Beanstalk and Forgetmenot

[forgetmenot]

Hello Beanstalk,

I thought it would be best to start a new thread. Let's begin as we mean to go on...with fresh looking :) We will start from the beginning and there will be repeats of exercises you have already done...but that doesn't matter. Let's see how we go.

Throughout our exploration please answer all questions I have highlighted in blue text, answering them individually. Please use the quote function to highlight the question you are answering.

First off we become aware of actual experience (AE) and what LOOKING is.
‘Looking’ is just plain looking at actual/direct experience (AE), which is simply colour (image), sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought at face value that is appearing right now in the moment. You are looking at the raw experience of AE and noticing the labels and thoughts ABOUT the raw experience. The key to this exploration is the careful LOOKING. 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 and that there has never been a separate self.

The interpretation of actual experience happens quickly. So while inquiring, labelling and interpretation will always appear, it is possible to become aware of the thoughts that appear with, and overlay actual experience. The most important tool for this whole exploration is to be able to tell the difference between actual experience and the interpretation by thought of actual experience

The following exercise points to what I mean.

For this exercise you will need an apple or any other piece of fruit will do.



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.

The label ‘apple’ is known
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?

Kay

[thursday123]

Kay,

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

only colour and thought about 'apple'

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

no, it is not there in and of itself. there are just different kinds of experience labelled 'apple'

However, is an apple actually known?

no, it cannot be known/does not exist as a separate object, there is only experience and the labelling of the experience


Beanstalk

[forgetmenot]

Hi Beanstalk,

Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?

no, it is not there in and of itself. there are just different kinds of experience labelled 'apple'

How is it known that there are "different kinds of experience"?

Kay

[thursday123]

Kay,

How is it known that there are "different kinds of experience"?

When I look, it just seems self-evident that, for example, experience labelled 'sensation' is different in essence from experience labelled 'sound'. Although I understand at the same time that they are not separate from one another, but all just experience being falsely labelled/separated by mind


Beanstalk

[forgetmenot]

Hi Beanstalk,

How is it known that there are "different kinds of experience"?

When I look, it just seems self-evident that, for example, experience labelled 'sensation' is different in essence from experience labelled 'sound'. Although I understand at the same time that they are not separate from one another, but all just experience being falsely labelled/separated by mind.

What is the AE of 'mind'? Is it colour, thought, smell, taste, sensation or sound?

Is there an “I” looking to which experiences different experiences and therefore it is self evident that they are different?

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?

Experience itself (THIS/awareness/Knowing) is divided into 6 categories by thought only. Colour AND smell AND sensation AND taste AND smell AND thought AND sound. If you ignore those labels and the content of those labels….what remains?

Please answer all questions that are in blue text and answer them individually please.

Kay

[thursday123]

Kay,

What is the AE of 'mind'? Is it colour, thought, smell, taste, sensation or sound?

AE of mind is thought, but thoughts are imagined colours, tastes, smells, sensations and sounds (though mostly just colours, sensations and sounds)

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?

I had to use two fingers, one to point to each eye. That's where it feels like the 'me' is located, although I know that no 'I' can be found there in AE

Experience itself (THIS/awareness/Knowing) is divided into 6 categories by thought only. Colour AND smell AND sensation AND taste AND smell AND thought AND sound. If you ignore those labels and the content of those labels….what remains?

what remains is just one flowing experience - there's no point where one 'kind of experience' ends and another begins


Beanstalk

[forgetmenot]

Hello Beanstalk,

Please read my post thoroughly several times. Take your time looking at what is being pointed to, because you have some odd ideas that you really need to see through. Actual experience is real...what is not real is what thought describes them as.

What is the AE of 'mind'? Is it colour, thought, smell, taste, sensation or sound?

AE of mind is thought, but thoughts are imagined colours, tastes, smells, sensations and sounds (though mostly just colours, sensations and sounds)

How are thoughts imagines colours, tastes, smell, sensations and sound? They are ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. Where does the idea come from that they are imaginary?

Are you not aware of sound when it appears? And are you not aware of sensation when it appears, and taste and smell and colour when they appear? And are you not aware of thought when it appears? If so, then how can they be imaginary? They are actual experience….there is no denying their existence. You have some sort of notion that there is nothing but something called ‘emptiness’, where there is nothing but some dark void or something! And that is just and idea…a belief! You can find the inherent emptiness of ‘things’, but THIS/experience itself is NOT EMPTY.

Did you read thoroughly what I wrote when introducing the apple exercise? Just in case you didn’t…here it is again.

