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
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 » Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:15 pm

Hello Su,

You are overthinking what is simple. We will get to thoughts later. I just want you to become aware of raw experience…exactly as it is without the labelling and storyline that thought overlays experience with.

We need language to communicate…so labels are needed and labels are AE of thought. Thought and label...are one in the same. If you put aside the labels and just go with the raw experience, you will get to see what actually IS, as opposed to thought stories about what reality is.
Are you not aware of sound, smell, taste, colour and sensation?
I am aware of these, but..HOW is it that I automatically know the difference between these? isn't it just another thought that informs me that thought is a thought, and that thought is a not a sound? Isn't it also thought that catagorizes whatever is experienced as either a sound, smell, taste, sight or sensation? A baby cannot tell apart a thought from a sound, but I myself can tell them apart. So.. without another thought/memory to inform me, I would not be able to recognize and tell apart a thought from a sound, correct?
There is no ‘how’. We will be looking at the nature of thought next…but first, as I have expressed, we get clear on what actual experience is. Yes…of course it’s thought that divides everything into categories. That’s the whole point of these exercises to see how thought divides the whole into categories ie into objects.

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is ‘white noise’?
Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is distinctive?
Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it’s come from a ‘white noise machine’?
Or is it thought that suggests these things?


All you need to do for now, is to start to see clearly, the raw experience without any narrative added by thought whatsoever. Notice the narrative but actually see the raw experience for itself. Everything will become clearer as we move through this exploration…but it’s a step at a time. I am trying to get you to learn how to LOOK because it’s the looking that brings about the realisation and not thinking. Thinking is the wrong tool for here and will only get you chasing your own tail. That is why we have exercises to help see through thought and it's stories, in order for you to see what actually IS. It is learning to LOOK at your direct actual experience that brings about the realisation.

Is there a fear here of getting it wrong? Of not getting it at all? Of not giving the right answers?
What’s going on?


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 » Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:49 am

Hello Kay,

Thank you for your persistance.

Without thought, how would it be known that sounds are distinctive? They are simply sounds. It is thought that labels sounds as 'distinctive'! 
Do babies know that sounds are different...or are they simply sounds to them?
Maybe I am overthinking this part too, but it appears that babies do know that sounds are different- without the aid of thought. For example, if a disturbing or loud noise is played, then the baby would likely cry or react unsatisfactorily to it (as opposed to if a gentle sound was played). So it appears that in this case, that distinctive sounds do exist in reality, and that thought was NOT needed by the baby to know this..?

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is ‘white noise’?
Sound does not suggest it is 'white noise'.

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it is distinctive?
Sound itself does not suggest it is distinctive

Does the sound itself suggest in any way that it’s come from a ‘white noise machine’?
Sound itself does not suggest it came from a 'white noise machine'

Or is it thought that suggests these things?
Thoughts/memory suggested these things.


Is there a fear here of getting it wrong? Of not getting it at all? Of not giving the right answers?
What’s going on?
I felt mostly frustration with myself because it is supposed to be simple, but for some reason I found it difficult because my mind kept finding these contradictions in the exercises. Yes, and maybe some fear that I will never 'get it'.
But after you had explained that there was a reason why the exercises are designed that way (so to see how thought divides the whole into categories ie into objects)- after you said this, I felt more relief.



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 16, 2020 7:05 am

Hi Su,
Is there a fear here of getting it wrong? Of not getting it at all? Of not giving the right answers?
What’s going on?
I felt mostly frustration with myself because it is supposed to be simple, but for some reason I found it difficult because my mind kept finding these contradictions in the exercises. Yes, and maybe some fear that I will never 'get it'.
But after you had explained that there was a reason why the exercises are designed that way (so to see how thought divides the whole into categories ie into objects)- after you said this, I felt more relief.
Yes, contradictions will happen if you try and think your way through the exercises instead of simply looking at your direct raw experience.

Okay...so can you do the apple exercise and answer the questions from that exercise please.

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 » Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:23 am

Hi Kay,

This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience - what you know for sure and is always here.
I am not exactly sure what is meant by "always here"? The taste, colour, smell, thoughts, etc., all come and go- it seems None of them are "always here".
The label ‘apple’ is known
Yes
Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Yes
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
This one is tricky because there seems to also be shapes and visual textures, not just colour.
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Yes
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Yes
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?
The label 'Apple' comes from thought only.
At first I said "Of course this is an apple!", but I realized that that too was a thought..lol
Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?
I am having trouble with is last question..I see that the label "Apple" is of course just a thought, but the thing that the label 'Apple' points to does exists in reality, does it not?

