Who is looking for?

[forgetmenot]

Hey Kuka,

Put aside the AE exercise for now. We will come back to it. We will start to look at this from another angle.

I'm getting back to this now. I still may not have enough time to give this process my fullest attention, but I want anyway report some things just to keep the process and exercises in my mind.

Terrific. It is important to keep the momentum going. With the following exercises, take your time. So if you take a couple of days to do them several times, that is okay.

Have a look at an ‘object’ and put ALL thoughts aside – now how is it known that it has a shape or size or that it is separate from the “whole visual field”?

This is tough to me.

I can look in a way that I see everything in my visual field and then it feels that there is just this 'visual contact' with the world, that has different 'textures' in different areas. Or that was not really correct, as there is no separation whatsoever. But as soon as I choose something specific to look, like an towel there, there is separation forming. There comes this separation of 'me' and 'that', and 'that' vs. 'others around there'. ...

Close your eyes. With eyes closed, there is the experience of 'black(ness)'. There may a bright light, a red glow, sparkly bits or cloudy flecks appearing and disappearing - It really doesn't matter about the specifics. We are just noticing ‘blackness’.

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness'?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing ‘blackness’ be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ the ‘blackness’?
What do you find?

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘blackness’? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?

Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

Okay….then open the eyes and look around.

Is there a difference between the ‘blackness’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour?

On the other hand, now that I write this, there is no separation between me and towel. Yeah, separation is not visible! I cannot actually see the separation between me and that. That separation is not to be found no matter how I look. It is made up with intuitive reasoning, which is affected by other senses. It goes something like this: After dealing with some stressful issues, I have a tendency to identify with the tensions I feel in my body, label them as 'stress' or 'anxiety' that 'I' have, and thus make up a self around that. Then I see things from the point of that imaginary self 'that out there' separated from 'this tension in here', which I take as self.

Lovely, Kuka! Yes, it is only thought that says there is a 'me' here and a 'towel' there! And as we continue on with our exploration this will become clearer! I am glad that there is no expectation for you to become the towel and the towel to become you! :)

Sit quietly, take in a couple of breaths to settle the dust and start to notice just the ‘body’. Without thought, all there is, is colour which thought then labels as clothes, or body (we are only looking at colour for this exercise).

Now look carefully.

Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?

Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?

Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just simply colour?

Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply colour which thought then divides into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?


With love, Kay

[Kuka]

Hi Kay,

Back at the process and it's getting going again.

I realized that I had developed false expectations about what is going to happen. When I began reading LU I was in a retreat and got this realization and significant relief. In those conditions I was at ease and no 'real life worries' at all. Then right after the retreat I had to get really busy, pack my apartment, carry a lot of stuff etc. I went into a bit like survival mode and got really anxious. Then I started to expect this process to relief that anxiety directly. That expectation was driving me to believe in the fiction of separate self and looking for relaxation, better feelings etc. for that self. Well, this looking what we are doing here is not about that at all. Today, when riding in a tram and feeling anxious and thinking this process, I realized that I don't need to get relief for my anxiety. There is no me, no my, no anxiety! What a relief! Since that insight I have been doing the AE exercise almost automatically. I just see things this way now. The feeling that I previously labeled 'anxiety' is now just a very energetic feeling in a body, a feeling of joy and aliveness. Everything is so beautiful. I feel grateful of being alive.

I went to a restaurant to eat lunch. Tastes, smells, other people, sensations, feelings... everything just here. There are no gaps. Everything that is, is on the 'same side' so to speak.

*

The rest of this post I wrote few hours later:

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness'?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing ‘blackness’ be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ the ‘blackness’?
What do you find?

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘blackness’? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?

1, 2, 3, 4, the answer is no, but the one about witness is a bit different. I have done this exercise a few times now, in a different situations. When I'm in an easy situation there is just blackness, which feels like being immersed in black non-material air. But just a minute ago I was taking a break from my work, because there was a problem I couldn't solve easily, and I got a bit anxious about it (even though at the same time I'm not here as much as I could be, so to speak). I then went to lie down on the couch, closed my eyes and observed the blackness. There was nothing else but blackness, but still a feeling of witness. Then I started to examine this witness, couldn't really find it, and at the same time it felt like this blackness coming closer, going to encompass/meet the witness, and for some moments, the mingled together. It was a bit scary, actually. Scary in some kind of unknown way, or maybe in a very primitive way, like darkness when I was child. Then I just rested, forgot the work and daydreamed about something pleasant. I observed the blackness again, and it was not threatening like that. I was feeling good, blackness was airy, but maybe there still was some kind of witness.

So, even though earlier today there was no self (when in a tram and on the lunch), no gap between anything, now there again was.

I'll leave this report here now, even though I haven't answered to all your questions. I'll play with these exercises and I'll write again when I have time.

[forgetmenot]

Hey Kuka,

Then I started to expect this process to relief that anxiety directly. That expectation was driving me to believe in the fiction of separate self and looking for relaxation, better feelings etc. for that self. Well, this looking what we are doing here is not about that at all.

Fantastic! That is really great that you became aware of an expectation! Yes, this process is not about getting rid of anything….what exactly is it that needs to get rid of something or needs something to be different?  This process is about looking to see what is being actually ‘experienced’ by seeing how thought overlays raw experience with stories that are just pure fiction!

Today, when riding in a tram and feeling anxious and thinking this process, I realized that I don't need to get relief for my anxiety. There is no me, no my, no anxiety! What a relief! Since that insight I have been doing the AE exercise almost automatically. I just see things this way now. The feeling that I previously labeled 'anxiety' is now just a very energetic feeling in a body, a feeling of joy and aliveness. Everything is so beautiful. I feel grateful of being alive.

Beautiful realisation! Yes, there is no ‘thing’ that needs relief from ‘anxiety’ or relief from anything for that matter!

What is the AE of the person/self/I/me?

I went to a restaurant to eat lunch. Tastes, smells, other people, sensations, feelings... everything just here. There are no gaps. Everything that is, is on the 'same side' so to speak.

Yes! There are no separate ‘things’. Every ‘thing’ is ‘made of’ the same substance…experience/THIS itself! Experience is appearing as taste, smell, colour, sensation etc, not the other way round!

Gold comes in many forms. As a nugget, rings, coins, bracelets, necklaces and so on. No matter what gold appears as, it always remains gold. Does the gold become a ring or a coin or does only the appearance change, but what it is – gold – remains as gold?

I will wait for you to finish answering all the questions on my previous post before responding to the colour exercise. For this post we will have a good look at ‘anxiety’. You can use the following process to look at any emotion that appears. An emotion is simply thought + sensation which another thought points to and calls an emotion and then further labels it ‘fear’, ‘anxiety’, ‘happiness’ etc.

Let’s look at ‘anxiety’.

The label ‘anxiety’ is the AE of thought and not the AE of anxiety
The sensation labelled ‘anxiety’ is the AE of sensation and not the AE of anxiety
The colour labelled ‘me/I/body’ is the AE of colour and not the AE of anxiety
The thoughts ABOUT anxiety are AE of thought and not AE of anxiety

So, is there actual experience of ‘anxiety’ or what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT anxiety?

Label ‘anxiety’ is known and thoughts about ‘anxiety’ are known, however, is ‘anxiety’ actually known?

When ‘anxiety’ appears, close your eyes and do the following:

1) Look at the label/thought ‘anxiety’ itself. See the label/word ‘anxiety’ as a typewritten word in the ‘mind’s eye’ across the forehead

Does the label ‘anxiety’ know anything about anxiety, or is the word just a bunch of letters?
Is the label ‘anxiety’ itself anxious?
Can you find anyone/anything in the word itself that is anxious?

2) Then look at the sensation and ignore everything else but the sensation itself.
Inquire into the sensation and ask if the sensation itself knows anything about ‘anxiety’.

Look and see if the sensation itself is the anxious self. If the words ‘yes’ , or ‘yes, this is the self’ appears, go back to Step 1 and see the words across the forehead and repeat step 1.

And then look to see if there is anyone/anything in the sensation or behind the sensation that can be ‘anxious’.

If other random mental images appear during the noticing of the sensation, check to see if those images are the self who is anxious, or are they images that are simply arising and subsiding? If other ‘loud’ thoughts appear, check to see if they are the self that is anxious as you did in step 1.

3) Look at the mental image/outline labelled body.
Does the image/outline itself know anything about ‘anxiety’.
And then look to see if there is anyone/anything in the colour itself that knows anything about ‘anxiety’ or that can be ‘anxious’.

If other random mental images appear during the noticing of the sensation, check to see if those images are the self who is anxious, or are they images that are simply arising and subsiding? If other ‘loud’ thoughts appear, check to see if they are the self that is anxious, as you did in step 1.

4) With eyes still closed look everywhere and see if you can find anyone or anything that is anxious.

When you have done this and if no one/no thing is found, then just sit with the sensation. Just breathe normally, notice the thoughts and images that appear and let them pass on by unless they seem to hang around, then do the appropriate steps above. Allow the sensation all the room it needs in the body without pushing it aside or judging it. If it becomes too intense just take a couple of deep breaths into the sensation itself, and then notice the floor under your feet, notice your backside on the chair and then notice what is in the room you are sitting in and name them out loud, while being aware of the sensation and remember to breathe normally. If the sensation does not dissipate at all or only dissipates a little, that is okay, just notice it, without doing anything with it and just go about your day.

We are not trying to get rid of the sensation labelled ‘anxiety’ or the arising thoughts or images. We are only LOOKING to see what is actually appearing (ie thought, sensation, colour/image) as opposed to what thought is saying ABOUT what actually IS.

Let me know how you go.

With love, Kay

[Kuka]

Hi Kay,

I just let you know, that it may again take some time before I can reply you in detail. Don't worry, I'm fine and I'm doing the exercises, mapping out my expectations etc. I'm not overtly anxious, just very busy. I'll reply when I find time again.

Best regards,

Kuka

[forgetmenot]

Thank you Kuka, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in letting me know.

Love, Kay

[Kuka]

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?

Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought?

No, no dividing lines, or see-er found in what is being seen. See-er is only an idea / thought.

Is there a difference between the ‘blackness’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply the appearance of colour?

Is there anything that is witnessing the colour?

There is no difference. It doesn't matter what it being looked at, there is only colours and no witness in the seen.

Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?

Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?

Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just simply colour?

Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply colour which thought then divides into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?

There is no dividing lines here, either. It's sure that the labeling is done by thought, but I'm not sure what it is that divides this 'soup of colours' into pieces? It seems to be happening without thinking. Now that I look a plant on a windowsill in front of me, it's clear that there is no gap or dividing line between the colour of the leaves and the colours of the scene behind the window. But on the other hand I am not aware of how the division then happens? I could try to believe that it is thought that divides it all, but I don't have an AE of thought doing that, at least not before applying a label. When applying a label, then the thought surely is involved. Like I say 'a leaf' and then it is separated from the rest, combined with all my knowledge of leaves and focused on as a entity on it's own.

[Kuka]

What is the AE of the person/self/I/me?

There is no AE of me. Or it is an AE of thoughts about me.

So, is there actual experience of ‘anxiety’ or what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT anxiety?

Label ‘anxiety’ is known and thoughts about ‘anxiety’ are known, however, is ‘anxiety’ actually known?

No AE of anxiety for me. For me it is label + sensations + thoughts, no colours, sounds or smells there. (Though now I'm speaking of memory of anxiety, not feeling that right now.)

[forgetmenot]

Good evening Kuka,

1) With eyes closed, can you confirm that what is experienced is 'blackness'?
2) Is there anything else in 'seeing' other than 'blackness'?
3) Can what is seeing ‘blackness’ be found?
4) Can a pair of eyes, an 'I' / 'me', a person be found that is ‘seeing’ the ‘blackness’?
What do you find?
Is there anything that is witnessing the colour labelled ‘blackness’? Or is there just 'blackness' to be found?

When I'm in an easy situation there is just blackness, which feels like being immersed in black non-material air.

Black is just a colour, it has no more mystery to it than orange, green, pink or white etc. However, seeing and knowing are one and the same. Seeing of colour and seeing of seeing are one and the same = colour

I observed the blackness again, and it was not threatening like that. I was feeling good, blackness was airy, but maybe there still was some kind of witness.

What is being aware? Is there anything being aware? Is there anything doing the being aware?

There may be a sense that there’s an observer. You can’t shake it, and you assume it indicates an observer. Well, you can’t shake it, because it’s a feeling like any other. You don’t have to shake it. You don’t have to wrap your mind around it. You just have to see if there’s anything behind it.

How do you know there is a witness, apart from just the obvious process of witnessing or observation? How is there a witness as an entity? Where is it? Does it actually exist?

Is there such a thing as awareness in which things appear? Is awareness ever actually experienced, or is it just an idea, an abstraction? Does it actually exist?

Look very carefully. Where does ‘seeing’ end and colour begin? Can a dividing line between ‘seeing’ and colour be found? Or is there just seeing/colour?
Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?
If that is all, and no INHERENT SEE-ER found . . . would anything that is suggested as the see-er be anything other than a concept/idea/thought.

No, no dividing lines, or see-er found in what is being seen. See-er is only an idea / thought.

Yes, exactly.
So can an experiencer of seeing/colour (experience) be found, or is ‘experiencer’ and experience one and the same?

Is there a difference between the ‘blackness’ when eyes are closed and ‘colour’ when eyes are open or are they both simply the appearance of colour?
Is there anything that is witnessing the colour?

There is no difference. It doesn't matter what it being looked at, there is only colours and no witness in the seen.

Lovely! Are there many colourS or just simply colour?

Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?
Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?
Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and the colour labelled ‘wall’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘wall’ or is there just simply colour?
Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply colour which thought then divides into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?

There is no dividing lines here, either. It's sure that the labeling is done by thought, but I'm not sure what it is that divides this 'soup of colours' into pieces? It seems to be happening without thinking.

Do you think that babies see colours as a divided ‘soup of colours’? Or is it once colours are pointed out and labelled and learned as a child that they become automatically perceived as individual colours? It is like walking. Do you have to tell each foot when to lift and each knee when to bend and each leg when to move when walking, or does walking just happen?

Now that I look a plant on a windowsill in front of me, it's clear that there is no gap or dividing line between the colour of the leaves and the colours of the scene behind the window. But on the other hand I am not aware of how the division then happens?

Look carefully at this picture. Thought says it is a picture of bushland and it seems to be divided into many different colours that have gaps between them. Without thought all there is, is one big canvas.

Now look even closer and look very very carefully to find that which is ‘hidden’, once it has been seen it cannot be unseen. When you find it, you will how it works! Let me know how you go!

I could try to believe that it is thought that divides it all, but I don't have an AE of thought doing that, at least not before applying a label. When applying a label, then the thought surely is involved. Like I say 'a leaf' and then it is separated from the rest, combined with all my knowledge of leaves and focused on as a entity on it's own.

When driving a car do you need thought to tell you how to drive once you have learned how to drive, or does driving just happen now without having to actually rely on thought to drive?

What is the AE of the person/self/I/me?

There is no AE of me. Or it is an AE of thoughts about me.

Yes, “me” is the AE of thought. Thought points to say, colour (body) and says that the colour is ‘me’. Colour is AE of colour and not the AE of a me or a body.

So, is there actual experience of ‘anxiety’ or what is actually appearing (AE) is label + sensation + colour + thoughts ABOUT anxiety?
Label ‘anxiety’ is known and thoughts about ‘anxiety’ are known, however, is ‘anxiety’ actually known?

No AE of anxiety for me. For me it is label + sensations + thoughts, no colours, sounds or smells there. (Though now I'm speaking of memory of anxiety, not feeling that right now.)

So next time ‘anxiety’ appears just look to see what is actually appearing.

With love, Kay

[Kuka]

Hi Kay,

Back again,

What is being aware? Is there anything being aware? Is there anything doing the being aware?

There may be a sense that there’s an observer. You can’t shake it, and you assume it indicates an observer. Well, you can’t shake it, because it’s a feeling like any other. You don’t have to shake it. You don’t have to wrap your mind around it. You just have to see if there’s anything behind it.

How do you know there is a witness, apart from just the obvious process of witnessing or observation? How is there a witness as an entity? Where is it? Does it actually exist?

Is there such a thing as awareness in which things appear? Is awareness ever actually experienced, or is it just an idea, an abstraction? Does it actually exist?

Awareness just happens together with perception, there is no doer for it. It doesn't need doing, it can't be done, doing has nothing to do with it. It's a process happening, it doesn't exist beyond what is been seen, heard, felt, smelled etc.

So can an experiencer of seeing/colour (experience) be found, or is ‘experiencer’ and experience one and the same?

They are the same.

Are there many colourS or just simply colour?

There are many. I don't understand how it could be otherwise? I mean, if I look just blank white paper, there is one colour, but if I look a the picture here, there are many. I'm honestly lost now.

Do you think that babies see colours as a divided ‘soup of colours’? Or is it once colours are pointed out and labelled and learned as a child that they become automatically perceived as individual colours?

I think they see divisions. I don't know if it is about colors, brightness or what. According to Wikipedia:

'Newborns are exceptionally capable of facial discrimination and recognition shortly after birth. Therefore, it is not surprising that infants develop strong facial recognition of their mother. Studies have shown that newborns have a preference for their mothers' faces two weeks after birth. At this stage, infants would focus their visual attention on pictures of their own mother for a longer period than a picture of complete strangers. Studies have shown that infants even as early as four days old look longer at their mothers’ face than at those of strangers only when the mother is not wearing a head scarf.'

But I feel we are sidestepping when talking about how babies see. There is something I don't get now. What do you actually mean by 'colour'?

Now look even closer and look very very carefully to find that which is ‘hidden’, once it has been seen it cannot be unseen. When you find it, you will how it works! Let me know how you go!

Having difficulties. I don't understand what we are aiming here for.

When driving a car do you need thought to tell you how to drive once you have learned how to drive, or does driving just happen now without having to actually rely on thought to drive?

Yes, once learned, driving, and many other things, happen on 'autopilot'. No need to think.

[Kuka]

I mean if I wouldn't see many colours here, I would not be able to drive (safely), even though I can maybe react to traffic lights without much thinking?

[Kuka]

Still, I do understand that what I see is 'just an image' same way that what I hear are just sounds. I'm not sure if I have trouble doing this exercise or trouble at understanding what I actually should be doing?

[forgetmenot]

Hello Kuka,

My previous post was brought about by your comment/question, so my post was about getting you to see if there are actual divisions of colour.

There is no dividing lines here, either. It's sure that the labeling is done by thought, but I'm not sure what it is that divides this 'soup of colours' into pieces? It seems to be happening without thinking. Now that I look a plant on a windowsill in front of me, it's clear that there is no gap or dividing line between the colour of the leaves and the colours of the scene behind the window. But on the other hand I am not aware of how the division then happens? I could try to believe that it is thought that divides it all, but I don't have an AE of thought doing that, at least not before applying a label. When applying a label, then the thought surely is involved. Like I say 'a leaf' and then it is separated from the rest, combined with all my knowledge of leaves and focused on as a entity on it's own.

Are there many colourS or just simply colour?

There are many. I don't understand how it could be otherwise? I mean, if I look just blank white paper, there is one colour, but if I look a the picture here, there are many. I'm honestly lost now.

When seeing this picture, the scene is automatically divided into many different objects as everything is given a label (ie people, road, cars, buildings), right? And it is further divided as these seeming ‘objects’ are then labelled as having different colours.

Question 1
Without thought (IGNORING ALL thoughts and labels) how can it possibly be known that this seamless/whole scene is divided into many different objects let alone many different colours?

Question 2
Without thought ( IGNORING ALL thoughts and labels) how could it possibly be known that there are many different “colourS”? Without thought how can it possibly known that what is seen is “colour”? Is not “colour’ just another label?

Question 3
IGNORING ALL thoughts and labels, including the label “colour”, what is actually there? Is there actual divisions, or is it experience appearing as a whole, which thought then divides into many different objects and colours?

When driving a car do you need thought to tell you how to drive once you have learned how to drive, or does driving just happen now without having to actually rely on thought to drive?

Yes, once learned, driving, and many other things, happen on 'autopilot'. No need to think.

Exactly, no need to see actual thoughts appearing, it just happens. So in your previous post you wrote:-

There is no dividing lines here, either. It's sure that the labeling is done by thought, but I'm not sure what it is that divides this 'soup of colours' into pieces? It seems to be happening without thinking. Now that I look a plant on a windowsill in front of me, it's clear that there is no gap or dividing line between the colour of the leaves and the colours of the scene behind the window. But on the other hand I am not aware of how the division then happens? I could try to believe that it is thought that divides it all, but I don't have an AE of thought doing that, at least not before applying a label. When applying a label, then the thought surely is involved. Like I say 'a leaf' and then it is separated from the rest, combined with all my knowledge of leaves and focused on as a entity on it's own.

Can you see how it everything is just automatically divided into many different colourS? Do you need to see a thought for the dividing to happen?

Going back to the picture. Without thought, would that picture be divided into many different things, or would it just be seen as a seamless whole?

With love, Kay

[Kuka]

Hi Kay,

Question 1
Without thought (IGNORING ALL thoughts and labels) how can it possibly be known that this seamless/whole scene is divided into many different objects let alone many different colours?

Question 2
Without thought ( IGNORING ALL thoughts and labels) how could it possibly be known that there are many different “colourS”? Without thought how can it possibly known that what is seen is “colour”? Is not “colour’ just another label?

Question 3
IGNORING ALL thoughts and labels, including the label “colour”, what is actually there? Is there actual divisions, or is it experience appearing as a whole, which thought then divides into many different objects and colours?

1. Without thought it cannot be known that it is divided into spesific objects or colours.
2. Yes, exactly colour is just a label.
3. Without thought it is experience appearing as a whole. However, the way I see it, is that there is this whole which is not uniform. There are differences inside this whole. The whole and the differences are seen the simultaneously, and they are kind of the same thing.

Can you see how it everything is just automatically divided into many different colourS? Do you need to see a thought for the dividing to happen?

Yes, I can see that the division happens automatically and I don't need to see a thought for the dividing to happen. But to know in AE that it is thought that divides it all, I would need to see thought doing that, right? Like I can actually see how thought 'apple' puts together all these sense experiences to form an 'apple'. Now I don't have AE of how this division of seen actually happen - more than to say that it happens automatically - so I don't know if it is done by thought.

Going back to the picture. Without thought, would that picture be divided into many different things, or would it just be seen as a seamless whole?

Without thought it is not divided into 'things', but I still see these differences. Yes, it is a seamless whole, but not uniform.

Then, with thought, it can be divided in endless ways. Like people, cars... or on a different level 'yellow areas', 'white areas'... or 'people without a bag' etc.

Warmly,

Kuka

[forgetmenot]

Hey Kuka,

1. Without thought it cannot be known that it is divided into spesific objects or colours.
2. Yes, exactly colour is just a label.
3. Without thought it is experience appearing as a whole. However, the way I see it, is that there is this whole which is not uniform. There are differences inside this whole. The whole and the differences are seen the simultaneously, and they are kind of the same thing.

Yes, thought may say they look different and are not uniform…but what does thought know? Experience SEEMS to be APPEARING as every ‘thing’, so they are all ‘made of’ the same ‘substance’….experience itself.

Gold APPEARS as many different things. It appears as a nugget, rings, cuff links, bracelets, ear rings, coins, necklaces etc. However, even if gold seemingly appears as many different things, does the gold itself change in any way? Gold is the ring; the ring is not the gold. The form of what gold appears as; does not make it the gold.



Life seems to be a gigantic soup of experience that is grouped, categorised and labelled as things. There seems to be a ‘me’ that is ‘here’ that is experiencing things that are ‘out there’. And all those things ‘out there’ are all individual separate things.

None of it is separated except through thought because all of the images present are just one big canvas. Sounds overlap and intrude on each other, and there is a thought that says “I can separate bird song from car horns. Look! See? I've just named them!” But what is actually appearing is sound, with perhaps an image of a bird and an image of a car, and thoughts ABOUT sound appearing as a bird and car!

And thought appears saying “I can separate a cat from a book. See, I’ve just named them!” But what is actually appearing is colour and thoughts ABOUT colour appearing as shapes/images labelled ‘cat’ and ‘book’.

‘Things’ seemingly appear and there are never not things, but have a LOOK to see what is actually appearing.

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene. Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?

Can you see how it everything is just automatically divided into many different colourS? Do you need to see a thought for the dividing to happen?

Yes, I can see that the division happens automatically and I don't need to see a thought for the dividing to happen. But to know in AE that it is thought that divides it all, I would need to see thought doing that, right?
Like I can actually see how thought 'apple' puts together all these sense experiences to form an 'apple'. Now I don't have AE of how this division of seen actually happen - more than to say that it happens automatically - so I don't know if it is done by thought.

The purpose of asking about driving the car and if you needed thought to tell you how to drive once you had learned was about seeing how once something is learned, it seemingly happens automatically, Just like labelling happens automatically, or more accurately it is an ‘unheard’ thought…a whisper of a thought. You learned to label objects, when as a very small child you started to learn to talk and you continued to learn labelling throughout school! A baby has no idea of divisions until it is taught to see and label them.

When you think you are in a thought-free state, just observe very carefully to notice those ‘unheard’ thoughts. Check it out for yourself!

Going back to the picture. Without thought, would that picture be divided into many different things, or would it just be seen as a seamless whole?

Without thought it is not divided into 'things', but I still see these differences. Yes, it is a seamless whole, but not uniform.

Of course the seeming differences will still be seen. Just because it becomes known that the very scene in front of you is a seamless whole does not mean that every thing becomes one and no ‘objects’ are seen! Experience is appearing exactly as it is, it is only thought that then starts to label colour, dividing the seamless into many different things.

With love, Kay

[Kuka]

Hi Kay,

Now I got what was the misunderstanding here about what is actually seen.

You seem to use word 'colour' in two different meanings. One meaning is 'AE of what is seen' and the other is 'spesific colour, like the one labelled red'. Like this:

Actual experience is sound, thought, colour, smell, taste, sensation.
Can a 'see-er' ever be found in 'what is being seen' – AE colour?

and then this:

Without thought how can it possibly known that what is seen is “colour”? Is not “colour’ just another label?

I personally would not use 'colour' as a synonym for 'what is seen'. To me it's similar to talking about 'pitches' or 'tunes' instead of 'sounds' if I compare it to hearing. But I don't know how I would talk about 'what is seen', then? (Maybe 'light' could be used?). It seems that the language around seeing is more tricky than language around other senses. There is no one clear word to label 'all that comes in through the eye' like we 'sound' for 'all that comes through the ear'.
I guess part of the problem is also the fact that I'm not native in english.

Anyway, back to the business, and thanks for helping me out!

What separates things? What makes up the borders? Can we pluck a thing out of the scenery in front of us? If not, is it truly separate or is it thought about variation in observed qualities which makes it so?

The next time you are watching television, look at the screen and see whether you can pluck an object from the scene. Are there objects existing inside the screen or is the image a seamless whole? What is it that makes it seem as though there are separate objects in the picture? Are they truly separated?

No, we can't pluck anything out of the scenery. Even when I hold an apple on my hand, it's still seamless part of the scenery, no matter how much I try to pluck it! Objects are separated/created by thoughts, using concepts/labels, that have become habits of the mind.

Warmly,


Kuka