RiverRock

[forgetmenot]

Hello John,

What exactly is it that has expectations and desires?
What is the AE of 'expectation'?

Well maybe we can start the answer by saying what are expectations/desire? The first thing to say is they just are.

Why start with and confirm something by saying it just is - when it isn’t at all when you have a look at it? When you take the above thought to the blabhblahblah exercise, what do you find?

Or at least thoughts exist that suggest desire. And feelings (sensations) exist that thought then labels as desire.

So what if thought suggests there is expectation and desire, and labels sensations? Thought suggested that the earth was flat as well! If thoughts suggests that fairies are real…does it make it so?

But an owner (or a doer) of these desires/expectations cannot be located. And certainly can't be found in actual experience. And anything which can't be found in AE simply isn't.

What expectations expectations/desire exactly?

AE of expectation is thought.

Yes…so how is a thought ‘expectation’ or ‘desire’.

The label ‘expectation is AE of thought and not AE of expectation
The sensation labelled as ‘expectation’ is AE of sensation and not AE of expectation
Image labelled as ‘me/I/body’ is AE of colour and not AE of a person with expectations.
Thought ABOUT expectations, etc are AE of thought and not AE of expectation.

What is known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts. However, is expectation actually known?

Let’s continue our exploration into choice/decision. The aim of the following exercise is to discover whether the function of choice can really be found or confirmed in actual experience. The idea of making ‘choices‘ is a very clear example of a function that we wrongly identify as the basis of our identity.

You need to get any two different drinks you like for this exercise, ie coffee, tea, milk, water, juices, smoothies, beer, wine, etc. One will be drink A the other will be drink B

Sit for a few moments, take a few relaxed breaths and let the dust settle. When you feel ready:

1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
2. Count to 5.
3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

Questions:
Remember that we’re looking for some kind of function, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

Love, Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Thanks for that.
I am pretty much tied up the whole of today and into the evening so I will only be able to come back to you properly tomorrow.

Cheers,

John

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Why start with and confirm something by saying it just is - when it isn’t at all when you have a look at it? When you take the above thought to the blabhblahblah exercise, what do you find?

I think this is a case of me not expressing myself so well again. What I really meant to say something exists. And that is sensations and thoughts. But it is only thoughts that define those as expectations/desires. And as you say, when you apply the cool blahblah exercise those thoughts themselves become white noise. Which I really like. Puts it in its place.

What expectations expectations/desire exactly?

I'm not getting you on this one. We have already seen that expectations/desires are basically a figment of thought.

What is known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts. However, is expectation actually known?

No expectation is not actually known.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

No doubt the preferences are popping up by themselves. Exactly the same as other thoughts. Out of nowhere, apparently.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

No I didn't choose the shutting down of preferences nor did I have any part in it. It just sort of happened. Seemed like I was just doing what I was told but I'm not even sure about that. It definitely wasn't an action that was of my design, intent, volition.

In step 3 where you made a choice, did you actually witness or directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does this function look like?

I've done this exercise quite a few times now and each time I have no idea which one I'm going to pick up (it is different each time and there's no pattern) and it just happens spontaneously. The preferences don't even seem to come into play either when you look at it. Not so far as I can see. So the sequence is firstly, all that work on the pro's and con's (analysing) and then shutting the process down, and then a fairly random reach out. My drinks are water and a cold beer so you would have thought it would be a straightforward choice but it don't seem that way. I'm not getting anything arising saying "I am the chooser" at all. (Maybe I'm home and dry, :), ;))

It is really interesting this. When you really get into the process of "choice" you see that there is no such action as choosing anywhere along the line. When you pull it apart and try and find that Eureka moment where the choice is there. The whole thing is more like a seamless flow. Not sure how you find it.

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

I'm really not even getting a feeling to be honest. Just a sort of automatic response.

Sorry, still a bit pushed for time today but I'll continue this exercise tomorrow and will have more time from Friday over the weekend as usual.

Love, John

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

What expectations expectations/desire exactly?

I'm not getting you on this one. We have already seen that expectations/desires are basically a figment of thought.

Just checkin’! :)

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

No doubt the preferences are popping up by themselves. Exactly the same as other thoughts. Out of nowhere, apparently.

You can’t find where a thought comes from for one simple reason - it’s not a thing. Thought is experience and experience is always here! It is just thought that says thought is something other than experience!

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience a mental function or faculty doing the ‘choosing’? Have you seen this function in action?

No I didn't choose the shutting down of preferences nor did I have any part in it. It just sort of happened.

Special, isn’t it…we put so much effort in protecting a 'chooser' which can't be found in our direct/actual experience!

Seemed like I was just doing what I was told but I'm not even sure about that. It definitely wasn't an action that was of my design, intent, volition.

Where exactly is this “I” that “was just doing what I was told”, please describe this “I” to me in precise detail and tell me where it is located.

It is really interesting this. When you really get into the process of "choice" you see that there is no such action as choosing anywhere along the line. When you pull it apart and try and find that Eureka moment where the choice is there. The whole thing is more like a seamless flow. Not sure how you find it.

The following is an interesting clip on how scientists have revealed that decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them.

https://vimeo.com/90101368

Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’. But the question is, can a feeling ‘choose’? Is it in the nature of a feeling to ‘choose’?

I'm really not even getting a feeling to be honest. Just a sort of automatic response.