First off we become aware of actual experience (AE) and what LOOKING is.
‘Looking’ is just plain looking at actual/direct experience (AE), which is simply colour (image), sound, smell, sensation, taste and the simple knowing of thought at face value that is appearing right now in the moment. You are looking at the raw experience of AE and noticing the labels and thoughts ABOUT the raw experience. The key to this exploration is the careful LOOKING. 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 and that there has never been a separate self.

The interpretation of actual experience happens quickly. So while inquiring, labelling and interpretation will always appear, it is possible to become aware of the thoughts that appear with, and overlay actual experience. The most important tool for this whole exploration is to be able to tell the difference between actual experience and the interpretation by thought of actual experience


Here is an exercise which points out the difference between actual experience and content of thought. Thoughts either point to AE or they point to thoughts about thought. Thought, in and of itself, does not contain any experience, otherwise you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’ and feel the word ‘hot’ and hear thunder when the word ‘thunder’ appeared!

There are two types of thoughts:
#1 Thoughts with words “Here is cup”
#2 Visual mental images of a ‘cup’

So I invite you to do this exercise:
Think of a cup. Get a very clear picture in your mind. See clearly the size, shape, colour and volume of the cup. Notice whether it is decorated or plain. Notice whether it has a handle. Notice whether it is heavy or fragile. Do you have a clear picture in mind?

Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?

Is there a ‘real’ cup or just a mental image of a cup?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?


Now let’s look at the word thought “here is a cup".

Can a 'real' cup be found in the thought itself?

"Here is a cup" is the thought; the ensuing thoughts of what a cup is and does, what it is made from etc are the content of that thought. What do those thoughts point to exactly? Do they point to colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound? Or do they simply point to actual experience of thought and thought only?

So thoughts and mental images are actual experience only as arising thoughts (words and mental image), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what they are about, what they are pointing to (like the cup) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about, what it is pointing to) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

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?

I had to use two fingers, one to point to each eye. That's where it feels like the 'me' is located, although I know that no 'I' can be found there in AE

You don’t know that at all. If you did then you wouldn’t consider that to be the self at all. The belief that you are a separate self is still running. Did you actually LOOK to see if you could find the separate self or did you just hark back on what you think you know? Looking needs to happen consistently and constantly, day in and day out for realisation of no self to happen and not just occasionally.

Looking is a nice simple thing - there is no need to over-complicate it.

Just look now...a thought can be found, but can a thinker of thought be found?
Can an “I” be found in thought itself?

Sound can be found, but can a hearer of sounds be found?
Can an “I” be found in sound itself?

Colour can be found, but can a see-er of colour be found?
Can an “I” be found in colour itself?

Sensation can be found, but can a feeler of sensation be found?
Can an “I” be found in sensation itself?

Smell can be found, but can a smeller of smell be found?
Can an “I” be found in smell itself?

Taste can be found, but can a taster of taste be found?
Can an “I” be found in taste itself?

Experience can be found, but can an experiencer of experience be found?
It's as simple as that. Just look and see what is actually present ie sound, colour, smell, taste, thought and sensation - and what is only imaginary.


I will come back to the ‘where is the “I” located exercise in the next post. I don’t want to overwhelm you with too much stuff in one post.

Experience itself (THIS/awareness/Knowing) is divided into 6 categories by thought only. Colour AND smell AND sensation AND taste AND smell AND thought AND sound. If you ignore those labels and the content of those labels….what remains?

what remains is just one flowing experience - there's no point where one 'kind of experience' ends and another begins

And what are you referring to as experience?

Kay

[thursday123]

Kay,


Regarding the first few posts, I feel like there's something I'm really misunderstanding here. Sorry if these answers are unsatisfactory, but I read your post thoroughly at least ten times and contemplated it for several hours and I'm still really confused...

How are thoughts imagines colours, tastes, smell, sensations and sound? They are ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. Where does the idea come from that they are imaginary?

I know they are actual experience. But thoughts contain colour/sensation/sound which are somewhat separate from colour/sensation/sound which occurs on the 'physical plane', which is why they are described as 'imagined'. The thoughts are not imagined, but colour/sensation/sound which occurs within thought is described as such, in order to distinguish it from colour/sensation/sound which occurs in the 'physical world'.

Are you not aware of sound when it appears? And are you not aware of sensation when it appears, and taste and smell and colour when they appear? And are you not aware of thought when it appears? If so, then how can they be imaginary? They are actual experience….there is no denying their existence.

