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?
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.
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’?
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?
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.