That’s okay. Some people say ‘but it really feels like I chose A and not B…so this gives them an opportunity to look at that idea.

Okay, so we have looked at the idea of a controller, decider and chooser. Now let’s look at the idea of a doer/doership.

We’ll do a little exercise on this topic. It has to do with the sense of seeing.

Take a few relaxed breaths to let the dust settle for a while, and then:
Look on your right.
Then look on your left.
Finally, bring your head back to centre, close your eyes and look in front.

Okay, so when you look on the right, the view on the right is seen (whatever that is).
When you look on the left, the view on the left is seen (whatever that is).
And then, when you look in front of you with eyes closed, the view in front is seen (ie ‘black space’).

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen?

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left?

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’?

Can you turn off seeing?

What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something?

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Love, Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

You can’t find where a thought comes from for one simple reason - it’s not a thing. Thought is experience and experience is always here! It is just thought that says thought is something other than experience!

Interesting what is a thought? I guess no-one knows. Even in conventional thinking. In AE what we say in thought exists and is experience, but thoughts themselves don't exist, and it is only thoughts that say thoughts exist. In the same way that it's only thought that say different colours exist. We know that colour exists but different colours is just a thought story. And beyond that at a different level, colour and thought don't actually exist either because all that exists is experience. So in that way can we say (like a thought) that a particular sound, or particular taste, doesn't exist. So would we say nothing at all actually exists except undifferentiated (undivided) experience?

Where exactly is this “I” that “was just doing what I was told”, please describe this “I” to me in precise detail and tell me where it is located.

Well we agreed that what occurred was not happening though my choice. The choice of a person located here inside me. The question then is was it a cause/effect situation where this entity here (me/my body-mind) obeyed an instruction that was given to it. In the way that a robot would obey an instruction (without choice/volition), or is that wrong too and it just occurred totally unconnected to anything else. I guess I would lean toward the latter now. It just happened. But even me saying that now is just thought because whether it did or did not happen is outwith my direct experience. It's not here.

https://vimeo.com/90101368

This is back to the deterministic view on things which says that any decisions are not the result of conscious evaluation but rather other algorithms at work in the depths of the brain. Which make a decision before consciousness tags on and becomes aware of it. All of this removes the idea of the controlling doer/decider (ie person), but it does still require a cause and effect process. So it sort of half works for us here. It knocks down the me, but depends on time and process. One action is the result of another, as they say in the video. I have heard and read other versions of this research which effectively undermines the idea of choice and conscious chooser. But much as it interests me, I don't want to disappear down the scientific rabbit hole (which I think would be very easy to get lost in) and am quite happy viewing and judging things based on my own actual experience, which is the only safe way.

So, when the view on the right is seen, do you have the ‘choice’ not to see? I’m not asking can you ‘choose’ to see something else like another view or ‘black space’ if you close your eyes. The question is, can you turn seeing off? Can you NOT see what is seen? No you can't turn off seeing or not see what is seen. I think on the surface this may seem obvious and in some ways uninteresting. But the more you look at it, it is quite profound. And of course not just with what is experienced through colour but sound. As I write this outside my window I can hear birds singing at dusk and a Muslim call to prayer, and cars driving by. And as we have discovered there is no division between hearing and heard which is what I essentially am as experience. But nothing or no-one has any choice about what that experience is. It just arises. How can I decide what I hear? I suppose you could say by putting headphones on and playing loud music. But we have already seen there is nothing/no-one that makes that decision. And so what is heard is not controlled by anyone. I guess this is a good idea for accepting what comes along - ie abandoning resistance. But who is accepting?

Same thing with the view on the left, can you NOT see the view on the left? NO

Same thing with the view in front with closed eyes, can you NOT see the ‘black space’? NO

Can you turn off seeing? No, even by closing your eyes you are still seeing black. And is seeing coming from the eyes anyway?

What did the 'chooser' choose? Did a 'self' choose something? No this chooser is less and less apparent.

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose? Good point. But that question kind of answers itself. Because all there is, is what you are aware of. :) So there isn't anything else.

Onwards to the weekend. Hit me.

Love, John

[forgetmenot]

Hey John,

You can’t find where a thought comes from for one simple reason - it’s not a thing. Thought is experience and experience is always here! It is just thought that says thought is something other than experience!

Interesting what is a thought? I guess no-one knows. Even in conventional thinking. In AE what we say in thought exists and is experience, but thoughts themselves don't exist, and it is only thoughts that say thoughts exist.

Thought is AE and IS…but not as thought seemingly describes them. We aren’t denying what is…what we are doing is looking and seeing the actuality of raw experience - of what is…and not how thought describes them, ie without the thought stories about AE. Thoughts have no meaning - it is simply thought that says thoughts have meaning. They are simply an appearance and they are not seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled….they are simply known. As is colour, taste, smell, sensations and sound known but have no meaning either. They are known, not for what thought says they are…they are known because they are THIS/experience itself…appearing exactly as it is, and THIS is self aware.

In the same way that it's only thought that say different colours exist. We know that colour exists but different colours is just a thought story. And beyond that at a different level, colour and thought don't actually exist either because all that exists is experience.

How can colour etc not exist? The ‘abstract’ painting exists. But not how thought describes it. It isn’t broken into components…it is a seamless, flowing whole.

So in that way can we say (like a thought) that a particular sound, or particular taste, doesn't exist. So would we say nothing at all actually exists except undifferentiated (undivided) experience?

