So close... yet so far?

[Gray]

Kay!

I get it! I get it! Sensations aren't actually happening 'out here' or 'out there', 'in this' or 'in that'! They have no actual spatial or 'physical' relation to anything, yet they are everything, everywhere, unbounded! It's like some virtual parallel process mapping overlay thing. But how? What is actually going on?? My head's exploding again. Brilliant!

Got excited and had to share. Still working on the body stuff... hard to put all this experience into the right words and still need to look deeper.

Also,

Lovely, yes...so are there many different colourS or just simply colour?

There are no ‘many’ or ‘different’ colours in AE, just colour / image!

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hey Gray,

I get it! I get it! Sensations aren't actually happening 'out here' or 'out there', 'in this' or 'in that'! They have no actual spatial or 'physical' relation to anything, yet they are everything, everywhere, unbounded!

Bloody awesome – a nice aha moment! :) For there to be a location it would have to be happening to a ‘body’ to a ‘someone’!

It's like some virtual parallel process mapping overlay thing. But how? What is actually going on?? My head's exploding again. Brilliant!

Not sure what this means!

Got excited and had to share. Still working on the body stuff... hard to put all this experience into the right words and still need to look deeper.

Thank you for sharing, I am excited for you too!

Lovely, yes...so are there many different colourS or just simply colour?

There are no ‘many’ or ‘different’ colours in AE, just colour / image!

Nice! :) It is only thought that not only divides THIS/experience into many different ‘things’, but also then divides colour into many different colourS. There are no divisions…THIS is whole, seamless and complete.

Love, Kay

[Gray]

Hello Kay,

Bloody awesome – a nice aha moment! :) For there to be a location it would have to be happening to a ‘body’ to a ‘someone’!

Yes! Thank you!

Not sure what this means!

Ha! Me neither!

Nice! Have a look at this video clip…and let the exploding of the head continue! (smiling)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... e=youtu.be

This bring to mind things like 'phantom limb pain', and how VR is so convincing.


Back to the body exercises! It feels like there's still a lot I'm not seeing through clearly in body identification. It's clear to me that there is nothing inherently 'me' or 'body' in the AE of image, but there's a lot of thought identification that is pointing to 'me' and 'my body'.

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?

In AE, without thought there are simply no boundaries, or an owner of sensations to be found. I cannot say that sensations are actually felt ‘here’ in the ‘real’ body, nor ‘there’ in the ‘mirror body’.

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

The sensations match up with the image of movement in the mirror, but they don’t ‘belong’ to or ‘come from’ mirror hand. The sensations are simply ‘happening’ and sensed.

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

Being able to look back and forth between the ‘real’ and ‘mirror’ hand and notice how sensations do not belong to or come from either, shows that in AE there is no absolute connection, only suggestion of connection by thought. Sensations happen and are felt, but they don’t happen or come from ‘here’ or ‘there’.

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?

The image by itself, no. But the thought stories that it is ‘me’ and ‘my body’ have not been seen through.

Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?

Only thought suggests this. But the urgency of thought to label the image ‘body’ is strong.

Or are there only colours and shapes?

Again, outside thought it is simply image, colour and shapes, but the thought identification is still overpowering.

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, there is nothing in AE of image to suggest legs.

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

Only sensations!

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

Only sensations!

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

Only AE of sensations!

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

I AE there is no ‘body’, only image labelled body by thought.

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

Walking cannot be found in AE.

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?

Sensations are not localised or actually moving anywhere or belonging to something fixed. This illusion that sensations belong to or come from the physical body has been broken. But room still ‘feels’ like room in fixed space, full of 'stuff'.

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hello Gray,

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

The sensations match up with the image of movement in the mirror, but they don’t ‘belong’ to or ‘come from’ mirror hand. The sensations are simply ‘happening’ and sensed.

Being “sensed” by what exactly? Where does the sensation end and the knowing of it begin?


Please close your eyes for the following exercise and only answer from the AE.

Place a hand on a desk or table (flat surface) - Close your eyes.
Now 'go to' the sensation which we would normally refer to as 'hand on desk' and answer from what you can FIND.

1) How many things do you find? I mean, are there two things (a hand and a desk) or is there one thing ie sensation?
2) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just sensation?
3) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just sensation?

Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’?

The image by itself, no. But the thought stories that it is ‘me’ and ‘my body’ have not been seen through.

Have another look at what you wrote – “.But the thought stories that it is ‘me’ and ‘my body’ have not been seen through”. What is the expectation here?

Just because thought says that the ‘sensation’ is a body and the body is me or mine doesn’t make it so. When you LOOK with AE do you find a body or a me?

Perhaps the expectation is that all identification with a body will disappear, and that all sensations that thought refers to as a body, will disappear?

What is the AE of the ‘body’?


This may come to you as a complete surpirse, but thought doesn't stop telling you that it's your car, your job, your body, your craving, your preference, your pain, your happiness, your this and your that. Why would thought stop saying something just because it's seen what thoughts are. It's never been any other way.

Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all?

Only thought suggests this. But the urgency of thought to label the image ‘body’ is strong.

What is the AE of “But the urgency of thought to label the image ‘body’ is strong”?

Or are there only colours and shapes?

Again, outside thought it is simply image, colour and shapes, but the thought identification is still overpowering.

To what exactly is “identification still overpowering”? Is/can thought identifying with thought? What is it exactly that is identifying with or as something?

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?

Sensations are not localised or actually moving anywhere or belonging to something fixed. This illusion that sensations belong to or come from the physical body has been broken. But room still ‘feels’ like room in fixed space, full of 'stuff'.

Yes, and ‘room” will continue to ‘feel like room in fixed space, full of ‘stuff’”! That is what is appearing in the present moment…THIS appearing exactly as it is…including the story of “room still feels like room in fixed space, full of stuff”!

Love, Kay

[Gray]

Hello Kay,

Being “sensed” by what exactly? Where does the sensation end and the knowing of it begin?

There is no-one and nothing sensing, it’s just happening. No beginning or end.

1) How many things do you find? I mean, are there two things (a hand and a desk) or is there one thing ie sensation?

There is only sensation, no separate sensation of hand and desk.

2) Do you notice 'one thing feeling another thing'? Or is there just sensation?

Only sensation!

3) Do you find an 'I', a body, a hand 'feeling' . . . or is there just sensation?

Again, there is only sensation!

Have another look at what you wrote – “.But the thought stories that it is ‘me’ and ‘my body’ have not been seen through”. What is the expectation here?

Clearly there is expectation that his type of thought will go away or at least be attenuated. Now that you’ve pointed it out to me, I’m not sure why!

Just because thought says that the ‘sensation’ is a body and the body is me or mine doesn’t make it so. When you LOOK with AE do you find a body or a me?

There is nothing in AE that is a ‘body’ or ‘me’. I find only thoughts about a body or me.

Perhaps the expectation is that all identification with a body will disappear, and that all sensations that thought refers to as a body, will disappear?

Yes, correct. Now I’m not exactly sure why I had this expectation in the first place. Why was there an urge or need to get rid of this? A preconceived idea or even misunderstanding of what ‘no-self’ would be? Expectation of some radical change in experience? I need to look at this.

What is the AE of the ‘body’?

Thought.

What is the AE of “But the urgency of thought to label the image ‘body’ is strong”?

AE of thought.

To what exactly is “identification still overpowering”? Is/can thought identifying with thought? What is it exactly that is identifying with or as something?

That’s exactly it! Identification is still overpowering to ‘me’? But ‘me’ is just a thought, so thought is identifying with itself? This is like adding 0 to 0 and getting 1. Doesn’t make sense!

Yes, and ‘room” will continue to ‘feel like room in fixed space, full of ‘stuff’”! That is what is appearing in the present moment…THIS appearing exactly as it is…including the story of “room still feels like room in fixed space, full of stuff”!

This may come to you as a complete surpirse, but thought doesn't stop telling you that it's your car, your job, your body, your craving, your preference, your pain, your happiness, your this and your that. Why would thought stop saying something just because it's seen what thoughts are. It's never been any other way.

It is good to know this! Thank you!

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hello Gray,

Being “sensed” by what exactly? Where does the sensation end and the knowing of it begin?

There is no-one and nothing sensing, it’s just happening. No beginning or end.

Yes…“sense”, “sensed” & “sensing” are one and the same! Awareness doesn't come through the senses! 'Sensory' experience is the knowing. There is no division between knowing and known.

Have another look at what you wrote – “.But the thought stories that it is ‘me’ and ‘my body’ have not been seen through”. What is the expectation here?

Clearly there is expectation that his type of thought will go away or at least be attenuated. Now that you’ve pointed it out to me, I’m not sure why!

It is good to be aware of it. Nothing needs to be done with it or about it...other than it to be seen and awared :)

Perhaps the expectation is that all identification with a body will disappear, and that all sensations that thought refers to as a body, will disappear?

Yes, correct. Now I’m not exactly sure why I had this expectation in the first place. Why was there an urge or need to get rid of this? A preconceived idea or even misunderstanding of what ‘no-self’ would be? Expectation of some radical change in experience? I need to look at this.

You are aware of it..and that is all that needs to happen

To what exactly is “identification still overpowering”? Is/can thought identifying with thought? What is it exactly that is identifying with or as something?

That’s exactly it! Identification is still overpowering to ‘me’? But ‘me’ is just a thought, so thought is identifying with itself? This is like adding 0 to 0 and getting 1. Doesn’t make sense!

Thought is not aware, therefore it cannot identify with anything. So since thought cannot identify with a thought and when looking nothing can be found that is identifying with anything…then clearly it is just thought fluff.

A thought appears saying, "When I look I cannot find a ‘me’ anywhere”.
But later another thought arises saying, "Hey, don't be stupid, obviously there is a me. It feels like there is a me, so there must be a me. "
Does it mean the first thought was aware of something which the second thought somehow couldn't see?

Let’s have a look at the SENSE of self very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by feeling it.

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

Does the sense of a 'me' have a location?
Does the sense of a me have a shape or a size?

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

Does the sense of of a me have any characteristics or attributes?

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

Love, Kay

[Gray]

Hello Kay!

Does the sense of a 'me' have a location?
Does the sense of a me have a shape or a size?

The sense of ‘me’ still feels somewhat localised in the body, but not in any specific area like the solar plexus, heart or behind the eyes. It’s just sort of ‘there’. It doesn’t have a fixed shape or size.

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

No, it doesn’t.

Does the sense of of a me have any characteristics or attributes?

Constant sensation.

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

Sensation and thought.

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hello Gray,

Does the sense of a 'me' have a location?
Does the sense of a me have a shape or a size?

The sense of ‘me’ still feels somewhat localised in the body, but not in any specific area like the solar plexus, heart or behind the eyes. It’s just sort of ‘there’. It doesn’t have a fixed shape or size.

The phrase "it feels like" is a sign of unclarity. You describe this “sense of me” as a ‘feeling’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘sense’ anything? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘sense’?

So what if thought says that the sense of ‘me’ still feels somewhat localised in the body” What body exactly? Thought also once said the the world was flat...did it make it so? Does this moment care what kind of thought shows up? Does it matter if there is a thought of identification happening which thought is saying is a ‘sense of me’?

The thought ‘sense of me’ is AE of thought and not AE of a me
Sensation labelled as ‘sense of me’ is AE of sensation and not AE of a me
So sensation and thought are known, however is a ‘sense of me’ actually known?

Does the sense of of a me have any characteristics or attributes?

Constant sensation.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that is it a ‘sense of me’?
Does sensation itself have any characteristics or attributes?

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

Sensation and thought.

Yes, thought infers that the sensation is a ‘me’. Just because thought infers this…does it make it so?


Let me put it into a different context with the following exercise.

