Thread for Su (asking for Forgetmenot as a guide)

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
Everland
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:00 pm

Re: Thread for Su (asking for Forgetmenot as a guide)

Postby Everland » Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:34 am

Hi Kay,
Can you not be okay with being confused for a little bit, but just be okay with seeing that hunger is the AE of sensation...knowing that the confusion will be cleared up? 
Okay.
The substance of the tree is paint….right? A tree cannot paint itself, it is made from a substance.
Right.. in the case with the painting, the substance of the tree is paint.
Can a tree actually be found in the paint? Thought appears saying that what is there is a tree. But, what constitutes a tree is actually the paint…right?
No actual tree is found in the painting because its constituent is really paint.
Does the paint become a tree, or is the tree simply paint which thought then suggests is a tree and is separate to the paint?
The tree does not become paint. Only thought suggests the tree is separate to the paint.
Does the tree change or affect the paint in any way or does the paint remain as paint?
The painted image of the tree does not affect the paint in any way.
So the paint SEEMS to be appearing as a tree, but does it become a tree? Or does paint remain as paint, no matter what it is appearing as? No matter what picture it paints? Does the SEEMING tree change the substance of which it was made with…or does paint remain as paint?
Paint remains paint no matter what picture is painted with the paint.
It's more clearer now, thank you for clarifying with this exercise.

the raw experience of what thought labels as 'paint is simply the raw experience labelled as colour. You cannot deconstruct it any further than just colour.
But earlier you had said "What colour actually is, will unfold as we explore further" ... so when you said this, it gave me the impression that the colour will be further deconstructed into experience itself ?
Exactly. If you look out your window now…you will see a myriad of seeming objects which thought labels as tree, grass, dirt, sky, clouds, cars, people etc…however, at the basic level…what is there is simply AE of colour. Can you see this?
When it comes to real life, I think I am starting to see, but not 100%.
But it was very clear to me what you were pointing to with the painting example, since I know the substance is paint/colour.
So, do you need to have objects in defined shapes, sizes and textures in order to be aware of the raw experience of colour itself?
I am not sure if you are asking about real life or the painting?
And if you are expecting to be able to literally see this...that what seems to be a view of many different objects becomes a whole, like a painting…then I wouldn’t hold your breath. When you understand this…it becomes a new way of thinking and one day it becomes a realisation.
I think this is part of my problem.. I was probably looking for a visual confirmation of "different objects become whole", rather than just a shift in perception.



Su

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Thread for Su (asking for Forgetmenot as a guide)

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:32 am

Hello Su,

Okay…we are starting to get a little traction! Now remember, we are only working with one sensory perception here and that is sight. That’s all I want you to focus on here. I want you to look very very carefully with the following questions. They are on the same lines as the last post. So, I would be very aware of the desire to follow thought into its stories about what is being seen and NOT follow your thoughts. Focus, instead, on the raw experience of colour. I am thinking that you look at the questions, look at the scenery and then answer, instead really contemplating and exploring to what is being pointed at. Thoughts cannot give you the answer...wait for the answer to show itself, be curious, be open to what is being pointed at...instead of using thought based knowledge to instantly answer, and then come back with a load of BUTS.
Can you not be okay with being confused for a little bit, but just be okay with seeing that hunger is the AE of sensation...knowing that the confusion will be cleared up?
Okay.
Wonderful!
The substance of the tree is paint….right? A tree cannot paint itself, it is made from a substance.
Right.. in the case with the painting, the substance of the tree is paint.
So, just staying with the sensory perception labelled as seeing/sight….when you look out the window and see a landscape which SEEMS to be made up of a myriad of objects, do you need to have objects in defined shapes, sizes and textures in order to be aware of the raw experience of colour?
(I will give you a hint here…think of the landscape you are viewing through the window as a painting…a real life painting.)

The substance of the real life landscape, let’s label that substance, for now, as colour. So the substance of the landscape is colour…right? The landscape seen out of the window cannot make itself, just like the tree cannot paint itself...so the landscape seen out of the window is made from colour alone...right?
(Put aside thoughts that want to argue this and wants to go to story. Just stay with the raw experience of colour and nothing else).
Can a tree actually be found in the paint? Thought appears saying that what is there is a tree. But, what constitutes a tree is actually the paint…right?
No actual tree is found in the painting because its constituent is really paint.
Great, so again…look out the window and view the real life landscape. Can actual objects be found in colour? Thought appears saying that there are many different shaped and textured objects. But what constitutes the objects is actually the experience of colour….right?
(We are just staying with the sensory perception labelled as seeing).
Does the paint become a tree, or is the tree simply paint which thought then suggests is a tree and is separate to the paint?
The tree does not become paint. Only thought suggests the tree is separate to the paint.
Nice! So, when you look out the window and see the landscape through your window, does colour become the objects, or are the objects simply colour which thought then suggests are objects defined by shape and texture, and further suggest that they are all separate individual things and are separate from colour?
Does the tree change or affect the paint in any way or does the paint remain as paint?
The painted image of the tree does not affect the paint in any way.
Do the objects that you see from the view of your window affect colour in any way…or is colour simply colour, no matter what it is appearing as? For example, colour is appearing at what thought labels as 'green bush'. Is colour affected by what it is appearing as...or can you see that it is simply colour?
So the paint SEEMS to be appearing as a tree, but does it become a tree? Or does paint remain as paint, no matter what it is appearing as? No matter what picture it paints? Does the SEEMING tree change the substance of which it was made with…or does paint remain as paint?
Paint remains paint no matter what picture is painted with the paint.
It's more clearer now, thank you for clarifying with this exercise.
So, does colour remain as colour no matter what it SEEMS to be appearing as colour (ie different objects)?

the raw experience of what thought labels as 'paint is simply the raw experience labelled as colour. You cannot deconstruct it any further than just colour.
But earlier you had said "What colour actually is, will unfold as we explore further" ... so when you said this, it gave me the impression that the colour will be further deconstructed into experience itself ?
Here we go again...wanting to run before we walk. You will just have to patiently and confusedly allow the process to unfold.
Exactly. If you look out your window now…you will see a myriad of seeming objects which thought labels as tree, grass, dirt, sky, clouds, cars, people etc…however, at the basic level…what is there is simply AE of colour. Can you see this?
When it comes to real life, I think I am starting to see, but not 100%.
Wonderful….keep looking and viewing the landscape you see from your window, from your back door, when you go walking…and just see it as simply all the AE of colour. Nothing more…just AE of colour. Become fascinated with how everything you see, is simply colour., instead of being fascinated with your thoughts.
it was very clear to me what you were pointing to with the painting example, since I know the substance is paint/colour.
There is absolutely no difference to what I am pointing at between a painted picture and what is labelled as ‘real life landscape’. It is only a thought that says a painting is different to a 'real life' landscape.
So, do you need to have objects in defined shapes, sizes and textures in order to be aware of the raw experience of colour itself?
I am not sure if you are asking about real life or the painting?
It doesn’t matter which…they are both the same. Whether you are looking at a painting or at real life' landscape! Colour is colour. It's very simple...too simple for the mind to want to accept... so the mind wants to complicate it.

If you took a snap shot of the view outside your window and applied what we have been looking at in the last post and this post...there is absolutely no difference to what is being pointed at.

If you were to look at the snap shot you took of the landscape outside your window, it too will SEEM to be made up of a myriad of objects, do you need to have objects in defined shapes, sizes and textures in order to be aware that the snapshot is simply the raw experience of colour?
And if you are expecting to be able to literally see this...that what seems to be a view of many different objects becomes a whole, like a painting…then I wouldn’t hold your breath. When you understand this…it becomes a new way of thinking and one day it becomes a realisation.
I think this is part of my problem.. I was probably looking for a visual confirmation of "different objects become whole", rather than just a shift in perception.
Yes…and that is why I asked you what you were expecting. There has NEVER been a separate self and the view as it is seen has always been the way it is. The view stays the same but the understanding, your perception of what is being seen is what changes.

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

User avatar
Everland
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:00 pm

Re: Thread for Su (asking for Forgetmenot as a guide)

Postby Everland » Mon Oct 19, 2020 11:49 pm

Dear Kay,
I am thinking that you look at the questions, look at the scenery and then answer, instead really contemplating and exploring to what is being pointed at. Thoughts cannot give you the answer...wait for the answer to show itself, be curious, be open to what is being pointed at
I thought maybe I was starting to see what you were pointing to, but I think you may be right: that my answers were probably coming from a place of thoughts. In hindsight, I think I was just logically deducing; as in "of course the tree is not real, because its just a painting made from paint!"..so maybe this was just a result of my thinking and not experiential for me, because otherwise I would have seen what you were pointing to in 'real life' outside my window too...but I couldn't.

Please give me a day or two more to do your last exercise. I already know thoughts are not going to give the answer. And I know that I shouldn't be waiting for some visual confirmation of 'objects turning into whole'. I wish my thoughts would just give me a break- it is the cause of much of my suffering, and yet I know I can't do anything to stop my thoughts (since I am not in control of them)...I know all this, yet I am having difficulty seeing the simplicity of what you are pointing to the AE of only colour. My mind is tricking me and it is difficult to differentiate between AE of seen, as opposed to what my thoughts impose on the AE of what is seen. My thoughts mostly consist of visual thoughts rather than verbal, so this may be why I see things like depth and shapes and 'objects', which my thoughts are superimposing on reality. I know depth and shape are learned concepts.. and yet, I don't see this seamless whole you are pointing to in actual experience.

I will work on this more by getting in the habit of just focusing on the senses, so I can tell the difference between what is AE of colour versus what is just imagination/illusion.


Su

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Thread for Su (asking for Forgetmenot as a guide)

Postby forgetmenot » Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:27 am

Hello Su,

By all means, take the time you need.

Just pretend what you see outside of your window are just present in one large canvas. If it makes it easier...when looking outside your window...instead of labelling objects as tree, grass, bush, leaves, ground, bird, car, sky, bench, try labelling their colours only. So, instead of the label 'tree', use the word 'green' instead. For the sky, use 'blue' instead. Start naming the colours you see. See if this helps.

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

User avatar
Everland
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:00 pm

Re: Thread for Su (asking for Forgetmenot as a guide)

Postby Everland » Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:51 pm

Hello Kay.

Thank you for allowing me more time.

There is still a bit of confusion with the exercise below.. but you had said that my confusion would be cleared up as we go along. So, hopefully it will be clearer as we do the next exercises. ?

What has helped is when I ask myself "do 'objects' themselves suggest in anyway that they are objects"...and the answer is that they do not. And this makes me realize that I cannot truly verify the existance of 'objects'...Its only thoughts that adds up together the sight and touch and other senses and creates an illusion of the existance of 'objects'. Although this is not realized by me all the time, since the illusion that the mind creates gets overwhelming and convincing- more often than not.

It is easier to answer the questions below only when I see the landscape as an image/photograph.
The substance of the real life landscape, let’s label that substance, for now, as colour.
Okay.
So, just staying with the sensory perception labelled as seeing/sight....when you look out the window and see a landscape which SEEMS to be made up of a myriad of objects, do you need to have objects in defined shapes, sizes and textures in order to be aware of the raw experience of colour?
I am aware of the raw experience even without dividing or labelling as objects, shapes, sizes, and textures.
The landscape seen out of the window cannot make itself, just like the tree cannot paint itself...so the landscape seen out of the window is made from colour alone...right?
Please help with this question: I am not able to verify that the landscape is 'made of' colour or any other substance- it is only a thought that suggests what it is 'made of'..
Great, so again…look out the window and view the real life landscape. Can actual objects be found in colour?
No. Only thought suggests this.
Thought appears saying that there are many different shaped and textured objects. But what constitutes the objects is actually the experience of colour….right?
This is similar to the 'made of' question, which is not completely clear to me in AE, as I cannot verify what constitutes the objects (or what substance it is 'made of').
Nice! So, when you look out the window and see the landscape through your window, does colour become the objects, or are the objects simply colour which thought then suggests are objects defined by shape and texture, and further suggest that they are all separate individual things and are separate from colour?
'Objects' are simply 'colour' in AE, which thought further defines and separates.
Do the objects that you see from the view of your window affect colour in any way…or is colour simply colour, no matter what it is appearing as? For example, colour is appearing at what thought labels as 'green bush'. Is colour affected by what it is appearing as...or can you see that it is simply colour?
The 'green bush' is just the seen colour in direct experience. Although, I cannot verify if it is 'appearing' (as you've suggested), or that if it was already there...I cannot verify for myself either scenario in direct experience.
So, does colour remain as colour no matter what it SEEMS to be appearing as colour (ie different objects)?
Yes.. colour remains colour. Although colour itself can change colour (ie leaves on a tree).
If you were to look at the snap shot you took of the landscape outside your window, it too will SEEM to be made up of a myriad of objects, do you need to have objects in defined shapes, sizes and textures in order to be aware that the snapshot is simply the raw experience of colour?
No, I do not need it defined as objects in order to be aware of raw experience.


Regards,
Su

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Thread for Su (asking for Forgetmenot as a guide)

Postby forgetmenot » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:15 am

Hello Su,

You are making this so overly complicated and pedantic that we are getting bogged down in semantics. We are looking at the actual raw experience of colour. We are looking at the fact...actual fact that there are no objects, that all there is, is the actual experience of colour. So what you see is made up of colour.…simple. Nothing more.
The landscape seen out of the window cannot make itself, just like the tree cannot paint itself...so the landscape seen out of the window is made from colour alone...right?
Please help with this question: I am not able to verify that the landscape is 'made of' colour or any other substance- it is only a thought that suggests what it is 'made of'..
??? It is the same question as all the other questions. How are you NOT able to verify that everything is colour? That is the question. When you look out the window do you see colour or not? When a sound is heard, is not the sound made up of sound? It’s not made up of hickory nuts. Sound is sound. Same goes for colour. Without the actual experience of colour, how would that landscape be seen? If you took away colour...there would be nothing left to be seen. So the landscape is made up of colour. It’s not made up of sound, sensation, taste or smell…it is made up of colour. As have noted, there are no objects, what you think are objects are actually made of colour. You are seeing colour. All there is, literally, is colour….nothing more. Are you seeing anything else other than colour? That is what the question is asking. When you look out the window, do you not see colour? Even going by your own account you cannot say there are objects, that there is only colour. So objects are made up of colour. In other words, what you are seeing is colour. End of story. That is all I need you to see....the actual raw experience labelled as colour.
Thought appears saying that there are many different shaped and textured objects. But what constitutes the objects is actually the experience of colour….right?
This is similar to the 'made of' question, which is not completely clear to me in AE, as I cannot verify what constitutes the objects (or what substance it is 'made of').
???? We are looking simply at the raw experience of colour. Is the landscape made of colour, if not, what is it then, what is it made up of? You are seeing something, which everyone else is seeing in the world and can verify as colour. Why can’t you? When you see a red car...are you not seeing the colour red? What is being seen is made up of colour. When you have a blank piece of paper and then you colour it with many different colours....do you not see colour? If not, what do you see? Even the paper is simply the AE of colour. It is labelled as 'white'! So why is it that you cannot verify that the landscape is made up of colour? What else is it made from?
Nice! So, when you look out the window and see the landscape through your window, does colour become the objects, or are the objects simply colour which thought then suggests are objects defined by shape and texture, and further suggest that they are all separate individual things and are separate from colour?
'Objects' are simply 'colour' in AE, which thought further defines and separates.
Yes…objects, when you take away the SEEMING borders/boundaries/outlines and you put aside labels and thoughts….objects are simply the raw experience of colour....they are made up of colour.
Do the objects that you see from the view of your window affect colour in any way…or is colour simply colour, no matter what it is appearing as? For example, colour is appearing at what thought labels as 'green bush'. Is colour affected by what it is appearing as...or can you see that it is simply colour?
The 'green bush' is just the seen colour in direct experience. Although, I cannot verify if it is 'appearing' (as you've suggested), or that if it was already there...I cannot verify for myself either scenario in direct experience.
What??? What are your talking about? When a SEEMING object appears in your view, you are seeing it in your current direct experience. Why are you making something out of nothing? If you are not seeing a chair in your view in this current moment, in your direct actual experience…then a chair is not appearing in your field of vision. When a chair is seen in your field of vision, then it is appearing in your field of vision. How else would you know that the colour labelled as chair has appeared...that you are seeing it? Because it is appearing in you field of vision…you are seeing it! If you don’t have a chair in your current experience of vision…then there is no chair appearing in your field of vision.

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


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests