The Gate

Hi Zarina,

So it is clearly seen that there is no body?

Yes, this is clearly seen. Clearer today. (at times, when looking). That it is color. And sensation arises that thought says is "of the body."

Yes, nice!

Are there really ‘feet’ and a ‘head’ or is sensation occurring in no location to nobody!?

I have seen this in glimpses, but am having a little trouble with it. Conceptually, it hasn't been easy for me to see that it is thought somehow creating the spatial location. It is easy to see thought saying "head" or "feet" and that it is not actually "head" or "feet". But I am not seeing the thoughts that create the "down there" and "up here" - except very briefly. When I do see it, it seems to be mental image rather than "self-talk" thought, or it is seen as sensation but it isn't clear that there is thought with the sensation that says "down" or "up".

Also, have been observing thoughts and sensations about this above exercise just as happening, just thoughts, sensations.

Yes, the rabbit hole goes deep when you start to really LOOK! And there is no way through the rabbit hole…it’s seeing the rabbit hole for what it is...just a rabbit hole! (Rabbit hole = thought)!

BUT did you find any ‘feet’ or a ‘head’ anywhere…whether ‘up or down or sideways’ - or is sensation occurring in no location to nobody?

Just an add-on to the body question. I also saw today that the thought of things as "three-dimensional" was just a thought. That the color being seen was just color, just there right in front of me - or rather, just there being seen. Including "my body" and the body of my colleague. The idea that there was more behind what was actually seen was just a thought. The thought that these colors can "do" anything - i.e. that "I" can do something - is just a thought.

Wow- what an add on! Very very very nice looking! Yes, it is thought that says there are objects and that objects are 3 dimensional. And as you saw it is just colour that makes up the ‘side of an object’ and a ‘behind’ the object and it is thought that says the colour ‘between’ objects is space. Fantastic looking!

Here is a pic which depicts how thought says there are objects when all there is, is EXPERIENCE.




I look forward to your responses on memory.

Much love and gratitude for your ongoing commitment.

Kay xxoo

Dear Kay,

BUT did you find any ‘feet’ or a ‘head’ anywhere…whether ‘up or down or sideways’ - or is sensation occurring in no location to nobody?

I just wanted to let you know of my continued exploration into this question.

It hasn’t been easy for me to see today the “no head”. I am clearly seeing that thought and mental image is saying “head, round, hard, up here” continuously, and that these are sensations and thoughts. However, there is some difficulty, and I don't know how to describe it in AE because when I look for something, it's not there. There just seems to be some persistent belief in a "me" in the head or the "head area" - some resistance to seeing "no one".

The “no location” – what I am seeing (only in a couple brief glimpses yesterday and today) is that location is constructed based on what thought says about colors. i.e. thought says “I am in my house, in my bed, there is a location for these sensations”. But actually, location itself is not real. I wonder if that's what you are referring to when you say sensations occurring in no location, or if you are pointing to something else.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

Memory appears to be a combination of mental image and self-talk thought - the same as "non-memory thoughts". Sensations also arise that thought says are "part of the memory, or a reaction to the memory, or in response to the memory, or trying to cut a painful memory off". But these are just sensations.

WHEN does the memory appear?

Memories appear randomly, they just arise.

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

Right now, the only difference I can see is that a memory thought is "claimed" by other thoughts which say things like "this happened yesterday" or "remember when" or "that was nice" or "you just said this" or some other thought that says, in effect "this happened in the past". Most thoughts that arise point to past or future. So what I call a "general thought" is a thought that is labeling something in the present - labeling "tree" for example as I walk outside, or maybe the thoughts that arise while reading something.

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

It actually isn't know, in actual experience. As mentioned above, it is that some thought says something about the past, "claiming" another thought or mental image. Sometimes I can see exactly what the thought is that calls another thought "the past" or "memory" and sometimes I cannot. This happens even for something that happened just a moment ago - i.e. thought is "repeating" what was just said. But how can thought know that something is being "repeated"? It cannot. It is only a thought saying "this was just said, the mind is repeating what was just said." (I hope this makes sense). So it is only thought that can say "this is a memory" - otherwise how would it be known that this mental image was "in the past." Thought says - there is more there that I am missing - that somehow the mental images that arise are recognized as "past" without thought, just through a pulse of recognition or something. And sometimes this seems to be the case. In these cases, I cannot quite see how a mental image is recognized as "past" - but at other times it is clear that it is thought.

I am still looking at the future. Will write more after I do. I don't see clear lines between general thoughts, future thoughts, and memory thoughts often - for example, a memory thought or mental image (signified by a thought which says "this happened in the past") will have other thoughts following it which other thoughts than categorize as "fantasy" or "future thinking". And it is all thoughts saying "this happened" or "this didn't happen" or "you are fantasizing" or "you are re-living". Or thought will say "this part of the mental image happened, and this part didn't happen".

Thank you Kay!

Love,
Zarina

Hi Zarina,

I will respond to 'memory' responses when you have finished responding in full.

BUT did you find any ‘feet’ or a ‘head’ anywhere…whether ‘up or down or sideways’ - or is sensation occurring in no location to nobody?

It hasn’t been easy for me to see today the “no head”. I am clearly seeing that thought and mental image is saying “head, round, hard, up here” continuously, and that these are sensations and thoughts. However, there is some difficulty, and I don't know how to describe it in AE because when I look for something, it's not there. There just seems to be some persistent belief in a "me" in the head or the "head area" - some resistance to seeing "no one".

Yes, there SEEMS to be a persistent thought that says "this is my head". But is that not just another thought appearing. When LOOKING to see if there is actually a head there and no head is found, then what thought says is mute.

If a thought says fairies are real, is that sufficient to make fairies real? Or is it only the thought itself ABOUT fairies that's real?

The “no location” – what I am seeing (only in a couple brief glimpses yesterday and today) is that location is constructed based on what thought says about colors. i.e. thought says “I am in my house, in my bed, there is a location for these sensations”. But actually, location itself is not real. I wonder if that's what you are referring to when you say sensations occurring in no location, or if you are pointing to something else.

Yes, you have understood what I am pointing to. Just because thought says that the colour + sensation which is labelled 'foot' is down there between 'my head and the ground'....is there really such a location? So do sensations have a specific location? Does the sensation which thought labels 'head' really have a location in a head or around where a head is said to be by thought? Or sensation just IS and there is no location?

Does the 'body' in any way feel sensation? What is the AE of 'body'? What is the AE of 'head'? What is the AE of 'foot'?

Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

BUT did you find any ‘feet’ or a ‘head’ anywhere…whether ‘up or down or sideways’ - or is sensation occurring in no location to nobody?

After spending a lot of time on this today (says thought, ha :), I have seen that both sensation and thought are occurring to no one, and in no location. As you said in your last post, it SEEMS to be the case that sensation is appearing to someone, or in some location, due to persistent thought. But looking with AE says this isn't true. What thought says is null when looking shows that there is no head, and no one to whom the thoughts appear, and no one to whom the sensations appear. It is the thoughts themselves (thoughts about thoughts and thoughts about sensations) that say, this sensation is appearing to "me" or this thought is me saying something "to me". Thoughts just arising, experienced as thought, by and to no one.

Yes, there SEEMS to be a persistent thought that says "this is my head". But is that not just another thought appearing. When LOOKING to see if there is actually a head there and no head is found, then what thought says is mute.
If a thought says fairies are real, is that sufficient to make fairies real? Or is it only the thought itself ABOUT fairies that's real?

Something about this quote seemed to clear up some confusion and create more understanding with regards to seeing that sensations/thoughts are arising to no one. Just to see that something that seems true may not be true, and once it is seen to not be true, the apparent or seeming truth doesn't have to cause confusion anymore, even if it "seems true" most of the time, or often. I hope this is making sense.

So do sensations have a specific location?

It was clear that sensation was just appearing, sensation experienced, no experiencer, no location despite what thought was saying.

Does the 'body' in any way feel sensation?

The body doesn't feel sensation. Sensation just is, and isn't "tied" to the body, though it seems that way a lot of the time. If the body is just image, then how could the image feel sensation? Sensation is felt, and image is seen.

What is the AE of 'body'? What is the AE of 'head'? What is the AE of 'foot'?

There is no actual experience of 'body, head, foot'. The body, head, foot is a thought label for image and sensation that thought says is "in the head" or "the foot".

I haven't yet really explored the memory/future questions further. I plan to do so tomorrow. I am interested in continuing to look at the sensation/thought appearing to no one this evening - but wondering what you think.

Thank you very much Kay.

With love,
Zarina

Hi Zarina,

BUT did you find any ‘feet’ or a ‘head’ anywhere…whether ‘up or down or sideways’ - or is sensation occurring in no location to nobody?

