Guide request - forgetmenot

[Nunes]

Hi Kay,

My name is Claudia, and I've been in touch with Sandra. She has forward me to you.

Are you free to guide?


Thanks a lot

[forgetmenot]

Hello Claudia,

I am so very sorry that I didn't see your thread. Sandra let me know that you were creating a new thread and I did look for it but obviously didn't see it.

Yes, I am free to guide you if you still want to continue. Once again...my sincerest apologies.

Love, Kay
xx

[Nunes]

Hi Kay,

Please do not apologise! I already feel SO grateful just to have the chance to speak to Sandra, and you. honestly, you have no idea!

Sandra has been amazing with me, and we have explored a lot together.

I guess that the biggest doubts for me are in relation to the "world". The subject- object relationship etc


I am ready when you are :)

Once again thank you!!!!

hug

[forgetmenot]

Hi Claudia,

Let us begin the 'walk' to seeing through subject/object split. We will start at the beginning by looking at actual experience (AE) is.

You can have a 'real' apple in front of you to do this exercise as well.



Have a look at an apple. When ‘looking at an apple’, there's colour; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe a thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

What about the content of thoughts, what they describe?
Actual experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought. Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in actual experience.

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?

Throughout our exploration, whatever is in blue text is what I would like you to answer and please answer each question individually using the quote function to highlight the question being answered.

Love, Kay
xx

[Nunes]

Hi Kay,

Thank you for your response.

I finally have my laptop ready to use and I should be using the quote function during our conversations. By the way, I will be going on holiday this Saturday, so I will only have the Ipad with me. It will be difficult to use the quote function then, but I will do my best to present the answers right after the questions. It will also be great to do this exploration during the holiday where I have so much time off to just be and explore. Perfect timing.

So here we go:

What is known for sure? Colour is known and thoughts are known.

yes.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

There is only colour and thought "about" apple. But simultaneously this describes the object. Because of the colour and format of the object I can then say it is an apple and not a banana for example. So I would say that the experience is true to the object.

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

It took me quite a while to answer this. And I am still unsure on the answer.
Ok, as I look at the apple, I also see Ipad. The apple is next to the Ipad. This is AE as colour. AE of apple is colour and shape, and the AE of Iapd is also colour and shape.

There is no apple. Only colour and shape. Apple is Thought! I have learnt to call this specific colour (ish) and shape "an apple". Only realized this now!!! But spent all day contemplating.

Kay you said:

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

What is always here. This is always changing. There is always something here but the content is different.

However, is an apple actually known?

only colour and shape is known.

This was not easy for me by the way, but I loved to see it. Don't know what is right or wrong but I will always answer what seems true to me.

Thank you so much

Hug

[forgetmenot]

Hi Claudia,

I finally have my laptop ready to use and I should be using the quote function during our conversations. By the way, I will be going on holiday this Saturday, so I will only have the Ipad with me. It will be difficult to use the quote function then, but I will do my best to present the answers right after the questions. It will also be great to do this exploration during the holiday where I have so much time off to just be and explore. Perfect timing.

I will number the questions I want answered….that way it will keep it in some sort of order for ease of reading and answering. Can you just remind me before you leave that you are going on holidays please.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?

There is only colour and thought "about" apple. But simultaneously this describes the object. Because of the colour and format of the object I can then say it is an apple and not a banana for example. So I would say that the experience is true to the object.

Yes, exactly….thought labels and describes colour as specific objects. Does thought know anything? Actual experience (AE) is everything, except the "content" of thought, because thought, in and of itself does not contain any experience. Knowing about something is thought while the knowing AS (the appearance) is direct.

If you were to look at an apple and a banana and IGNORE all thoughts about apple and banana…what is the actual experience?

Here are signposts that point to Rome, London, Berlin etc. Obviously the signposts have no idea where Rome or Berlin etc are. Do the signposts have any idea what they are pointing to? Does what they are pointing to actually exist? Now...what if signpost = thought?

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

It took me quite a while to answer this. And I am still unsure on the answer.
Ok, as I look at the apple, I also see Ipad. The apple is next to the Ipad. This is AE as colour. AE of apple is colour and shape, and the AE of Iapd is also colour and shape.