There is a belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. But there isn’t. It is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

Love, Kay

[Gray]

Hello Kay,

The phrase "it feels like" is a sign of unclarity. You describe this “sense of me” as a ‘feeling’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘sense’ anything? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘sense’?

No, feeling cannot sense. Feeling cannot ‘know’ or have inherent qualities.

So what if thought says that the sense of ‘me’ still feels somewhat localised in the body” What body exactly? Thought also once said the the world was flat...did it make it so? Does this moment care what kind of thought shows up? Does it matter if there is a thought of identification happening which thought is saying is a ‘sense of me’?

I understand. Thought ‘says’ a lot of stuff, and much of it is bizarre and pointless filler. I can observe a good amount of this chatter and let it pass, allowing it to do what it does without any notion of ‘me’ ‘doing’ the thinking or getting attached. But often the question ‘why are these thoughts arising? For what purpose? Who needs this nonsense?’ comes up. This points to resistance?

So sensation and thought are known, however is a ‘sense of me’ actually known?

No, there really isn’t. There is no such actual experience as a ‘sense’ of ‘me’.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that is it a ‘sense of me’?
Does sensation itself have any characteristics or attributes?

No, and no. There is nothing in AE to suggest any of this.

Yes, thought infers that the sensation is a ‘me’. Just because thought infers this…does it make it so?

No, it does not. I can see that in AE there is no ‘me’ in this sensation.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

The AE is colour. Labels definitely do not have a one-to-one correspondence to reality. I have been looking at this often in my day-to-day experience, and noticing how quickly it breaks down when tested; how things we label as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘tasty’, ‘ugly’, ‘beautiful’ etc. are inherently empty of the qualities we believe they somehow contain or are. It’s no wonder we can never agree on anything, as it is all just our own projections we superimpose on everything.

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

No, there’s no inherent good or bad in the redness.

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hello Gray,

So what if thought says that the sense of ‘me’ still feels somewhat localised in the body” What body exactly? Thought also once said the the world was flat...did it make it so? Does this moment care what kind of thought shows up? Does it matter if there is a thought of identification happening which thought is saying is a ‘sense of me’?

I understand. Thought ‘says’ a lot of stuff, and much of it is bizarre and pointless filler. I can observe a good amount of this chatter and let it pass, allowing it to do what it does without any notion of ‘me’ ‘doing’ the thinking or getting attached. But often the question ‘why are these thoughts arising? For what purpose? Who needs this nonsense?’ comes up. This points to resistance?

How? Implies cause.
Why? Implies meaning.
Where? Implies space
When? Implies time.
What? Implies thingness.

You neither accept or reject anything thoughts say - what is it exactly that is doing this? Thoughts just seemingly arise and subside. Some speak of acceptance, some of rejection, you are aware of them either way. Notice that is how every thought works in the dream. Watch thoughts closely for 20 - 30 minutes. See if there is "anything" actually going on other than you being aware of them!

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

The AE is colour. Labels definitely do not have a one-to-one correspondence to reality. I have been looking at this often in my day-to-day experience, and noticing how quickly it breaks down when tested; how things we label as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘tasty’, ‘ugly’, ‘beautiful’ etc. are inherently empty of the qualities we believe they somehow contain or are. It’s no wonder we can never agree on anything, as it is all just our own projections we superimpose on everything.

If we take ‘red’ as being experience itself (ie THIS) and we take ‘green’ being thought that points to experience and labels it as something else ie green instead of red, does that make experience green or does experience remain red?

Let's use gold as an analogy. 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? In other words can a ring or bracelet etc appear on its own without the gold? Does the gold become something else just because it seems to appear as a ring, or a necklace or an ingot etc? Or does gold remain as gold no matter what it appears as?

If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

No, there’s no inherent good or bad in the redness.

Exactly, the red remains as it is no matter what it is labelled as. So it goes with experience itself/THIS. Just because thought labels experience as sensation, thought, smell, taste, colour sound - it does not make it anything else but experience itself.