After spending a lot of time on this today (says thought, ha :), I have seen that both sensation and thought are occurring to no one, and in no location. As you said in your last post, it SEEMS to be the case that sensation is appearing to someone, or in some location, due to persistent thought. But looking with AE says this isn't true. What thought says is null when looking shows that there is no head, and no one to whom the thoughts appear, and no one to whom the sensations appear. It is the thoughts themselves (thoughts about thoughts and thoughts about sensations) that say, this sensation is appearing to "me" or this thought is me saying something "to me". Thoughts just arising, experienced as thought, by and to no one.

Nice looking, Zarina. Can a “me’ be found or only thoughts ABOUT a “me”?

Yes, there SEEMS to be a persistent thought that says "this is my head". But is that not just another thought appearing. When LOOKING to see if there is actually a head there and no head is found, then what thought says is mute.
If a thought says fairies are real, is that sufficient to make fairies real? Or is it only the thought itself ABOUT fairies that's real?

Something about this quote seemed to clear up some confusion and create more understanding with regards to seeing that sensations/thoughts are arising to no one. Just to see that something that seems true may not be true, and once it is seen to not be true, the apparent or seeming truth doesn't have to cause confusion anymore, even if it "seems true" most of the time, or often. I hope this is making sense.

It comes back to did you author any of those thoughts? Did you choose to have thought that say “this is my head, and I truly believe this is my head and I am finding it really hard to see that it’s not my head”. Did you have a choice whether a sensation seemingly appeared or didn't appear at the same time as that thought? Did you have any choice, or bring about in any way the thought “I’m confused about this and I’m not getting it”?

BUT what you are aware of is that all of those are THOUGHTS. Were you confused in any way that those were something other than thought? Are you ever confused about the fact that thoughts are thoughts, sensations are sensations, colour is colour and so on. Do you ever confused about a thought being a colour, or a sound being a sensation? Thought might say, hmmmm is a mental image a thought or an image. It really doesn’t matter, because whether it’s an image or a thought, both are AE of experience and both point to EXPERIENCE itself.

So do sensations have a specific location?

It was clear that sensation was just appearing, sensation experienced, no experiencer, no location despite what thought was saying.

Great! :)

Does the 'body' in any way feel sensation?

The body doesn't feel sensation. Sensation just is, and isn't "tied" to the body, though it seems that way a lot of the time. If the body is just image, then how could the image feel sensation? Sensation is felt, and image is seen.

Hmmm…tricky this! Is sensation ‘felt’ and by what? Is image ‘seen’ and by what?
For something to be ‘felt’ there has to be a ‘feeler’ and for something to be ‘seen’ there has to be a ‘see-er’. Can you find a ‘feeler’ or ‘see-er’ anywhere?

What is the AE of 'body'? What is the AE of 'head'? What is the AE of 'foot'?

There is no actual experience of 'body, head, foot'. The body, head, foot is a thought label for image and sensation that thought says is "in the head" or "the foot".

And you can see how repetitive this is…but it’s the repetitiveness that eventually brings clarity. That is why I say LOOKING must happen every day throughout the day.

I haven't yet really explored the memory/future questions further. I plan to do so tomorrow. I am interested in continuing to look at the sensation/thought appearing to no one this evening - but wondering what you think.

I think you are doing a superb job at LOOKING and you’re clarity is great. If you want to stay with exploring sensation/though appearing then that is fine by me – this is your exploration.

It’s an interesting idea that thought SEEMS to create a sensation. If that were the case, why then wouldn’t the sensation cease when the thought disappeared? When a thought appears that SEEMS to create a sensation, replace the thought with ‘blahblahblah’ to see what is actually there.

Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

Thank you! I will continue looking at thoughts/sensation appearing.

Can a “me’ be found or only thoughts ABOUT a “me”?

A me cannot be found, just thoughts about a me.

It comes back to did you author any of those thoughts?

No, I did not - they just appeared. This understanding comes and goes - during my exploration today, it was clear that there was no one controlling or creating the thoughts and sensations. But it is thought that says "there isn't anyone controlling these thoughts" and "this is just happening" and "this is seen" or "this is clear". Thoughts keep coming, saying things about other thoughts. And sometimes thoughts say: "This thought can be believed, and that thought is just story."

Thought might say, hmmmm is a mental image a thought or an image. It really doesn’t matter, because whether it’s an image or a thought, both are AE of experience and both point to EXPERIENCE itself.

There are times when it isn't clear whether something is thought or sensation. I also arrived at the same conclusion, that it didn't really matter, that it was just thought saying "is this a thought or sensation? I need to know! Which is it? Need to figure this out." However, it is still thought "arriving at that conclusion", saying "this doesn't matter" and saying things like "So many thoughts!". Maybe this is what you mean by the rabbit-hole of thought?

Is sensation ‘felt’ and by what? Is image ‘seen’ and by what?
For something to be ‘felt’ there has to be a ‘feeler’ and for something to be ‘seen’ there has to be a ‘see-er’. Can you find a ‘feeler’ or ‘see-er’ anywhere?

Right now, not able to find a feeler or see-er. There isn't anything else "feeling" the sensation. There are sensations. There isn't anything "seeing" that I can find right now. But there are images. I will look more at this.

Thank you Kay!

With love,
Zarina

Dear Zarina,

Can a “me’ be found or only thoughts ABOUT a “me”?

A me cannot be found, just thoughts about a me.

Yes, there is only ever stories ABOUT a “me”!

It comes back to did you author any of those thoughts?

No, I did not - they just appeared. This understanding comes and goes - during my exploration today, it was clear that there was no one controlling or creating the thoughts and sensations. But it is thought that says "there isn't anyone controlling these thoughts" and "this is just happening" and "this is seen" or "this is clear". Thoughts keep coming, saying things about other thoughts. And sometimes thoughts say: "This thought can be believed, and that thought is just story."

And that is why we don’t take heed of thought and we LOOK with AE. LOOKING is what shows you what is really there. It is the most simplest thing…experience is colours, sensation, taste, smell, thought, sound and yet it is complicated with all the thoughts that overlay experience.

Thought might say, hmmmm is a mental image a thought or an image. It really doesn’t matter, because whether it’s an image or a thought, both are AE of experience and both point to EXPERIENCE itself.

There are times when it isn't clear whether something is thought or sensation. I also arrived at the same conclusion, that it didn't really matter, that it was just thought saying "is this a thought or sensation? I need to know! Which is it? Need to figure this out." However, it is still thought "arriving at that conclusion", saying "this doesn't matter" and saying things like "So many thoughts!". Maybe this is what you mean by the rabbit-hole of thought?

Thoughts ABOUT thoughts and thoughts ABOUT sensation are story. So thought will always take you on a journey deep down the rabbit-hole where they twist and turn and backtrack until you have twisted yourself inside out! Isn’t it nice to know that something as simple as LOOKING is what will get you out of the rabbits (thoughts) warren to seeing what is actually here.

Is sensation ‘felt’ and by what? Is image ‘seen’ and by what?
For something to be ‘felt’ there has to be a ‘feeler’ and for something to be ‘seen’ there has to be a ‘see-er’. Can you find a ‘feeler’ or ‘see-er’ anywhere?

Right now, not able to find a feeler or see-er. There isn't anything else "feeling" the sensation. There are sensations. There isn't anything "seeing" that I can find right now. But there are images. I will look more at this.

This is going deeper into exploration than what is normally done and is usually done in another thread for further investigation. But...we will have a look at it here briefly.

Have a look…can a division be found in actual experience between thought and sensation or (mental) image and thought or colour and sound or taste and sensation and so on?

Coming back to your looking at thought and sensation…can you find where a thought ends and a sensation begins? In other word, when the experience of *thought+sensation* shows up, where is the dividing line in ACTUAL EXPERIENCE that ‘allows’ that experience to be divided into a separate experience of "thought" and a separate experience of "sensation"?
What is it that separates experience into these seeming divisions?

Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

That is why I say LOOKING must happen every day throughout the day.

Today it seemed that there was more often looking throughout the day, at various moments. Sometimes it felt that looking was happening automatically, and simply, breaking things down into AE. Other times, more often, it "felt effortful" - meaning that thought said "break this down into AE" or "LOOK" and there were many thoughts overlaying the experience. During these times, looked to see what exactly was "trying" or "resisting" or "having thoughts" or if there was anything controlling the experience. Nothing was found. Stories about the me, thoughts about the I, but no I, no me, in AE. So often, appearance of control or a decider. But when looking, no controller - just image, thought, sensation.

In other word, when the experience of *thought+sensation* shows up, where is the dividing line in ACTUAL EXPERIENCE that ‘allows’ that experience to be divided into a separate experience of "thought" and a separate experience of "sensation"? What is it that separates experience into these seeming divisions?

There is no dividing line in actual experience. Thought labels experience as thought, sensation, color, sound - thought creates the separation. For example, thought says "that sound was disturbing and loud and created ripple effects of vibration in the body." I wonder if I can describe this well - but it became clear that it was thought saying "color and sound are separate experiences, can be separated" but when looking, there was no way to separate the colors (of the living room, say) and the sound (my partner typing). It was thought separating them. In the past, this has been easier to see with thought and sensation - everything would appear to break down into vibrations.

Thank you Kay. I hope you have a wonderful day.

