tangled in thoughts

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
JustABird
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 11:56 am

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby JustABird » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:30 pm

Hi Kay,
You didn’t look. Thought points to sensation and attributes sensation with qualities and descriptions, but that is AE of thought. Does sensation, in and of itself have content? What is the content of a sensation?
Yes, the content of a sensation is the thought content.
When a bird is heard singing, that is AE of sound. Does that sound, in and of itself have content?
Is the bird in the sound? Is the sound in the colour labelled 'bird' ?
No, sound doesn't have content by itself. There is no bird in the sound. There is no sound in the colour labelled bird.
Does thought actually know anything about thought content (does thought know thought)?
Thought doesn't know anything about thought content.
And without thought, how is that known that "thought could be described as information/data flow?
It is not known. Only thought is saying that.
Thought is an APPEARANCE which is known. Not known because it is a thought, it is known because experience (source) is self-aware and doesn't know itself as 'things', it only knows itself as itself.
So what is an appearance? Thought, smell, taste, sensation and image?
What is it exactly that is “thinking”? How is it known that “thinking” is an experience and experienced by what exactly?
No one and nothing is thinking. Hmm...thinking is known, thoughts are known. The content of thoughts is not known, only that there is AE of thoughts is known.
THOUGHTS KNOW NOTHING! Tell me exactly how a thought thinks and knows/experiences itself?
No, thoughts do not think. Thoughts have to be experiencing themselves because there is nothing else around to do it.

I'm confused, why is there sound, smell, taste, sensation and colour? Wouldn't thought alone be enough to create an illusion? What is the point of AE of taste when it has no content? Do we just call it
soundsmelltastecoloursensationthought and experience is only thought?

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 3652
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby forgetmenot » Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:00 am

Hello Petra,

I think we put the brakes on for a moment. Let's have a look at the difference between actual experience and the content of thought.

There are two types of thoughts:
(1) Thoughts with words “Here is cup”
(2) 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 an image of a cup?
Is there an appearing mental image?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?


The thoughts and mental images are real (actual experience) only as arising thoughts (words and mental image), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what are they about (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) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.


Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.

User avatar
JustABird
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 11:56 am

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby JustABird » Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:48 pm

Hi Kay,
Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?
No. The image can't be grasped and I can't drink from it.
Is there a ‘real’ cup or just an image of a cup?
Is there an appearing mental image?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?
There is just a mental image of the cup, it's not real. No, the content of the mental image is not real.
The thoughts and mental images are real (actual experience) only as arising thoughts (words and mental image), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what are they about (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) is REALLY happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.
Yes, I have a vivid imagination but even perfectly imagined things are not real, they can' t be grasped. When I sit at a work meeting and there is a thought about a beach, there is a thought about the sun sensation, thought about the waves sound and thought about the salty smell but there is no AE of sensation, sound and smell. There is only the mental image.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 3652
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby forgetmenot » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:22 am

Hello Petra,
Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?
No. The image can't be grasped and I can't drink from it.
Exactly. Can the content of thought be grasped in any way?
Is there anyone/anything that is trying to grasp the content of thought?


“I am a person" is the thought. Other thoughts that arise with that thought, about that thought, are the content of that thought. So the content of thought is just further thought. The actual experience of thought isn't any different just because the content of the thought is different.

Without thought, how is it known what a thought is or what a thought is saying or pointing to?
Is there a ‘real’ cup or just an image of a cup?
Is there an appearing mental image?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?
There is just a mental image of the cup, it's not real. No, the content of the mental image is not real.
So is the content of thought real? Does the content of thought CONTAIN any actual experience?

Some thoughts point to the actual, and some point to other thoughts, but the content of every single thought is just a story.
Is this clear?

The thoughts and mental images are real (actual experience) only as arising thoughts (words and mental image), their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what are they about (like the cup) are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?
Yes, I have a vivid imagination but even perfectly imagined things are not real, they can' t be grasped. When I sit at a work meeting and there is a thought about a beach, there is a thought about the sun sensation, thought about the waves sound and thought about the salty smell but there is no AE of sensation, sound and smell. There is only the mental image.
The purpose of the exercise was to see the difference between actual experience (sound, thought, smell, taste, sound and sensation) and the content of thought.

Actual experience is ‘experienced’, does the content of thought experience anything? Is the content of thought experienced by anyone/anything?

Does thought actually know anything about thought content (does thought know thought)?


Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.