Love, Kay

[Gray]

Hello Kay,

You neither accept or reject anything thoughts say - what is it exactly that is doing this? Thoughts just seemingly arise and subside. Some speak of acceptance, some of rejection, you are aware of them either way. Notice that is how every thought works in the dream. Watch thoughts closely for 20 - 30 minutes. See if there is "anything" actually going on other than you being aware of them!

Yes, this is becoming clearer, though some thought still have strong ‘pull’ to their narrative that ‘I’ get sucked into for some time. Is this ‘being aware’ of them, or ‘me’ identifying with them? I have been trying to look deeper into this.

If we take ‘red’ as being experience itself (ie THIS) and we take ‘green’ being thought that points to experience and labels it as something else ie green instead of red, does that make experience green or does experience remain red?

Thought can come up with all sorts of different interpretations, but red is the actual experience.

Let's use gold as an analogy. 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? In other words can a ring or bracelet etc appear on its own without the gold? Does the gold become something else just because it seems to appear as a ring, or a necklace or an ingot etc? Or does gold remain as gold no matter what it appears as?

Gold remains gold regardless of how it appears!

Best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hello Gray,

You neither accept or reject anything thoughts say - what is it exactly that is doing this? Thoughts just seemingly arise and subside. Some speak of acceptance, some of rejection, you are aware of them either way. Notice that is how every thought works in the dream. Watch thoughts closely for 20 - 30 minutes. See if there is "anything" actually going on other than you being aware of them!

Yes, this is becoming clearer, though some thought still have strong ‘pull’ to their narrative that ‘I’ get sucked into for some time. Is this ‘being aware’ of them, or ‘me’ identifying with them? I have been trying to look deeper into this.

Everything is running on automatic. If you watch a great movie and get sucked into a good part, then zoom out, you see it’s just a movie, though for a few minutes the focus was completely on what was going on. This is also happening in 'real' life. There is zooming in and out of character. Identification with the story is also part of story. Attachment to pleasure and fear of pain are also stories. There is nothing that attaches, only the story about attachment.

So yo-yoing happens. Seeing through the illusory self is a beginning and not an ending. Seeing through the illusory self is one of many realisations….albeit the main realisation. However, you will need to continue to LOOK every day to ‘strengthen’ the seeing. How can many years of ‘thinking’ you are a separate self dissolve in a couple of months? Paradoxical..but the whole shebang is paradoxical!

Do you have any questions? Is there anything that you would like to explore further?

Love, Kay

[Gray]

Hello Kay,

Everything is running on automatic. If you watch a great movie and get sucked into a good part, then zoom out, you see it’s just a movie, though for a few minutes the focus was completely on what was going on. This is also happening in 'real' life. There is zooming in and out of character. Identification with the story is also part of story. Attachment to pleasure and fear of pain are also stories. There is nothing that attaches, only the story about attachment.

So yo-yoing happens. Seeing through the illusory self is a beginning and not an ending. Seeing through the illusory self is one of many realisations….albeit the main realisation. However, you will need to continue to LOOK every day to ‘strengthen’ the seeing. How can many years of ‘thinking’ you are a separate self dissolve in a couple of months? Paradoxical..but the whole shebang is paradoxical!

Yes, I understand... this resonates clearly. Thank you.

Do you have any questions? Is there anything that you would like to explore further?

Nothing else has come to mind, Kay. Things feel... nice. Peaceful, contented. Plenty of work left to be done for sure, but the tools to look deeply are in place, thanks to you. My sincerest and utmost gratitude for all the time, patience and clarity you have given me over the last few weeks. I will not forget it!

All the very best,

Gray

[forgetmenot]

Hi Gray,

You're not off the hook yet. I would like you to answer the following questions again. Please provide examples where asked and reply with some detail.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience.
Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this?
What is the difference from before you started this dialogue?
Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control.
b) What makes things happen? How does it work?
c) What are you responsible for?
d) Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?

Love, Kay

[Gray]

Oh, Cool! OK, let me get on that. :)

Best,

Gray