With love,
Zarina

Hi Zarina,

Today it seemed that there was more often looking throughout the day, at various moments. Sometimes it felt that looking was happening automatically, and simply, breaking things down into AE. Other times, more often, it "felt effortful" - meaning that thought said "break this down into AE" or "LOOK" and there were many thoughts overlaying the experience. During these times, looked to see what exactly was "trying" or "resisting" or "having thoughts" or if there was anything controlling the experience. Nothing was found. Stories about the me, thoughts about the I, but no I, no me, in AE. So often, appearance of control or a decider. But when looking, no controller - just image, thought, sensation.

Yes, it does seem that way that at times LOOKING is automatic and other times it seems it is ‘manually’ done (in other words a drag!) :) Just remember to have fun with it. There is no one controlling anything, so ‘seeing’ happens when it happens…just look to see what it could possibly happen to! (smiling) Also, have a look to see if you can find a ‘do-er’! :)

There is no dividing line in actual experience. Thought labels experience as thought, sensation, color, sound - thought creates the separation. For example, thought says "that sound was disturbing and loud and created ripple effects of vibration in the body." I wonder if I can describe this well - but it became clear that it was thought saying "color and sound are separate experiences, can be separated" but when looking, there was no way to separate the colors (of the living room, say) and the sound (my partner typing). It was thought separating them. In the past, this has been easier to see with thought and sensation - everything would appear to break down into vibrations.

Wonderful…nice looking!

Are you ready to move on to the memory exercises now? I will repost them again.

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.

What is memory exactly? – please don’t go to thought explanation, but just let a memory be there, and look at it…

What is the memory ‘made of’?
WHEN does the memory appear?

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

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

Please spend lot of time with EACH question. Look at what actually going on and not what thoughts say… but what actually is.

Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

Also, have a look to see if you can find a ‘do-er’! :)

Thank you Kay for the reminder to have fun with this. I often think that I need that reminder.
Noticed today that when there are sensations and thoughts that thought says are "painful, bad, not right, uncomfortable" there is a more prevalent thought or sense of an "I" or "me", compared to when there are not sensations/thoughts labeled by thought as "uncomfortable, bad" etc.

Here are my responses. I am re-responding to the memory questions again. Thanks so much.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

It is thought. Mental image, and/or "self-talk." Sometimes sensations appear as well and seems to be a part of the memory - i.e. the memory of hugging someone. Sensation appears too, thought says "hugging". Sometimes thought says: this sensation is connected to this memory.

WHEN does the memory appear?

Memories appear randomly, it seems. They just arise, same as with any other thought. Thought might say "this memory arises because this reminds you of that" or something like that.

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

The difference that I can find so far is that memory thoughts have other thoughts that "claim" to be connected to them which say things about a "past", such as: "this happened yesterday", "I just said that", "remember when this happened", "that was nice", "that was painful". I am also noticing that "memory thoughts" also include thoughts that might not be labeled as "past" - a mental image of my kitchen, for example. I saw the kitchen 10 minutes ago, and I have an image of what it looks like. But this isn't labeled as past or memory by thought. This is labeled "what my kitchen looks like now." And looking at this again - it isn't known in actual experience that there is a kitchen. The memory thought is a story, just as the general thoughts are stories.

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

It isn't known - thought says "this is something that happened" or labels "past." Thought says "he was here ten minutes ago and this is what he said" or there is a mental image and thought says "this just happened." It is story. However, sometimes I don't notice a thought that references "the past" when a mental image arises about "the past" - and in these cases, I don't know exactly how it is known that a memory thought refers to something that has happened. Thought keeps saying: it's happening to quickly for you to see, there must be some thought or mental image that indicates "past". However - this is also just a story.

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

Also thought. Mental image, self-talk. Sensations arise as well, sometimes, and as with memory thoughts, thought might say "this sensation is arising because of this [anxious, pleasant] thought about the future".

WHEN does the future thought appear?

I can't really know exactly when...it appears to just arise.

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

They are all just thoughts - stories about things that can't be known in AE. However, a general thought might be be pointing to here/now, pointing to AE: labeling sensation, or sound, for example. Or, a general thought might be creating a story about the here/now: i.e. it is raining, it is cold. A future thought, though, only points to story. And same as with memory thoughts, a future thought seems to reference "the future" or have other thoughts that reference the future that "claim" the future thought/mental image: i.e. "we will do this, I am going to do this, I want to do this, what if this happens, what should I do tomorrow, this hasn't happened yet, I hope this happens, I want this". Thought labels the "future thought" with words indicating future. But, how is it known that these words indicate future? I don't know.