User avatar
JustABird
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 11:56 am

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby JustABird » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:22 pm

Hi Kay,
Can the content of thought be grasped in any way?
Is there anyone/anything that is trying to grasp the content of thought?
No, content of thought can´t be grasped in any way. There is no one trying to grasp the content of thought.
Without thought, how is it known what a thought is or what a thought is saying or pointing to?
It´s not possible to know without thought.
So is the content of thought real? Does the content of thought CONTAIN any actual experience?
No, thought content is not real whether it contains further thought or a mental image of an object. Thought contains no actual experience, it only points to actual exrperience.
Some thoughts point to the actual, and some point to other thoughts, but the content of every single thought is just a story.
Is this clear?
Yes, it´s clear.
Actual experience is ‘experienced’, does the content of thought experience anything? Is the content of thought experienced by anyone/anything?
Content of thought doesn´t experience anything, it is only describing the experience. Content of thought is not experienced by anyone because it can´t be experienced at all.
Just thinking is experienced.
Does thought actually know anything about thought content (does thought know thought)?
No, thought knows nothing about its content.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 3652
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby forgetmenot » Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:29 am

Hello Petra,
Can the content of thought be grasped in any way?
Is there anyone/anything that is trying to grasp the content of thought?
No, content of thought can´t be grasped in any way. There is no one trying to grasp the content of thought.
No, because the content of thought is just further thought. And ‘thought is not what thought says it is, it is experience/awareness/source that thought labels as thought.

Thought is not aware, so it's useless as a means of knowing the truth.
For every thought that comes up, and to determine whether it is referring to actual experience or whether it is pure fantasy, replace the thought with “blahblahblah” and check whether what it was referring to, remains.

Close your eyes (or leave them open) and bring the story of “I am tangled in thoughts“ to the forefront, and notice the sensation and images that seemingly go hand in hand with that thought.

Now replace the thought “I am tangled in thoughts“ with “blahblahblah”. Look at experience, with thought only saying “blahbahblah.” Is there an “I” who is “tangled in thoughts”, without thought saying so?

If yes, that thought is referring to actual experience. That’s a “bare bones” thought, with all additional story layers stripped.

If no, then you know that the thought has added “virtual layers.” It’s fantasy, and it isn’t confirmed as actual experience, because what it was saying didn’t remain when the thought was replaced with “blahblahblah.”

Let me know how you go when you use this exercise.
Without thought, how is it known what a thought is or what a thought is saying or pointing to?
It´s not possible to know without thought.
Yes and even my pointer was a thorny pointer! Thought cannot and does not interpret thoughts…it cannot do that. There is no one interpreting thoughts. There is no storyteller. Thought is the story. Thoughts about life/experience is the story
So is the content of thought real? Does the content of thought CONTAIN any actual experience?
No, thought content is not real whether it contains further thought or a mental image of an object. Thought contains no actual experience, it only points to actual exrperience.
Thought EITHER points to actual experience or it points to thoughts about AE or thoughts about thought!

If thought says that you saw a spectacular sunrise yesterday…is that sunrise experience as you presently find it? No…so it is just thought story ie ‘imagination’. If however, the colours labelled ‘spectacular sunrise’ is experience as you presently find it (ie now), then thought is pointing to actual experience as you presently find it. That is, that the colour thoughts refers to as 'sunrise' are what are actually appearing now. Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to thoughts about actual experience which is not the current experience which then equates to just story...thought fluff/imagination.
Is this clear?

If thought ‘talks’ about as square circle, what is it actually pointing to? Is there such a thing as a square circle?

Actual experience is ‘experienced’, does the content of thought experience anything? Is the content of thought experienced by anyone/anything?
Content of thought doesn´t experience anything, it is only describing the experience.
Thought isn’t describing experience. Thought has no idea about itself or actual experience! It SEEMS as if thought is describing experience but that is simply the content of thought.

Try and describe the colour labelled ‘yellow’ to someone who has been blind from birth.
Try and describe the sound labelled as ‘car horn’ to someone who has never heard
Try and describe the sensation labelled ‘the chills’.
Try and describe a thought.
Try and describe the taste labelled ‘apple’.
Try and describe the smell labelled ‘bread’
Can this be done? Can thought describe experience itself?
Content of thought is not experienced by anyone because it can´t be experienced at all.
Just thinking is experienced.
What exactly is it that is “thinking”? ‘Thinking’ is just a word for a stream of thoughts! Describe to me in precise detail what it is that is thinking thoughts and where this thinker is located.
Does thought actually know anything about thought content (does thought know thought)?
No, thought knows nothing about its content.
And those thoughts only SEEM to interpret what thought is saying or give meaning to thoughts! They are just thoughts and in and of themselves have no meaning. 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.

Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.

User avatar
JustABird
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 11:56 am

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby JustABird » Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:15 pm

Hi Kay,
Close your eyes (or leave them open) and bring the story of “I am tangled in thoughts“ to the forefront, and notice the sensation and images that seemingly go hand in hand with that thought.
Now replace the thought “I am tangled in thoughts“ with “blahblahblah”. Look at experience, with thought only saying “blahbahblah.” Is there an “I” who is “tangled in thoughts”, without thought saying so?
If yes, that thought is referring to actual experience. That’s a “bare bones” thought, with all additional story layers stripped.
If no, then you know that the thought has added “virtual layers.” It’s fantasy, and it isn’t confirmed as actual experience, because what it was saying didn’t remain when the thought was replaced with “blahblahblah.”
Let me know how you go when you use this exercise.
When I replace the thought with "blablahblah" there is no one that is tangled in thoughts and there is no thought about being tangled at all.
If thought says that you saw a spectacular sunrise yesterday…is that sunrise experience as you presently find it? No…so it is just thought story ie ‘imagination’. If however, the colours labelled ‘spectacular sunrise’ is experience as you presently find it (ie now), then thought is pointing to actual experience as you presently find it. That is, that the colour thoughts refers to as 'sunrise' are what are actually appearing now. Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to thoughts about actual experience which is not the current experience which then equates to just story...thought fluff/imagination.
Is this clear?

If thought ‘talks’ about as square circle, what is it actually pointing to? Is there such a thing as a square circle?
Yes, that´s clear. With square circle the thought is pointing to a concept (another thought describing square and a thought describing circle).
Try and describe the colour labelled ‘yellow’ to someone who has been blind from birth.
Try and describe the sound labelled as ‘car horn’ to someone who has never heard
Try and describe the sensation labelled ‘the chills’.
Try and describe a thought.
Try and describe the taste labelled ‘apple’.
Try and describe the smell labelled ‘bread’
Can this be done? Can thought describe experience itself?
No, experience can´t be described by thought. Thought can "talk" about experience but it does poor job in describing/explaining experience. Thoughts are independent from experience. Thought "is not about" an experience, thought is about a label. Thoughts contain labels, then they point to those labels, then they point to stories aboout pointing to labels.
What exactly is it that is “thinking”? ‘Thinking’ is just a word for a stream of thoughts! Describe to me in precise detail what it is that is thinking thoughts and where this thinker is located.
Yes thinking is just a stream of thoughts, or maybe one lifelong thought :) No one is thinking thoughts, they come and go, actualy they are in one place, they don´t come and go.No one is thinking them, no one is creating them, no one is managing them, no one has any power over them.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 3652
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby forgetmenot » Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:22 am

Hello Petra,
When I replace the thought with "blablahblah" there is no one that is tangled in thoughts and there is no thought about being tangled at all.
Exactly. So, to check to see if thought is pointing to actual experience or to stories, always check it with ‘blahblahblah’.

Let’s say for example that the thought “I am anxious” appears and with it appears a sensation. Do the “blahblahblah” on this thought and see what actually remains to see what is the bare bones experience (ie AE of sensation).
If thought says that you saw a spectacular sunrise yesterday…is that sunrise experience as you presently find it? No…so it is just thought story ie ‘imagination’. If however, the colours labelled ‘spectacular sunrise’ is experience as you presently find it (ie now), then thought is pointing to actual experience as you presently find it. That is, that the colour thoughts refers to as 'sunrise' are what are actually appearing now. Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to thoughts about actual experience which is not the current experience which then equates to just story...thought fluff/imagination.
Is this clear?
You never answered this question Petra.

If thought ‘talks’ about as square circle, what is it actually pointing to? Is there such a thing as a square circle?
Yes, that´s clear. With square circle the thought is pointing to a concept (another thought describing square and a thought describing circle).
Yes, as a square circle doesn’t exist at all. However, let’s say that you heard a bird singing right at this moment. The AE of sound “bird singing” is not story, however “the bird was singing from down the end of the street” is story.
Can this be done? Can thought describe experience itself?
No, experience can´t be described by thought. Thought can "talk" about experience but it does poor job in describing/explaining experience. Thoughts are independent from experience. Thought "is not about" an experience, thought is about a label. Thoughts contain labels, then they point to those labels, then they point to stories aboout pointing to labels.
When I use the word experience, I am using it to point to THIS/source/awareness itself. Actual experience is experience appearing exactly as it is, but not as thought labels them. Thought is experience, however, it is only thought that says it is something different and separate to experience. If you drop the label ‘thought’, all there is, is experience. It is thought that SEEMS to give meaning to thoughts. 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.

When you read this and it isn’t clear, please say so and tell me what is not clear. You need to be clear about thought, otherwise you will become confused about what IS and what thought says is.

There are no thoughts. Experience is not divided into many different ‘things’. Experience is whole, complete and seamless. Thought is describing experience as thought and sound and smell and sensation and colour and taste. There is no AND. Experience and thoughtsoundsmellsensationcolourtaste are synonymous.

I want you to look at a table, and let’s say it is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’ and you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Now totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what is there?
What exactly is it that is “thinking”? ‘Thinking’ is just a word for a stream of thoughts! Describe to me in precise detail what it is that is thinking thoughts and where this thinker is located.
Yes thinking is just a stream of thoughts, or maybe one lifelong thought :) No one is thinking thoughts, they come and go, actualy they are in one place, they don´t come and go.No one is thinking them, no one is creating them, no one is managing them, no one has any power over them.
Yes, they don’t come and go. There is no thoughts. There is only experience which thought then divides and labels as thoughts, sound, colour etc.

Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.

User avatar
JustABird
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 11:56 am

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby JustABird » Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:58 pm

Hi Kay,
If thought says that you saw a spectacular sunrise yesterday…is that sunrise experience as you presently find it? No…so it is just thought story ie ‘imagination’. If however, the colours labelled ‘spectacular sunrise’ is experience as you presently find it (ie now), then thought is pointing to actual experience as you presently find it. That is, that the colour thoughts refers to as 'sunrise' are what are actually appearing now. Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to thoughts about actual experience which is not the current experience which then equates to just story...thought fluff/imagination.
Is this clear?
You never answered this question Petra.
Yes, it is clear.
When I use the word experience, I am using it to point to THIS/source/awareness itself. Actual experience is experience appearing exactly as it is, but not as thought labels them. Thought is experience, however, it is only thought that says it is something different and separate to experience. If you drop the label ‘thought’, all there is, is experience. It is thought that SEEMS to give meaning to thoughts. 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.
When you read this and it isn’t clear, please say so and tell me what is not clear. You need to be clear about thought, otherwise you will become confused about what IS and what thought says is.
I hope I understand this. Thoughts are giving meaning to themselves. There is only THIS, that is undescribable. Because any description would not be THIS but thought.Thought is saying "sunrise" which gives meaning to the thought. THIS doesn´t need the thought to give it a meaning.
I want you to look at a table, and let’s say it is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’ and you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Now totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what is there?
There is just "something", THIS, the experience.

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 3652
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:42 am

Hello Petra,
When you read this and it isn’t clear, please say so and tell me what is not clear. You need to be clear about thought, otherwise you will become confused about what IS and what thought says is.
I hope I understand this. Thoughts are giving meaning to themselves. There is only THIS, that is undescribable. Because any description would not be THIS but thought.Thought is saying "sunrise" which gives meaning to the thought. THIS doesn´t need the thought to give it a meaning.
Yes, exactly. Just because gold is called a nugget, doesn’t make it a nugget, it is simply gold. “Nugget’ is a description given to the gold, however gold is the shape/form, the shape/form isn’t the gold.
I want you to look at a table, and let’s say it is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’ and you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Now totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what is there?
There is just "something", THIS, the experience.
Lovely Petra. It is simply experience (knowing/THIS)…there is no ‘the’ experience. 'The' points to a particular experience. There is no separation, there are no particular experienceS...there is simply experience.

What I would like you to do now, is to read your thread from the beginning to the end. Redo any exercises that you feel a pull to do. If there is something that you are not clear about, just take a note and when you have finished reading your thread, let me know and we will look at it again. Report back how you go, what you noticed and more importantly how you feel about what we have explored so far.


Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.

User avatar
JustABird
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 11:56 am

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby JustABird » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:12 pm

Thank you Kay,

I will reread the thread and report back.

Petra

User avatar
JustABird
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 11:56 am

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby JustABird » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:56 pm

Hi Kay,

I just wanted to let you know, I´m still going through the exercises.
There´s nothing new to report so far, only that I had a funny morning. There was a thought I was running up the hill in some medieval clothing and some people wanted to kill me. Next thought I realized that I´m dreaming this. And then I realized it´s not a dream, it is a thought saying 1)it´s night 2)body is laying in bed and it´s mine 3)medieval chase is a weird thought so it has to be labelled as a dream. So night and day is the same, it´s just different thought feed, different content, that´s really funny.

Petra

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 3652
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: tangled in thoughts

Postby forgetmenot » Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:45 am

Hey Petra,
I just wanted to let you know, I´m still going through the exercises.
Great to hear and it is paying off with what I read about your epiphany! :)
There´s nothing new to report so far, only that I had a funny morning. There was a thought I was running up the hill in some medieval clothing and some people wanted to kill me. Next thought I realized that I´m dreaming this. And then I realized it´s not a dream, it is a thought saying 1)it´s night 2)body is laying in bed and it´s mine 3)medieval chase is a weird thought so it has to be labelled as a dream. So night and day is the same, it´s just different thought feed, different content, that´s really funny.
This is fantastic, even awesome Petra! (I am doing the snoopy dance :) ) Yes, yes and yes! It is only thought saying 1)it´s night 2)body is laying in bed and it´s mine 3)medieval chase is a weird thought so it has to be labelled as a dream. So night and day is the same, it´s just different thought feed, different content, that´s really funny.

Love, Kay
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests