is not appearing…then how can it ‘always be out there’? Where would it be hiding exactly? You haven’t quite grasped the pointing of….is there a dividing line between the knowing and the known. Is there a dividing line between experience and ‘experiencer’. If there is no dividing line...then how can sound still be happening without you being ‘aware’ of it since you and the sound are one? Where would sound, sensation, taste, smell and thought hide themselves exactly, if they are not being awared?

Experience isn’t referring to so called human life experiences. Experience is THIS/God/Awareness/Knowing…whatever word you call it. There are not many different experiences…there is only experience appearing exactly as it is ie soundcoloursmelltastesensationthought.

Can you actually separate a thought from the knowing of them? Are there two things?

No you can't. They are the same thing.

Yes so you (not John) are the knowing of the known (sound, smell, thought etc) because they are you.

Is there a dividing line between the knowing of/as thought and the thought itself?

No there isn't.

So can a thought appear without the knowing of it? Where would a thought conceal itself exactly?

Do you ever find thought without knowing of the thought?

No, thought can't exist without experience. Knowing of it.

Thought and experience are one and the same. Experience is appearing as thought…not the other way round. There is no sound AND thought AND smell AND taste AND colour AND sensation. There is no AND! Soundthoughtsmelltastecoloursensation = experience/THIS….they are synonymous.

I guess where all this troubles me, and it is the same with your point that the gaps and the thought are the same, is that I just want to see the thoughts float by, I have spent my whole life being those thoughts and I don't want to be them any more. I want them to be foreign things that I can brush off and, I guess, dismiss. You are suggesting that the knowing of the thought and the thought are the same thing which, at least to me, sucks me back into the thoughts again.

Thoughts are not the enemy. See thoughts as what they are, not as what they say they are. A thought isn't known because of its appearance or its content...it is known because it is experience/THIS . There are no such things as ‘thoughts’. There is only 'thoughtsmelltastesensationsoundcolour'

Thought doesn’t appear; it is always here. Thought is experience and experience is always here! It is just thought that says thought is something other than experience. It is only thought that says experience is appearing as thought! So, thought never appears it is always here as thought is experience!

Have a good look at thought. Have you noticed that it doesn't have a voice? You can't hear it. You can't see it. You can't feel it. You can't taste it. You can't smell it. You are aware of it, though. In fact, if you try to describe thought, it's quite impossible. Just look for a second. Ask yourself, "If I'm not a person, what am I?"
"Does thought know me? Or is it saying stuff and not knowing what it's talking about?" Notice what thought says, and notice what actually is.

But I'm sure you understand my point as well which is that the gap feels nice and the thought doesn't.

Where exactly is this ”I” that prefers gaps to thoughts? Describe this “I” to me in precise detail and tell me where it is located exactly.

The apparent tree was just paint. And I guess with the current subject what we would derive is that all there is, is experience (paint), and it is only thought which partitions it into gaps and thought. Is that it?

Yes, exactly

I actually did write the paragraph above before reading the following para from you on the gold. But that leads me to believe I was indeed right. It is all experience, which never changes, and yet which is not different from the forms it SEEMINGLY appears as (gap/thought).Thought it was easier to answer in text in blue.

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay

The AE of ‘emotions’ is thought. Thought points to sensation and labels it ‘emotion’ and then further labels it with ‘fear’, ‘sadness’ and so on. A sensation is simply a sensation.

I think I've got this and the same point was put by me elsewhere in the post. But I accept I was not right to say AE of emotions is sensation. When I said AE of emotion is sensation what I really meant was that this was the sort of genesis of it but only when thought gets to work on it does it become emotion. Apart from that it's just sensation, nothing more.

Hmmm…if sound is not appearing…then how can it ‘always be out there’? Where would it be hiding exactly? You haven’t quite grasped the pointing of….is there a dividing line between the knowing and the known. Is there a dividing line between experience and ‘experiencer’. If there is no dividing line...then how can sound still be happening without you being ‘aware’ of it since you and the sound are one? Where would sound, sensation, taste, smell and thought hide themselves exactly, if they are not being awared?

I basically understand what you are saying here. Completely. But I am struggling with how this relates to a previous comment you made which is......

Silence is no different to sound. Only thought says some 'thing' isn't there. Darkness is just a colour, like any other, no different from light. Thought labels darkness as the absence of some 'thing' but it is no less knowing/known than light is.
Empty space is no different to solid matter, it is still a some 'thing', not a lack of some 'thing' .

The first one I get to be - sound can't be there without an experiencer. And requires the awareness of the experiencer whereupon they are one and the same. The second where you say silence is no different to sound (only the mind says so) means that as long as there is existence here as an experiencer, I am hearing sound whether my mind tells me I am or not. I am not squaring these 2 different statements and getting confused. Could you maybe explain a bit about the difference. I, experience, am always here, so sound (since silence is no different to sound) has always got to be here. No?