Everything exists…but not as thought says. Yes…as an undifferentiated seamless whole. Coloursoundsmelltastesensationthought. If you were to never have another thought ever again…what is ‘awared’ IS THIS/experience exactly as it is. However, thought is THIS as well…just not as a separated particle called thought and defined as what thought is, means and does.

Where exactly is this “I” that “was just doing what I was told”, please describe this “I” to me in precise detail and tell me where it is located.

Well we agreed that what occurred was not happening though my choice. The choice of a person located here inside me.

You need to look at the whole picture now. We did an exercise of finding where the ‘me’ is that is “located here inside me”. So where EXACTLY is this ‘me’ that is ‘located here inside me’?

Thought says that the foot is ‘down there’. So presumably you are above your foot. Where are you? Sit quietly, close your eyes, take a few breaths and locate where you feel yourself to be. Locate yourself vertically in the body, horizontally to the left or right, and depth, how far in. Feel how big you are, where you reside. Then point with a finger to ‘you’. Open your eyes, where is your finger pointing?

The question then is was it a cause/effect situation where this entity here (me/my body-mind) obeyed an instruction that was given to it. In the way that a robot would obey an instruction (without choice/volition), or is that wrong too and it just occurred totally unconnected to anything else. I guess I would lean toward the latter now. It just happened. But even me saying that now is just thought because whether it did or did not happen is outwith my direct experience. It's not here.

No such thing as cause and effect…that points to time and separation. One thing can't cause another because there are no separate things. A 'cause' would need to be somehow outside of experience for it to be able to cause experience. That is not the case.

If you can't choose what you're aware of, then what else is there to choose?

Good point. But that question kind of answers itself. Because all there is, is what you are aware of. :) So there isn't anything else.

Yes, nice :) Since there is no thinker of thought, no controller, decider or chooser…then can there anyone/anything that is responsible for anything?

So let’s begin to look at the idea of the body.

Okay, so let’s have a look at the body.
Sit with eyes closed for about 15 minutes.
Paying attention only to the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images:

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

Look very carefully, especially with the last question. Take your time, don’t rush. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, having a short break from work, walking, etc.) before replying.

Love, Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Thought says that the foot is ‘down there’. So presumably you are above your foot. Where are you? Sit quietly, close your eyes, take a few breaths and locate where you feel yourself to be. Locate yourself vertically in the body, horizontally to the left or right, and depth, how far in. Feel how big you are, where you reside. Then point with a finger to ‘you’. Open your eyes, where is your finger pointing?

With eyes closed part of me feels as usual the me is located in the head/brain area. But that is more of a story than anything really and requires thought and mental pictures, particularly with the eyes are closed.
Also part of me feels it is located at the heart, where most of the emotion sensations come from.
But there are other sensations in different parts of the body which don't tell me they're not me. They're as me as anywhere else.
And with the eyes closed the sounds come into play. And I always have a strong connection with these sounds. When I hear them there is absolutely no difference between the sound and me - especially with eyes closed.
Funnily enough if I was to point to anywhere it would probably be to the space directly behind my head. If my eyes are the windscreen onto the world (?) and my brain behind them is the engine room processing that data, then I feel I am something behind those things, prior to those things.
But of course at the end of the day it is not possible to pinpoint an exact location in space, because I'm not anywhere in space.

Yes, nice :) Since there is no thinker of thought, no controller, decider or chooser…then can there anyone/anything that is responsible for anything?

Nope. But surely it is equally true to say there is nothing for anyone to be responsible for. No-one to take responsibility and nothing that needs a culprit.

Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Is there a boundary between the body and the clothing?
Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?

Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - inside of what exactly?
If there is an outside, the outside of what exactly?

With eyes closed and focusing on sensations rather than thought stories, the body does not have size, weight or form. Nor does it have an inside or an outside. There are no boundaries between the body and the clothes or chair or floor.

The body is non localised without dimensions and without any meaning or association.

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

With the eyes closed the ACTUAL experience of the body is only sensation. A sensation not grounded anywhere but floating. Not contained within anything. Not attached to anything. Just sensation.

The word/label 'body' just refers to thought. The label 'body' is AE of thought not AE of body.

Of course with the eyes open the body becomes colour. But particularly after the eyes closed exercise, that colour seems to have less particular significance than other colours that can be seen. Eg. chair, trees. All just colour in experience.

And of what I am picking up is that at least part of the purpose of this exercise may be to show clearly that I am not the body, particularly. And that the body doesn't contain me. It isn't a vessel. What I think of as the body is just sensation (which isn't even in the body) and colour, which blends with other colours.

Going back to the "Where am I located?" exercise. It got me thinking about me & experience. And one of the problems I keep having is when we say experience, I guess I am stuck to human experience in terms of my understanding of it. So that just reinforces the me instead of seeing though it. But it is not 'me' who is experiencing, surely. I am not the experiencer. In the same way if I said "I am experience", that would be a false statement. That implies someone. But even if you say there just is experience, that somehow feels inadequate to me to. Because that feels like a thing. Reading this back it all sounds a bit blahblah, but I think it is an important hurdle I have to get over.

And when you say "they are known because they are THIS/experience itself…appearing exactly as it is, and THIS is self aware" that is probably a better way to put it. That everything is a unified whole which is self aware. The knowing and the known are not two things. You do hear people who see this properly talking about the difficulty and inadequacy of language and I am sure that is the case. And that the fundamental truths are not explainable as well as unknowable (or rather understandable). I guess you just feel it.

That's all for now.

Love, John

[forgetmenot]

Hello John,

Thought says that the foot is ‘down there’. So presumably you are above your foot. Where are you? Sit quietly, close your eyes, take a few breaths and locate where you feel yourself to be. Locate yourself vertically in the body, horizontally to the left or right, and depth, how far in. Feel how big you are, where you reside. Then point with a finger to ‘you’. Open your eyes, where is your finger pointing?

Funnily enough if I was to point to anywhere it would probably be to the space directly behind my head. If my eyes are the windscreen onto the world (?) and my brain behind them is the engine room processing that data, then I feel I am something behind those things, prior to those things

How is it known that the eyes see? What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them? Can you find anything that is witnessing the eyes actually seeing and can you find anything behind the eyes that are seeing?
Can you actually see the back of the eyes where the image comes from?

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?




Let’s look at the idea of a brain

The human brain weighs about 3 pounds and is made up of 60% fat and 75% water. It contains 100 billion neurons, 100 trillion synapses, trillions of axons, and 500 billion glial cells. It allows you to see, to hear, to taste, to smell, and to feel. It is the reason that experience exists, or...

... is all of that just a very elaborate story?

Look at experience as it actually is right now...

Can you actually find the 3 pounds of grey matter in experience right now?
Can you actually find the 100 billion neurons in experience right now?
Can you actually find 100 trillion synapses in experience right now?
Can you actually find trillions of axons in experience right now?
Can you actually find 500 billion glial cells in experience right now?
Can you actually find the connection between the brain and colours, sounds, smells, sensations etc that you are aware of right now?

And if you cannot find ANY of these things, what else could they be but a story told by thought?

Experience is undeniably real, but the brain is just a tale told by a storyteller (thought) that doesn't even know that it's speaking…a storyteller that isn't aware of anything and doesn't even know that it exists.

Yes, nice :) Since there is no thinker of thought, no controller, decider or chooser…then can there anyone/anything that is responsible for anything?

Nope. But surely it is equally true to say there is nothing for anyone to be responsible for. No-one to take responsibility and nothing that needs a culprit.

Yes, exactly

What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to?
What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?

With the eyes closed the ACTUAL experience of the body is only sensation. A sensation not grounded anywhere but floating. Not contained within anything. Not attached to anything. Just sensation.

The actual experience of the body is thought.

The label ‘body’ is AE of thought and not AE of a body
Sensation labelled ‘body’ is AE of sensation and not AE of a body
Image labelled ‘body’ is AE of colour and not AE of a body.
Thoughts ABOUT a body (thought content) is AE of thought and not AE of a body.

What is known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts…but a body is not known…only thoughts about a body are known.
Can you see this?

The word/label 'body' just refers to thought. The label 'body' is AE of thought not AE of body.

Yes…the word/label ‘body’ refers to thought and nothing else.

And of what I am picking up is that at least part of the purpose of this exercise may be to show clearly that I am not the body, particularly. And that the body doesn't contain me. It isn't a vessel. What I think of as the body is just sensation (which isn't even in the body) and colour, which blends with other colours.

THIS/experience itself is not contained by anything, nor is it a container of ‘things’.

Going back to the "Where am I located?" exercise. It got me thinking about me & experience. And one of the problems I keep having is when we say experience, I guess I am stuck to human experience in terms of my understanding of it. So that just reinforces the me instead of seeing though it. But it is not 'me' who is experiencing, surely. I am not the experiencer.

How can a ‘me’ be experiencing anything? Where is this ‘me’ exactly when you look?

The word "experienced" is the past tense of the VERB "to experience", so it obviously implies that something DID the experiencing.

‘ExperiencING’ is a verb.
No verbs could point to what actually IS. Verbs point only to THOUGHTS ABOUT what actually IS.

‘ExperiencING’ (or any verbs) is just a BELIEF.
A belief about TIME.

There is ZERO actual experience of ‘experiencING’.
There is ZERO actual experience of any verb!

There is no such thing as ‘experiencING’, just as there is no such thing as ‘happenING, or ‘seeING’, or ‘knowING’, etc.

So, let’s look at verbs in general. Let’s take a verb ‘experiencING’. For ‘experiencing’ there should be:

1. a separate thing (person = body) an 'experiencER', that is doing or having the ACT of ‘experiencing’
2. a separate thing, an object that is being experienced
3. the ACTION of ‘experiencing’ (as an interACTION between #1 and #2)
4. TIME in which the 'action of ‘experiencing’ unfolds
Without these 4 elements there is NO VERB.
All verbs based on the assumption of the existence of these 4 elements.
Is this clear?

Experience = thoughtsmelltastesensationcoloursound. It does not refer to what thought labels as ‘life’s experiences’. We are talking about the RAW EXPERIENCE of sound, colour etc.

In the same way if I said "I am experience", that would be a false statement. That implies someone. But even if you say there just is experience, that somehow feels inadequate to me to. Because that feels like a thing. Reading this back it all sounds a bit blahblah, but I think it is an important hurdle I have to get over.

And is this ‘feeling’ and actual sensation or simply a thought/idea? We still have to use language as a means to point and to understand. I DO not exist and the I DOES not exist are very different!

And when you say "they are known because they are THIS/experience itself…appearing exactly as it is, and THIS is self aware" that is probably a better way to put it. That everything is a unified whole which is self aware.

And what is self-aware if not you and we are not talking about the seeming character John here?

So the body’s eyes don’t see. There are no eyes…that is a concept. However, there is ‘seeing’ and what is seen is that which is seeing….the seen is seen by the seeing…they are one and the same. So a red clock is seen (known) as colour, as is the thought ‘red’ and ‘clock’ are seen (known). Thought is also seen, as what is seeing the seen are one and the same. So the story about the clock and what it is, is seen/known… but the story in and of itself of what clock is and does is meaningless. The colour and thought are pointers to the seeingseen aka knowingknown aka experience itself, that seems to be appearing as a clock and thought.

The knowing and the known are not two things. You do hear people who see this properly talking about the difficulty and inadequacy of language and I am sure that is the case. And that the fundamental truths are not explainable as well as unknowable (or rather understandable). I guess you just feel it.

It’s a knowing not a feeling. There is no other way of putting it.

Love, Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

I know I said I wasn't going to thank you every time I post but I've got to say the continued effort and patience you show, all with a view to helping someone like me, honestly amazes and humbles me. Even if I never get through that frigging gate (I will;)), the journey has been a continuous source of wonder and surprise to me and I wouldn't have missed it for anything. Thank you.

How is it known that the eyes see? What is actually known right now about eyes, except thought about them? Can you find anything that is witnessing the eyes actually seeing and can you find anything behind the eyes that are seeing?
Can you actually see the back of the eyes where the image comes from?

It isn't. Nothing. No. No. What I have learned or am learning to trust somehow, is what occurs in my direct experience is all there is. And although thought appears in my AE, I cannot believe the stories it tells, because those are just stories, and not true. So what is not in my direct experience, which is at the end of the day what I am, is dependable. Anything else, is not. Objects are stories, Eyes and brain are stories, so not dependable. Not, in actual fact, real, in any way. In the same way that me is just a story.

Look at whatever is in front of you. Is it seen from the perspective of two windows (eyes), or is it like a windscreen view? Now zoom back in and try to find the thing that’s seeing. Is seeing separate from what’s seen, or is there just what’s seen? Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?

I think this is a really cool thought/concept to dwell on. And it ties in very neatly with the picture below which I also really like. Because it touches on what I think the core problem is that I have. Which I mentioned in the last post, about there being somehow a me behind things - or prior to things. A bit like the man in the head which really made me laugh. Laugh because so stupid as it is, that is a good metaphor for what the stories/thoughts tell me what is going on here. It's ridiculous. "Is there any awareness separate from experience or is there just experience?". No, I'm not somehow back there looking out at the scene. I'm up front and centre and AM the scene, as experience. One thing. Like what you say further below, experience isn't out there, being experienced by a me here, as an action. One thing. Non Dual. Indivisible.

I do like the picture. Funny, yes, but it touches a raw nerve. Have you ever heard of a comic in the UK called the Beano which I grew up with many moons ago. And they have one set of characters called the Numbskulls which is a control centre in the head orchestrating the body, and all the things that go wrong. I used to love that. And I have to say I have reached the point where I have absolutely no doubt that there is not a me in there calling the shots. Thoughts happen. Actions happen. It's just a lingering feeling that I wish I could get rid of. It's like I know when I pull back the curtain there's no-one there. The room is empty. But still feels haunted. Like the Wizard of Oz and we pull back the curtain and find no-one there, but then someone says there is someone there, I've seen the film. And we're all looking behind the curtain and there's no-one there but there's still this doubt. Pisses me off. I feel close and keep looking and looking and nothings there and yet when I get back to my life there's still this back seat driver hanging around like a bad smell. And HE'S NOT THERE!

And if you cannot find ANY of these things, what else could they be but a story told by thought?

Careful Kay you do realise that this is coming dangerously close to conspiracy theory territory. Are you a climate change denier too? Is that just an elaborate story too? Just kidding. Thought says that my brain exists. Actual experience cannot corroborate that. And I am happier, and freer, and more connected with what is when I don't have a head at all. Where I used to think my head was, is just experience, itself, one. Which is what my little aha moment felt like the other day that I can still feel to a greater or lesser extent each time I erase my head.

Experience is undeniably real, but the brain is just a tale told by a storyteller (thought) that doesn't even know that it's speaking…a storyteller that isn't aware of anything and doesn't even know that it exists.

This phrase has been resonating with me throughout this morning. The stories told by a storyteller (thought) that has no awareness of anything, and doesn't even know it exists. Sad story. Even sadder when we know that he doesn't even exist (our storyteller). Thought is the storyteller, which has no awareness, and thought tells stories of John. Little John in his sad little box, with his hopes and ambitions and fears, railing against the world. An empty room with a chair in it. Silence. Pathetic, really.

The actual experience of the body is thought.

Ah OK I get you. You've tricked me again. But as ever, you're right. Remember you told me to have my eyes closed and not rely on thought but rather sensation. So all that was left of what I thought was my body was sensation. But, cunning guide that you are, you realised that I would overlook that the minute "a body" is there, it has to be AE of thought. AE of sensation cannot be AE of a body.

What is known is label + sensation + colour + thoughts…but a body is not known…only thoughts about a body are known.
Can you see this?

Yes I can see this.

1. a separate thing (person = body) an 'experiencER', that is doing or having the ACT of ‘experiencing’
2. a separate thing, an object that is being experienced
3. the ACTION of ‘experiencing’ (as an interACTION between #1 and #2)
4. TIME in which the 'action of ‘experiencing’ unfolds
Without these 4 elements there is NO VERB.
All verbs based on the assumption of the existence of these 4 elements.
Is this clear?

Thank you for that which I think is a very clear way of putting it and easy for me to understand. Which is also, by the way, I think about as good an explanation of non duality that I have heard. I know we're not getting into schools/theories here but at the end of the day this has the feeling to me of something fairly fundamental to me. Experience, not being done, but just as THIS, whole.

And what is self-aware if not you and we are not talking about the seeming character John here?

I get you. But the semantic problem I find is the second you say "you" (ie me) it automatically relates to the me that I am accustomed to thinking about for over 50 years. Hard one to drop. But let's not get stuck on that. I guess I have to get used to thinking about me as "I am"/Experience and not as little John. Big Self not little self. What could be easier? ;)
Also slight hurdle in that when I signed up for this, I was quite looking forward to no me meaning NO ME (Johnexist means Johnexit). People talk of emptiness, silence, nothingness. But I guess that ain't on the menu when there is no separation between experience and what is experienced. Then you become everything. But all that is experienced is just arising appearances coming and falling away. So we remain with a core of emptiness, from which everything arises?

I do love to think about these things even though it can lead to talking a lot of bollocks. I do know, though, that it can't be thought through or worked out in any kind of logical way. What I hope happens is the thinking and exercises can loosen some of the prejudices/pre-conceptions/old thinking so that things can take care of themselves.

Thanks again for everything, John

[forgetmenot]

Good morning John,

I know I said I wasn't going to thank you every time I post but I've got to say the continued effort and patience you show, all with a view to helping someone like me, honestly amazes and humbles me. Even if I never get through that frigging gate (I will;)), the journey has been a continuous source of wonder and surprise to me and I wouldn't have missed it for anything. Thank you.

Thank you John. You don’t see how far you have come since we started this exploration….I see it and I think you are doing a wonderful job of looking.

And we're all looking behind the curtain and there's no-one there but there's still this doubt. Pisses me off. I feel close and keep looking and looking and nothings there and yet when I get back to my life there's still this back seat driver hanging around like a bad smell. And HE'S NOT THERE!

So each time you look and see that there is no Johnself...is that not the realisation that there is no separate self?

There is an expectation here that the idea of a separate self should disappear forever, never to be thought of again. Don’t hold your breath waiting!

Put thought aside and look - what is the “feeling” qualities that makes you associate it with a "you"? There is an ‘aliveness’ that is always apparent, but what makes that ‘aliveness’ a separate self called John?

Now, I’d like to ask you to explore this 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 self have a location?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

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

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

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

Be aware that it seems that after seeing through beliefs, the biggest being the concept of the separate self, and the seeing of how simple everything really is, that yo-yoing happens. Seemingly identifying as the separate self shows up again and again along with feelings of resistance, doubt, frustration and confusion. This happens on an off, on and off until it becomes a frustration in itself!. Even though there may be a knowing that yo-yoing is also just an appearance, it all seems to be ‘real’! This is quite normal! It isn’t known how long this yo-yoing will go on for, but it will happen until it doesn’t. The key is to keep LOOKING. So there will be a period of checking, and doubting, and rechecking, and that is all very normal.

And if you cannot find ANY of these things, what else could they be but a story told by thought?

Thought says that my brain exists. Actual experience cannot corroborate that. And I am happier, and freer, and more connected with what is when I don't have a head at all. Where I used to think my head was, is just experience, itself, one. Which is what my little aha moment felt like the other day that I can still feel to a greater or lesser extent each time I erase my head.

Look now…can you see a head anywhere? Other than as an idea…can you see a head? Do you ever see ‘your’ head? No head, then there can't be eyes seeing :)

Thought is the storyteller, which has no awareness, and thought tells stories of John. Little John in his sad little box, with his hopes and ambitions and fears, railing against the world. An empty room with a chair in it. Silence. Pathetic, really.

Thought is the story! There are no thoughts….well not as thought describes them :)

And what is self-aware if not you and we are not talking about the seeming character John here?

I get you. But the semantic problem I find is the second you say "you" (ie me) it automatically relates to the me that I am accustomed to thinking about for over 50 years. Hard one to drop. But let's not get stuck on that. I guess I have to get used to thinking about me as "I am"/Experience and not as little John. Big Self not little self. What could be easier? ;)

Haha! Yep, I understand that thought automatically then points to the seeming separate self. It felt very awkward for me as well. Now it doesn’t matter as it is simply a thought.

Also slight hurdle in that when I signed up for this, I was quite looking forward to no me meaning NO ME (Johnexist means Johnexit). People talk of emptiness, silence, nothingness. But I guess that ain't on the menu when there is no separation between experience and what is experienced. Then you become everything. But all that is experienced is just arising appearances coming and falling away. So we remain with a core of emptiness, from which everything arises?

Yes…I think many have that expectation! When you really have a look at that, it is quite funny as there has never been a separate self…so how can something that isn’t, exit?

But emptiness is nothing but an idea. The inherent 'emptiness' of appearances can be realised eg a fish isn’t a fish…it is experience appearing as a fish, so it is inherently empty. But experience/knowing never shows up "empty". Have you ever been aware of nothing at all? The knowing always only shows up with what is known.

I do love to think about these things even though it can lead to talking a lot of bollocks. I do know, though, that it can't be thought through or worked out in any kind of logical way. What I hope happens is the thinking and exercises can loosen some of the prejudices/pre-conceptions/old thinking so that things can take care of themselves.

At the beginning of seeing through beliefs, and seeing through the idea of ‘no self’ can be the beginning of a tumultuous time. The yo-yoing between clarity and doubt, having desires, having expectations of outcomes, impatience and emotional upheaval can be exhausting and very very very very frustrating. There is no time frame to when this ends…it ends when it does. Many years of habiting a separate self does not disappear overnight. But eventually it falls into place as other beliefs are seen etc. There is no magic wand for any of it.

Love, Kay

[forgetmenot]

Here is another picture I thought you would enjoy! How often do you clean out your 'living' quarters? ;)



Love, Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

You don’t see how far you have come since we started this exploration….I see it and I think you are doing a wonderful job of looking.

Thanks for saying that Kay. I know that I'm getting to grip with things but it's nice to hear it from you.

So each time you look and see that there is no Johnself...is that not the realisation that there is no separate self?

Yes yes yes. My little victories. And I see what you're saying which is that I have to be thankful for the progress that is being made rather than spoiling things with unrealistic expectations. Cup half full. In my quieter moments the seeing of no self is very easy and natural and peaceful. Problem is when thought is very active and when it sucks you in. But even then, afterwards, I seem to be able (sometimes) to look back and see it was just thought doing its thing.
I was thinking yesterday that in quiet moments when no Johnself is clear, what is, is not accompanied by singing angels, or vibrating with love or euphoria, but rather instilled with a simple, clear honesty. And that is enough for me. People talk about everything being perfect and wonderful but I don't get that. Its just what is, itself, unjustified and un-embellished. Like I said, honest. Truthful. Enough.

Does the sense of self have a location?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

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

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

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

Wow, this is an important step for me. We talked yesterday about me wanting to completely surrender myself and surrender to emptiness/void. And yet you had previously said I do exist just not what I thought I was (I do exist and I doesn't exist are 2 different things). In reading and thinking about non duality this is something that has confused me in the past. When we say "me" what do we mean? Well this exercise gives me a clue.

This sense of self is exactly what I have been trying to suppress as a legacy of Johnself. But of course it isn't at all and the more you look at it you realise that it has no connection with the person at all. It is impersonal, non-localised and always there. It is the sense of aliveness and when I focus on it, the whole body seems to slightly vibrate in some kind of recognition. And that sense of self does not feel separate from things at all. Let me try and answer your questions.

Sense of self does not have a location. Not like when I try locate the small me which thought keeps telling me is in the head (it isn't!). The sense of self has no such association with the head. No location at all really.

Sense of self has no shape or size.

No the sense of self doesn't say or communicate anything. It is silent and mute. Unlike the person who rabbits on all the time.

The sense of self has no characteristics or attributes whatsoever. Other than I guess aliveness. Isness.

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

Aha another little Kay bender. Thought you'd foil me there didn't you. You thought I might get smart and say it is made from all those things, sound, smell, colour etc. But no, because the sense of self isn't made of anything. It is experience. And it isn't made of soundsmellcolour. They are made of experience.

I think I am going to spend some more time sitting with this today and we'll talk more tomorrow. But unless you come back and tell me I'm totally off the mark, which I don't think you will, I think this is an important piece of the jigsaw here for me. I have been trying to get rid of that sense of self thinking it's the small me. But it isn't the small me and it isn't personal at all, or limited.

I'll leave it at that.

Love, John

[forgetmenot]

Hi John,

So each time you look and see that there is no Johnself...is that not the realisation that there is no separate self?

Yes yes yes. My little victories. And I see what you're saying which is that I have to be thankful for the progress that is being made rather than spoiling things with unrealistic expectations. Cup half full. In my quieter moments the seeing of no self is very easy and natural and peaceful. Problem is when thought is very active and when it sucks you in. But even then, afterwards, I seem to be able (sometimes) to look back and see it was just thought doing its thing.

If you look…to what exactly is it a problem “when thought is very active and when it sucks you in”? And what exactly is it that is “getting sucked in”?

There are no attachments to ‘your’ stories or to the story about an “I” labelled John.
Your = thought story
Attachment = thought story, riding piggyback on the 'your' thought story.
Thought referring to thought.
Simply notice the story about the story.
See if you're actually in it.
And see if it's actually yours

I was thinking yesterday that in quiet moments when no Johnself is clear, what is, is not accompanied by singing angels, or vibrating with love or euphoria, but rather instilled with a simple, clear honesty. And that is enough for me. People talk about everything being perfect and wonderful but I don't get that. Its just what is, itself, unjustified and un-embellished. Like I said, honest. Truthful. Enough.

Wow! So beautifully expressed! I didn’t get “everything being perfect and wonderful” for a long time after the realisation either…so don’t put that on yourself either. Everything unfolds as it unfolds, and there is no specific way to how it unfolds, and there is no clear ‘path’ to how it unfolds. It is different for everyone.

This sense of self is exactly what I have been trying to suppress as a legacy of Johnself. But of course it isn't at all and the more you look at it you realise that it has no connection with the person at all. It is impersonal, non-localised and always there.

YES! Even when it seems that the Johnself goes to sleep at night. What is it exactly that goes to sleep? There is awareness of absence…not absence of awareness.

The sense of self has no characteristics or attributes whatsoever. Other than I guess aliveness. Isness.

Yes…experience/THIS has no characteristics, attributes, shape or form….it simply IS and it appears exactly as it IS.

So let’s look at this clearly.

1. The thought “I still believe that I am a “me” arises. So the thought is actual experience of thought. And other thoughts that arise with that thought, about that thought, are the content of that thought.

2. The thought “I still believe that I am a “me” has a feeling associated with it...a feeling labelled “me”, “sense of self” etc . If there is no actual sensation, then the feeling is just another thought/idea ABOUT a “me” and the content of that label is not real.

- If there is an actual sensation, then the sensation is actual experience of sensation not the actual experience of a “me”. Sensation is actual experience BUT is not associated with the thought (that is a lie). Labels are actual experience but the content of labels are not real.

- So the thought “I still believe that I am a “me” ” is actual experience but the content of the thought is not ‘real’

- The sensation labelled as “me/sense of self” is actual experience but the content is not real.

- Any actual sensation is actual experience but not as the content of what thought labels the sensation as or what thought says about the sensation. Sensations are simply AE of sensation.

3. All previous experience of “I still believe that I am a “me” are arising in the moment but as images and thoughts, and those images and thoughts are actual experience but the content is not real.

4. The thought “a belief is experienced through emotions, sensations, memories etc” is content of a thought that is defining what “this is a belief” means.

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

Aha another little Kay bender. Thought you'd foil me there didn't you. You thought I might get smart and say it is made from all those things, sound, smell, colour etc. But no, because the sense of self isn't made of anything. It is experience. And it isn't made of soundsmellcolour. They are made of experience.

Haha….you’re onto me! ;) Nice catch :)

I think I am going to spend some more time sitting with this today and we'll talk more tomorrow. But unless you come back and tell me I'm totally off the mark, which I don't think you will, I think this is an important piece of the jigsaw here for me. I have been trying to get rid of that sense of self thinking it's the small me. But it isn't the small me and it isn't personal at all, or limited.

You’re on the mark! “But it isn't the small me and it isn't personal at all, or limited.” Nice!

Love, Kay

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,
Slight delay, I’ll come back tomorrow.
John

[Drumps]

Hi Kay,

Thanks for your post and sorry for the slight delay in coming back to you. Like you say....life!

If you look…to what exactly is it a problem “when thought is very active and when it sucks you in”? And what exactly is it that is “getting sucked in”?

I thought about this for quite a bit of time yesterday. And the answer, of course, to both of those points is thought. It is only to thought that it is a problem when the sucking in happens, and it is only thought (upon thought) that gets sucked in.

Simply notice the story about the story.
See if you're actually in it.
And see if it's actually yours

Very good because I am not in the thought story and it isn't mine. It is just that it feels that way. But the more you catch thoughts, kind of isolate them, it is clear that they are just arising from nowhere and there is no one in them. So I guess that's what I've got to do. Let them happen and not try to control them (because I can't) but just find time to put them under the microscope and see they're not me. And that even includes the seductive thoughts (both good and bad) that can seem to engulf you. If I can't view them when I feel inside them, then I can at least do so retrospectively.

1. The thought “I still believe that I am a “me” arises. So the thought is actual experience of thought. And other thoughts that arise with that thought, about that thought, are the content of that thought. I'm clear on that.

2. The thought “I still believe that I am a “me” has a feeling associated with it...a feeling labelled “me”, “sense of self” etc . If there is no actual sensation, then the feeling is just another thought/idea ABOUT a “me” and the content of that label is not real. I need to pause a bit here. Because when we did the exploration of the "sense of me" in the last post, I was equating this to sense of aliveness which was not about the person or the body feeling anything (as a sensation) but rather Isness/existence/experience/Self in a completely impersonal way. I may be getting confused a bit here because when you refer to a "sense of self" here you seem to me to be talking about a sensation, which is not what I meant. Funny but for me it seems that a "sense of self" (ie Self) is somewhat different to a "sensation of self" (as in a feeling in the body). Can you just explain a bit what you mean.

- If there is an actual sensation, then the sensation is actual experience of sensation not the actual experience of a “me”. Sensation is actual experience BUT is not associated with the thought (that is a lie). Labels are actual experience but the content of labels are not real. As above, I don't think I was referring to actual experience of sensation, but maybe you'll put me right.

- So the thought “I still believe that I am a “me” ” is actual experience but the content of the thought is not ‘real’ Got it

- The sensation labelled as “me/sense of self” is actual experience but the content is not real. To me the sense of self was pure experience, not one of the building blocks of it (ie sound, colour, sensation etc). But maybe you'll say there is no difference.

- Any actual sensation is actual experience but not as the content of what thought labels the sensation as or what thought says about the sensation. Sensations are simply AE of sensation.

3. All previous experience of “I still believe that I am a “me” are arising in the moment but as images and thoughts, and those images and thoughts are actual experience but the content is not real. Agreed.

4. The thought “a belief is experienced through emotions, sensations, memories etc” is content of a thought that is defining what “this is a belief” means.Yes agreed

I just don't want to get stuck on the words. I know what I felt and/or meant when I talked about sense of self and that equating to non personal pure experience. I just don't limit what I was referring to, to a "bodily" sensation.

Love, John