Who or what am I ?

[Marc108]

Hello Kay,

Happy to read your post again!

You are still saying that a thought is what creates or stops the movement. If the second thought appears and the movement doesn’t stop…then how can a thought be the catalyst for movement/choice?

You’re right, I still had a tendency to identify the thought of « making » a movement with the starting of the movement. I realised that in AE the thought and the movement are independent from each other. When walking of course it’s obviously not my thoughts that create the movements of walking, there is just walking going on. It’s less obvious when you just turn a hand upside down, but it’s actually not the thought that turns the hand. It happens. I don’t know how. But in any case a thought can’t do or move anything.

It’s interesting you say “in that sense freedom is an illusion”?

With « In that sense, freedom is an illusion » I meant that one hasn't a choice to be aware or not of the actual experience one is experiencing. I can’t be unaware of it neither can I be aware of something else.

Wh at exactly is it that would see it as not having freedom?

There is no "one" who has or hasn’t freedom because there is no thinker.

YOU (not Marc) have the freedom to show up as anything and everything that is appearing in the dream. What other freedom is there?

In the dream of AE freedom is infinite: experience happens without labels or limits.
AE happens freely.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No, sitting with eyes closed, I see only blackness, I can’t know how tall the body is since I don’t perceive my body with my eyes.

Does the body have a weight or volume?

No, similarly, in AE I don’t know what the body’s weight or volume is. The AE has nothing to do with these labels.

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

No, with eyes closed and based solely on the AE of sensation, there’s no way to assign a shape or form to the body.

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?

No, it’s just all sensation.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

No, there's only sensations of contact, that's the experience.

Is there an inside or an outside?

No, all is one. I was sitting upon a rock at the seaside and the whole scene, the sky, the sea, the landscape, the rocks, the breathing, the sensations were all one experience, no separation, no experiencer.

If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?

Nothing in AE is neither inside nor outside of my experience/awareness. It is all the experience itself. Everything is not in or out of something else.

If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

There is no border, experience is what it is. Any label would be the AE of a thought.

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

It refers to sensation. When I see "my" hands I just see colours, when I touch my arm, it's just sensation, when walking my feet hit the ground, that's just sound and sensation.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Sensations. In experience there’s actually no body, only sensations. Sensations appear and disappear. Body is a label people say in order to think and talk, apart from this there is no body.

Thank you,

Marc

[forgetmenot]

Hey Marc,

What exactly is it that would see it as not having freedom?

There is no "one" who has or hasn’t freedom because there is no thinker.

Can you find anyone/anything that does or doesn’t have freedom? Freedom is a concept and all concepts point to thought.

Can it be known how tall the body is?

No, sitting with eyes closed, I see only blackness, I can’t know how tall the body is since I don’t perceive my body with my eyes.

Here is another exercise that helps to see how the illusion of the body is ‘created’, so to speak. Normally we believe that sensation is coming from sight (ie colour) - the object seen. In this example, the object being the ‘hand’ (colour labelled as ‘hand’)

1. Close the eyes and hold up one hand. Pay attention only to the felt sensation ‘of the hand’.
2. Open the eyes, and now observe the hand by looking only.
3. While looking at the hand, pay attention to the felt sensations.

Repeat 1 to 3 as many times as needed and investigate…

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ (colour) and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?

Is there an inside or an outside?

No, all is one. I was sitting upon a rock at the seaside and the whole scene, the sky, the sea, the landscape, the rocks, the breathing, the sensations were all one experience, no separation, no experiencer.

Lovely! So, let’s look at this again from the point of view of a see-er, to see if any division between see-er and seen actually exists.

Look at the display before you.
When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen?
Are these three separate?
If yes, can you find the boundary between the three? Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses?

If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?

Nothing in AE is neither inside nor outside of my experience/awareness. It is all the experience itself. Everything is not in or out of something else.

Right! So there can’t be a ‘me’ residing somewhere inside a body! :)

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

It refers to sensation. When I see "my" hands I just see colours, when I touch my arm, it's just sensation, when walking my feet hit the ground, that's just sound and sensation.

The WORD/LABEL ‘body’ actually refers to AE of thought.

What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Sensations. In experience there’s actually no body, only sensations. Sensations appear and disappear. Body is a label people say in order to think and talk, apart from this there is no body.

Hmmm....Look at this again. Thought points to sensation and suggests that it is a body. No body is found…right? So what is the AE of ‘body’? What does the label ‘body’ point to?

Kay

[Marc108]

Hello Kay,

Can you find anyone/anything that does or doesn’t have freedom?

No, certainly not, freedom is indeed just a concept, pointing to thought.

Can you see that both the ‘visual sight’ (colour) and the sensation appear simultaneously but ‘separately’, meaning that none of them is coming from the other or contained by the other?

Yes, I see clearly that they appear as two different experiences, one is colour, the other is sensation.
Seeing colour is not the cause or point of origin of the sensation, sensation isn't the cause of origin of seeing colour, nor is one contained into the other.

Do they just appear equally, ‘beside’ each other without any hierarchy or link between them?

Yes, indeed, there's no hierarchy or link between the seeing and the sensation.

Is there any link between the sensation and the sight ie colour? In other words is the sensation actually ‘coming from’ the sight (colour labelled as ‘hand’), or only thought and mental constructs link them?

No, there's no link between the sensation and seeing the colour, one doesn't come from the other. Only a thought links them, I see that there's a propension, a thinking habit, to mentally assimilate both.

Look at the display before you. When seeing it, is there any division between seeing, see-er, and the seen?
Are these three separate?

In AE, the seen is the seeing, and both the seen and the seeing are the see-er. These three labels are artificial, they don't exist other than in thought. Seen (the scene), seeing and see-er all designate the same experience.
The three are mutually dependent of each other in order to exist : there can't be a see-er who isn't seeing the seen ; there can't be seeing if there is not see-er and seen, there can't be seen if there's no see-er and seeing.
The three must be the same and can't be different from each other.
This can't be otherwise because : a) the three can't exist one before or after the other and b) the three can't exist at the same time independently from each other (because the three are mutually dependent of each other in order to exist). That is why they are one and the same and cannot be other than one and the same.

If yes, can you find the boundary between the three?

No, there's no boundary, neither in space nor in time.There is just one experience that embraces all three concepts of see-er, seeing and seen.

Not an imagined, conceptual boundary, but an actual boundary that can be perceived with one or more of the senses?

I cannot see a boundary between see-er and seeing, or between see-ing and seen, or between see-er and seen, neither can I hear, smell, taste, feel such a boudary. A "boundary" can only be imagined, with a thought, a mental construct.

So there can’t be a ‘me’ residing somewhere inside a body!

Doing a body-scan meditation, searching in all parts, I can't see a "someone" inside, only sensations + thoughts about ... tissues, organs, blood, bones, ... nowhere is a 'me'.

The WORD/LABEL ‘body’ actually refers to AE of thought.

Ok, the word 'body' is a concept referring to a thought. Thought says "this is a body" and this thought is based on sensation.

Hmmm....Look at this again. Thought points to sensation and suggests that it is a body. No body is found…right? So what is the AE of ‘body’? What does the label ‘body’ point to?

.
No body is found. The AE of ‘body’ is thought. The label 'body' refers to a thought. That thought is an AE.
That thought refers to, points to the AE of sensation.

Thanks again,

Marc

[forgetmenot]

Hello Marc,

Hmmm....Look at this again. Thought points to sensation and suggests that it is a body. No body is found…right? So what is the AE of ‘body’? What does the label ‘body’ point to?

No body is found. The AE of ‘body’ is thought. The label 'body' refers to a thought. That thought is an AE.
That thought refers to, points to the AE of sensation.

Just remember…thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about thought. So if sensation ‘brrr brrr’ appears and thought says the feeling is that of being cold…then the thought is pointing to AE of sensation.

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

(1) First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

(2) Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?
Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?


(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror.

Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’?
Or only thoughts suggest it?

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?
Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?
Or are there only colours and shapes?

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen.

Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).

Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

(8) Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Kay

[Marc108]

Hello Kay

I'm sending you this little note to inform you that I have to fly back home today.
I will not be able to answer your last post before one or two days.
I look forward to continuing our conversation and hope to do so very soon.
Best regards,
Marc

[forgetmenot]

Hi Marc,

Thank you for letting me know. Safe travels to you :)

Kay

[Marc108]

Hey Kay,

Ok, home again (just a thought). Thank you for your patience (another thought).

(1) (2) Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror?

No, apart from thought there is no connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror. The felt sensations are not linked by themselves to the image, the link doesn’t come from the colours neither from the sensations.
In AE there is absolutely no link between the sensations and the colours.

Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

Yes, it’s only thought that creates the link. Thought creates an assimilation of the felt sensations and the seen image. This assimilation is purely mental, it neither exists in the sensation itself nor in the seeing experience... otherwise a distorting mirror would hurt.

(3) While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

In AE there is absolutely no link between the sensations and the seen colours. During a movement, a thought may suggest that the simultaneity of the sensations and the movements of the colours in the mirror create a unity between them that further will be labelled as 'I am moving' but that simultaneity as well as the labelling are purely mental constructions, made of thoughts only. It doesn’t originate in the experiences themselves.

(4) Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

The sensations and the seen image are not connected by themselves. Only thought brings them close. With or without a mirror, the observation is the same.

(5) Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?

The image by itself is just colours, it doesn’t suggest that it is a body let alone 'me' or 'my body'.

Or are there only colours and shapes?

Only colours and shapes are seen; we also can say that even « shapes » are conceptions, not experience.

(6) Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

No, the image itself doesn’t suggest what could be outside of the image. There are just colours. This highlights particularly well the fact that our mind tends to create what it does not see.

(7) Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts).]Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

No, leaving aside images and thoughts no ‘body’ can be found anywhere. Only sensations are left.

(8) Start to walk slowly. Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

There are only sensations, in AE there is no label of 'body walking'.

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

No, there are just sensations, only thoughts can elaborate an idea that there is an 'I' that is 'walking'.

Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

Only thoughts can say thre's an 'I' that is 'walking'.

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?

Absolutely no body can be found in AE ; only thoughts can happen about a body.

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

Not at all, experience cannot suggest that there’s walking going on, only thoughts can.

(9) Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

No, the sensations are unlocalized, they happen without any reference in space. Location only results from thoughts about references in space. So on the one hand there is colours, the image, and on the other hand there are sensations.

Thank you very much.

Marc

[forgetmenot]

Hi Marc,

Okay...so let's check in and see where you are at compared to when we started this exploration.

Can you tell me, what is the biggest difference from before we started this conversation?
What has changed and what hasn’t?

Kay

[Marc108]

Hey Kay,

Can you tell me, what is the biggest difference from before we started this conversation?

The biggest difference from before we started this conversation is that the recognition/realization of 'no-self'' has improved. It has become a more 'concrete'/tangible experience. Through the readings and teachings previously received about emptiness I already had an idea and some small experience and this has certainly increased. These inquiries/exercises have an important place in the path towards a complete realization of the emptiness of the self and phenomena in general.
I also think that as we were talking a clearer recognition of thoughts and sensations has emerged.

What has changed and what hasn’t?

What has changed and improved is the realization of 'no-self', seeing in AE that the self is merely a psychological construction. What hasn't changed is life itself, the world.

Thank you,

Marc

[forgetmenot]

Hello Marc,

What has changed and what hasn’t?

What has changed and improved is the realization of 'no-self', seeing in AE that the self is merely a psychological construction. What hasn't changed is life itself, the world.

The litmus test is how you are feeling. Thoughts will and can say many things...but the knowing is in the feelings. So how do you feel? What is the difference between how you felt when starting this exploration to now.

Let's move onto looking at time.

There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on this linear time, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Any actual experience of one event following another?

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Kay

[Marc108]

Hey Kay,

the knowing is in the feelings. So how do you feel? What is the difference between how you felt when starting this exploration to now

.
There's a better understanding of experience and this makes me feel better. Experience is less 'heavy'. Less suffering.

But is there an experience that the ’now’ is moving along the line of time?

No, in AE there's no experience of time.

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

No

Any actual experience of one event following another?

No, there is only present.

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

It isn't moving, it's there, that's all there is.

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

No, impossible to find a moment where it began.

How long does the ‘now’ last?

The now doesn't last, it cannot be grasped, it's indescribable.

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

No beginning, no end

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

Impossible to determine when the present becomes the past.

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
The pas is unexistent in AE, there can only be a thought about the past.
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

No experience of time exists in AE.

Thank you,

Marc

[forgetmenot]

Hello Marc,

How long does the ‘now’ last?

The now doesn't last, it cannot be grasped, it's indescribable.

The ‘now’ isn’t a time, nor is ‘here’ a place. The herenow is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

Impossible to determine when the present becomes the past.

Hmmm…did you really look at this exercise? We are looking at the idea of time. If there is no experience of one moment giving away to the next…then how can there be a past?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

The past is unexistent in AE, there can only be a thought about the past.

Yes. If a thought appeared in this moment about you eating an ice-cream yesterday, when is that thought actually appearing? Is there any evidence of a ‘yesterday’ appearing in the present moment?

Look into the mirror throughout the day. Body image appears... notice that all that's really there are some colours, and a thought-story saying 'these colours are my body'

When you return to the mirror each time, consider whether these 'body colours' have ever appeared before.

Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body?

Can you find any previous appearances of the body? Where are they? If not how can it be known that the body has appeared before?

Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

Do that for today and report back what you find.

Kay

[Marc108]

Hello Kay,

The ‘now’ isn’t a time, nor is ‘here’ a place. The herenow is experience/THIS appearing exactly as it is.

Yes, 'here' and 'now' are concepts made up by thoughts. The real experience happens without lables.

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'? Impossible to determine when the present becomes the past. Hmmm…did you really look at this exercise? We are looking at the idea of time. If there is no experience of one moment giving away to the next…then how can there be a past?

It can be said that the 'now' becomes the 'past' now/in the present, but the lable 'now/in the present' is also just a thought. The moment that the now becomes the pas cannot be described because it is infinitesimal. There is experience of one moment passing into the past but the moment that this happens cannot be conceptualized/determined just because it is IT, it always changes infinitely fast.

If a thought appeared in this moment about you eating an ice-cream yesterday, when is that thought actually appearing?

The thought is appearing now, in the present moment.

Is there any evidence of a ‘yesterday’ appearing in the present moment?

No, there is no evidence of a ‘yesterday’ appearing in the present moment, there's just the experience/appearance of a thought, of a story that goes 'I ate an ice-cream yesterday', this thought is blabla. The blabla happens, this cannot be denied, but it is blabla not eating an ice-cream and it happens in the present not 'yesterday'.

Look into the mirror throughout the day. Body image appears... notice that all that's really there are some colours, and a thought-story saying 'these colours are my body'. When you return to the mirror each time, consider whether these 'body colours' have ever appeared before.

This noticing happens more and more frequently and spontaneaously, throughout the day. The thought 'these colours appeared before' may occur, but when I look and only look I see that in AE there are just colours, not a story, not a 'body' and no 'before'.

Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body?

Only thoughts can elaborate a concept of 'past'. In AE itself, there is no past and everything happens for the first time, even the 'body' image and story. The colours are never exactly the same as those 'seen before' because everything constantly changes.

Can you find any previous appearances of the body? Where are they? If not how can it be known that the body has appeared before?

No, in the colours that are seen now there are no appearances of the past, no previous colours. What I can find is only colours, not anything 'previous'. It's amazing to realize that the 'body' actually never appeared before ; in the current reality there is no indication that a body appeared before.

Is the appearance just appearing 'now' with only a thought-story claiming you've seen this body before?

Yes, exactly, it is evident that in AE the appearance is just happening in an eternal 'nowness' devoid of thoughts and stories, in 'naked reality', not dressed with thoughts. Thoughts are narratives about reality, not the reality that they describe.

Thank you so much for these exercises ; it all makes life much more wonderfull !

Marc

[forgetmenot]

Hi Marc,

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'? Impossible to determine when the present becomes the past. Hmmm…did you really look at this exercise? We are looking at the idea of time. If there is no experience of one moment giving away to the next…then how can there be a past?

It can be said that the 'now' becomes the 'past' now/in the present, but the lable 'now/in the present' is also just a thought. The moment that the now becomes the pas cannot be described because it is infinitesimal. There is experience of one moment passing into the past but the moment that this happens cannot be conceptualized/determined just because it is IT, it always changes infinitely fast.

There would have to be a 'you' that is separate to experience to know that there is a difference. And there is no separation in any shape or form

An apparent thing can seemingly change. A square bit of wood can change into a round bit of wood with a little effort. The wood had a shape, lost it and now is a different shape. It has 'changed'. Now look at experience. Does it have anything? Shape? Colour? Taste? So how can it change? How can 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.

If a thought appeared in this moment about you eating an ice-cream yesterday, when is that thought actually appearing?

The thought is appearing now, in the present moment.

Yes, and is thought anything other than experience itself? It is only thought that calls itself thought and says that each thought is different and that each thought is pointing to something different. Without thought saying each thought is different, how would this be known?

Look into the mirror throughout the day. Body image appears... notice that all that's really there are some colours, and a thought-story saying 'these colours are my body'. When you return to the mirror each time, consider whether these 'body colours' have ever appeared before.

This noticing happens more and more frequently and spontaneaously, throughout the day. The thought 'these colours appeared before' may occur, but when I look and only look I see that in AE there are just colours, not a story, not a 'body' and no 'before'.

Lovely!

Has this body image + story ever appeared before - or is this the only time you have ever been aware of these *exact* colours and this exact story about the body?

Only thoughts can elaborate a concept of 'past'. In AE itself, there is no past and everything happens for the first time, even the 'body' image and story. The colours are never exactly the same as those 'seen before' because everything constantly changes.

Are there many colourS or just colour?



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

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels - are there many colourS? Or is there simply colour?
Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’?
Where does colour begin and end?

Can you find any previous appearances of the body? Where are they? If not how can it be known that the body has appeared before?

No, in the colours that are seen now there are no appearances of the past, no previous colours. What I can find is only colours, not anything 'previous'. It's amazing to realize that the 'body' actually never appeared before ; in the current reality there is no indication that a body appeared before.

Trippy stuff, ay! :) So, from this, you can see that nothing has ever appeared before…so the concept of past and memory are stories.

Thank you so much for these exercises ; it all makes life much more wonderfull !

Nice to hear! :)

Past and memory go hand-in-hand as almost everybody believes that a memory thought is referring to something that has happened; that a memory thought is a different thought than a non-memory thought.

Please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it.

What is memory exactly?
What is the memory ‘made of’?

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

WHEN does the memory actually appear?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

Then, look at a thought about the future.
What is the future thought ‘made of’?

WHEN does the future thought appear?
What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?
How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

Then let’s compare a thought about the past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?
If there is a difference, how is that difference known exactly?

Kay

[Marc108]

Hey Kay,

There would have to be a 'you' that is separate to experience to know that there is a difference.

When I look inwards I cannot find any 'you' or 'me'; nothing is separated from the experience of looking itself, there is only AE happening, no 'you' to know or say anything. Thoughts arise as the AE, they are not separate from the AE.

Does it have anything? Shape? Colour? Taste? So how can it change? How can it 'stay the same'?

In AE there's no shape, no colour, no taste; 'things' neither stay the same nor change because there's just one global happening. Only thought produces a qualifier and links it to the AE.

To say experience is changeless is a thorn to remove the idea experience changes. But to say experience is changeless fails to describe experience.

'Changing' and 'changeless' are labels, not AE. When I look directly to the present experience I don't see how it was before, therefore I cannot say whether things are changing or not, such a statement can only be produced by thought. Only thought produces the idea of time. AE just happens, it is (t)here/now.

Yes, and is thought anything other than experience itself?

'When' a 'thought' occurs, thought is the experience itself. A concept like thought just isn't there, there's just IT, the experience of thought happening.

IGNORE ALL object labels and colour labels - are there many colourS? Or is there simply colour?
Is there an actual gap between the ‘trees’? Where does colour begin and end?

There's only one : colour. There are no trees neither gaps. No beginning, no end. It is thought that divides reality but AE doesn't "do" anything, it is undivided.

What is memory exactly?

A memory is a thought. It can be a thought about a seen image, a proven sensation, an odour, a conversation, but this all are contents of thoughts, the AE of memory is only thought.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

A memory is a thought or a series of thoughts that point to other thoughts about images, sensations, words and so on.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘memory’ thought?

A 'general' thought can refer to AE ('ouch, this is painfull') or to a thought whereas a ‘memory’ thought can only be a thought about thought. A memory thought can only refer to the past, which is a thought, only the present is.

WHEN does the memory actually appear?

The memory actually appears in the present, in experience it is a present happening.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened?

It is known by another thought, a second thought says 'oh, that (= what the first thought pointed to) happened at that time' and then other thoughts add other comments ('and it was so and so...') and so on.

Then, look at a thought about the future. What is the future thought ‘made of’?

A thought about the future is made of thoughts, of the same kind of mental commentaries and images as a thought about the past.

WHEN does the future thought appear?

The future thought appears in the now, when it appears.

What is the exact difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought?

A 'general' thought can refer to AE ('brr, it's cold') or to a thought. A thought about the future can only be a thought about thought.

How is it known EXACTLY that a ‘future’ thought refers to something that will happen?

A thought about the future is qualified as such by another thought that says 'this previous thought refers to something that will happen'.

Then let’s compare a thought about the past and a thought about the future.
What is the EXACT difference between the thoughts about past and future?

As regards their nature, I see no difference between the thoughts about past and future, they are both thoughts about thoughts, their content is imagination. Of course, they are about something else (what has happened versus what will happen) but their nature is identical.

If there is a difference, how is that difference known exactly?

There is no difference. I only see a difference in the content of these thoughts, not in their nature. The difference in content is only known by a commentary thought.

Thank you !

Marc