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

It isn't known. It is a story. Most of the future thoughts that arise, it appears, are not about things that will happen, but are "hoping" or "planning" for something to happen. And how is this known? It is just thought, making stories about the "I".

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

If I look at a mental image of the "past" or "future", they are no different, it is the "self-talk" that is different (i.e. words that say or reference "past" or "future"). Thoughts say "this happened" or thoughts say "this might happen or I want this to happen or this didn't yet happen." What tells me that something is of the past or of the future? Just thought.

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

Thought says it is different - otherwise, it isn't known to be different - they are just thoughts, stories. Sometimes, "past" and "future" appear mixed together in thoughts, and it is only thought that creates any sort of delineation. Without thought, it's all just story/fantasy.

Thank you Kay, very much.

With love,
Zarina

Hi Zarina,

You are way overthinking your answers. I am not going to mark you wrong or right, I am just going to point further if it seems that something isn’t clear. LOOKING is simple. I really don’t need indepth answers to all the questions. Just keep your answers simple please.

Also, have a look to see if you can find a ‘do-er’! :)

Thank you Kay for the reminder to have fun with this. I often think that I need that reminder.
Noticed today that when there are sensations and thoughts that thought says are "painful, bad, not right, uncomfortable" there is a more prevalent thought or sense of an "I" or "me", compared to when there are not sensations/thoughts labeled by thought as "uncomfortable, bad" etc.

Did you look and find a 'do-er" anywhere?
Did you look and find a thinker anywhere who could think these thoughts?
Did you find anyone/anything that is authoring these thoughts?
What is the AE of painful?
What is the AE of uncomfortable?

Here are my responses. I am re-responding to the memory questions again. Thanks so much.

Sorry Zarina, my memory (lol) has been rather absent of late and I had totally forgotten that you had already done the memory exercise. But I am glad it got redone.

What is the memory ‘made of’?

It is thought. Mental image, and/or "self-talk." Sometimes sensations appear as well and seems to be a part of the memory - i.e. the memory of hugging someone. Sensation appears too, thought says "hugging". Sometimes thought says: this sensation is connected to this memory.

Can a sensation in anyway suggest that it is a part of a memory labelled ‘hugging’, or is the sensation appearing now without cause and it is a thought that says it is associated with the memory of hugging?

Does the mental image labelled “memory of hugging…….” know anything about ‘memory’ or ‘a past’?

What is the actual experience of “self-talk”?

WHEN does the memory appear?

Memories appear randomly, it seems. They just arise, same as with any other thought. Thought might say "this memory arises because this reminds you of that" or something like that.

Hmmm…yes, they appear randomly but when is the SEEMING memory actually appearing? Sit down a ‘think’ of something that was done ‘yesterday’. When is that ‘memory’ appearing?

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

The difference that I can find so far is that memory thoughts have other thoughts that "claim" to be connected to them which say things about a "past", such as: "this happened yesterday", "I just said that", "remember when this happened", "that was nice", "that was painful". I am also noticing that "memory thoughts" also include thoughts that might not be labeled as "past" - a mental image of my kitchen, for example. I saw the kitchen 10 minutes ago, and I have an image of what it looks like. But this isn't labeled as past or memory by thought. This is labeled "what my kitchen looks like now." And looking at this again - it isn't known in actual experience that there is a kitchen. The memory thought is a story, just as the general thoughts are stories.

So what is the exact difference between a ‘general’ THOUGHT and a ‘memory’ THOUGHT? (just a simple answer please from looking and not thinking or analysing)

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

It isn't known - thought says "this is something that happened" or labels "past." Thought says "he was here ten minutes ago and this is what he said" or there is a mental image and thought says "this just happened." It is story. However, sometimes I don't notice a thought that references "the past" when a mental image arises about "the past" - and in these cases, I don't know exactly how it is known that a memory thought refers to something that has happened. Thought keeps saying: it's happening to quickly for you to see, there must be some thought or mental image that indicates "past". However - this is also just a story.

So in a short sentence, how is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened? What says that it is a ‘memory’ thought?

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

Also thought. Mental image, self-talk. Sensations arise as well, sometimes, and as with memory thoughts, thought might say "this sensation is arising because of this [anxious, pleasant] thought about the future".

Do sensations in any way suggest that they know anything about a ‘future’ thought?
Do mental images suggest in any way that they know about ‘future’ thoughts?
Does “self-talk” know anything about ‘future’ thoughts?

What’s the AE of ‘future’?
What is the AE of ‘thought’?

WHEN does the future thought appear?

I can't really know exactly when...it appears to just arise.

What exactly is it (thing/entity) that knows or doesn't exactly know? Can you find this thing/entity anywhere?

If you were to think, right now, of what you are going to have for dinner tomorrow night…when is that thought actually appearing?

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

They are all just thoughts - stories about things that can't be known in AE. However, a general thought might be be pointing to here/now, pointing to AE: labeling sensation, or sound, for example. Or, a general thought might be creating a story about the here/now: i.e. it is raining, it is cold. A future thought, though, only points to story. And same as with memory thoughts, a future thought seems to reference "the future" or have other thoughts that reference the future that "claim" the future thought/mental image: i.e. "we will do this, I am going to do this, I want to do this, what if this happens, what should I do tomorrow, this hasn't happened yet, I hope this happens, I want this". Thought labels the "future thought" with words indicating future. But, how is it known that these words indicate future? I don't know.

You are thinking about this too deeply, Zarina. What is the difference between a ‘general’ thought and a ‘future’ thought? They are both simply thought…nothing more.

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

It isn't known. It is a story. Most of the future thoughts that arise, it appears, are not about things that will happen, but are "hoping" or "planning" for something to happen. And how is this known? It is just thought, making stories about the "I".

I don’t know about you, but there seems to be ‘future’ thoughts that also talk about doom and gloom and what may or may not happen.

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

If I look at a mental image of the "past" or "future", they are no different, it is the "self-talk" that is different (i.e. words that say or reference "past" or "future"). Thoughts say "this happened" or thoughts say "this might happen or I want this to happen or this didn't yet happen." What tells me that something is of the past or of the future? Just thought.

How is “self-talk” any different to thought? Aren’t thoughts referred to as “self-talk” still just thoughts?
ALL THOUGHT is AE of thought no matter if it is labelled ‘self-talk’ or ‘thought’, the content will always SEEM different but ALL CONTENT is story. It is only another thought that says content of thought is different...but they aren’t…all they are is AE of thought.

Can you see this?

Mental images are AE of image and not AE of thought. A mental image appears and there is a story that seemingly goes with the mental image.., but all that is actually is, is image + thought.

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

Thought says it is different - otherwise, it isn't known to be different - they are just thoughts, stories. Sometimes, "past" and "future" appear mixed together in thoughts, and it is only thought that creates any sort of delineation. Without thought, it's all just story/fantasy.

They are just thoughts. There is no such thing as stories either. Stories are made up of a combination of a multitude of thought…which is AE of thought. But thought is empty of content. It is just another thought that says those thoughts combined make up a story.

What is the AE of story?

There seemed to be a lot of thinking that went into these questions and perhaps analysing to see how it all works. But this is not about thinking or analysing..it's about LOOKING and to me there really wasn't much LOOKING done.

Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

You're right - sorry. Yes, a lot of overthinking. I will try to keep it simple. (Could not find who/what is trying, and who is thinking too much, or worried about not getting it).

Did you look and find a 'do-er" anywhere?

No do-er: just thought and sensation when looking.

Did you look and find a thinker anywhere who could think these thoughts?
Did you find anyone/anything that is authoring these thoughts?

Cannot find a thinker, or anyone authoring the thoughts.

What is the AE of painful?
What is the AE of uncomfortable?

AE of painful is sensation and thought.
AE of discomfort is sensation and thought.

Can a sensation in anyway suggest that it is a part of a memory labelled ‘hugging’, or is the sensation appearing now without cause and it is a thought that says it is associated with the memory of hugging?

No, it is just sensation. A thought says "this is what hugging feels like."

Does the mental image labelled “memory of hugging…….” know anything about ‘memory’ or ‘a past’?

No, it doesn't. It can't.

What is the actual experience of “self-talk”?

Thought. Sometimes sensation too.

Hmmm…yes, they appear randomly but when is the SEEMING memory actually appearing? Sit down a ‘think’ of something that was done ‘yesterday’. When is that ‘memory’ appearing?

It is appearing now.

So what is the exact difference between a ‘general’ THOUGHT and a ‘memory’ THOUGHT? (just a simple answer please from looking and not thinking or analysing)

There is no real difference - they are both just thought.

So in a short sentence, how is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened? What says that it is a ‘memory’ thought?

It is thought that says that a thought is a memory thought, of the past. So, it isn't known.

Do sensations in any way suggest that they know anything about a ‘future’ thought?

No, they don't.

Do mental images suggest in any way that they know about ‘future’ thoughts?

No.

Does “self-talk” know anything about ‘future’ thoughts?

No. It is only thought that says "these thoughts know/plan for the future."

What’s the AE of ‘future’?

Thought. Questioning whether image is too - image alone is not AE of future, but image and thought can be (thought saying "this image is of the future").

What is the AE of ‘thought’?

The actual experience of thought is thought.

What exactly is it (thing/entity) that knows or doesn't exactly know? Can you find this thing/entity anywhere?

I can't find anything.

If you were to think, right now, of what you are going to have for dinner tomorrow night…when is that thought actually appearing?

It is appearing right now.

How is “self-talk” any different to thought? Aren’t thoughts referred to as “self-talk” still just thoughts?
ALL THOUGHT is AE of thought no matter if it is labelled ‘self-talk’ or ‘thought’, the content will always SEEM different but ALL CONTENT is story. It is only another thought that says content of thought is different...but they aren’t…all they are is AE of thought.
Can you see this?

Yes. I see that self-talk and thought are no different, are the same. It is only sometimes clear that thought content is story/fiction. When I look for what is believing the thought or story, I don't find anything.

What is the AE of story?

Thought. Sometimes thought + image.

Thank you Kay. I really appreciate you.

Love,
Zarina

Hey Zarina,

You're right - sorry. Yes, a lot of overthinking. I will try to keep it simple. (Could not find who/what is trying, and who is thinking too much, or worried about not getting it).

No need to apologise…but I didn’t want you to get bogged down with thinking. Only thought says it’s necessary to see the nitty gritty. (Big hug)

Can a sensation in anyway suggest that it is a part of a memory labelled ‘hugging’, or is the sensation appearing now without cause and it is a thought that says it is associated with the memory of hugging?

No, it is just sensation. A thought says "this is what hugging feels like."

Yes. So there is no AE of hugging, what is here is sensation + thought

What is the actual experience of “self-talk”?

Thought. Sometimes sensation too.

Hmmm…is sensation thought or is sensation, sensation? Sensation may seem to appear when thought labelled ‘self-talk’ appears…but how is it known that the label ‘self-talk’ caused the sensation?

Hmmm…yes, they appear randomly but when is the SEEMING memory actually appearing? Sit down a ‘think’ of something that was done ‘yesterday’. When is that ‘memory’ appearing?

It is appearing now.

Yes! :)

So what is the exact difference between a ‘general’ THOUGHT and a ‘memory’ THOUGHT? (just a simple answer please from looking and not thinking or analysing)

There is no real difference - they are both just thought.

Yes :)

So in a short sentence, how is it known EXACTLY that a ‘memory’ thought refers to something that has happened? What says that it is a ‘memory’ thought?

It is thought that says that a thought is a memory thought, of the past. So, it isn't known.

Yes, it isn’t known that it is a ‘memory’ thought. The thoughts themselves however are known as they are an appearance of/as experience.

What’s the AE of ‘future’?

Thought. Questioning whether image is too - image alone is not AE of future, but image and thought can be (thought saying "this image is of the future").

Yes. Images can appear that refer to the future. Let’s say for example you are single. An image may appear of you being with a partner in the near future because that is something that is desired. Or it seems many girls like to imagine their wedding day in the future! But the image and thought are still only ever appearing in the moment/now.

If you were to think, right now, of what you are going to have for dinner tomorrow night…when is that thought actually appearing?

It is appearing right now.

Yes.

How is “self-talk” any different to thought? Aren’t thoughts referred to as “self-talk” still just thoughts?
ALL THOUGHT is AE of thought no matter if it is labelled ‘self-talk’ or ‘thought’, the content will always SEEM different but ALL CONTENT is story. It is only another thought that says content of thought is different...but they aren’t…all they are is AE of thought.
Can you see this?

Yes. I see that self-talk and thought are no different, are the same. It is only sometimes clear that thought content is story/fiction. When I look for what is believing the thought or story, I don't find anything.

Wonderful!

Love, Kay

Dear Kay,

Thank you!

is sensation thought or is sensation, sensation? Sensation may seem to appear when thought labelled ‘self-talk’ appears…but how is it known that the label ‘self-talk’ caused the sensation?

Sensation is sensation. Thought says that "this thought caused this sensation".

Images can appear that refer to the future.

Just to clarify: images themselves can't refer to the future, but thought says they do. Is this what you mean here?

With love,
Zarina

Dear Kay,

I also just wanted to check my understanding of AE with you.

Driving to work this morning: saw that there was image + sensation + thought. There was no AE of driving. This was seen for part of the drive, not the whole drive. There was also exploration of "who/what was "driving."

Love,
Zarina