Also, there still appears more to the experience of 'apple' than just colour and thoughts, becauses there is the complexity and distinction of flavours and textures that is here. Of course the apple itself did not suggest that it is complex or distinct from other fruits, but.. there is a knowing or immediate reaction of it, which I don't think is created by thought..so this aspect still confuses me.


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 16, 2020 9:00 am

Hello Su,
This is what is meant by ‘looking in actual experience - what you know for sure and is always here.
I am not exactly sure what is meant by "always here"? The taste, colour, smell, thoughts, etc., all come and go- it seems None of them are "always here".
Okay...so let's put it this way. Taste, colour, smell, thought, sensation and sound are what you know for sure...right? You can't not know them when they arise.
Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only colour and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in actual experience?
I am having trouble with is last question..I see that the label "Apple" is of course just a thought, but the thing that the label 'Apple' points to does exists in reality, does it not?

Also, there still appears more to the experience of 'apple' than just colour and thoughts, becauses there is the complexity and distinction of flavours and textures that is here. Of course the apple itself did not suggest that it is complex or distinct from other fruits, but.. there is a knowing or immediate reaction of it, which I don't think is created by thought..so this aspect still confuses me.
Let's keep it simple. I know you have questions and confusion and it will become clear.

Taste is known...but without thought, it cannot possibly be known that it is an apple, or any other flavour. Taste is simply taste....the label apple has been learned. And it doesn't matter at this point to who has learned it and why, and if tastes differ in flavour. They are questions of the mind that wants to get all its ducks in a row, so that it feels it knows something, and is in control and going in a direction it think it needs to go. Added to that perhaps is the fear of "if I am not my thoughts, then what am I?" Knowing ABOUT something is called knowledge and is thought based. Nothing is known because of thought. Thought knows nothing. Actual experience is not thought based...it is experience/consciousness itself.
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
This one is tricky because there seems to also be shapes and visual textures, not just colour.
Shapes and visual texture are nothing but particular patterns of colour. Again...you go into intellectual knowledge instead of keeping it simple. You see the shape and believe that the shape of the apple is the boundary of the apple and that the table it is sitting on, is another separate object with it's own boundaries...because it seems to have borders and a different colour...and this is what separation is based on. When you start to realise objects as simply colour, you begin to expand your seeing and understanding.

Does colour suggest in any way that it is a particular shape or visual texture? Or is it thought that suggests this?

I just want you to see what is there WITHOUT ANY ADDED STORY...but you are bent on adding story, instead of seeing the simplicity of what is being pointed to. You choose. You can make this easy on yourself or difficult for yourself.

So, let's keep at the apple and do the exercise several times...not just once or twice. LOOK carefully and don't go with thinking...go with the senses only. Grab an apple or any other piece of fruit, or cheese or chocolate...whatever. Go get it and then place it in front of you on the table.

Now LOOK carefully.

1. The image 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?

Does the label ‘apple’ point to actual experience or to thoughts about actual experience?


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 » Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:08 am

Hello Kay,
I am not exactly sure what is meant by "always here"? The taste, colour, smell, thoughts, etc., all come and go- it seems None of them are "always here".
Okay...so let's put it this way. Taste, colour, smell, thought, sensation and sound are what you know for sure...right? You can't not know them when they arise.
Yes.. when they do arise, I am aware of them.

I just want you to see what is there WITHOUT ANY ADDED STORY...but you are bent on adding story, instead of seeing the simplicity of what is being pointed to. You choose. You can make this easy on yourself or difficult for yourself.
Will do my best to ignore what thought has to say. Although it seems hard to do because it appears alongside the AE of whatever is being experienced at the moment..so I think it's creating an illusion that is either hard to see through, or that I mistakenly take to be real.

I will do the apple exercise again several times, and will report back.

