Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Mon May 13, 2019 7:25 pm

Hi Kay

I hope all’s well with you today. It’s been a beautiful, warm, sunny day in London. The first one in a long time, so there’s a very welcome mellowness ’round these parts. :-)

The past few days I’ve been looking at an apple. I suppose I’ve spent a couple of hours at it all told, and here’s what I have to say about it:

As looking commenced, initially all the labels that the mind applies to an object duly applied themselves, as expected: Apple, round, red, small, shiny, hard, yellow, curvaceous…

I paid attention to the labelling process and noted that once this roster of adjectives had been worked through, they grouped together in the mind’s eye to form a 3D ‘Apple’ — it had been translated from a physical thing into a thought object. (For a reason I don’t know, when I’m ‘aware of awareness’ like this, it always seems that these thought objects and processes are taking place in the upper right section of the brain. Maybe this is where ‘Self’ is perceived to be?)

Anyway, I kept looking and allowed the list of all possible further adjectives to pool through until there were none left. Eventually I was just looking at this thing that had now been separated from its usual descriptors. My mind was blank. I was just looking at it.

“Well…” I thought. “There it is!” And I laughed at that, though I’m not sure why. There was no sense of event or discovery about this whatsoever. It was just as uneventful as I’ve described it to be.

I feel blank about things though. Definitely missing something. The key question ‘Can an apple be known?’ feels elusive. With the above described experience taken into account, my answer to ‘Can an apple be known?’ has to be ‘No’, because, shorn of its labels / attributes there’s nothing to know; the thing as usually perceived reveals itself to be just a composite of descriptions the mind typically uses to orientate itself to it. And yet, there iremains a physical object, right there, being looked at. This is surely an intellectual conclusion though, and not evidence of seeing?

Hmm. I’ll keep looking and await further word from you.

With love and thanks

Glenn

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Mon May 13, 2019 7:26 pm

pool = spool

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5683
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby forgetmenot » Mon May 13, 2019 9:47 pm

Hi Glenn,

You are overthinking this. Keep it simple. There is no need to contemplate questions for days to see what you come up with. The simple fact of becoming aware of perceiving something differently is all that is needed. And in the case of the apple...seeing that what is called an apple is actually AE of colour. No extra mulling over it, looking at it, efforting, trying to actually visually see it differently will bring about realising no self any sooner than when it happens. Over contemplating can also bring about ‘looking burnout’ and frustration. At the moment, we are learning how to look by becoming aware of actual experience, ie simply by you becoming aware of your direct experience of actual experience.
I feel blank about things though. Definitely missing something. The key question ‘Can an apple be known?’ feels elusive. With the above described experience taken into account, my answer to ‘Can an apple be known?’ has to be ‘No’, because, shorn of its labels / attributes there’s nothing to know; the thing as usually perceived reveals itself to be just a composite of descriptions the mind typically uses to orientate itself to it.
There was an expectation here that there should be some penny dropping moment? Please put expectations aside of what should happen and when, and put aside self expectations on how well you should DO this exploration. Relax and have some fun with it.
And yet, there remains a physical object, right there, being looked at. This is surely an intellectual conclusion though, and not evidence of seeing?
Were you somehow expecting that what is perceived as an object, should somehow change? That it should no longer be solid or look 3D? There has NEVER been a separate self...EVER and yet seeming objects have always been...so why would that change? It is perception that changes...not the idea that there are seeming objects.

Let’s break it down further so you get to experience the 'object', in this case, an apple via direct/actual experience.

So grab another apple or any other piece of fruit or even a piece of cheese or chocolate will do….go get it and then place it in front of you on the table.

Now LOOK carefully.

1. The image (seeing) of the ‘apple’ is the actual experience of colour and NOT the AE of an apple. The shape referred to as ‘apple’ is just different shades and patterns of colour. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the colour.

Does the colour itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of colour?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that the colour appearing is that of an ‘apple’?


2. Now, pick up the ‘apple’ and close the eyes. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and of ‘hands’ and just focus on the sensation.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is an apple, and that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of sensation?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the sensation has anything to do with an ‘apple’?


3. Now, take a bite of the ‘apple’. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the taste.

Does taste itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simply AE of taste?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the taste of an ‘apple’?


4. Now, have a smell of the ‘apple’. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the smell.

Does smell itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simple AE of smell?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the smell of an ‘apple’?


5. Now, listen to the sound of the ‘crunch of an apple’. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the sound.

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simple AE of sound?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the sound is that of an ‘apple’?


6. So now look at the label ‘apple and the thought “I am looking at, and eating an apple”.

Does the label itself or the thought itself know anything about an ‘apple’? Or are they just simply AE of label/thought?

The label ‘apple’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of an apple
The image labelled ‘apple’ is AE of colour and not the AE of an apple
The smell labelled ‘apple’ is AE of smell and not the AE of an apple
The taste labelled ‘apple’ is AE of taste and not the AE of an apple
The sound labelled ‘crunchy apple’ is AE of sound and not the AE of an apple
The sensation labelled as ‘hard, round apple’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of an apple

Thought overlays actual experience with concepts. An example being the AE of colour is being labelled as an 'apple'.

So is there really actual experience of an ‘apple’, or what is actually appearing, what the actual experience is, is colour, sensation, taste, smell, sound, which thought then labels and describes as an 'apple'?
In other words, is an apple actually known or only thoughts about an apple are known?


Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Tue May 14, 2019 10:26 pm

Hi Kay

Thank you once again for bringing me back into focus. Much appreciated. Thanks also for breaking things down further--it helped. As per your advice, I kept it simple (I think!). Needless to say, the exercise went better for that.
1. The image (seeing) of the ‘apple’ is the actual experience of colour and NOT the AE of an apple. The shape referred to as ‘apple’ is just different shades and patterns of colour. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the colour.

Does the colour itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of colour?
It doesn’t / can’t know anything about an apple. It’s not sentient. It’s just colour.
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that the colour appearing is that of an ‘apple’?
It’s known as the colour of an apple because memories of previously encountered red apples are triggered when this colour is seen in conjunction with certain other specific attributes: shape, size, texture etc. Memories automatically associate these experiences and enable/create recognition of ‘an apple’.
2. Now, pick up the ‘apple’ and close the eyes. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and of ‘hands’ and just focus on the sensation.

Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is an apple, and that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of sensation?
Ha ha! Actually, no, it really doesn’t. It’s just AE of sensation: cold, hard, smooth.
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the sensation has anything to do with an ‘apple’?
Only memories of ‘apple’ could associate this AE of sensation with ‘apple’ now. AE of touch alone doesn’t tell a complete story about ‘apple’. Recognition of the object as ‘apple’ arises from individual sense memories combining to generate that complete story.
3. Now, take a bite of the ‘apple’. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the taste.

Does taste itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simply AE of taste?
It doesn’t suggest anything about ‘apple’. It’s sweet, tart, pleasant, then dull and sour. It floods the mouth and nasal cavity. It’s just those things – AE of taste.
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the taste of an ‘apple’?
The memory of what ‘apple’ tastes like is pervasive. It didn’t overwhelm AE of taste during this exercise that memory did ‘push through’ to present itself, particularly as time went on.
4. Now, have a smell of the ‘apple’. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the smell.

Does smell itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simple AE of smell?
It’s just a clean, refreshing smell. It’s surprising how easy it seems to sidestep preconceptions and have AE of these things.


Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the smell of an ‘apple’?
Again, recognition arises from thoughts associated with previous experience.
5. Now, listen to the sound of the ‘crunch of an apple’. Ignore ALL thoughts and ‘mental’ images that appear of and about the ‘apple’ and just focus on the sound.

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simple AE of sound?
Just simple AE of sound. Memory jumps in intrusively at one point to say, ‘it’s specifically the sound of crunching’ but no, there’s no way that the sound knows anything about an apple. It’s sound; it doesn’t know, it just is.
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the sound is that of an ‘apple’?
If the senses were opened up and this sound was perceived in combination with taste, then the mind would refer to thoughts of previous experience and put these elements together to create recognition of an apple being crunched.
6. So now look at the label ‘apple and the thought “I am looking at, and eating an apple”.

Does the label itself or the thought itself know anything about an ‘apple’? Or are they just simply AE of label/thought?
The latter. Looking at the label and the thought in isolation, what is seen is this: The word ‘apple’, on a label like you’d stick on an envelope; and a flat line drawing of an eaten apple. Nothing physical exists there, these are just intangible thoughts with forms derived from AE. They don’t ‘know’ anything—any more than a label on an envelope knows about the house it’s addressed to. And how can an isolated thought know anything?

(Overthinking alert: I can feel a headscratcher coming on so I won’t continue down that path right now. This exercise has been really clear and simple up to this point, so I won’t pursue any tangents without your say-so.)
Thought overlays actual experience with concepts. An example being the AE of colour is being labelled as an 'apple'.

So is there really actual experience of an ‘apple’, or what is actually appearing, what the actual experience is, is colour, sensation, taste, smell, sound, which thought then labels and describes as an 'apple'?


In other words, is an apple actually known or only thoughts about an apple are known?

It seems…both? That is to say, smell, sound, taste…they are real, they are tangible, they are not concepts, they are physical phenomena and as such can be known. But, while the thoughts of ‘an apple’ are not real or tangible, they are within the sphere of awareness and thus can also be known, albeit as thoughts rather than physical phenomena.

Without further comment, I’ll leave it there for tonight. It seems like a good place to stop for now. This has been a really fascinating exercise – fully engaging and thought-provoking. But rather than screwing myself into the ground with overthinking it tonight, I’ll remove myself from the picture and sleep on it instead. As you noted, it’s much better to relax and do this in a spirit of fun and adventure rather than paralysing myself with earnestness, isn’t it 

I’m really looking forward to reading your response and moving onward.

Love and thanks

Glenn

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Tue May 14, 2019 10:27 pm

Woops - sorry. I forgot to add a 'close quote' tag in that last paragraph.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5683
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby forgetmenot » Wed May 15, 2019 2:27 am

Hi Glenn,

Okay...so we need some more tweaking here...but you are getting clearer :)
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that the colour appearing is that of an ‘apple’?
It’s known as the colour of an apple because memories of previously encountered red apples are triggered when this colour is seen in conjunction with certain other specific attributes: shape, size, texture etc. Memories automatically associate these experiences and enable/create recognition of ‘an apple’.
What you wrote is all thought story and is the content of thought ABOUT something. The content of thought is simply more thought and is fantasy ie story!

The question is:- WITHOUT THOUGHT, WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, how is it known that the colour appearing is that of an ‘apple’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is an apple, and that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of sensation?
Ha ha! Actually, no, it really doesn’t. It’s just AE of sensation: cold, hard, smooth.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘cold’, ‘hard’, or ‘smooth’, or are they labels/thoughts that are overlaying raw experience of sensation with a description?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the sensation has anything to do with an ‘apple’?
Only memories of ‘apple’ could associate this AE of sensation with ‘apple’ now. AE of touch alone doesn’t tell a complete story about ‘apple’. Recognition of the object as ‘apple’ arises from individual sense memories combining to generate that complete story.
What is it exactly that has ‘memories’ of an ‘apple’?
Memory is a conceptual framework that suggests there is a storage system from where thoughts and images are retrieved. Where is this storage system located exactly?