So can a thought appear without the knowing of it? Where would a thought conceal itself exactly?

Soooorry... Similar to the previous point. I thought that thought and gaps were the same thing and therefore thought always there. This whole thing is confusing me. (Go to the back of the class!) I mean I fully get the fact that the thought requires the knowing of it. Maybe it's the other thing that is confusing me. Which is Silence/sound, darkness/colour, space/solid, thought/gap all being the same thing. Although I do understand it is thought that says so. Help!

Experience isn’t referring to so called human life experiences

Sorry slightly lost me here too. I know that I am not this body/mind but I thought the experiences I was having through the vehicle of this manifestation were what we were talking about. This experience. But as you go on to say there are not many experiences (mine and everyone else's), just experience appearing as it is. Maybe I'm just too wrapped up in my single perspective(?).

Thought doesn’t appear; it is always here. Thought is experience and experience is always here! It is just thought that says thought is something other than experience. It is only thought that says experience is appearing as thought! So, thought never appears it is always here as thought is experience!

This relates to the previous points and I know you are pointing in the right direction but it is just dazzling me a bit. Been quite a long day too and maybe I am not settled and receptive and need to go over again tomorrow. Think I need to spend some time with this. My feeling, to be honest, is that while I was holding onto your tail quite nicely up to now, you've leapt off and gone a bigger step than I am currently equipped for. :-(

Where exactly is this ”I” that prefers gaps to thoughts? Describe this “I” to me in precise detail and tell me where it is located exactly.

You know I can't do that.

Tomorrow I'll be better.

Lots of love,

John

PS Web site is working fine for me now.

[forgetmenot]

Hello John,

Silence is no different to sound. Only thought says some 'thing' isn't there. Darkness is just a colour, like any other, no different from light. Thought labels darkness as the absence of some 'thing' but it is no less knowing/known than light is.
Empty space is no different to solid matter, it is still a some 'thing', not a lack of some 'thing' .

The first one I get to be - sound can't be there without an experiencer. And requires the awareness of the experiencer whereupon they are one and the same. The second where you say silence is no different to sound (only the mind says so) means that as long as there is existence here as an experiencer, I am hearing sound whether my mind tells me I am or not. I am not squaring these 2 different statements and getting confused. Could you maybe explain a bit about the difference. I, experience, am always here, so sound (since silence is no different to sound) has always got to be here. No?

Where is this ‘experiencer’ you keep referring to? Where is the dividing line between experience and experiencer?
Can you find an actual experiencer in colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation or thought?

Go back to the gold and tree analogy. Experience is the appearance of every ‘thing’ including sound, including silence, including darkness, including light, including thought, including gaps, including space, including every ‘thing’.

So can a thought appear without the knowing of it? Where would a thought conceal itself exactly?

Soooorry... Similar to the previous point. I thought that thought and gaps were the same thing and therefore thought always there. This whole thing is confusing me. (Go to the back of the class!) I mean I fully get the fact that the thought requires the knowing of it. Maybe it's the other thing that is confusing me. Which is Silence/sound, darkness/colour, space/solid, thought/gap all being the same thing. Although I do understand it is thought that says so. Help!

Can there be gaps without your being aware of gaps? Can there be anything without you being aware of it? Go back to the gold and paint analogy and then you can answer this for me.

Experience isn’t referring to so called human life experiences

Sorry slightly lost me here too. I know that I am not this body/mind but I thought the experiences I was having through the vehicle of this manifestation were what we were talking about. This experience. But as you go on to say there are not many experiences (mine and everyone else's), just experience appearing as it is. Maybe I'm just too wrapped up in my single perspective(?).

Experience is synonymous with God, Universe, Spirit, THIS, Knowing, Awareness, Consciousness. Experience cannot refer to human experiences or persons experiences…there are no humans or persons.

Where exactly is this ”I” that prefers gaps to thoughts? Describe this “I” to me in precise detail and tell me where it is located exactly.

You know I can't do that.

This wasn't a trick question. Did you LOOK and see if you could this “I”, or did you just answer from thought?

Where in sound, colour, smell, thought, taste, sensation can you find an “I”? If the “I” cannot be found..then what exactly is it that is experiencing experience or “prefers gaps to thoughts”? Is that not simply an appearance of a thought? Where is the “I” that is aware of the thought? Is there a border where thought stops and the knowing of it begins?

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

I plan to sit on this for a day or so and come back to you tomorrow. I think it needs more time rather than rushing a response. Also I didn't complete properly going right over the previous stuff either and I will do that tonight and into tomorrow.

So today is reading and looking, no writing. And hopefully I can get myself up to speed and we can move on from tomorrow.

John

[forgetmenot]

Hey John...take a couple of days if needs be! :)

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Just a quick note to say you haven't lost me. I have been reading back over our thread and redoing most of the exercises. It's a lot longer than i remembered! I will come back to you properly tomorrow.

John

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

Take your time...there is a lot to look at and absorb.

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Well I've gone right over from the beginning again. Basically done the exercises again and read all of your posts and mine. I am not going to go over all of my thoughts and observations from re-reading the story so far, otherwise this would be too long a post. Suffice to say I think it has been a very worthwhile exercise and I feel clearer on most of the points by going over things again. Boy, we have covered quite a lot of ground! The whole thing took me the last 3 evenings plus this one.

Although I don't plan to go over the points in detail, let me just note a few of the things I (think! I) am clearer on.

1. When at LU you say there is no me, you mean me the person, the individual, the controlling thing in this apparent body. I actually am, or maybe I should say there is, experience and experience appears as all there is, THIS. Experience is impersonal and totally without judgement and what appears in it is all made of it, which we think of as sound, sensation thought colour etc. But that is just thought that divides it into those separate categories.

2. When we say AE is sound, colour and thought, what type of sound, colour or thought doesn't actually matter or even actually exist. It is only thought that says so. It is all experience without separation.

3. AE of sound is sound, not any particular sound, that is thought.

4. Whether so called thinking is 'thought or gaps' at the end of the day doesn't really matter because it is all experience appearing as thought. Only thought has preferences for gaps against thought.

5. The more I look the more I see that action is happening without thought causing it. Almost everything we do is clearly not done by anyone. I say "almost" because there is more investigation that needs to be done on the rest. Small things like when I go on a run I have noticed the speed I run at has nothing to do with the thoughts in my head "run faster, run slower" and when I time it with my watch, that is apparent (ie the intent in my head has no bearing on the speed of the run, in quite surprising ways). The whole run is happening on its own. Thought is like the superfluous commentary we talked about on the football match.

6. When we talked about the apple, and does it exist (the one that was in front of me). It does exist, as colour, as a thought label, as experience, it's just not an apple. An apple doesn't exist. If we look back at the painting of the tree all of the paint exists and thought says that it is a tree, and surrounding landscape. The paint exists, but the apparent tree doesn't exist. All there is is paint, lava, experience. The tree is an appearance of paint, the paint is not an appearance of tree because the tree, and other things don't exist. It's all just one big canvas that thought is dividing. Like the abstract painting where the mind sees things, and makes up things that aren't there, at all.

7. Every thought is only known when it has passed. Which means it comes from nowhere, is causeless, and cannot either know anything within itself, or cause anything to happen. The more you look at thoughts they comment on something that is passed and try and claim them as their action.

8. Experience is a continuum. There are no breaks in experience (space or separation between one phenomenon and another), or thought or sound or colour. It is one seamless whole. When we talked about gaps and thoughts I was getting lost but I think I am clearer on this now. All thought is experience and the content (gap/thought) is irrelevant, and in actual fact individual thoughts do not exist any more than individual colours do. It is only thoughts that say that.

Also to conclude, a few comments on the last few posts which is where I was getting stuck. Hence the need to do my revision. ;-)

Hmmm…if sound is not appearing…then how can it ‘always be out there’? Where would it be hiding exactly? You haven’t quite grasped the pointing of….is there a dividing line between the knowing and the known. Is there a dividing line between experience and ‘experiencer’. If there is no dividing line...then how can sound still be happening without you being ‘aware’ of it since you and the sound are one? Where would sound, sensation, taste, smell and thought hide themselves exactly, if they are not being awared?

No I wasn't suggesting that sound was "out there" floating. Like we talked about the tree falling in an forest. Without experience there is no sound. Sound, not known doesn't exist. I think what I was trying to say there is always experience (how can it not be here) and experience is always soundthoughtsensationcoloursmell. Ergo there is always sound.

So can a thought appear without the knowing of it? Where would a thought conceal itself exactly?

Same same. Experience is all there is. Thought is AE. Thought is, always, but there are no "hidden" thoughts.

It is all experience, which never changes, and yet which is not different from the forms it SEEMINGLY appears as (gap/thought)

Your helpful highlight gave me some more cause for thought. Experience is all there is, the forms it is appearing as are just that, appearances.

Where is this ‘experiencer’ you keep referring to? Where is the dividing line between experience and experiencer?
Can you find an actual experiencer in colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation or thought?

There cannot be an experiencer because that, by definition, implies division, separation.

I think that is all I have for now.

I fear some of the things I have said may be setting myself up for a fall but I genuinely look forward to your response.

Love,

John

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

Lovely post to read! So other than clearing things up for you intellectually, did you have any further insights ‘aha’ moments at all? I usually don’t cover the idea of separation until the end of the exploration…but I had a feeling that you were like me and needed to sort things out intellectually first. so that it was clear in the mind…and then fruitful LOOKING could take place.

1. When at LU you say there is no me, you mean me the person, the individual, the controlling thing in this apparent body. I actually am, or maybe I should say there is, experience and experience appears as all there is, THIS. Experience is impersonal and totally without judgement and what appears in it is all made of it, which we think of as sound, sensation thought colour etc. But that is just thought that divides it into those separate categories.

Yes! :)

2. When we say AE is sound, colour and thought, what type of sound, colour or thought doesn't actually matter or even actually exist. It is only thought that says so. It is all experience without separation.

Yes! :)

3. AE of sound is sound, not any particular sound, that is thought.

Yes! And this also goes for sensation, taste, smell, thought and colour.

4. Whether so called thinking is 'thought or gaps' at the end of the day doesn't really matter because it is all experience appearing as thought. Only thought has preferences for gaps against thought.

Though doesn’t actually have any preferences. Thought it not and entity and is not aware.

“I prefer gaps to thought” is simply a thought. You are aware of the idea of preferences but can you find anyone/anything anywhere that actually has preferences?

Find a comfortable place to sit or lie.
Relax for a few minutes - take calming breaths.

For 30 to 60 seconds each, do these exercises:
Bring your awareness to your entire body - sense it fully, head to toe.
Run your hands down over your torso. Feel the solidity of it.
Now bring your awareness to your feet. Again, feel them. Move them a bit.
Then bring your awareness to your hands. Open and close them.
Bring your awareness to your face - all of it. Touch it with your hand.
Now point your index finger to where the “I/me” is located.
Touch the exact location of "I/me".

Answer these questions:

Were you able to find and feel "I/me" in a direct way like the other parts of your body?
Where is it?
What did you find?
Something? Anything? Nothing?
What sensations did you feel in your body that identified "I/me” (If any.)
Tell me what you experienced and found, by way of actual experience.

5. The more I look the more I see that action is happening without thought causing it. Almost everything we do is clearly not done by anyone. I say "almost" because there is more investigation that needs to be done on the rest. Small things like when I go on a run I have noticed the speed I run at has nothing to do with the thoughts in my head "run faster, run slower" and when I time it with my watch, that is apparent (ie the intent in my head has no bearing on the speed of the run, in quite surprising ways). The whole run is happening on its own. Thought is like the superfluous commentary we talked about on the football match.

Nice! And yes, we will be looking at the idea of control, decisions and choices next.

6. When we talked about the apple, and does it exist (the one that was in front of me). It does exist, as colour, as a thought label, as experience, it's just not an apple. An apple doesn't exist. If we look back at the painting of the tree all of the paint exists and thought says that it is a tree, and surrounding landscape. The paint exists, but the apparent tree doesn't exist. All there is is paint, lava, experience. The tree is an appearance of paint, the paint is not an appearance of tree because the tree, and other things don't exist. It's all just one big canvas that thought is dividing. Like the abstract painting where the mind sees things, and makes up things that aren't there, at all.

Beautiful! Yes!

7. Every thought is only known when it has passed. Which means it comes from nowhere, is causeless, and cannot either know anything within itself, or cause anything to happen. The more you look at thoughts they comment on something that is passed and try and claim them as their action.

Well the thought “I” appears eg I am running, I am cooking, I am thinking about a problem at work etc, which seems to make an “I” the one who is thinking or doing the action”

8. Experience is a continuum. There are no breaks in experience (space or separation between one phenomenon and another), or thought or sound or colour. It is one seamless whole. When we talked about gaps and thoughts I was getting lost but I think I am clearer on this now. All thought is experience and the content (gap/thought) is irrelevant, and in actual fact individual thoughts do not exist any more than individual colours do. It is only thoughts that say that.

Yes! :)

No I wasn't suggesting that sound was "out there" floating. Like we talked about the tree falling in an forest. Without experience there is no sound. Sound, not known doesn't exist. I think what I was trying to say there is always experience (how can it not be here) and experience is always soundthoughtsensationcoloursmell. Ergo there is always sound.

Saying that “there is always sound” is not the clearest way of putting it. There is always experience…experience always is, but sound doesn’t always appear. When sound appears…it isn’t ‘sound’ as thought labels and describes it…it is experience that thought has divided and categorised as sound.

It's impossible to say what this is, because divisions cannot capture indivisibility. Even the word indivisibility doesn't capture it. Abstractions can only refer to that from which they were abstracted. The flour can't capture/describe the cake. The sugar can't capture/describe the cake. The eggs can't capture/describe the cake. No parts can capture/describe the whole.

It is all experience, which never changes, and yet which is not different from the forms it SEEMINGLY appears as (gap/thought)

Your helpful highlight gave me some more cause for thought. Experience is all there is, the forms it is appearing as are just that, appearances.

Yes! As someone once put it:-

A seeming ‘thing’ can seemingly change. A nugget of gold can change into a ring with a little effort. The gold had a shape, lost it and is now a different shape. It has 'changed'. Now look at experience, does it have anything? Shape? Colour? Taste? Smell? So how could it change? How could it 'stay the same'? To say experience is changeless is a thorn to remove the idea experience changes. But to say experience is changeless fails to describe experience.

Where is this ‘experiencer’ you keep referring to? Where is the dividing line between experience and experiencer?
Can you find an actual experiencer in colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation or thought?

There cannot be an experiencer because that, by definition, implies division, separation.

Yes, so experiencerexperience are one and the same. You are not aware of sound…you are the sound. You are self-aware.

I fear some of the things I have said may be setting myself up for a fall but I genuinely look forward to your response.

Nope, you sound pretty clear to me :)

Love, Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Thanks for the encouragement. It helps to know I am heading in the right direction. It feels that way to me and although I would say I am grasping these concepts now, in a way that is starting to feel fairly natural, rather than labored, it has not lead to any unusual experiences or, as you say, aha, moments. I would say still more intellectual than something that has really shifted my perspective.

I have in the past had those kind of things albeit very briefly. The last time was while reading a book by Douglas Harding, him of Headless fame (brilliant guy by the way), when carrying out one of the exercises and pointing to various parts of the body then pointing to where my head, wasn't. I was sat, as often, in my garden in the evening and in that second as I pointed to my head, I had a very intense feeling of my head, and me, being not there, and the space where it had been, filled with everything, trees, foliage, sky, stars, but all one thing. Very vivid and not really possible to describe it properly. But then someone came out to talk to me a few seconds later and the intense feeling left although there was an echo of it for at least the rest of the evening and even longer. Anyway, that's not what we are here to talk about but I just thought I'd share it while we are on 'aha' moments.

On the exercise, I have done it 2 times today.

This is an interesting departure for me because in the past when I have tried to look for me it is an internal process. Looking at thoughts and emotions and just looking to see if behind everything there is an actual identifiable presence there, me. Your exercise is one of actually finding a place where it resides as in a physical place rather than mental place.

When I came to the bit where I would point to and touch where me is, the obvious reflex is to point to the head. So I pointed and then tried to point with my finger and push the point where me should be. That lead to an AE of sensation on the bridge of the nose. Which felt a bit silly because in my awareness was just a sense of pressure on the nose and me expecting to find something behind it. Whereas the feeling was more of a feeling of space behind it, nothing, like when we did the pressing head exercise (that I liked).
That also felt like I was missing something so I tried to press on the heart area to see what was there. There would be times when I would say the sense of me is in the head and other times when I sit quietly that I would say the core of me is more in the heart. Pretty much the same result there. Just a feeling of pressure on my chest and not much behind.

Were you able to find and feel "I/me" in a direct way like the other parts of your body?

No I wasn't. The other body parts are definitely there. I did the exercise 2 times. First eyes closed second open. I both cases I could feel and touch the body parts and the second time see them too - apart from the face. Me? No.

Where is it?

It isn't there.

What did you find?
Something? Anything? Nothing?

Nothing at all that could be described as me.

What sensations did you feel in your body that identified "I/me” (If any.)

There were no sensations at all that could be identified as me.

Tell me what you experienced and found, by way of actual experience.

What you find by way of actual experience is. Firstly no sensation at all apart from the pressure on the bridge of my nose. Then I started to get that dull thud low pain I sometimes get in my head, which was just a sensation. Both of those were just sensation, nothing more than that. Nothing at all in AE that spoke of a thing called me.
The heart area was the same. Pressure on the chest then a faint feeling of some movement in the heart. Both sensations and nothing more.
Beyond that, in the exploration, I didn't find any colour, or sound, or smell, or taste, of a me.
Oh yes, of course I am forgetting, there is thought, during the process there was a thought of me being there, an assumption.
So during the exercise as far as AE is concerned I found firstly sensation, which didn't show a me, and thought which did speak of a me.

The sugar can't capture/describe the cake. The eggs can't capture/describe the cake. No parts can capture/describe the whole.

Isn't that a further indication of the difficulty in describing this in words. Because in actual fact there are no parts. It is only thought that says that. What we think of as parts does describe the whole because it is the whole. There is no difference. I remember when I was a child, or let's say teenager, having a very powerful feeling that if there was a God, it/he/she would be in everything there is and there would be no hierarchy whatsoever. The truth of the universe would be as much in the tiniest fragment as in the planets or the stars of the most brilliant minds. I know it sounds silly but the thing I kept thinking about was dog turd. I used to take our dog a walk every evening. And he would do the business and I used to tell myself whatever the secret of the universe is HAS to be as much in that turd as in the grandest and most awe-inspiring things we know of. It just has to be. And in a funny way, I see a direct line from that youthful thinking to where I'm sort of at. Except now I am seeing it (trying evermore to see it) all as This/Experience. As you can imagine, this was not so very in tune with the Catholic faith that was being drummed into me at the time. By the way do me a favour. I want an agreement with you we don't use the word God again. When we say Experience/This/Awareness/God (whatever you want to use). Let's not use God. It is way too loaded for me and throws me every time. I'm fine with all other descriptions.

Love, John

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

I do so enjoy reading your posts. You have such a wonderful way with words.

Thanks for the encouragement. It helps to know I am heading in the right direction. It feels that way to me and although I would say I am grasping these concepts now, in a way that is starting to feel fairly natural, rather than labored, it has not lead to any unusual experiences or, as you say, aha, moments. I would say still more intellectual than something that has really shifted my perspective.

Yes…so now, it’s not about understanding it, it is simply about looking to see if you can find the illusory separate self.

Looking is a nice simple thing - there is no need to over-complicate it.

Just look now...a thought can be found, but can a thinker of thought be found?
Can an “I” be found in thought itself?

Sound can be found, but can a hearer of sounds be found?
Can an “I” be found in sound itself?

Colour can be found, but can a see-er of colour be found?
Can an “I” be found in colour itself?

Sensation can be found, but can a feeler of sensation be found?
Can an “I” be found in sensation itself?

Smell can be found, but can a smeller of smell be found?
Can an “I” be found in smell itself?

Taste can be found, but can a taster of taste be found?
Can an “I” be found in taste itself?

Experience can be found, but can an experiencer of experience be found?
It's as simple as that. Just look and see what is actually present - and what is only imaginary

Anyway, that's not what we are here to talk about but I just thought I'd share it while we are on 'aha' moments.

Aha MOMENTS are just that. They are moments of clarity of what really IS, and what is ‘aha’d’ can never be undone. In other words what is seen can never been unseen. But if there is an expectation for the same experience to happen again…that is simply an expectation and expectations are something about a future where something called ‘enlightenment’ will happen. What IS..already IS. On the exercise, I have done it 2 times today.

Your exercise is one of actually finding a place where it resides as in a physical place rather than mental place.
When I came to the bit where I would point to and touch where me is, the obvious reflex is to point to the head. So I pointed and then tried to point with my finger and push the point where me should be.

It is generally believed that thoughts are coming from the head. When we try to trace back the origin of a thought, it is often believed that it's coming from the forehead, because the attention automatically goes to the sensation of the forehead. Investigate this carefully as often as you can throughout the day.

What is the forehead in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image (of a forehead), right?

So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?
Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’?

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is located in a ‘forehead’ that is part of a ‘head’?

Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me?

Have a very deep look here... the forehead is one of the 'residence' of the SENSE of self. Or rather say, the sensation that is labelled as forehead is believed to be one of the location of the sense of self.

It's also believed that both 'visual sight' and 'mental images' are coming from the eyes, because when it's investigated the attention automatically goes to the sensation 'of the eyes', and at the same time the image 'of the eyes' appear with it.

So another SENSE of self is linked to the sensation 'of the eyes'.

What are the eyes in the actual experience?
A sensation + a mental image, right?

Can sight come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?
Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation?
Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)?

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘eyes’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is located on face that is located on a head?

Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘eyes’ are eyes or a me?

That also felt like I was missing something so I tried to press on the heart area to see what was there. There would be times when I would say the sense of me is in the head and other times when I sit quietly that I would say the core of me is more in the heart. Pretty much the same result there. Just a feeling of pressure on my chest and not much behind.

The feeling of ‘pressure’ is AE of sensation and not AE of pressure.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a heart?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is located in a chest?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a me?

By the way do me a favour. I want an agreement with you we don't use the word God again. When we say Experience/This/Awareness/God (whatever you want to use). Let's not use God. It is way too loaded for me and throws me every time. I'm fine with all other descriptions.

No problem, it's not a word I generally use. But I want you to LOOK for the ‘I’ that is “thrown” when the word “God” is used. Can you find that “I”?

Love, Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

This morning I got your post and read it though briefly and went as I usual on Sunday morning to sit in the garden. Like you said before I think I am making progress, which I agree with, but I had noticed over the last few days some resistance cropping up. Hard to pin-point but it had felt like a "don't go there" kind of feeling. Took me back to about a year ago when I was in the process of looking for "me" and felt like I was on the verge of a very big aha moment and as I sat with my eyes closed I had this strong feeling of being on the edge of a downward sloping black void. Sounds a bit ominous but it didn't feel a bad place and I felt myself sliding toward the edge of hit until I got shit scared and opened my eyes and tried to regroup my senses. There was a strong resistance to going wherever that place was. Anyway recently I have been feeling something under the surface which I would say is similar but less intense.

Onto today. I hadn't read your post thoroughly yet but as I sat in the garden I took some fragment of what I thought I read from you and it was "In actual experience I don't have any eyes at all and the colour/vision in my experience does not come from eyes which are just a thought". And that, of course, is 100% true. The same for ears. I do not have ears and the sound I experience does not come from ears. Well. I think I must have sat there for at least a couple of hours and the experience I had was one of no head, no eyes or other sensory organs, just me in everything. Like looking at the tree (it's a franjipani) leaves and being totally engulfed in it. Closing my eyes and feeling the same with sound - my garden is truly an assault on the senses and full of birds and other sounds. The phrase I wrote down is it felt as if I was swimming in it all. I am not going to say much more than that and I don't want to blow it out of proportion but it was a very intense and prolonged experience. I am not doing it justice and frankly don't feel like trying. And the thing that struck me at the time was while it was happening, my whole body was totally tensed up, I mean really. Chest, arm joints frozen, legs stiff. So I sensed that as a very strong resistance to what I was experiencing. I tried to do what I have done in the past and sit with that feeling and try and ask it what it was protecting or afraid of. But I didn't get anything. And it didn't really lessen at all. Actually even as I'm typing this I can feel my heart beating just a bit faster, thinking about it again. It's sort of back to normal now.

Just look now...a thought can be found, but can a thinker of thought be found?
Can an “I” be found in thought itself?

I also spent quite a long time sitting with this. I repeated the thought "I am John" and looked and waited. The thought comes and goes. There is no thinker before it or after it. It can seem somehow that there is a me during the thought, but that is only another thought that says that. And if I am in the thought then I would be coming and going, like the repeated thought, which would be a bit disorientating (I'm here/I'm not there). No one is doing it clearly and I am not in it either. I prefer the phrase "Can a person be found in the thought". "I" like a lot of language in these discussions, can have different meanings. "Who am I?" "Self etc". Things that we are told to look for, can be confusing. But is there a person in thought, sound, colour etc.? Definitely not. Nor one required for these things to exist, be experienced. They just are!

So I went on to look at the other exercises you set and found as follows:

By the way with the first exercise the mental image I used was brain, rather than forehead. I don't think thoughts come from the forehead but do (did?) think they come from the brain.

So, can a thought come from a sensation? Dull thud. No. No thoughts coming from that.
Can a thought come from a mental image? No it can't.
Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘forehead’? Not in pure AE, no. If I look in a mirror it might but that is a thought about colours in AE. Not AE of a forehead/brain

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘forehead’? No
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’? No, it's just a sensation
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is located in a ‘forehead’ that is part of a ‘head’? No, all of that is just thought.

Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘forehead’ is a forehead or a me? You can't

Can sight come from a sensation? No
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)? No
Can a 'mental image' come from a sensation? No
Can a 'mental image' come from another mental image (of the eyes)? No it can't

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘eyes’? No, just a sensation. At the moment a low pain.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’? Not at all - unless I am a pain ;-)
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is located on face that is located on a head? Not without thought.

Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘eyes’ are eyes or a me? Nope.

The same applies for the heart.

I am going to spend a bit of time sitting with that experience in the garden. It was the same as the one I previously told you about but much longer and more intense. Very real. I know full well this exploration is not about having such experiences and the dangers of such expectations. And frankly, you couldn't keep that up for very long!! No way, I'm a bit strung out. Funny enough this time what I'm getting is not faster heart beat but a tight anxiety in my chest. Something aint happy.

Love, John

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

This morning I got your post and read it though briefly and went as I usual on Sunday morning to sit in the garden. Like you said before I think I am making progress, which I agree with, but I had noticed over the last few days some resistance cropping up. Hard to pin-point but it had felt like a "don't go there" kind of feeling. Took me back to about a year ago when I was in the process of looking for "me" and felt like I was on the verge of a very big aha moment and as I sat with my eyes closed I had this strong feeling of being on the edge of a downward sloping black void. Sounds a bit ominous but it didn't feel a bad place and I felt myself sliding toward the edge of hit until I got shit scared and opened my eyes and tried to regroup my senses. There was a strong resistance to going wherever that place was. Anyway recently I have been feeling something under the surface which I would say is similar but less intense.

Funny enough this time what I'm getting is not faster heart beat but a tight anxiety in my chest. Something aint happy.

Fear is a normal part of the process. Fear of seeing and not knowing what that means. Fear of not seeing and what that means. Resistance is fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of disappearing and of disappearing into blackness/void. Fear of the personality self disappearing, and some even fearing the body disappearing. There has never been a separate JohnSelf…ever…so nothing changes…how can an illusion disappear? You don’t disappear, you don’t find yourself lost in an endless dark void, you don’t stop having thoughts, you don’t stop having preferences, you don’t stop having emotions, and the world doesn’t stop spinning!

So let’s have a look at resistance/fear. When ‘fear’ or 'resistance' appears, become aware of everything that is happening…ie bodily sensations, thoughts etc and then close the eyes, take in a couple of deep breaths and do the following:-

1) Look at the label/thought ‘fear’ itself. See the label/word F E A R or the thought “I am “scared/fearful”, or "I am resisting" as a typewritten word in the ‘mind’s eye’ across the forehead.

Does the label ‘fear’ know anything about fear, or is the word just a bunch of letters?
Is the label ‘fear’ itself fearful?
Can you find anyone/anything in the word itself that is fearful?

2) Then look at the sensation and ignore everything else but the sensation itself.
Inquire into the sensation and ask if the sensation itself knows anything about ‘fear’.

Look and see if the sensation itself is the fearful self. If the words ‘yes’ , or ‘yes, this is the self’ appears, go back to Step 1 and see the words across the forehead and repeat step 1.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is fear or that it is fearful?
Does the sensation itself know anything about fear?
Can you find anyone/anything in the sensation itself or behind the sensation that is fearful?


If other random mental images appear during the noticing of the sensation, check to see if those images are the self who is fearful, or are they images that are simply arising and subsiding? If other ‘loud’ thoughts appear, check to see if they are the self that is fearful as you did in step 1.

3) Look at the mental image/outline labelled body.

Does the image/outline itself know anything about ‘fear’.
And then look to see if there is anyone/anything in the colour that knows anything about ‘fear’ or that can be ‘fearful’.

If other random mental images appear during the noticing of the sensation, check to see if those images are the self who is fearful, or are they images that are simply arising and subsiding? If other ‘loud’ thoughts appear, check to see if they are the self that is fearful, as you did in step 1.

4) With eyes still closed look everywhere and see if you can find anyone or anything that is fearful.

When you have done this and if no one/no thing is found, then just sit with the sensation. Just breathe normally, notice the thoughts and images that appear and let them pass on by unless they seem to hang around, then do the appropriate steps above. Allow the sensation all the room it needs in the body without pushing it aside or judging it. If it becomes too intense just take a couple of deep breaths into the sensation itself, and then notice the floor under your feet, notice your backside on the chair and then notice what is in the room you are sitting in and name them out loud, while being aware of the sensation - and remember to breathe normally – in and out through the nose. If the sensation does not dissipate at all or only dissipates a little, that is okay, just notice it, without doing anything with it and just go about your day.

We are not trying to get rid of the sensation labelled ‘fear’ or the arising thoughts or images. We are only LOOKING to see what is actually appearing as opposed to what thought is saying ABOUT what actually IS. Let me know how you go and what you noticed.

Let's breakdown 'fear' into actual experience

The label ‘fear’ is the 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 colour labelled ‘me/I/body’ is the AE of colour and not the AE of fear
The thoughts ABOUT fear are AE of thought and not AE of fear

So, is there actual experience of ‘fear’ or what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT fear? Is 'fear' actually known?

Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

My time is a bit limited today and I have spent most of the time I have doing the exercises for the last 30-40 minutes so don't have so much time to write.

There is nothing so noteworthy that I have picked up that I haven't felt before while sitting with sensations.

I am getting that what we call fear, when you break it down to the constituent parts, which is the word or words themselves, the sensation within the body, and images of the body itself, there is no actual fear in any of those. The one that feels most fearful itself is the sensation, but as I've said on a previous post, it is very interesting when you sit alone with the sensation how inseparable it is to other similar sensations we give other names to (love, excitement etc). There is nothing whatsoever in the sensation itself that IS fear, or love or anger. It's just a sensation. Nothing more. Since starting looking at these kind of "emotions" over the last week or so it is very interesting when you feel a strong emotion coming on (which for me is mostly in the chest and/or the head no matter which emotion) and you just sit with it without judgement or resistance, the feeling firstly loses its association then its energy altogether.

And when it comes to the words "Fear" "I am afraid" when you look at them and study them, of course they are just letters and combinations of letters to make words, totally random things.

Which brings us to thoughts. Of course it is only thought which assembles the available pointers and brings it together as Fear, or Anger or other things. And thought, as you say, is AE of thought not AE of fear.

The other thing I did find interesting was to say "Can you find anyone/anything in the word itself that is fearful?". And by extension, can you find any person in the thought (of fear) that is fearful? Because when all roads of fear lead to the thought of fear, and when you sit with the thought of fear and see that there is truly no-one in it, that is interesting. There is no-one more in the thought of fear than there is in the colour blue.

So, is there actual experience of ‘fear’ or what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT fear? Is 'fear' actually known?

No fear is not actually known.

That's all I have time for.

Love, John