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 16, 2020 11:55 pm

Hi Su,
Okay...so let's put it this way. Taste, colour, smell, thought, sensation and sound are what you know for sure...right? You can't not know them when they arise.
Yes.. when they do arise, I am aware of them.
Great! :)
I just want you to see what is there WITHOUT ANY ADDED STORY...but you are bent on adding story, instead of seeing the simplicity of what is being pointed to. You choose. You can make this easy on yourself or difficult for yourself.
Will do my best to ignore what thought has to say. Although it seems hard to do because it appears alongside the AE of whatever is being experienced at the moment..so I think it's creating an illusion that is either hard to see through, or that I mistakenly take to be real.
Shifting from thinking to looking can be frustrating and does require practice. So throughout your day, do some looking. Look at objects ie sounds, colour, sensations etc and just see it for its literal classification only....and just notice thought as a sideline commentary, or something that is happening in the background. Focus on the sense being used, and not the thoughts.

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 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:33 pm

Dear Kay,

Thank you for your patience.

I think I need another day or two for this apple exercise. I have done it several times for the past two days. Sometimes it is clear that there is no apple (like a short-lived understanding that it is just a thought construct).. but other times it seems that there is obviously shape which I can see and touch, and obviously texture and flavour which I can taste & touch. I can also see the border of the apple, and feel the border of the table and see that the 'apple' is separate from the table.. I can also pick up the apple from the table and feel it's shape, textures etc. I do not see how I can be imagining all this??
But if this is really an illusion, then it might be that it's difficult for me to put aside or see through the illusion that my mind is creating about the 'apple' when it comes to shape, textures, and flavour...

I then try to separate thought from senses in order to just focus on the senses alone, but then I noticed my mind is creating an artificial separation (as in, "this is my thoughts, and those are my senses")- when I do this, it just becomes more mind work!
In reality, is there really a separation between thoughts and senses? I don't know, I am so confused by all this and disappointed that I can't do this simple apple exercise properly.

I don't want to just give the right answers to the apple exercise; I would like to experience the apple not existing, if this is really the case.

Also, for the first question you had asked:
Does the colour itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of colour?
The word 'colour' is also a label, so why is it accepted that 'colour' exists but 'apple' doesn't exist?
I ask myself, "does the AE of whatever is seen suggest that it knows anything about 'COLOR'"? It seems that it doesn't know anything about 'color' either!
So, if I remove the 'apple' label and remove the 'color' label, then what am I left with?



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 » Sat Oct 17, 2020 11:01 pm

Hi Su,
I don't want to just give the right answers to the apple exercise; I would like to experience the apple not existing, if this is really the case.
Are you waiting for the apple to disappear? Are you waiting for it to disappear like a mirage disappears in a desert? We are talking about a change in perception, not anything else changing. We are questioning and investigating beliefs here and starting to allow another way of seeing what is actually HERE as opposed to intellectualised learned knowledge. The world, the body, isn't going to disappear. There had NEVER been a separate self as it is thought to be..so why would the world change. What changes is how you see the world, how you see the body, how you see the self.
Does the colour itself suggest in any way that it knows anything about an ‘apple’? Or is it just simply AE of colour?
The word 'colour' is also a label, so why is it accepted that 'colour' exists but 'apple' doesn't exist?
I ask myself, "does the AE of whatever is seen suggest that it knows anything about 'COLOR'"? It seems that it doesn't know anything about 'color' either!
So, if I remove the 'apple' label and remove the 'color' label, then what am I left with?
There is no way of simplifying language any further than to the basics of sound, colour, smell, taste, sensation and thought. I need some form of label to point and you need some sort of label to see what I am pointing at...this at least, must make logical sense. How else do you expect for this exploration, or any explanation to succeed if pertinent and relevant language is not used. It is minimised as much as possible to inhibit further stories of what this really is. Stop trying to run before you have walked. Unless you are willing to be open minded, which was stipulated in the introductory posts...then we might as well stop this here...because you are just going to fight the process continually because you have your beliefs and you are not willing to explore there validity. You want intellectual answers to satisfy the mind. And I am not going to continually repeat that the intellect and thoughts are not what is going to get you to realise that there is no separate self. There is absolutely no point in trying to continue if you are not willing to put aside your beliefs...because no amount of pointing will do anything because you are set in holding onto what you think you know.
So, if I remove the 'apple' label and remove the 'color' label, then what am I left with
I am not going to answer this question. This question answers itself within the exploration itself. If you just want your questions answered...then you might as well just go read more books. LU is not about giving you answers to satisfy the intellect, it's about pointing you to seeing things for yourself...that is what brings in the shift in perception. If realising no self was simply an intellectual exercise, then you would have done that already through reading books, listening to Youtube clips and so on.

Unless you are prepared to go with the process and to see colour, for simply colour as a means to an end, so to speak, then it stops here. I don't have any tricks up my sleeve to help you any further...other than to point to what IS and for you to be open minded to learning and realising something different. However, I do understand that for some this cannot happen because of the fear of what they might lose if an apple isn't an apple. So I would get you to really ask yourself if you are ready for this exploration. If you are really wanting to find out what this is all about and what reality actually is.

Ask yourself:-

On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest), how willing are you to question current held beliefs about self?

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

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 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:37 am

Hi Su,

Here is something to investigate for yourself and then let me know what you find.

What would it mean to you if it were true that there were no actual apple? If you hold that as true, do you experience resistance to that? What does the resistance 'say'. What are the implications? Why is it so hard to take in? Just be as honest as possible with yourself here. Is there any fear?

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 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:51 am

Hi Kay,

I want to know the truth. I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I am holding on to beliefs (what beliefs?). My problem is the exact opposite of what you are insinuating...I was simply trying to point out that the apple exercise is too mental for me because it is asking me to accept mental labels such as "colour" as known, while discarding other mental labels such as "apple" as Not-known. You are also asking me to accept sensation as known, while discarding felt textures as Not known. Please keep in mind that I do not yet know what you mean by IS (hence why I came to this forum to ask for your help). I have also said in my last posts that my mind is possibly creating illusions for me that is making it seem that textures, flavours and shapes are apparantly known..I am here to see through these illusions; I don't want to just intellectually accept them as 'not known' just for the sake of giving you right answers- that would not be very "open-minded" of me..

Before doing the Apple exercise, perhaps it's better to start with an exercise that helps me see through the illusion of shapes, textures, and flavours, so that I can experientially see for myself that they are not-known in reality (instead of just intellectually accepting your assertion that they are not known).

On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest), how willing are you to question current held beliefs about self?
Of course it is a 10 for me. Although, I am not certain what beliefs you are referring to? All I have right are doubts which I want to be cleared experientially (not intellectually).


Su

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 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 1:03 am

Hi Kay,

Sorry, I missed this question:
What would it mean to you if it were true that there were no actual apple? If you hold that as true, do you experience resistance to that?
No resistance, I feel a relief and an urge to know this experientially.
What does the resistance 'say'. What are the implications? Why is it so hard to take in? Just be as honest as possible with yourself here. Is there any fear?
No resistance, No fear. I feel a frustration that I do not see 'no apple' experientially.


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 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:38 am

Hello Su,
I was simply trying to point out that the apple exercise is too mental for me because it is asking me to accept mental labels such as "colour" as known, while discarding other mental labels such as "apple" as Not-known.
This is incorrect. If you go back and reread the apple exercises, you will see that the label ‘apple’ is a given as a known. How can it not be? It is a thought, and thoughts are known. The question is…is an apple actually known.

The label ‘apple’ is known
Taste labelled ‘apple’ is known
Colour labelled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labelled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labelled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?
You are also asking me to accept sensation as known, while discarding felt textures as Not known.
Where have I asked you to discard felt textures as not known? You spoke of visual textures which I replied to you saying that they are different patterns of colour. Any form of sensation, whether it be a breeze against the skin, a sensation labelled as fear or pain, or textures felt, are all simply the raw actual experience of sensation. They are not distinguished by any other label. ‘Textures’ and ‘shapes’ are the actual experience of thought and have nothing to do with the simplicity of colour itself. Once you start adding texture and shapes to colour, you start to get stories about depth and size etc…which are all THOUGHT STORIES (AE of thought), that overlay the simplicity of colour just being colour. So what if texture and shapes are known as in knowledge ABOUT colour…that has nothing to do with the simplicity of the raw experience of colour as plain and simple colour.
Please keep in mind that I do not yet know what you mean by IS (hence why I came to this forum to ask for your help).
In my introductory post I explained that this guiding, (as are all guidings on LU) are about seeing what you are not, and not about realising what you are. It is only through realising what you are not, that you can begin to realise what you are. Hence my continual response of suggesting you put aside everything you think you know and just go with the process, trust the process, walk before you run.
I have also said in my last posts that my mind is possibly creating illusions for me that is making it seem that textures, flavours and shapes are apparantly known
Of course they are known, we aren’t denying what is known as learned knowledge...but we are unlearning how mind sees and thinks in order to see what actually is here, as opposed to thoughts ideas about what is and isn’t. This is how you begin the journey to realising the reality of the world and the reality of the seeming separate self! I am not asking you to see sounds, colours, thoughts etc as something unknown. The five senses are known for their functions. Sound is sound and is not thought, just as thought isn't colour and colour isn't taste and taste isn't smell and so on. We are coming back to absolute basics to start to undo the beliefs that seemingly create the idea of separation which is what the separate finite self is built upon.

Textures in relation to touch are simply AE of sensation
All body sensations, including touch are simply raw experience labelled as sensation. And. yes, sensation, is a label, however it points to actual raw experience is and needed as a pointer. Thorns are used to remove thorns and then those thorns are later discarded.

Shapes are different patterns of colour and are simply the whole of raw experience labelled as colour.

Flavours, no matter what they are labelled as, and whether or not there are thousands of different flavours…they are all simply the AE of experience labelled as taste. Same goes for smells. Why? Because they are not a label, they are not a thought, flavours are taste and odours are smells. Labels are not taste or smell, they are AE of thought

Sound, no matter what they are labelled as, and whether or not there are thousands of different sounds…they are all simply AE of sound. Why? Because they are not a label, they are not a thought, they are sound. Labels are AE of thought.

Thought and labels, no matter what they name, describe, say, mean, posit, believe etc are ALL AE of thought. The content of thought is all story, fantasy and points to nothing other than thoughts about thought.

Now, the point of the original sound exercise we did and the apple exercise is for you to see the simplicity of what is appearing. It can’t get anymore simpler than to hone it all downs to the 5 senses and the face value of thought. I honestly, don’t know how to simplify it any further than this.


The following is colour which thought labels (AE of thought) as abstract art. There are no defined objects…it is simply a mixture of colours. No shapes. And put aside stories of the texture of the paint. That is a thought overlaying the simple fact that what is seen, is just colour.

So can you see that all that is seen is the AE of colour? Thought will appear saying a myriad of things. Who cares. When it comes to the bottom line, without all its labels and stories, is there simply colour?

Image

This following painting is no different. But thought, first of all calls colour a painting, then divides colour, and labels them into categories labelled as fruit, and further divides colour by labelling each colour into a shape (boundaries/outlines) as a specific fruit. Without thought doing so…all there is, is a seamless whole of colour.

Image

Now, is the texture of the colour separate to the colour, or are they part of the seamless whole of the colour labelled as painting?

Are the so called shapes, separate to colour, or they part of the seamless whole of colour labelled as painting?

Can you pluck out any individual object from the painting…or is the painting a seamless whole which thought divides into many different objects and categories, describing them as being of different shapes, textures and sizes?

Do you really need to define colours into shapes and textures in order to just be aware of colour itself?

If shapes and textures weren’t part of the painting…how does the painting change…other than the understanding/visual of it…but does the painting change, or at its basics, it is still simply colour?


An apple is coloured red or green...doesn't matter is the colour has variations...it is still simply colour. In actual experience ‘apple’ is the story about the colour labelled red/green. What actually is, is simply the actual raw experience of colour. What colour actually is, will unfold as we explore further.

Let's look at the belief that labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’. It is a generally accepted belief that labels like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inherent characteristics of ‘things’. But actually, they are not.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?

If the label
‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?

What does the resistance 'say'. What are the implications? Why is it so hard to take in? Just be as honest as possible with yourself here. Is there any fear?
No resistance, No fear. I feel a frustration that I do not see 'no apple' experientially.
I have no idea what you mean that you do not see 'no apple' experientially. Explain what it is you expect to see...other than a different way of understanding it...other than a change in perception of what is actually appearing as opposed to what thought says is appearing?

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 » Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:00 pm

Hello Kay,

I appreciate your time and patience with me.

This is incorrect. If you go back and reread the apple exercises, you will see that the label ‘apple’ is a given as a known. How can it not be? It is a thought, and thoughts are known. The question is…is an apple actually known.
Sorry, I meant to say what the labels are pointing to- not the labels themselves.
You spoke of visual textures which I replied to you saying that they are different patterns of colour.
I meant I was having trouble with both visual and felt textures, sorry if I did not mention felt textures.. I was having more trouble seeing through felt textures more than visual textures (I think I am starting to see through these with the help of your painting exercise below & explanation that these are all AE of experience which then thought labels.)
Any form of sensation, whether it be a breeze against the skin, a sensation labelled as fear or pain, or textures felt, are all simply the raw actual experience of sensation. They are not distinguished by any other label.
I hope that as I go along that this will be experientially clear to me too. Today when 'hunger' arose, I just try to observe without the label 'hunger' but I was still able to recognize the sensation and know that I need to take action to appease the hunger, as do babies and animals. You have said that sensations are really only 'simply sensations' and 'not distinguished', but then again I myself (or even babies and animals) was able to recognize hunger even without thought/labels.. so I am confused by this.
What colour actually is, will unfold as we explore further.
Thank you for letting me know.

So can you see that all that is seen is the AE of colour? Thought will appear saying a myriad of things. Who cares. When it comes to the bottom line, without all its labels and stories, is there simply colour?
Just colours.
Now, is the texture of the colour separate to the colour, or are they part of the seamless whole of the colour labelled as painting?
Are the so called shapes, separate to colour, or they part of the seamless whole of colour labelled as painting?
Please help me with these questions: I can see that the textures and shapes are not separate.. but I don't see how they are 'seamless'- this seems to be another thought (at least for me).
Can you pluck out any individual object from the painting…or is the painting a seamless whole which thought divides into many different objects and categories, describing them as being of different shapes, textures and sizes?
I cannot pluck out any individual objects (because it is just a painting). Yes, my thought is what is dividing the painting into objects & categories.
Do you really need to define colours into shapes and textures in order to just be aware of colour itself?
No.
If shapes and textures weren’t part of the painting…how does the painting change…other than the understanding/visual of it…but does the painting change, or at its basics, it is still simply colour?
At its basics, it is just colours.

When you look at the word label ‘GREEN’, what is the actual experience?
Is the colour red experienced, or is the colour green experienced as the label suggests?
Actual experience is the colour that thought labelled as 'red'.
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
The label suggests something else other than what is actually seen.
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?
Green is just a word label on the experience of red.
If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
No.
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no effect whatsoever on ‘reality’?
The labels 'good' or 'bad' have no effect on the colour red.
"No resistance, No fear. I feel a frustration that I do not see 'no apple' experientially."
I have no idea what you mean that you do not see 'no apple' experientially. Explain what it is you expect to see...other than a different way of understanding it...other than a change in perception of what is actually appearing as opposed to what thought says is appearing?
Your question was: "What would it mean to you if it were true that there were no actual apple?". I had answered saying that I would like to experience whatever you are pointing to when you say "no actual apple".


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 1:39 am

Hello Su,

You are still overthinking...instead of just putting all labels and thoughts aside, other than the labels of sound, thought, smell, taste, sensation and colour, which is the deconstruction of objects into the 5 senses, as a means to point to what reality is. As I have said, you don't need a thought to tell you that when sound, colour, smell, taste, sensation and thought have appeared...they are known without thought. Objects cannot be deconstructed past these points and is what we work with in order for you to see what IS. And what IS…means the reality of what is experienced instead of what thought, in any of its interpretations, says is experienced.
Any form of sensation, whether it be a breeze against the skin, a sensation labelled as fear or pain, or textures felt, are all simply the raw actual experience of sensation. They are not distinguished by any other label.
I hope that as I go along that this will be experientially clear to me too. Today when 'hunger' arose, I just try to observe without the label 'hunger' but I was still able to recognize the sensation and know that I need to take action to appease the hunger, as do babies and animals. You have said that sensations are really only 'simply sensations' and 'not distinguished', but then again I myself (or even babies and animals) was able to recognize hunger even without thought/labels.. so I am confused by this.
So what if you were able to recognise the sensation as hunger? Haven't I already explained that the interpretation of actual experience happens quickly. So while inquiring, labelling and interpretation (learned knowledge) will always appear, but it is possible to become aware of the thoughts that appear with, and overlay actual experience but to just become aware of raw actual experience itself and ignore what thought says the experience is? Haven’t I said this over and over. Haven’t I said not to concern yourself with the labels and stories, but to just recognise the experience for what it is…the raw experience of sensation, in this case. And haven’t I also said that once you just see experience for the raw experience it is, then we will look at seeing the difference between actual experience and the content of thought which is your confusion. But first, I simply want you to see that the experience labelled as ‘hunger’ is actually the experience of sensation. Surely these cannot be difficult instructions to follow? You will remain confused because you are not following the instructions which are a step by step guiding that will clear up your confusion. But you are not hearing me. 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? Unless you can distinguish actual experience for the raw experience it is without the labels and thoughts...then trying to get you to see the difference between actual experience and content of thought, will more than likely be more confusing.
Now, is the texture of the colour separate to the colour, or are they part of the seamless whole of the colour labelled as painting?
Are the so called shapes, separate to colour, or they part of the seamless whole of colour labelled as painting?
Please help me with these questions: I can see that the textures and shapes are not separate.. but I don't see how they are 'seamless'- this seems to be another thought (at least for me).
Is not the painting just one seamless painting? The painted background, the painted object with its features…which include the shapes and the texture created by the paint…are they not part of the whole? Is anything separate? Is the painting separate to the colours? Are the textures and shapes stand-alone features, or are they part of the painting? Again, if you put aside the labels ‘textures’ and ‘paint’….just look at what is there…all there is, is colour. Anything else is story.

Let’s see if the following helps.

Image

Thought says that this is a painting of a tree….right? And yes, your mind will say…but I can see a tree…because that is what it has learned to do. It has been taught to automatically name the object a tree. The whole point of this exercise is to get you to loosen the idea that the tree is an object and that it is separate to the paint. The substance of the tree is paint….right? A tree cannot paint itself, it is made from a substance.

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?

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?

Does the tree change or affect the paint in any way or does the paint remain as paint?


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?


So, what I am trying to get you to see, is that paint is paint, no matter what it appears as, no matter what thought says the painting is. And if we apply the same reasoning….deconstruct that further and just become aware of the fact...and it is fact...that 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.
If shapes and textures weren’t part of the painting…how does the painting change…other than the understanding/visual of it…but does the painting change, or at its basics, it is still simply colour?
At its basics, it is just colours.
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?
Can you pluck out any individual object from the painting…or is the painting a seamless whole which thought divides into many different objects and categories, describing them as being of different shapes, textures and sizes?
I cannot pluck out any individual objects (because it is just a painting). Yes, my thought is what is dividing the painting into objects & categories.
Exactly. Now, if you ignore the thoughts and just looked at the basics…all there is, is colour. Thought adds and divides everything into different categories and objects. There are no objects…there is simply the actual 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. But not everything will happen in this exploration. This exploration is mostly intellectual, with the exception of realising ‘no self’. Other realisations may happen…but the point of the thread is to realise ‘no self’.
Do you really need to define colours into shapes and textures in order to just be aware of colour itself?
No.
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?
Do the labels have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’?
Or do the labels suggest something else other than what is here and now (red colour)?
The label suggests something else other than what is actually seen.
Yes! Exactly! So the label ‘apple’ suggests that there is something else, other than the raw experience of colour. The label ‘apple’ does not change the fact that what the raw experience being experienced is, is actually colour (just using the sense of seeing, here).
Is green-ness inherent attributes of the experience of the colour red, or is green just a word label on the experience of the colour red?
Green is just a word label on the experience of red.
Just like the label ‘apple’ is a just a word label on the actual experience of colour. (Not interested in yes, BUT). The label 'apple' is just a word label overlaid by thought, as the actual experience of colour. FULLSTOP. No stories past this point. We will look at the stories...but I just want you to see raw experience as raw experience.
I have no idea what you mean that you do not see 'no apple' experientially. Explain what it is you expect to see...other than a different way of understanding it...other than a change in perception of what is actually appearing as opposed to what thought says is appearing?
Your question was: "What would it mean to you if it were true that there were no actual apple?". I had answered saying that I would like to experience whatever you are pointing to when you say "no actual apple".
Because you keep wanting to add the story about how you know it's an apple because you recognise it as an apple and have all the data of an apple and what it is. And no amount of me saying to put all that knowledge, or that data to the side and just look at the actual experience of the apple. I have even given you an indepth apple exercise which gives you the experience of ther being no actual apple...just sensory perception which thought embellishes. There is no actual apple because objects do not exist. For objects to exist would mean that separation is real; therefore you, then, by definition must be a separate finite self. I am not denying that objects SEEM to exist, but this changes when you start to investigate the reality of what they actually are. Which is why I am trying to get you to see the basic raw experience of appearances. So no matter the object, no matter what the object is seemingly made from, be it paint, plastic, wood, fibre, etc ie seeming matter…that what the actual experience is, in the case of sense of seeing, is simply the appearance and actual experience of colour.

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 1 guest