Meditator wants to break through

[budgie]

Hi Kay, I'm glad we can continue.

Let me talk about the exercise:

Here 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 - the object seen. In this exercise, the object being the ‘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…

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

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

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

You can repeat this with exercise with all of the body parts below, one-by-one.

- feet
- legs
- arms
- belly
- chest
- head (looking into the mirror)

So while feeling the sensations arising in the separate body parts I kept my eyes closed and there were physical sensations of (for example) the pressure of my feet on the floor. When I opened my eyes there was the color and shape of the foot....I did see how the sensation "in" the foot arose distinctly from the looking at the foot, one not coming from the other
With looking at the head in the mirror it was the same thing. I stared somewhat fixedly at the image in the mirror, there was somewhat of an experience of the visual image of the head altering or fading some way, probably just an optical effect of staring into a mirror. There again I didn't see any link between the feeling of the head with eyes closed and seeing the image of the head in the mirror

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ken,

So while feeling the sensations arising in the separate body parts I kept my eyes closed and there were physical sensations of (for example) the pressure of my feet on the floor. When I opened my eyes there was the color and shape of the foot....I did see how the sensation "in" the foot arose distinctly from the looking at the foot, one not coming from the other

Terrific! Shapes are just different patterns of colour.
How is it known that the foot has a shape and how is it known what that shape is?

With looking at the head in the mirror it was the same thing. I stared somewhat fixedly at the image in the mirror, there was somewhat of an experience of the visual image of the head altering or fading some way, probably just an optical effect of staring into a mirror. There again I didn't see any link between the feeling of the head with eyes closed and seeing the image of the head in the mirror

How is it known that the image seen is that of a head?
Does the label 'head' point to AE or does it point to thought stories about a head?


Please forgive me if we have already been over this and you have already done these exercises. It has been rather a long day! :)

It is generally believed that thoughts are coming from the head somewhere around the forehead. 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?

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.

Furthermore, it's also believed that both the '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)?


With love,
Kay
xx

[budgie]

Hi Kay here are some responses to your pointers in your last post:

1 How is it known that the image seen is that of a head?
Does the label 'head' point to AE or does it point to thought stories about a head?


Please forgive me if we have already been over this and you have already done these exercises. It has been rather a long day! :)

It is generally believed that thoughts are coming from the head somewhere around the forehead. 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.

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

3 So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?

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.

Furthermore, it's also believed that both the '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'.

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

5 Can sight come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

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

1) It is not known through AE experience that the image seen is of a head. That is a thought/story

2) Yes the forehead is a thought/story/sensation

3) No a thought arises by itself, no link to an image

4) Agreed

5) There is the sensation of seeing independent of any image of the eyes

6) No

I should say that the thought story of the thinking mind residing in the forehead area something hard to shake. I can see how the story of this constructs itself and can see beyond this story but there lingers a strong association between thinking and head I am continuing to investigate this

[forgetmenot]

Hello Ken,

1 How is it known that the image seen is that of a head?
Does the label 'head' point to AE or does it point to thought stories about a head?

1) It is not known through AE experience that the image seen is of a head. That is a thought/story

Yes.
The label ‘head’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of a head
The colour/image ‘head’ is the AE of colour/image and not the AE of a head

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

2) Yes the forehead is a thought/story/sensation

The label ‘forehead’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of a forehead
The sensation labelled ‘forehead’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of a forehead
The colour/image labelled as ‘forehead’ is the AE of colour/image and not the AE of a forehead.

So you get to see how thought overlays AE with story! :)
So there is no AE of a ‘forehead’, what is actually appearing is sensation, colour/image, label and thoughts ABOUT a forehead!

3 So, can a thought come from a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image?

3) No a thought arises by itself, no link to an image

Nice LOOKING

5 Can sight come from a sensation?
Can sight come from an image (of the eyes)?

5) There is the sensation of seeing independent of any image of the eyes

Is there a sensation of “seeing” or is there just sensation?
How is it known that the sensation refers to “seeing”?
If you close your eyes, as if trying to remember something, is the sensation there? If so, does it pertain to “seeing”?

I should say that the thought story of the thinking mind residing in the forehead area something hard to shake. I can see how the story of this constructs itself and can see beyond this story but there lingers a strong association between thinking and head I am continuing to investigate this

Yes, investigate the thought story of the mind residing in the forehead as often as possible.
Just break it down into AE and inquire:

Does the label ‘forehead’ know anything about a forehead?
Does the label 'forehead' know anything about thinking?
Does the label ‘forehead’ know anything about a mind?
Does the label ‘forehead’ know anything about a mind residing in a forehead?
Does the label ‘mind’ know anything about residing in a forehead?

Does the sensation labelled ‘forehead’ suggest in any way that it is a forehead?
Does the sensation labelled 'forehead' know anything about thinking?
Does the sensation labelled ‘forehead’ suggest in any way that it knows about a forehead?
Does the sensation labelled ‘forehead’ suggest in any way that it knows about a mind residing in a forehead?

Does the image labelled ‘forehead’ know anything about a forehead?
Does the image labelled ‘forehead’ know anything about a mind residing in a forehead?

Here is another exercise.

Close your eyes (or leave them open) and bring the story of “mind residing in forehead“ to the forefront, and notice the sensation and images that seemingly go hand in hand with that thought.

Now replace the thought “mind residing in forehead” with “blahblahblah”. Look at experience, with thought only saying “blahbahblah.” Is there a “mind residing in forehead” without thought saying so?

If yes, that thought is referring to actual experience. That’s a “bare bones” thought, with all additional story layers stripped.

If no, then you know that the thought has added “virtual layers.” It’s fantasy, and it isn’t confirmed as actual experience, because what it was saying didn’t remain when the thought was replaced with “blahblahblah.”

You can do that exercise with any thought that appears to see what if a thought is a ‘bare bone’ thought or is a thought that has added ‘virtual layers’ to AE.

Test it out and let me know what you noticed.

Love, Kay
xx

[budgie]

Hi Kay,
I can reply to your last post in more detail tomorrow but I want to give some initial reaction to trying the last exercise:

Here is another exercise.

Close your eyes (or leave them open) and bring the story of “mind residing in forehead“ to the forefront, and notice the sensation and images that seemingly go hand in hand with that thought.

Now replace the thought “mind residing in forehead” with “blahblahblah”. Look at experience, with thought only saying “blahbahblah.” Is there a “mind residing in forehead” without thought saying so?

If yes, that thought is referring to actual experience. That’s a “bare bones” thought, with all additional story layers stripped.

If no, then you know that the thought has added “virtual layers.” It’s fantasy, and it isn’t confirmed as actual experience, because what it was saying didn’t remain when the thought was replaced with “blahblahblah.”

You can do that exercise with any thought that appears to see what if a thought is a ‘bare bone’ thought or is a thought that has added ‘virtual layers’ to AE.

Test it out and let me know what you noticed.

So I did notice a shift when I replaced the thought "mind residing in forehead" with "blablabla" ...the felt sense of mind residing in forehead seemed to lessen. But isn't there some kind of non-verbal experience going on? While I was going blabla there was still a sense of consciousness being in the head...less so but still there If I said "mind residing in feet" I could not fool myself into believing that experience. I'm not saying that I believe mind resides in my head, just that there is that appearance.

Does the label ‘forehead’ know anything about a forehead?
Does the label 'forehead' know anything about thinking?
Does the label ‘forehead’ know anything about a mind?
Does the label ‘forehead’ know anything about a mind residing in a forehead?
Does the label ‘mind’ know anything about residing in a forehead?

Does the sensation labelled ‘forehead’ suggest in any way that it is a forehead?
Does the sensation labelled 'forehead' know anything about thinking?
Does the sensation labelled ‘forehead’ suggest in any way that it knows about a forehead?
Does the sensation labelled ‘forehead’ suggest in any way that it knows about a mind residing in a forehead?

Does the image labelled ‘forehead’ know anything about a forehead?
Does the image labelled ‘forehead’ know anything about a mind residing in a forehead?

I would have to say no to all the questions. There is this thought story which is hard to dissolve that there is seeing out of a head, that seeing, speaking, hearing, smelling is centered in a head with the thought that there is a brain located in the head. The thinking seems centered there. When I hear a bird song outside I know that it is just hearing, but there is some kind of habitual mapping that is going on where "outside" sounds seem to be coming from outside a body and being heard in a head. I will work on these questions tomorrow and will write more.

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ken,

I am loving the questions!

So I did notice a shift when I replaced the thought "mind residing in forehead" with "blablabla" ...the felt sense of mind residing in forehead seemed to lessen. But isn't there some kind of non-verbal experience going on? While I was going blabla there was still a sense of consciousness being in the head...less so but still there If I said "mind residing in feet" I could not fool myself into believing that experience. I'm not saying that I believe mind resides in my head, just that there is that appearance.

Isn’t the non-verbal experience the actual experience of sensation and perhaps a mental image?
When the thought about "mind residing in forehead" was replaced with “blahblahblah” the sensation and mental image will remain but they are the AE of sensation and image….not the AE of a “mind residing in a forehead”? Yes?

Go back to the label exercise where the label said “GREEN” but the colour was red.
Did the label have a one-to-one correspondence to actual experience of red, or did thought add a “virtual layer” over what the actual experience is?

I would have to say no to all the questions. There is this thought story which is hard to dissolve that there is seeing out of a head, that seeing, speaking, hearing, smelling is centered in a head with the thought that there is a brain located in the head. The thinking seems centered there. When I hear a bird song outside I know that it is just hearing, but there is some kind of habitual mapping that is going on where "outside" sounds seem to be coming from outside a body and being heard in a head. I will work on these questions tomorrow and will write more.

If you are expecting that story to disappear, then I wouldn’t hold your breath! Why would that story disappear? It is a thought story that has been appearing since Adam was a boy! Or should I say, since Ken was a boy! ;)

As I have said….LOOKING has to happen constantly and consistently. So when that thought story appears….LOOK into it and see what is actually appearing. It is only through this repetitive inquiry that eventually LOOKING becomes automatic and the story is seen for what it is….just a story.

What is the AE of “brain”?
What is the AE of “head”?
Do either of those labels point to AE or do they point to thought story?

Again…coming back to the "GREEN" label exercise.

Experience is appearing as sensation. The label that thought layers on sensation is “head”.
Does the label "head" have a one-to-one correspondence to WHAT IS (the actual experience of sensation)?

Love, Kay
xx

[budgie]

Hi Kay,

to continue the looking:

Isn’t the non-verbal experience the actual experience of sensation and perhaps a mental image?
When the thought about "mind residing in forehead" was replaced with “blahblahblah” the sensation and mental image will remain but they are the AE of sensation and image….not the AE of a “mind residing in a forehead”? Yes?

Yes I see that now, I agree that what was happening when I was thinking blablablah there was AE of sensation/mental images.

Go back to the label exercise where the label said “GREEN” but the colour was red.
Did the label have a one-to-one correspondence to actual experience of red, or did thought add a “virtual layer” over what the actual experience is?

There was the actual experience of the color. I'm not sure about the concept of "one-to-one correspondence" here....there was an experience of red, or a sensation of red and perhaps some mental chatter about the label which was "a virtual layer" over the actual experience.

What is the AE of “brain”?
What is the AE of “head”?
Do either of those labels point to AE or do they point to thought story?

This I agree is thought story. There is no actual experience of Brain. There are sensations overlaid of a thought story about sensations "in the head" but the sensations are just sensations with an overlay of thought stories about lips, forehead, teeth, etc.

Again…coming back to the "GREEN" label exercise.

Experience is appearing as sensation. The label that thought layers on sensation is “head”.
Does the label "head" have a one-to-one correspondence to WHAT IS (the actual experience of sensation)?

No one-to-one correspondence

[forgetmenot]

Hey Ken,

Isn’t the non-verbal experience the actual experience of sensation and perhaps a mental image? When the thought about "mind residing in forehead" was replaced with “blahblahblah” the sensation and mental image will remain but they are the AE of sensation and image….not the AE of a “mind residing in a forehead”? Yes?

Yes I see that now, I agree that what was happening when I was thinking blablablah there was AE of sensation/mental images.

Terrific! So just keep doing that so it becomes clearer and clearer how thought overlays experience with labels and stories.

Go back to the label exercise where the label said “GREEN” but the colour was red.
Did the label have a one-to-one correspondence to actual experience of red, or did thought add a “virtual layer” over what the actual experience is?

There was the actual experience of the color. I'm not sure about the concept of "one-to-one correspondence" here....there was an experience of red, or a sensation of red and perhaps some mental chatter about the label which was "a virtual layer" over the actual experience.

Yes, but the label said ‘green’ whereas the experience is red.
So does the label correspond with actual experience of red?

A label is a thought! There is no difference between labels and thoughts!

Red is not a sensation! Red is a colour, how does red show up as a sensation? Sensation refers to what is supposedly felt in the body. For the sake of clear communication we need to keep the senses with their 'correct' labels.

What is the AE of “brain”?
What is the AE of “head”?
Do either of those labels point to AE or do they point to thought story?

This I agree is thought story. There is no actual experience of Brain. There are sensations overlaid of a thought story about sensations "in the head" but the sensations are just sensations with an overlay of thought stories about lips, forehead, teeth, etc.

Yes, if we break “brain” down…..

The label “brain” is the AE of thought and not the AE of a brain
The image/colour labelled as “brain” is the AE of colour and not the AE of a brain

Again…coming back to the "GREEN" label exercise.
Experience is appearing as sensation. The label that thought layers on sensation is “head”.
Does the label "head" have a one-to-one correspondence to WHAT IS (the actual experience of sensation)?

No one-to-one correspondence

Yes, so the sensation ‘around the head and ears’ that seemingly points to the location to where a ‘head’ is, is AE of sensation and not the AE of a head.

Let’s take a closer look at location.

Take a very careful look at this...

Does experience have a location?
If it does, where, exactly, is it located?

For example: Image of hammer hitting thumb, sensation of pain, thought saying, ""Ouch!!".

Where exactly did all of that happen?
Where was experience located?
Was experience of pain located in the thumb?
Was experience of images located at the thumb and hammer?
Or is experience always "closer" than even the word "here" can convey?
Does anything actually have a location?
How would you know?
What would count as evidence of actual location?

Love, Kay

[budgie]

Hi Kay:

Yes, but the label said ‘green’ whereas the experience is red.
So does the label correspond with actual experience of red?

A label is a thought! There is no difference between labels and thoughts!

Red is not a sensation! Red is a colour, how does red show up as a sensation? Sensation refers to what is supposedly felt in the body. For the sake of clear communication we need to keep the senses with their 'correct' labels.

I would say that the label does not correspond with the actual experience. There's an actual experience of the word on the screen. I guess I'm a little confused on how we are describing experiences here. I think you had said earlier that we can't accurately say we are "seeing" something because that involves a seer. But to use everyday relative language I would say that I see a word on the screen. The color of the font is red. The word is spelled g-r-e-e-n. I'm not sure how to describe it. A little confused on what words to use.
Also not sure how to describe seeing a color. Is it the AE of color?

Is there perhaps a glossary of how the terms are used so I'm sure I'm communicating well?

I will send along thoughts about the problem about location just a bit later

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ken,

Yes, but the label said ‘green’ whereas the experience is red.
So does the label correspond with actual experience of red?
A label is a thought! There is no difference between labels and thoughts!
Red is not a sensation! Red is a colour, how does red show up as a sensation? Sensation refers to what is supposedly felt in the body. For the sake of clear communication we need to keep the senses with their 'correct' labels.

I would say that the label does not correspond with the actual experience. There's an actual experience of the word on the screen. I guess I'm a little confused on how we are describing experiences here. I think you had said earlier that we can't accurately say we are "seeing" something because that involves a seer. But to use everyday relative language I would say that I see a word on the screen. The color of the font is red. The word is spelled g-r-e-e-n. I'm not sure how to describe it. A little confused on what words to use.
Also not sure how to describe seeing a color. Is it the AE of color?

I think something very simple is being complicated.
Actual experience (AE) = sound, smell, taste, thought/label, sensation, colour/image.

Going back to the original exercise I gave you at the start. Did you do this exercise and continue to do it until AE was clearly seen?

Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label each experience simply colour/ image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

So as you become aware of:
Seeing a tree, simply IS image/colour
Smelling coffee, simply IS smell,
Feeling the feet on the floor, simply IS sensation.
Tasting toothpaste on the toothbrush, simply IS taste
Hearing a car drive by, simply IS sound
Thought about work, simply IS = thought.

Just break down all experiences into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go.

I even posted a picture of a rose as an example of AE at the beginning of our exploration. So don't just glance at it and go, oh yeah...really LOOK.

What is a rose? Perhaps a nice red and green flower with a pleasant smell and some sharp thorns?



But look again - all that is ‘actually’ present are red and green (AE of colour), a nice fragrance (AE of smell) and maybe an 'ouch' sensation (AE of sensation). However, the appearing thoughts are AE of thought.
Does the label 'rose' point to AE or does it point to story ABOUT a rose? In other words, does the rose actually exist? If not, then the label 'rose' is not pointing to AE it is pointing to story. What is actually appearing is the AE of colour, smell, sensation and thought.

Do you see this, is this clear? If not, let me know and we will keep LOOKING until it is clear.

Notice that all things that seem to exist are just like the rose, just fictional stories about experience. Beyond the story, can any of them be found to exist at all?


The word/label/thought ‘green’ appearing on the screen is the AE of thought, and the colour red is the AE of colour.

When you see the colour ‘pink’ is that not the actual experience of colour? It can’t be anything else! It’s not smell, it’s not taste, it’s not sensation, it’s not thought, it’s not sound! Colour is colour.

Don’t take my word that there is no see-er….have a LOOK, can you find a see-er of experience anywhere?
Where is the dividing line between ‘see-er’ and ‘seen’?
Where does seeing end and the seen begin?
LOOK carefully at this until you can see what I am pointing at.

Is there perhaps a glossary of how the terms are used so I'm sure I'm communicating well?

This exploration isn't about glossary of terms, Ken. It is about LOOKING. When you LOOK it becomes clear. This isn't something you can learn...it is a recognition.

I suggest you put aside the ‘location’ exercise and we just concentrate on AE until it is clear. As I said in the beginning, if AE isn’t clear then this exploration will be confusing. And if thoughts aren’t seen through clearly, that is the difference between AE of thought and content of thought, then this exploration is going to be confusing.

Love, Kay

[budgie]

Hi Kay,

Your explanation of AE in your last post is very clear, thanks. I don't think I have any problem understanding that. But to revisit the labeling question again:

Yes, but the label said ‘green’ whereas the experience is red.
So does the label correspond with actual experience of red?

A label is a thought! There is no difference between labels and thoughts!

Red is not a sensation! Red is a colour, how does red show up as a sensation? Sensation refers to what is supposedly felt in the body. For the sake of clear communication we need to keep the senses with their 'correct' labels.

So to answer the question again I would say no the label does not correspond with the AE of red.

he word/label/thought ‘green’ appearing on the screen is the AE of thought, and the colour red is the AE of colour.

GREEN

Thanks I think this makes it clear. It's an important distinction.

[forgetmenot]

Hey Ken,

Thank you for being diligent, it makes guiding so much more pleasurable, even if there is no one who can feel pleasurable or who is guiding. :)

Your explanation of AE in your last post is very clear, thanks. I don't think I have any problem understanding that.

Great!

Yes, but the label said ‘green’ whereas the experience is red. So does the label correspond with actual experience of red?

So to answer the question again I would say no the label does not correspond with the AE of red.

Terrific! I am glad we cleared that up.

The word/label/thought ‘green’ appearing on the screen is the AE of thought, and the colour red is the AE of colour.

GREEN

Thanks I think this makes it clear. It's an important distinction.

Yes, it is!

I forgot to put the following in as a blue text, so I am posting them again as I would like you to LOOK and let me know what you find.

Don’t take my word that there is no see-er….have a LOOK, can you find a see-er of experience anywhere?
Where is the dividing line between ‘see-er’ and ‘seen’?
Where does seeing end and the seen begin?
LOOK carefully at this until you can see what I am pointing at.

Love, Kay

[budgie]

Hi Kay:

Don’t take my word that there is no see-er….have a LOOK, can you find a see-er of experience anywhere?
Where is the dividing line between ‘see-er’ and ‘seen’?
Where does seeing end and the seen begin?
LOOK carefully at this until you can see what I am pointing at.

No seer, just experience. There is no line. There is no seeing and seen duality.

I can't think of how to expand on this. I can work on the exercise you posted a while back on location, or perhaps you would like to continue to explore the above or want to take a different direction

[forgetmenot]

Hi Ken,

Don’t take my word that there is no see-er….have a LOOK, can you find a see-er of experience anywhere?
Where is the dividing line between ‘see-er’ and ‘seen’?
Where does seeing end and the seen begin?
LOOK carefully at this until you can see what I am pointing at.

No seer, just experience. There is no line. There is no seeing and seen duality.

Yes, just seeingseen and there is no actual 'seeing' because you would have to be a person who resides in a body for that to be....and there is no person residing in a body. We will go more into the body a little later.

I can't think of how to expand on this. I can work on the exercise you posted a while back on location, or perhaps you would like to continue to explore the above or want to take a different direction

Yes, do the location exercise and spend some time doing them until you are very clear on whether there is such a thing as a location.

Love, Kay
xx

[budgie]

Hi Kay,

So I did the location exercise:

Does experience have a location?
If it does, where, exactly, is it located?

For example: Image of hammer hitting thumb, sensation of pain, thought saying, ""Ouch!!".

1 Where exactly did all of that happen?
2 Where was experience located?
3 Was experience of pain located in the thumb?
4 Was experience of images located at the thumb and hammer?
5 Or is experience always "closer" than even the word "here" can convey?
6 Does anything actually have a location?
7 How would you know?
8 What would count as evidence of actual location?

I spent some time looking at the idea of location with regard to body sensations. There was the ae of sensation. There was a thought/story about location.
1) sensation of pain in thumb; thought about location
2) just a sensation: there is a story thought about it being "in the thumb"
3) the idea of it being location in the thumb is a story; there is the sensation in ae
4) There is a story going on about "there" and "here"
5) I was working on this. It's just experience arising without a location. the idea of closer is also a story
6) No location in Ae. Just thoughts about location
7) It is not known
8) No evidence in AE.

There still is a strong thought/story, especially with eyes open of location being a reference point, but when it is looked at there is no location in ae.