Yes, but I was referring only to colour/sound/sensation that occurs as thought, and I'm not even saying that they are 'imaginary' as such, because thoughts are actual experience, but 'imagined' is just the word used to describe colour/sensation/sound that occurs within mind/as thought. Thought content has to be colour, sound etc because what else could it appear as? Thoughts with words, for example, are either colour (if they appear as image) or sound (if they appear as voiced).

You have some sort of notion that there is nothing but something called ‘emptiness’, where there is nothing but some dark void or something! And that is just and idea…a belief! You can find the inherent emptiness of ‘things’, but THIS/experience itself is NOT EMPTY.

I don't think that at all. I know that experience is full and real, and thoughts are actual experience. But if I hear a cup physically smashing on the floor in front of me, I would call that real, whereas if I was daydreaming about it I would say I imagined it. That's the only context in which I meant the word 'imagined'. As in 'not physical' or 'not external to mind'.

Thought, in and of itself, does not contain any experience, otherwise you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’ and feel the word ‘hot’ and hear thunder when the word ‘thunder’ appeared!

I can't taste the word 'sweet' itself, but I know what strawberries and cream tastes like, and I can imagine the taste. I can also imagine the sound of thunder. Hope you don't think I'm being difficult with you here, I'm just really confused and trying to explain what I mean as clearly as I can in case there's been some misunderstanding.

"Here is a cup" is the thought; the ensuing thoughts of what a cup is and does, what it is made from etc are the content of that thought. What do those thoughts point to exactly? Do they point to colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound? Or do they simply point to actual experience of thought and thought only?

They point to other thoughts and thoughts only

So thoughts and mental images are actual experience only as arising thoughts (words and mental image), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what they are about, what they are pointing to (like the cup) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

yes

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts. Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about, what it is pointing to) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

I couldn't find anything in thought content that was really happening. I could only find actual experience. For example, when the thought 'I am on a train' appeared, I looked and could only find actual experience with labels, like colour labelled 'train', sound labelled 'train on track', and sensation labelled 'moving'. Also, when looking online I thought 'this website looks professional', then upon looking saw there was only colour labelled 'website', and the idea it was 'professional' was only referring to the initial thought about a website, not to anything that could be found in AE. The one slight barrier I encountered was a thought about 3D-ness/space. When looking at a tree it occurred to me that, whilst there was only really colour in AE, there also appeared to be a foreground in which the colour occurred, and background behind, but after looking for a while I resolved that, despite the appearance of 3D-ness/space, all that can be seen in AE is colour, nothing more. I will continue this exercise tomorrow

Just look now...a thought can be found, but can a thinker of thought be found?
Can an “I” be found in thought itself?

no and no

Sound can be found, but can a hearer of sounds be found?
Can an “I” be found in sound itself?

no and no

Colour can be found, but can a see-er of colour be found?
Can an “I” be found in colour itself?

no and no

Sensation can be found, but can a feeler of sensation be found?
Can an “I” be found in sensation itself?

no and no

Smell can be found, but can a smeller of smell be found?
Can an “I” be found in smell itself?

no and no

Taste can be found, but can a taster of taste be found?
Can an “I” be found in taste itself?

no and no

Experience can be found, but can an experiencer of experience be found?
It's as simple as that. Just look and see what is actually present ie sound, colour, smell, taste, thought and sensation - and what is only imaginary.

no, an experiencer cannot be found

And what are you referring to as experience?

everything that actually is - thought-colour-sound-smell-sensation-taste


Beanstalk

[forgetmenot]

Hello Beanstalk,

Okay…I didn’t start from the beginning like I said I would…I thought I would see where you were at and go from there. Since there is confusion…then we start again…from the beginning and stick to the guiding structure I use.

I want to try and clear up the following because I don’t understand how there are colour thoughts, sound thoughts and sensation thought.

How are thoughts imagines colours, tastes, smell, sensations and sound? They are ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. Where does the idea come from that they are imaginary?

I know they are actual experience. But thoughts contain colour/sensation/sound which are somewhat separate from colour/sensation/sound which occurs on the 'physical plane', which is why they are described as 'imagined'.

I would like for you to give me examples of a colour thought, and a sensation thought and a sound thought please so I understand what you are referring to….because at this moment, I don’t have a clue. So it would be helpful if you give me an example for each.

So first we become aware of what AE is and how it is used to ‘look’.

I would like you to sit quietly and close your eyes and just listen to the sounds for a few minutes that can be heard both inside and outside of the room. Really hear them.

Tell me ONE sound that you heard when doing this? (Make sure it is a sound that you will be able to hear again for part 2 of this exercise).

Kay

[thursday123]

Kay,

I would like for you to give me examples of a colour thought, and a sensation thought and a sound thought please so I understand what you are referring to….because at this moment, I don’t have a clue. So it would be helpful if you give me an example for each.

Colour thought - In a previous exercise you asked me to imagine a cup. I did and it was blue with a white background.

Sensation thought - despite not being in a hot bath right now, I know the physical sensation of being in one, because there is a memory (thought) of that sensation that I can draw on

Sound thought - if someone asked me to describe the sound of thunder, I could because I can remember what it sounds like. If there was no colour, sound or sensation in thought, how could there be memories?
Or maybe a better example is the inner voice. The voice that sounds like mine chattering away in my head all the time - 'I must remember to do this', 'that is a nice car' etc,

Tell me ONE sound that you heard when doing this? (Make sure it is a sound that you will be able to hear again for part 2 of this exercise).

I heard the sound of people talking


Beanstalk

[forgetmenot]

Hello Beanstalk,

I would like for you to give me examples of a colour thought, and a sensation thought and a sound thought please so I understand what you are referring to….because at this moment, I don’t have a clue. So it would be helpful if you give me an example for each.

Colour thought - In a previous exercise you asked me to imagine a cup. I did and it was blue with a white background.

Look again...did you actually see the 'mental' image of the cup in colour?
Or there was a suggestion that the cup was blue and white? In other words there were thoughts about the cup being blue and white?

Sensation thought - despite not being in a hot bath right now, I know the physical sensation of being in one, because there is a memory (thought) of that sensation that I can draw on

Do the ACTUAL sensations appear in that moment that are being felt when thinking of a hot bath, or are there only thoughts ABOUT the sensations? Look at this very carefully.

Sound thought - if someone asked me to describe the sound of thunder, I could because I can remember what it sounds like. If there was no colour, sound or sensation in thought, how could there be memories?

Is the sound labelled as ‘thunder’ actually appearing in this moment, or are there thoughts ABOUT the sound labelled ‘thunder’?

Or maybe a better example is the inner voice. The voice that sounds like mine chattering away in my head all the time - 'I must remember to do this', 'that is a nice car' etc,

The inner voice is thoughts about the sound labelled as ‘my voice’. Thoughts do not have a sound, they are simply known. This will become clearer later on.

Tell me ONE sound that you heard when doing this? (Make sure it is a sound that you will be able to hear again for part 2 of this exercise).

I heard the sound of people talking

Great!

Now look carefully at what I am pointing to in the following exercise, and answer from direct (actual) experience only ie colour, sound, thought, smell, taste or sensation, and not an intellectual answer.

Please repeat the exercise and tell me:-
Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard was ‘people talking?
In other words, what is it that suggests the sound was ‘people talking?

What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘people talking’?

Kay

[thursday123]

Kay,

Look again...did you actually see the 'mental' image of the cup in colour?
Or there was a suggestion that the cup was blue and white? In other words there were thoughts about the cup being blue and white?

I'm looking really carefully and I'm still pretty much 100% certain I can see the image in colour in thought

Do the ACTUAL sensations appear in that moment that are being felt when thinking of a hot bath, or are there only thoughts ABOUT the sensations? Look at this very carefully.

There is slightly more doubt about this one. When I imagine taking a hot bath, the sensation of heat is not actually there at all, and I could never get burned by it, as obvious as that sounds. It is not the actual sensation, but a sort of replication of it. It still feels like there's more than just thoughts about sensations, but I'll continue looking at it

Is the sound labelled as ‘thunder’ actually appearing in this moment, or are there thoughts ABOUT the sound labelled ‘thunder’?

It seems to me the sound labelled 'thunder' is appearing in this moment. Again not the actual sound, but a copy of it. The only other thing I noticed was that it seemed necessary for the sound to appear alongside image/colour. It couldn't appear on its own

Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard was ‘people talking?
In other words, what is it that suggests the sound was ‘people talking?

What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘people talking’?

Without thought, nothing can be known about the sound. It is only thought that labels the sound 'people talking'. The actual experience is just sound and thought occuring


Beanstalk

[forgetmenot]

Hello Beanstalk,

Look again...did you actually see the 'mental' image of the cup in colour?
Or there was a suggestion that the cup was blue and white? In other words there were thoughts about the cup being blue and white?

I'm looking really carefully and I'm still pretty much 100% certain I can see the image in colour in thought

Okay..thank you for that. Whether or not the picture thought is in colour or not doesn’t matter. We are looking at the difference between direct/actual experience and thought content. Can you pour ‘real’ tea or coffee into a picture thought? No. So it is thoughts about a cup and is not a ‘real’ cup and is AE of thought only.

A thought, in and of itself is like a container. The content of a thought is what a thought is ABOUT.
When a thought is seen only as a container, and the content of a thought (what it’s about) is being ignored - this is what is called actual experience of a thought. So, we can say, that in actual experience, the arising of a thought (the container) is real, but what it’s ABOUT, the content, is not. The thought (as container) is there in reality, but the content of a thought is fiction.
Do you see the difference?

Do the ACTUAL sensations appear in that moment that are being felt when thinking of a hot bath, or are there only thoughts ABOUT the sensations? Look at this very carefully.

There is slightly more doubt about this one. When I imagine taking a hot bath, the sensation of heat is not actually there at all, and I could never get burned by it, as obvious as that sounds. It is not the actual sensation, but a sort of replication of it. It still feels like there's more than just thoughts about sensations, but I'll continue looking at it

If it is not an actual sensation that can be felt in the body at that moment, then it is simply thoughts about a sensation and is AE of thought….not AE of sensation and is imaginary. There is no such thing as memory. We will look at memory later, however memory is a conceptual framework that suggests there is a storage system from where thoughts and images are retrieved and there is no such storage system.

Is the sound labelled as ‘thunder’ actually appearing in this moment, or are there thoughts ABOUT the sound labelled ‘thunder’?

It seems to me the sound labelled 'thunder' is appearing in this moment. Again not the actual sound, but a copy of it. The only other thing I noticed was that it seemed necessary for the sound to appear alongside image/colour. It couldn't appear on its own

If it is not the ACTUAL sound that is happening in that moment, then it is simply thoughts about the sound. It is imaginary!

Sometimes you hear a song on the radio on your way to work or while you are cooking or doing something, and that song can stay with you all day. The song seems to play over and over again. All the intricate details are there. All the lyrics, all the notes in the guitar solo are as clear as when it was playing out of the car speakers. But really there is no music playing - no one singing, and no guitarist. It's just thought about sound.

Close your eyes and imagine holding a watermelon in your hands.
Imagine it so vividly that it seems as if you can feel its weight, the shape and texture of the skin.
Hold it there, sensing it.

Then open your eyes.

What happened to the melon?
How about the sensation that was so believable?
Was there ever a melon in ‘reality’?
Was there an appearing mental image?
Was the content of the mental image (the melon) ‘real’?

The thoughts and mental images are real only as AE of thoughts and mental images, their appearance cannot be denied.
However their ‘contents’, what are they about (like the watermelon) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies.
Can you see this?

Can you please answer the following question....as you did not answer it. I would like you to answer questions in blue individually please and answer all questions in blue

Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard was ‘people talking?
In other words, what is it that suggests the sound was ‘people talking?

What is the actual experience (AE) of hearing ‘people talking’?

Without thought, nothing can be known about the sound. It is only thought that labels the sound 'people talking'. The actual experience is just sound and thought occurring

Yes, exactly.

The thought ‘people talking’ is AE of thought and not the AE of people talking
Sound labelled as ‘people talking’ is AE of sound and not AE of people talking
The thoughts ABOUT ‘people talking’ ie the content of that thought are AE of thought and not AE of people talking.

So what is known is label (which is thought) + sound + thoughts ABOUT sound. But people talking is not actually known.

Kay

[thursday123]

Kay,

Do you see the difference?

Yes, I understand

What happened to the melon?

There was never a melon to begin with

How about the sensation that was so believable?

It was never real, just a thought

Was there ever a melon in ‘reality’?

No

Was there an appearing mental image?

Yes

Was the content of the mental image (the melon) ‘real’?

No

The thoughts and mental images are real only as AE of thoughts and mental images, their appearance cannot be denied.
However their ‘contents’, what are they about (like the watermelon) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies.
Can you see this?

Yes, definitely

Can you please answer the following question....as you did not answer it. I would like you to answer questions in blue individually please and answer all questions in blue

Okay sorry will do so in future

Without thought, how is it known that the sound heard was ‘people talking?

It is not known, there is just sound

In other words, what is it that suggests the sound was ‘people talking?

Thought just labels the experience as 'people talking', but this cannot be found in actual experience


Beanstalk

[forgetmenot]

Hey Beanstalk,

Okay, so let's see how clear you are about AE. Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities, objects and emotions 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, giving some examples please.

Kay