And again the question is:- WITHOUT THOUGHT, WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, how is it known that it is the sensation has anything to do with an ‘apple’?
Does taste itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simply AE of taste?
It doesn’t suggest anything about ‘apple’. It’s sweet, tart, pleasant, then dull and sour. It floods the mouth and nasal cavity. It’s just those things – AE of taste.
What things? Without thought how is it known that ‘taste’ is sweet, tart, pleasant, then dull and sour? What do those labels point to? Do they point to AE of taste or AE of thought?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the taste of an ‘apple’?
The memory of what ‘apple’ tastes like is pervasive. It didn’t overwhelm AE of taste during this exercise that memory did ‘push through’ to present itself, particularly as time went on.
WITHOUT THOUGHT, WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, how is it known that it is the taste of an ‘apple’?
Does smell itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simple AE of smell?
It’s just a clean, refreshing smell. It’s surprising how easy it seems to sidestep preconceptions and have AE of these things.
Does smell know anything about ‘clean’ or ‘refreshing’, or are they thoughts ABOUT (content of thought) smell?
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the smell of an ‘apple’?
Again, recognition arises from thoughts associated with previous experience.
WITHOUT THOUGHT, WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, how is it known that it is the smell of an ‘apple’?

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simple AE of sound?
Just simple AE of sound. Memory jumps in intrusively at one point to say, ‘it’s specifically the sound of crunching’ but no, there’s no way that the sound knows anything about an apple. It’s sound; it doesn’t know, it just is.
Yes! Lovely! It is simply AE of sound. Thought then overlays sound with a story about the sound being a ‘crunchy’ sound.
Without thought, without any preconceived ideas, how is it known that it is the sound is that of an ‘apple’?
If the senses were opened up and this sound was perceived in combination with taste, then the mind would refer to thoughts of previous experience and put these elements together to create recognition of an apple being crunched.
WITHOUT THOUGHT, WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, how is it known that it is the sound is that of an ‘apple’?
Does the label itself or the thought itself know anything about an ‘apple’? Or are they just simply AE of label/thought?
The latter. Looking at the label and the thought in isolation, what is seen is this: The word ‘apple’, on a label like you’d stick on an envelope; and a flat line drawing of an eaten apple. Nothing physical exists there, these are just intangible thoughts with forms derived from AE. They don’t ‘know’ anything—any more than a label on an envelope knows about the house it’s addressed to. And how can an isolated thought know anything?
Yes, exactly. So the label/thought apple is the thought, and ALL the ensuing thoughts about an apple ie what it is, does, how it grows, what colour it is etc are the content of the thought ‘apple’. Actual experience is everything, except the "content" of thought, because thought, in and of itself does not contain any experience. If it did, then you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’.
Can you see this?


Thoughts layer concepts over these raw experiences. A thought or concept or label is never the actual. Some thoughts point to the actual, and some point to other thoughts. This is the realm of make-believe. This is the realm of “I.” Is there an “I” in direct /actual experience?
In other words, is an apple actually known or only thoughts about an apple are known?
It seems…both?
That is to say, smell, sound, taste…they are real, they are tangible, they are not concepts, they are physical phenomena and as such can be known.
Look at the following again very carefully.

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

THOUGHTS/LABELS ABOUT/OF AN ‘APPLE’ ARE KNOWN, however, is an ‘apple’ actually known?

Can an apple be found in/as colour, taste, thought, smell, sensation or sound?
But, while the thoughts of ‘an apple’ are not real or tangible, they are within the sphere of awareness and thus can also be known, albeit as thoughts rather than physical phenomena.
Yes…thoughts are AE of thought and are known. The label ‘apple’ is KNOWN, as are all the thoughts ABOUT an apple (ie the content of the thought ‘apple’). However, is an apple actually known?

Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Fri May 17, 2019 2:00 am

Hi Kay

I hope you're well and happy today. Apologies for the slight delay in getting back to you. I had to clear the decks of a few obligations before I had time to sit with things again.

I realised after reading your previous post that a big part of my stumbling through the exercise was because I'd misinterpreted the syntax of the questions. I'd taken 'without thought, without preconceived ideas' to be part of the instruction for the task, i.e. as an entreaty to 'perform this exercise with an open mind', rather than as part of the question itself, i.e. 'if thought and preconceived ideas were not a factor...'.

As someone who supposedly makes a living as a copy editor, you'd think I might be a bit more on point about this kind of thing *facepalm* But the penny dropped, and I took another look:
What you wrote is all thought story and is the content of thought ABOUT something. The content of thought is simply more thought and is fantasy i.e. story!

The question is:- WITHOUT THOUGHT, WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, how is it known that the colour appearing is that of an ‘apple’?
It isn’t known to be the colour of ‘an apple’. It can’t be; It’s just actual experience of colour. Actual experience has no thinking capacity or component.
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is ‘cold’, ‘hard’, or ‘smooth’, or are they labels/thoughts that are overlaying raw experience of sensation with a description?
It’s just sensation and they are indeed just labels / thoughts. That is now clear. Seeing how thoughts / labels rush in to blanket the raw sensation has become much clearer now.
Only memories of ‘apple’ could associate this AE of sensation with ‘apple’ now. AE of touch alone doesn’t tell a complete story about ‘apple’. Recognition of the object as ‘apple’ arises from individual sense memories combining to generate that complete story.

What is it exactly that has ‘memories’ of an ‘apple’?
First thought: ‘These are my memories. I have them in my mind’. But, on consideration, ‘ my mind’ is itself a thought construct created to rationalize / contain consciousness.