There is no apple. Only colour and shape. Apple is Thought! I have learnt to call this specific colour (ish) and shape "an apple". Only realized this now!!! But spent all day contemplating.

YES…apple is thought! Fantastic LOOKING! And shapes are just different patterns of colour….so all that is appearing is colour.

Kay you said:
This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

What is always here. This is always changing. There is always something here but the content is different.

Yes…the difference is not in the AE of sensation, colour, smell, thought, taste or sound…but in its content, which is a story.

However, is an apple actually known?

only colour and shape is known.

YES!

Let’s look at a rose.



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

But LOOK again - all that is actually present are red and green, a nice smell and maybe an 'ouch' sensation. The rose itself is only a story. Notice that all things that seem to exist are just like the rose. Just fictional stories about experience.
Beyond the story, can any of them be found to exist at all?

This was not easy for me by the way, but I loved to see it. Don't know what is right or wrong but I will always answer what seems true to me.

Yes please….just answer what seems to be true for you.

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

So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:

Seeing a cup, simply= image/colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell,
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation.
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought.

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

Love, Kay
xx

[Nunes]

Hi Kay,

Thank you for your reply. Thank you for all this.

It has been so exciting for me to rediscover all these experiences.. just to simply be with what is really there. To see things as they are and not how thought says they are. Nothing wrong with thought but when not analysed properly and seen for what it actually is, it can bring suffering, fear etc

If you were to look at an apple and a banana and IGNORE all thoughts about apple and banana…what is the actual experience?

only colour and shape. This is clear! its not "a" something, it is colour and shape appearing.

Really liked the example of the sign post! just beautiful:

Here are signposts that point to Rome, London, Berlin etc. Obviously the signposts have no idea where Rome or Berlin etc are. Do the signposts have any idea what they are pointing to? Does what they are pointing to actually exist? Now...what if signpost = thought?

the sign posts don't mean anything. Thoughts says they do! it as a story for each of the sign post.

Beyond the story, can any of them be found to exist at all?

beyond the story all there is is AE of sight,sound,taste,smell.. Thought attaches the story to experience.

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

Throughout the day I have tried to "see" experience as it is, and to actually see what was thought and what was AE - I found it very liberating!
I have tried this especially when I encountered a more "difficult" situation i.e complaining thoughts for example. I have tried to distance the thought from the experience itself. What I found was that thought is always creating stories on top of the AE.
What is, IS. Whatever then thought was saying became somehow irrelevant! BUT, there were still times when for example I could sense the pull of though to complain, be angry etc. At this times I would then remind myself - What Is actually happening - and again Sight,sound,taste etc would come more to the surface and thought became second plan.
You might wonder, as I wondered - am I trying just to seek pleasant experiences? the answer is no. It is not that I don't want to feel pain but only pleasure. I just want to understand the reason BEHIND the anger, the suffering etc.

What I have learnt from our two posts was that thought is the one responsible for these feelings. Thought assumes an "I", and from that point starts creating the stories. But then I break the experience down to What is really there, all I can find IS the actual experience of the 5 senses.

Kay I might have gone to far here and I am not sure if this is relevant to what you were asking - please let me know your thoughts.

Referring again to what you said before:

Seeing a cup, simply= image/colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell,
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation.
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought

.

I loved to be with the experience of just being. Its nice because whatever I do, I am paying more attention to all the details, even if I am only making a cup of tea. It is not just a cup of tea. It is what this moment is presenting.. it is everything. Thought says ( cup of tea) Experience says fullness!

Thank you SOOO much!
Cant wait for your reply!

All my love

[forgetmenot]

Hi Claudia,

What is, IS. Whatever then thought was saying became somehow irrelevant! BUT, there were still times when for example I could sense the pull of though to complain, be angry etc. At this times I would then remind myself - What Is actually happening - and again Sight,sound,taste etc would come more to the surface and thought became second plan.
You might wonder, as I wondered - am I trying just to seek pleasant experiences? the answer is no. It is not that I don't want to feel pain but only pleasure. I just want to understand the reason BEHIND the anger, the suffering etc.

Absolutely lovely, Claudia….nice LOOKING! Even have a LOOK when so called ‘pleasant’ experiences arise to actually see what is. There is no “reason BEHIND” the anger or suffering. Don’t expect anger and suffering to disappear…have a LOOK for that which can suffer or be angry.

Let’s break down ‘anger’ into AE

The label ‘anger’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of anger
The sensation labelled ‘angry feelings’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of anger
The image labelled ‘body/me’ is the AE of colour and not the AE of anger
The thoughts ABOUT anger are the AE of thought and not the AE of anger

So in actual experience can ‘anger’ be found? What is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT anger and thoughts about what SEEMED to create the anger. But can anyone be found that is angry?

Does label/thought know anything about anger?
Does colour know anything about anger?
Does sensation know anything about anger?

So is anger actually known? Or what is known is thoughtcoloursensation?

I loved to be with the experience of just being. Its nice because whatever I do, I am paying more attention to all the details, even if I am only making a cup of tea. It is not just a cup of tea. It is what this moment is presenting.. it is everything. Thought says ( cup of tea) Experience says fullness!

Is there ever a time when you are not aware of AE? Let’s say that thought seems to be prevalent and the rest are somehow in the ‘background’. Is not thought AE? Is thought, in and of itself, any different to the AE of sound, sensation, colour, smell or taste?

Find a TV team sport on TV or a Youtube clip that lasts for at least 5 minutes. The following link is to a game of soccer, but if you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIFUhW3zO5Q

1. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

2. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice, seems to feel as though they can influence somehow what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome, the commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

3. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

4. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening, what is the AE?
Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

Love, Kay
xx

[Nunes]

Hi Kay,

have a LOOK for that which can suffer or be angry

This has been really difficult for me.. for years.. what is it that suffers? what is it that sees etc! I haven't got a clue!

So in actual experience can ‘anger’ be found?

anger when it arises its associated with different things. This makes it difficult to see Anger for what it is. In a way it is a denial of the moment. There are certain feelings that I would call "anger". But whatever name I give it does not matter.

What is actually appearing is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT anger and thoughts about what SEEMED to create the anger.

yes. This is true. But it takes a lot of effort to see it just like that. The feeling itself is powerful.

But can anyone be found that is angry?

To 'understand' this is so important for me! I still struggle. Is there someone that is angry!!! If I break it down as you did before then, No. Anger is what is arising.. sensation, thought etc

Does label/thought know anything about anger?

No. it only tries to describe a feeling.

Does colour know anything about anger?

No. I dont see colour involved in anger. But colour doesnt know anything.

Does sensation know anything about anger?

Hum.. Sensation does not Know ABOUT anger, but is the AE of the feeling.

So is anger actually known? Or what is known is thoughtlessness?

yes. What is thoughtcoloursensation.

Is there ever a time when you are not aware of AE?

No. I am never not aware. What I am aware OF changes, but I dont think I can be "not aware" as this implies awareness.

Let’s say that thought seems to be prevalent and the rest are somehow in the ‘background’. Is not thought AE?

This is tricky =) Well.. thought is an experience. I know "thought". I am aware of "thought". hum.. don't know what was the real question behind your question. What am I missing?

Is thought, in and of itself, any different to the AE of sound, sensation, colour, smell or taste?

I mean, sound is Thought right? sensation , colour , smell and taste are also thought. Right?

But, for example, thought seems to be a mental thing when not in touch with the actual moment itself. What I mean is: as I seat here a thought poped up saying ( I will have some tea after) . In a way this is not real because the only thing really happening is ( sound - as I move my fingers / sensation as I touch the keybord). So is Thought AE - yes and no. Yes that if it "arises" it is an experience BUT no if it describes something that is not actually happening. Kay please what are your thoughts on this?

Thought seems to be found inside the head, while for example colour ( as I look at the laptop) seems to be outside. And somehow seems to be MORE REAL than thought. Actually, all the 5 senses seem to be more real than thought. More immediate maybe.

The football match:

When the volume was OFF- all I could see was colour. Until I saw Messi - then straight away a Thought " oh its Messy . He is really good)
When the Volume was ON - all I could see was again colour and sound.
With the volume ON I could see the pull of thought trying to give meaning to those colours. Especially listening to the commentators.. soon after a little while I was totally involved in thought again.

The commentary was not needed for the play, the game to happen. Thought always comes after! Giving meaning to something that in a way already passed.

This is just beautiful - NO. NO and NO . Thought is NOT needed for the play of life to happen! AT ALL =)
What is happening is already so obvious, immediate.. thought in a way interferes. One cannot stop thought but at least I see it for what it is - only a tool. A narration.

Kay there is a feeling right now of peace..

Thank you

All my love

[forgetmenot]

Hello Claudia,

I have not responded to everything you wrote…as I think I need to slow it down a little until you get a good grasp on what actual experience is.

have a LOOK for that which can suffer or be angry

This has been really difficult for me.. for years.. what is it that suffers? what is it that sees etc! I haven't got a clue!

So, you are thinking and not actually LOOKING. Actual experience is colour, thought, sensation, taste, smell and sound. Actual experience is EVERYTHING except the "content" of thought, because thought, in and of itself does not contain any experience.

This exploration is based on questions and exercises. I will ask questions as a means of pointing, but the questions aren’t about finding something unknown. The questions refer to what is already actually known. And what is already known? Sound, smell, taste, thought, sensation and colour. So, questions are not answered through thinking/thoughts (theories) but by LOOKING. The key is that you really have to LOOK. Why? Because it’s the act of actually LOOKING and not finding an “I” that brings about the realisation of there being no separate self.

What is LOOKING? ‘LOOKING’ is just plain looking at what is here right now. It is moving from the conceptual to actual experience (AE). The term “Actual Experience” (AE) is used to refer to experience ‘right now,’ without the thought stories. So, actual experience (AE) is image/colour, sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought, at face value. What thought says ie, the content of thought is NOT experience. This is evidenced by the fact that you cannot taste the word 'sweet'. So, when looking at actual experience (AE), you are looking at raw experience WITHOUT what thought says ABOUT the raw experience.

So in actual experience can ‘anger’ be found?

anger when it arises its associated with different things. This makes it difficult to see Anger for what it is. In a way it is a denial of the moment. There are certain feelings that I would call "anger". But whatever name I give it does not matter.

Okay…so we need to go back to actual experience and to break down daily activities into AE, so that you become aware of AE and thoughts about AE.

Here is a suggestion on how to go about your day and taking absolutely EVERYTHING at face value.

You're in the kitchen and you hear a song playing from the other room. Of course, it’s only thought that says that, isn't it? So take that thought for face value. Then look again, that song isn't coming from anywhere is it? In fact, it is not a song at all, is it? Only thought says it’s a song. In reality it’s just sound. So, stick with that, discard everything that isn't obvious and apparent.

When sitting in a café enjoying a coffee. Do the same. Look around and thought will say that you are looking at other people drinking coffee. But that is only thought that says that, isn’t it? So take the thought at face value ie as the AE of thought only. LOOK again. What thought points to as people, are in fact not people at all, but colour.

At work you are getting anxious because you aren’t able to meet a deadline. But that is only thought that says that, isn’t it? But LOOK again. What thought points to as a person at work getting anxious is in fact, sensation.

Do the same with smell and taste. This will help in breaking down what SEEMS to be happening into what actually IS.

Let me know how you go with this and what you notice.

When the volume was OFF- all I could see was colour. Until I saw Messi - then straight away a Thought " oh its Messy . He is really good)

Yes, the AE of colour and thoughts ABOUT the colour being labelled as "messi". Thought is AE but the content of thought is just story aka fiction.

When the Volume was ON - all I could see was again colour and sound.
With the volume ON I could see the pull of thought trying to give meaning to those colours. Especially listening to the commentators.. soon after a little while I was totally involved in thought again.

Yes...great noticing. So throughout your day....notice how thought does this with everything that you do, see, smell, taste, feel etc.

The commentary was not needed for the play, the game to happen. Thought always comes after! Giving meaning to something that in a way already passed.

Yes, exactly....thought never comments on the now...it is always after something has happened/appeared or something in the future.

This is just beautiful - NO. NO and NO . Thought is NOT needed for the play of life to happen! AT ALL =)
What is happening is already so obvious, immediate.. thought in a way interferes. One cannot stop thought but at least I see it for what it is - only a tool. A narration.

So, yes, see how thought seems to be the predominant experience, however, if you just allow (watch/observe) thought without actually following thought, you see that thought is just a constant stream of commentary that has a story about everything, and how it overlays actual experience continuously with stories.

So can you see how thought does the same with the colour labelled ‘Claudia’ and ‘her life’?

Kay there is a feeling right now of peace..

Peace is something that comes and goes, just like thought, sound, smell, taste, sensation. So seeing through the separate self is not about attaining continuous feelings of peace, happiness, contentment etc. It is to see that there is no person who is either peaceful, angry, happy, sad....that they are appearances that come and go.

Love, Kay
xx

[Nunes]

Hi Kay,

I have not responded to everything you wrote…as I think I need to slow it down a little until you get a good grasp on what actual experience is.

Thank you for this.

Your description of AE was very clear. I mean you are really good at this.. I mean the whole pointing thing. The words you use, how you use it. I have been clearer now during our 3 chats than I had been during 5 years of 'searching'.

It helps me a great deal to break experience down to what the 5 senses experience, and in reality all there is is really that.. colour,sound,thought,taste,smell.

As I do that there is a dis-identification with thought. Everything that thought "constructs" just melts down.

So can you see how thought does the same with the colour labelled ‘Claudia’ and ‘her life’?

This is a big one. Slowly, slowly I am "applying" what you pointed out to the lablel 'Claudia'. Thought has a pull on me, but as you said I just need to look at what is really happening, and see the label 'Claudia' as just that colour,sensation etc

Kay what about the likes and dislikes of this label 'Claudia'?
These seem to 'colour' my life, my choices. Again would you say than that these are thoughts arising.. also from memory perhaps?

Thank you
Love
Claudia

[forgetmenot]

Hello Claudia,

Kay what about the likes and dislikes of this label 'Claudia'?
These seem to 'colour' my life, my choices. Again would you say than that these are thoughts arising.. also from memory perhaps?

What are dislikes and likes made up of exactly? What is the AE of likes and dislikes, no matter what they describe?

Let’s have a closer look at the nature of thought first and then we have a look at choices and memory.

Here is a thought exercise. Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?
Where are they coming from and going to? Can you predict your next thought?
Can you push away any thought?
Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?
Can you choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?
Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?
Is it possible to control any thoughts? Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?
It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

Look carefully when doing this exercise and do it several times if necessary. Please answer each question individually.

Love, Kay
xx

[Nunes]

Hi Kay,

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?
No. Thoughts appear by themselves.

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

No. Completely powerless. No control over that whatsoever.

Where are they coming from and going to? Can you predict your next thought?

No idea where they coming from. I am only aware of them. Impossible to predict a thought. Well that would be another thought, because thought cannot make anything happen. Thought has no power by itself, it can only comment on things.

Can you push away any thought?

Again that would be another thought. I cannot push a thought away.

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

No, I cannot select any thoughts. I also cannot stop thinking a thought in the middle. I am only the awareness of the thoughts. Oh I see here.. I am powerless ( as I am only the awareness (or whatever name) that knows), and Thought is also powerless as it just happens by itself.

Can you choose not to have painful or negative thoughts?

No. I wish =)

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

No. Trying to pick a thought would be a thought also.

Is it possible to control any thoughts? Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing? Including the thought 'I'?

No, no and no!

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

This one was a little harder to notice. I will have to sit and look more often to be clearer on this point. But, from what Ive noticed, and like really paying attention as it is easy to miss, I could see that Thought takes the content of a previous thought.
BUT, the ordered appearance.. there is one thing I dont get - I might be mixing subjects here but it seems relevant to this question. For example, thoughts come and go as they please and, although when describing what is happening, there seems to be a sequence. I am struggling now to explain clearly what I am trying to say but, for example the world, as it appears , there is a sequence of things, for example cause and effect.

Cause and effect happens.. There seems to be a sequence then. I dont know if I am confusing myself here =(

Kay, from tomorrow I will be responding from the IPAD, so if you dont mind can you please number the questions to be answered?

Thanks a lot
All my love,
Claudia

[forgetmenot]

Hi Claudia,

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts? Can you stop thinking a thought in the middle?

No, I cannot select any thoughts. I also cannot stop thinking a thought in the middle. I am only the awareness of the thoughts. Oh I see here.. I am powerless ( as I am only the awareness (or whatever name) that knows), and Thought is also powerless as it just happens by itself.

Yes, thoughts are known, just as colour, sound, sensation, smell and taste are known.

1. In actual experience, is there a border where a thought stops, and the "knowing" of it starts? Is there a border where thought stops and experience starts?

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully and just notice if there is an organised sequence? Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or “they take content from previous thought”, or that ‘one thought follows another thought’?

This one was a little harder to notice. I will have to sit and look more often to be clearer on this point. But, from what Ive noticed, and like really paying attention as it is easy to miss, I could see that Thought takes the content of a previous thought.

2. Thought is just thought and is unable to think or do anything. How is it known that “thought takes the content of a previous thought”? Because a thought said so?

BUT, the ordered appearance.. there is one thing I dont get - I might be mixing subjects here but it seems relevant to this question. For example, thoughts come and go as they please and, although when describing what is happening, there seems to be a sequence. I am struggling now to explain clearly what I am trying to say but, for example the world, as it appears , there is a sequence of things, for example cause and effect.

If you were to meet someone who spoke the Khoisan language….that is the language that uses clicking sounds….how would you know that what they were saying was in some sort of sequential thought order? In other words...how would that be known…unless a thought appeared saying so?

Yes, thought SEEMS to describe what SEEMS to be happening and there SEEMS to be a sequence and the word ‘SEEM’ = thought. If something can be described then it is just thought. Actual experience is everything, except the "content" of thought, because thought, in and of itself does not contain any experience. The content of thought is just more thought!

3. Experience itself cannot be described. Pretend that I am unable to see or hear...now describe to me the colour labelled ‘red’ and the sound labelled ‘wind’. Can you do it? Try and describe the taste labelled ‘coffee’, or the smell labelled ‘toast’ or the sensation labelled ‘excitement’. For that matter try and describe a thought!

Cause and effect happens.. There seems to be a sequence then. I dont know if I am confusing myself here =(

Cause and effect is a concept. There has to be two of something for there to be cause and effect. There is not two, otherwise separation would be real. Not only does cause and effect point to separation, it also points to the concept of time, where one thing follows another…and time is just that…a concept. We will look at this a little later on.


Let’s have a look at the idea of thought knowing and describing anything.

Find a TV team sport on TV or a Youtube clip that lasts for at least 5 minutes. The following link is to a game of soccer, but if you prefer another sport…please feel free to find one to do this exercise with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIFUhW3zO5Q

a. Watch one minute with the sound turned OFF, watching ‘people’ messing about with a round thing on a field, up and down, up and down. Let it sink in, the whole experience.

b. Once the first minute is completed, now watch another whole minute with the commentary turned ON.

Notice the differences. Notice how the commentator (aka thought) offers lots of know-how, even advice, seems to feel as though they can influence somehow what is going on, as though one outcome is much preferred to the opposite outcome, the commentary may seem to heighten any supporter feelings which are there, and call for an identification with one team or other, and with the importance of the game itself.

c. Now turn the volume OFF AGAIN and just watch the action with NO audible commentary, the shapes moving around on the screen etc. Again notice all the differences in what is appearing as experience.

d. Now turn the volume ON again and ignore what you think you know thought is talking about, and just notice it as sound.

4. Let me know what you notice when you turn the sound on and off, and without thought, what is actually appearing/happening etc?
Is the commentary on the football game a necessity for the play to happen?
And in the same way: Is the inner narration of thought a necessity for the play of life to happen?

Love, Kay
xx

[Nunes]

Hi Kay,


1. There is no border. Knowing is experiencing. But sometimes I say " I am having a thought" there seems to be separation here. In actual experience only Thought (T) is experienced. I guess that to say that I am having a T, is a T.

2. Yes, in a way because T said so, but on the other hand, as I look at what is happening there is something constant. As I look at the iPad, it stays where it is. It is constant. Thought is not telling me that, I see it. The content of the experience i.e the iPad. Something solid, Constant.
I guess my struggle here is how to account for the continuity of the outside world, objects. it's like these are independent and constant.

3. Yes, experience itself cannot be described. It is. I am it?! Looks like that. :/ I cannot know about it, I can only experience it.

4. I have already sent you the answers for this one, on the previous post. Thoughy appeared saying that :) memory is involved here. I remember giving you then answers .

thank you so much
Looking forward to hear from you

all my love
claudia