The thing that ‘has’ the memory of an apple ‘is’ the memory of an apple. It’s independent. The memory of an apple is consciousness of an apple. It’s a story about an apple assembled from actual experience. The thought that contains this story is a physical phenomenon, but the content of the thought—the story itself—doesn’t physically exist. It follows logically that that which doesn’t exist can’t be ‘had’ or owned. There can be awareness of it, but that is AE of thought, which has nothing to do with the concept of ownership.
Memory is a conceptual framework that suggests there is a storage system from where thoughts and images are retrieved. Where is this storage system located exactly?
Everyday / habitual thinking about the question strongly suggests that memories of an apple are stored in my brain. It seems that in at least one sense that’s true; a brain has short- and long-term storage capacity for memories. Which is to say, thoughts that contain memories. But the statement that thoughts are stored in the brain refers to neuroscience and the electrochemical properties of thoughts. It's not referring to the contents of thoughts. So, I might say that because a mechanism exists to maintain the physical presence of a thought in a place in my brain for a certain period of time, then the memory contained within that thought must also be there. But in truth, because the memory has no physical presence, it simply can’t be.
Does taste itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an apple? Or is there just simply AE of taste?

It doesn’t suggest anything about ‘apple’. It’s sweet, tart, pleasant, then dull and sour. It floods the mouth and nasal cavity. It’s just those things – AE of taste.

What things? Without thought how is it known that ‘taste’ is sweet, tart, pleasant, then dull and sour? What do those labels point to? Do they point to AE of taste or AE of thought?
Taste is just taste. It’s the AE of taste. It’s purely functional, it is the actual experience of sensation, it doesn’t / can’t discriminate about the nature of what it is experiencing. Thoughts do that after the fact—instantaneously so. The labels are the AE of thought.
WITHOUT THOUGHT, WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, how is it known that it is the taste of an ‘apple’?
Without thought or preconceived ideas about what ‘an apple’ tastes like, it cannot be known that the actual experience of taste is the taste of an apple. Thoughts and ideas about actual experience are not actual experience itself; thoughts and ideas about actual experience arise after actual experience. The AE of thoughts however is a process of thoughts about thoughts that contain interpretations of sensory information.
It’s just a clean, refreshing smell. It’s surprising how easy it seems to sidestep preconceptions and have AE of these things.

Does smell know anything about ‘clean’ or ‘refreshing’, or are they thoughts ABOUT (content of thought) smell?
Smell doesn’t and can’t know anything about perceived characteristics such as ‘clean’, ‘refreshing’ etc. Smell isn’t thought, it’s experience. Its function is to sense, not to think. Like a Xerox machine, it doesn’t know what's on its platter; it just scans information in complete neutrality then passes it on to an interpreting mechanism.
Actual experience is everything, except the "content" of thought, because thought, in and of itself does not contain any experience. If it did, then you would be able to taste the word ‘sweet’.
Can you see this?
Yes, it's easy to grasp. I'm unsure if your use of the word 'see' in this context implies a deeper level of instinctive acknowledgment though.
Thoughts layer concepts over these raw experiences. A thought or concept or label is never the actual. Some thoughts point to the actual, and some point to other thoughts. This is the realm of make-believe. This is the realm of “I.” Is there an “I” in direct /actual experience?
No. There can't be. "I" is a constellation of stories, nothing more.

That's the answer. It's the truthful answer, but it's not 'ringing' true for me at the moment. It's super-simple and totally straightforward but it feels almost too easily arrived at. I'd like to sleep on it, let it sink in and see what presents itself in the morning.

What an interesting night this has been. It took some time to go through. Not because I was overthinking it for one, but because I let things come through in their own time and sat with them for a bit.

Anyway. Thank you as always for your kindness, energy and guidance.

Glenn

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Fri May 17, 2019 2:18 am

A short postscript. This summarises what I wrote previously about my understanding of thought vs content-of-thought, and some further random observation about unity of consciousness:

‘Thought’ is a neutral, ongoing process. Thought is real. It’s neurons, synapses firing between them, etc. It is a physically observable phenomenon. Thus, ‘thoughts’ are real.

‘The content of thoughts’ is ideas / concepts / perceptions / memories. It is not real. It cannot be observed, photographed, measured or written down. But it can be externalized into physical space, e.g, via speech, writing, physical action, etc. It’s the stuff of consciousness. Consciousness is thus observed to be boundless, with thoughts and emotions extending beyond the perceived limits of individual beings and into shared space, e.g. via conversations, collective experiences, etc

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5683
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby forgetmenot » Fri May 17, 2019 2:39 am

Hey Glenn,
I realised after reading your previous post that a big part of my stumbling through the exercise was because I'd misinterpreted the syntax of the questions. I'd taken 'without thought, without preconceived ideas' to be part of the instruction for the task, i.e. as an entreaty to 'perform this exercise with an open mind', rather than as part of the question itself, i.e. 'if thought and preconceived ideas were not a factor...'.
No worries….it all works out as I keep pointing until something is clear. :)
The question is:- WITHOUT THOUGHT, WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, how is it known that the colour appearing is that of an ‘apple’?
It isn’t known to be the colour of ‘an apple’. It can’t be; It’s just actual experience of colour. Actual experience has no thinking capacity or component.
Exactly. And as thought is AE, it doesn’t have any thinking capacity or component either!
What is it exactly that has ‘memories’ of an ‘apple’?
First thought: ‘These are my memories. I have them in my mind’. But, on consideration, ‘ my mind’ is itself a thought construct created to rationalize / contain consciousness.
Yes. Is “I” a place where thoughts appear, or is “I” a thought that arises and subsides by itself?
The thing that ‘has’ the memory of an apple ‘is’ the memory of an apple. It’s independent. The memory of an apple is consciousness of an apple. It’s a story about an apple assembled from actual experience. The thought that contains this story is a physical phenomenon, but the content of the thought—the story itself—doesn’t physically exist. It follows logically that that which doesn’t exist can’t be ‘had’ or owned. There can be awareness of it, but that is AE of thought, which has nothing to do with the concept of ownership.
Lovely, yes!
If you look carefully, where does thought (known) end and the knowing of it begin? Can a dividing line be found between the known and the knowing…or are they one and the same?
Memory is a conceptual framework that suggests there is a storage system from where thoughts and images are retrieved. Where is this storage system located exactly?
Everyday / habitual thinking about the question strongly suggests that memories of an apple are stored in my brain. It seems that in at least one sense that’s true; a brain has short- and long-term storage capacity for memories. Which is to say, thoughts that contain memories.
How do thoughts actually contain memories?
Do thoughts know what 'memories' are?
What does the label ‘memories’ point to? In other words what is the AE of ‘memories’?


And what is the AE of ‘brain’?
But the statement that thoughts are stored in the brain refers to neuroscience and the electrochemical properties of thoughts. It's not referring to the contents of thoughts.
Yes, the statement is referring to content of thought. “The brain” is the thought and the ensuing thoughts about the brains ie “refers to neuroscience and the electrochemical properties of thoughts” is the content/story of that thought!
So, I might say that because a mechanism exists to maintain the physical presence of a thought in a place in my brain for a certain period of time, then the memory contained within that thought must also be there. But in truth, because the memory has no physical presence, it simply can’t be.
You are investigating through logic ie thinking instead of looking. It is very simple.

Can ‘memory actually be found IN a thought. In other words, in the thought MEMORY where are the memories themselves found? The label ‘memories’ appears but it is simply a thought that points to thoughts ABOUT memories.

To simplify is…all you have to ask yourself is what is the AE of ‘memory/memories’? Does it point to thought, smell, taste, colour, sensation or sound?

It doesn’t suggest anything about ‘apple’. It’s sweet, tart, pleasant, then dull and sour. It floods the mouth and nasal cavity. It’s just those things – AE of taste.
What things? Without thought how is it known that ‘taste’ is sweet, tart, pleasant, then dull and sour? What do those labels point to? Do they point to AE of taste or AE of thought?
Taste is just taste. It’s the AE of taste. It’s purely functional, it is the actual experience of sensation, it doesn’t / can’t discriminate about the nature of what it is experiencing. Thoughts do that after the fact—instantaneously so. The labels are the AE of thought.
How does AE of taste become AE of sensation? AE of taste is AE of taste. When taste labelled as ‘banana’ appears…is that not taste? How is it a sensation?

WITHOUT THOUGHT, WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, how is it known that it is the taste of an ‘apple’?
Without thought or preconceived ideas about what ‘an apple’ tastes like, it cannot be known that the actual experience of taste is the taste of an apple. Thoughts and ideas about actual experience are not actual experience itself; thoughts and ideas about actual experience arise after actual experience. The AE of thoughts however is a process of thoughts about thoughts that contain interpretations of sensory information.
Yes, however, if thoughts were expressed via the tweeting of birds or an unknown language, how would you know what they meant? What meaning is given to thoughts are only just thoughts about thoughts.
It’s just a clean, refreshing smell. It’s surprising how easy it seems to sidestep preconceptions and have AE of these things.
Does smell know anything about ‘clean’ or ‘refreshing’, or are they thoughts ABOUT (content of thought) smell?
Smell doesn’t and can’t know anything about perceived characteristics such as ‘clean’, ‘refreshing’ etc. Smell isn’t thought, it’s experience.
Thought is also experience. So I don’t understand you saying “smell isn’t thought, its experience”. Actual experience ie experience is smell, thought, sound, colour, sensation, taste. Thought doesn’t know anything about perceived characteristics either!
Thoughts layer concepts over these raw experiences. A thought or concept or label is never the actual. Some thoughts point to the actual, and some point to other thoughts. This is the realm of make-believe. This is the realm of “I.” Is there an “I” in direct /actual experience?
No. There can't be. "I" is a constellation of stories, nothing more.

That's the answer. It's the truthful answer, but it's not 'ringing' true for me at the moment. It's super-simple and totally straightforward but it feels almost too easily arrived at. I'd like to sleep on it, let it sink in and see what presents itself in the morning.
Can an actual “I” be found IN thought or colour or sound or sensation or taste or smell? No. So yes, it’s a truthful answer.

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 - and what is only imaginary.

I am certainly not expecting it to be ‘ringing’ true at this stage of our exploration…we have only just begun!
What an interesting night this has been. It took some time to go through. Not because I was overthinking it for one, but because I let things come through in their own time and sat with them for a bit.
This is wonderful! When you truly inquire, you don’t answer the questions, you wait for an answer to meet the question! So well done!
Anyway. Thank you as always for your kindness, energy and guidance.
My pleasure.

Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Sat May 18, 2019 8:14 pm

Hi Kay

Just a quick note to let you know I'm still, and I'll reply properly with a full post tomorrow.

Glenn

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Sat May 18, 2019 8:14 pm

still *here*

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Mon May 20, 2019 2:04 am

Hi Kay

Happy Monday. I hope you had a lovely weekend and are heading into the week in good spirits. Once again, I worked steadily on the task at hand but was conscious not to force it. I must admit I was somewhat daunted at first, but I felt some tumblers falling into place as I went through it.
Is “I” a place where thoughts appear, or is “I” a thought that arises and subsides by itself?
It’s a thought that arises and subsides by itself, like all other thoughts. It’s a label. That seems clear. However, it must be said that, even having arrived at that conclusion, automatic searching is still going on for the ‘I’ entity that is ‘me’. It’s almost funny—a gentle but persistent nagging…‘Well, it’s got to be around here somewhere’. Likewise, clinging to the idea that ‘I’ is ‘my body and mind’ persists. The more looking for it continues, the more frustrating it gets. But it’s not too bad!  It’s like trying to wrap your arms around a hologram.

There’s definitely a pull towards sticking with the ‘normal’ way of thinking, because it would be easy and unchallenging. So, that denotes some resistance to the novel perspective opened by this inquiry. But the fact seems undeniable: ‘I’ is only a thought. Which brings me to: ‘Well, who’s typing this then?’ And I guess the answer to that is: thought is directing action.
If you look carefully, where does thought (known) end and the knowing of it begin? Can a dividing line be found between the known and the knowing…or are they one and the same?
They’re one and the same. Thought is knowing, and it knows (refers to / interacts with) itself so, no, no dividing line.
How do thoughts actually contain memories?
They don’t. Thoughts can’t actually contain anything. In the past few days, a few concepts describing thoughts and memories have come up: 1. clear glass bubbles containing information; 2. bubbles in a glass of lemonade that float to the top, burst and express their gaseous contents; and, in the case of memories in particular, 3. messages in bottles that wash up on the shore. These are obviously just metaphorical concepts.

Unlike the phenomena these concepts depict, thoughts aren’t solid or tangible. They’re impulses that spontaneously arise and fall in a stream of energy. Maybe not a stream, more a continuum, in which every impulse can potentially refer to and affect every other impulse and vice versa. And here I am telling a story about thoughts!


A thought doesn’t and can’t contain a memory, because a memory is itself a thought. But thought stimulate other thoughts to arise, ad infinitum. These thoughts can all ‘point’ to each other and to direct experience. Their interaction, ‘thoughts about thoughts’ is ‘awareness’ or consciousness.

But if thoughts and the information they ‘contain’ are just energy, how is it that they present as language, images etc. Because consciousness is a self-interpreting machine that (apparently) creates itself?

This is reasoning again, not looking. It’s just how it’s coming out. Sorry if I went off on a tangent there. I can only honestly put down what’s coming through.
Do thoughts know what 'memories' are?
Memories are thoughts. Thoughts don’t / can’t know because thoughts are knowing. ‘A thought’ may be perceived as an individual entity but that’s an illusion. I was going to write ‘a thought is part of the process of thought’ but it can’t be a ‘part’ of anything because ‘part’ implies an individual entity even if its attached to something else. So, there’s just thought flowing. Sometimes its impulses cross and the resulting impression is that of a thought arising into consciousness.
What does the label ‘memories’ point to? In other words what is the AE of ‘memories’?
The label ‘memories’ points to the word ‘memories’. It is what it is.

And what is the AE of ‘brain’?

The AE of ‘brain’ is ‘brain’.
Can ‘memory actually be found IN a thought. In other words, in the thought MEMORY where are the memories themselves found? The label ‘memories’ appears but it is simply a thought that points to thoughts ABOUT memories.

To simplify is…all you have to ask yourself is what is the AE of ‘memory/memories’? Does it point to thought, smell, taste, colour, sensation or sound?
The AE of memory/memories is ‘memory/memories’. It is what it is. But it can point to thoughts, most probably thoughts containing memories or thoughts about the subject of memories which may in turn point to thoughts about sound, colour etc. All associative.

How does AE of taste become AE of sensation? AE of taste is AE of taste. When taste labelled as ‘banana’ appears…is that not taste? How is it a sensation?
Thought is also experience. So I don’t understand you saying “smell isn’t thought, its experience”. Actual experience ie experience is smell, thought, sound, colour, sensation, taste.
Yes, that was a slip on my part. I obviously got mixed up and bypassed the fact of AE of thought. I’m on board with it now. I’m smiling as I write this. I’m new here, you know 
Thought doesn’t know anything about perceived characteristics either!
Right. Because it doesn’t ‘know’ anything.
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. Thought just happens. The concept of “I” can be found in thought itself, but it is an abstract concept about a notional self. It’s a thought. Like Spider-Man is a thought. A fully-formed person with a complex history and inner life who is also completely fictional.
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. Just seeing. The notion of finding an “I” in colour sounds completely preposterous! This is notable because even just two days ago it would have sounded like a puzzling non-sequitur.

…and 'No' is the answer applicable to all your subsequent questions that I haven't quoted here for the purposes of brevity.

Phew. I was worried I wouldn’t be able to work through these questions when you first sent them. I’m fully engaged but I’ve been really tired for the last 24 hours or so and not as sharp as I’d like. But once again I let things mull in their own time and I got there.

I really appreciated your sign-off here, Kay:

“Just look and see what is actually present - and what is only imaginary.”

That’s the essence right there, isn’t it. It’s so helpful to have it stated so plainly. Total simplicity and trusting what you see. Nonetheless, as I’ve experienced over the last day or two, the unconventional nature of the inquiry can be met by a tendency to anticipate complexity, along with ingrained habits and psychological defences that make mountains out of molehills. It does require completely fresh thinking, so it's not altogether surprising that these things come up.

It’s all good though. With your guidance I really feel as though things are shifting and moving decisively forward.

Love and thanks

Glenn

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5683
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby forgetmenot » Mon May 20, 2019 7:29 am

Hi Glenn,
Happy Monday. I hope you had a lovely weekend and are heading into the week in good spirits. Once again, I worked steadily on the task at hand but was conscious not to force it. I must admit I was somewhat daunted at first, but I felt some tumblers falling into place as I went through it.
Thank you…yes, every week and every weekend are lovely. Glad to hear that some tumblers are falling into place and that you are not efforting!
Is “I” a place where thoughts appear, or is “I” a thought that arises and subsides by itself?
It’s a thought that arises and subsides by itself, like all other thoughts. It’s a label. That seems clear. However, it must be said that, even having arrived at that conclusion, automatic searching is still going on for the ‘I’ entity that is ‘me’.
It is wonderful when the natural looking for the “I” becomes automatic. There is no longer having to effort to look…it just happens. This automatic looking will happen until it doesn’t…but it a necessity to realise ‘no self’ but also for the continuing looking after the realisation, as looking will still be needed as doubt and confusion will happen after the realisation for a time as well, and the looking is needed to get through this phase.
It’s almost funny—a gentle but persistent nagging…‘Well, it’s got to be around here somewhere’. Likewise, clinging to the idea that ‘I’ is ‘my body and mind’ persists. The more looking for it continues, the more frustrating it gets. But it’s not too bad!  It’s like trying to wrap your arms around a hologram.
Yes, when you look FOR the i, it’s frustrating. Don’t look for the i. It’s not there. Zero.
It’s like trying to see the elephant in the room. How do you see the elephant if it’s not there? How do you see an absence of it? There is no elephant in the room. Instead look at what is. What is there underneath all thinking? Not conceptual, not an image?
What is here right now? Move attention from mind images and thoughts to actuality, this very moment, what are you noticing? What is your direct/actual experience (AE) in each moment? LOOK! :)
There’s definitely a pull towards sticking with the ‘normal’ way of thinking, because it would be easy and unchallenging. So, that denotes some resistance to the novel perspective opened by this inquiry. But the fact seems undeniable: ‘I’ is only a thought. Which brings me to: ‘Well, who’s typing this then?’ And I guess the answer to that is: thought is directing action.
No guessing answers as guessed answers are usually wrong…as is the idea that thought is directing actions. LOOK instead. We will be looking at thought later. For now we continue with AE to ensure AE is clear.

What is the AE of ‘typing’….break it down into AE and let me know what you find. Close your eyes and IGNORE all thoughts and mental images and just focus on actual experience (sound, sensation, smell, taste and colour). Then open your eyes and focus on actual experience with eyes open. (Go back to the apple exercise if you struggle with this).
If you look carefully, where does thought (known) end and the knowing of it begin? Can a dividing line be found between the known and the knowing…or are they one and the same?
They’re one and the same. Thought is knowing, and it knows (refers to / interacts with) itself so, no, no dividing line.
Thought knows absolutely nothing. Thought is not an entity. That would make 3! An I + thought + experience! Thinking that thought knows anything would be like saying that colour knows something, and that smell knows something! Thoughts are simply phenomena that arise and subside like sound, smell, taste etc.
What does the label ‘memories’ point to? In other words what is the AE of ‘memories’?
The label ‘memories’ points to the word ‘memories’. It is what it is.
Are not words, thoughts and labels the same thing? The AE of the label ‘memories’ is AE of thought and not the AE of memories
What is it exactly that has ‘memories’…and no, it’s not a thought. Thoughts know nothing.
And what is the AE of ‘brain’?
The AE of ‘brain’ is ‘brain’.

The label ‘brain’ is AE of thought and not the AE of a brain. Where can a brain be found in AE?

Can ‘memory actually be found IN a thought. In other words, in the thought MEMORY where are the memories themselves found? The label ‘memories’ appears but it is simply a thought that points to thoughts ABOUT memories.
To simplify is…all you have to ask yourself is what is the AE of ‘memory/memories’? Does it point to thought, smell, taste, colour, sensation or sound?
The AE of memory/memories is ‘memory/memories’. It is what it is. But it can point to thoughts, most probably thoughts containing memories or thoughts about the subject of memories which may in turn point to thoughts about sound, colour etc. All associative.
Where in AE can you find 'memory/memories'? I want you to answer from actual experience. We are learning about actual experience (AE). Please reread it and answer the question from actual experience.

What is the ACTUAL EXPERIENCE (AE) of ‘memory/memories’?
DOES IT POINT TO THOUGHT, SMELL, TASTE, COLOUR, SENSATION OR SOUND?

“Just look and see what is actually present - and what is only imaginary.”
That’s the essence right there, isn’t it. It’s so helpful to have it stated so plainly. Total simplicity and trusting what you see. Nonetheless, as I’ve experienced over the last day or two, the unconventional nature of the inquiry can be met by a tendency to anticipate complexity, along with ingrained habits and psychological defences that make mountains out of molehills. It does require completely fresh thinking, so it's not altogether surprising that these things come up.
Yes…this exploration is about unlearning everything you think you know…and I mean unlearning everything.

Old ideas are difficult to change, because everything believed is rooted in time. Look at a cup, for example. Do you see a cup, or are you merely reviewing your past experiences of picking up a cup, be¬ing thirsty, drinking from a cup, feeling the rim of a cup against your lips, having breakfast and so on? Are not your aesthetic reactions to the cup, too, based on past experiences? How else would you know whether or not this kind of cup will break if you drop it? What do you know about this cup except what you learned in the past? You would have no idea what this cup is, except for your past learning. Do you, then, really see it?

If you really LOOK at a cup…what do you find?

The label ‘cup’ is AE of thought and not AE of a cup
Colour labelled ‘cup’ is AE of colour and not AE of a cup
Sensation labelled as ‘cup against your lips’ is AE of sensation and not AE of cup against lips.
Sensation labelled a ‘warm cup of coffee’ is AE of sensation and not AE of cup with warm coffee.
The thoughts about a cup ie what it is, what it is for, what it is made from etc, are thoughts ABOUT thought, because ‘cup’ is a label and is not the AE of a cup!

So what is known…what is actually here/appearing is label + colour + sensation + thoughts. However, is a cup actually known?
It’s all good though. With your guidance I really feel as though things are shifting and moving decisively forward.
That's great Glenn. You are doing great. I know how hard it is for intellectuals to shift focus from thinking to looking...but that is the shift that needs to take place. It is the looking and not the thinking that brings about the realisation of no self.

Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Tue May 21, 2019 10:31 pm

Hi Kay

Just a quick update to let you know you'll receive a full reply from me tomorrow.

Glenn

User avatar
SterlingM
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 am
Location: London, England

Re: Returning to LU after time away; seeking a guide

Postby SterlingM » Wed May 22, 2019 11:06 pm

Hi Kay

A happy hello to you today from sun-kissed London. Since our last exchange I've been out looking carefully at the world outside and steeping back while new thoughts percolate.
What is there underneath all thinking? Not conceptual, not an image?
Experiencing. Other than experiencing, nothing. Space.
What is here right now? Move attention from mind images and thoughts to actuality, this very moment, what are you noticing? What is your direct/actual experience (AE) in each moment? LOOK! :)
Sound, colour, light, darkness, touch, taste, heat, breathing, movement. Nothing else.

Thoughts leap in to conceptualise these actual experiences (which is a bit annoying :-) ) but quickly quieten down.
What is the AE of ‘typing’….break it down into AE and let me know what you find. Close your eyes and IGNORE all thoughts and mental images and just focus on actual experience (sound, sensation, smell, taste and colour). Then open your eyes and focus on actual experience with eyes open. (Go back to the apple exercise if you struggle with this).
Touch, sound, movement, thought.

On opening the eyes: add seeing, reading

Typing makes it easy to see the spontaneous nature of the arising of thought. There was, without question, no one 'driving' the words that were typed: "The ash tree bough that steers liquidly over the silver stasis of the lake" is what it says here, to my mild surprise. This is a description of an image seen this afternoon when I was out walking. It just 'came out' spontaneously while typing. There was no (assumed) intention to type it by (an assumed) someone.
Thinking that thought knows anything would be like saying that colour knows something, and that smell knows something! Thoughts are simply phenomena that arise and subside like sound, smell, taste etc.
Understood. I should have taken more care over my original sentence. I didn’t really mean ‘Thought…knows itself'. I understand that thought is knowing and thus cannot 'know'. What I meant was, 'thoughts refer to each other'. But I used a shorthand for that which, in this context, was incorrect and misleading.
The label ‘brain’ is AE of thought and not the AE of a brain. Where can a brain be found in AE?
First thought: It can’t. There are endless concepts / thoughts about a brain: it plays a big part in controlling metabolism, it’s divided into two hemispheres, it somehow contains thought etc, but, true or not, these are all AE of thought and not AE of brain.

Second thought: I take a walk over to my friendly local mortician and ask him to show me a brain. He does. It’s pink and grey and feels slimy. But there is no AE of ‘brain’. There is AE of colour and touch.
Can ‘memory actually be found IN a thought. In other words, in the thought MEMORY where are the memories themselves found?
Memories are not found in the thought ‘Memory’. ‘Memory’ is a thought / label. I got confused about this last time because of the semantics. The word/label memory is a thought that points to ‘Memory’, which is a conceptual / imaginary receptacle where, typically, it is imagined that memories are stored; and to ‘memory’ (singular) and ‘memories’ (plural), which are thought stories assembled from actual experience.
What is the AE of memory / memories?


The AE of memory / memories is AE of thought.
What is it exactly that has ‘memories’…and no, it’s not a thought. Thoughts know nothing.
Nothing 'has' memories. Memories are not tangible and can't be 'had'. They 'are', there is no ownership. And, as has been established, there is no "I", so no possible owner either.
Where in AE can you find 'memory/memories'? I want you to answer from actual experience. We are learning about actual experience (AE). Please reread it and answer the question from actual experience. What is the ACTUAL EXPERIENCE (AE) of ‘memory/memories’? DOES IT POINT TO THOUGHT, SMELL, TASTE, COLOUR, SENSATION OR SOUND?
It points to thought.

On reflection this seems a simple question. So why did it take me ages to answer it! (Ans: Because it’s new thinking. Sometimes getting past habitual thinking patterns feels like pulling a nail out of a plank with bare fingers.)
If you really LOOK at a cup…what do you find?

The label ‘cup’ is AE of thought and not AE of a cup
Colour labelled ‘cup’ is AE of colour and not AE of a cup
Sensation labelled as ‘cup against your lips’ is AE of sensation and not AE of cup against lips.
Sensation labelled a ‘warm cup of coffee’ is AE of sensation and not AE of cup with warm coffee.
The thoughts about a cup i.e. what it is, what it is for, what it is made from etc, are thoughts ABOUT thought, because ‘cup’ is a label and is not the AE of a cup!

So what is known…what is actually here/appearing is label + colour + sensation + thoughts. However, is a cup actually known?
No. There is knowing, but nothing can be known, because in the absence of ‘I’ there is no knower. ‘A cup’ is only AE of thought about ‘a cup’. ‘A cup’ and the other labels you mentioned were assembled by thought from a conflation of past experiences. When similar experiences are encountered in the present it gives rise to ‘recognition’, literally ‘thinking again’, which is really memory (intangible thought stories) superimposed on actual experience (real). The only part of that equation that’s real is actual experience: touch, colour, etc.

This makes straightforward sense, but resistant thinking persists along the lines of: ‘OK, you can deconstruct a cup but if you then put those attributes back together, you’re still left with a physical object, whether you label it or not.’ It’s important to say that I do accept that there is only actual experience and subsequent interpretation of it by thought, but there’s a big concrete boulder on the path towards that notion really sinking in. Old thought patterns are so deeply ingrained. As you will have noticed, I’m only half-baked on this line of thinking at present and I realise it needs more application. So please don’t take this paragraph as my concluding word on the subject. I’m Just sharing the thought process, however intermediate it might be, so you’ve got a proper picture of where I am.
I know how hard it is for intellectuals to shift focus from thinking to looking...


Thanks for understanding that. There’s not a particular abundance of ‘smarts’ here, but you’re absolutely right to note that I’m intellectually oriented—cerebral in the sense that there’s a lot of mental chatter and verbal enquiry going on, to a degree that’s often more hindrance than help, actually. It stems flow and can be a real nuisance. I haven’t meditated for some time, but I may start again now just to quieten things down and create a bit of space.

As for looking, that’s why I took a few days to reply this time. I’ve been out walking in the woods and by the river, just looking and listening and getting accustomed to that.
…but that is the shift that needs to take place.
I hope and think that it will. There’s a focus and momentum that I don’t recall ever having felt during my previous experience on LU. Of course there’s a ways to go, but ‘going’ it definitely is. It’s good schoolin’

Love and thanks

Glenn


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest