My question

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
swendell
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:03 am

Re: My question

Postby swendell » Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:40 pm

I still am not totally clear with the distinction between raw experience and knowing of raw experience, is that knowing just another thought?
Meaning is there only thought and no distinction between sensations and thought (containers)?
Is the 'knowing' of raw experience just another thought?

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5963
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: My question

Postby forgetmenot » Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:03 am

Hello Scott,
How does the thought “here is a cup” in this exercise point to experience other than that of thought?
It points to a thought which is a judgement / interpretation of raw experiences. I still am not totally clear with the distinction between raw experience and knowing of raw experience, is that knowing just another thought?
Thoughts don’t know anything. Thoughts are known by something; we just really don’t know what it is. It’s just not the Scottself that is the knowing of/as thought. We can call it Awareness, Consciousness, God…which are all just labels given to something that is unknowable. And that pointer is not strictly true, as thoughts are not what thoughts say they are…but I don’t want to confuse this exploration before we have even really started, because this exploration is not about finding what you are, or discussing non-duality or any philosophy etc. It is about pointing directly to what IS in order for you to see what actually IS, and not what thought says IS and it is through this pointing you get to realise that you are not the Scotself. Obviously there is something that knows thought, sound, smell, taste, sensation and colour. Thoughts don’t know knowing and they don’t know known. Knowing and known (knowingknown) are one and the same thing. Knowingknown is synonymous with Awareness/Consciousness.
A mental image of a cup is not the same as a 'real' cup.
If a mental image of a cup appears it is the AE of a thought and AE of thought only.
So an imagined cup only ever points to AE of thought, but if the actual experience of colour labelled 'cup' is appearing, then it is pointing to your actual immediate experience in the moment.
Can you see this?
Let me drill in here with an example. Probably several steps for you to separately comment upon here.
I am walking outside; I don't particularly focus on any one item and 'know' I am outside. So I know / recognize 'outside' but have no idea what 'outside is. I don't know what 'outside' is.
Thought + sensation + smell + sound + colour (different shades) make up an apparent tree. You (not Scotself) are the knowing of/as colour labelled tree, just as you are the knowing of/as thought. If thought + sensation + smell + sound + colour had never been linked by thought - labelled and storied - then all you would know is colour and nothing more. Everything learned from childhood is imprinted in the mind; that is why it is difficult to just see raw experience for what it is.

Choose an object, let’s say a chair. Now try and just see it without ideas/thoughts alluding to colour/s as being a chair/object. It is virtually impossible. The imprint/memory of colour being that object + the story of it being a particular shape, size etc cannot be totally ignored…there will always a notion of colour being a chair. It’s just that we can learn to overlook thoughts overlays and just notice the raw experience as it is, and notice the label and story overlay.
How did you go trying not to label or story colour into an object?
I scan the outside space and see a tree. I don't really ponder it long enough to label the word in my mind 'tree' but the knowing of that tree is the AE of thought.
Just to be clear between mental images/thoughts and what is referred to as visual images. Mental images are something that appear as images in the mind only and are classified as picture thoughts (imagination). Visual images are the actual experience (AE) of colour.

If you are sitting in your lounge-room and a mental image of a tree appears, it is a picture thought and is imaginary and is AE of thought, as the AE of colour labelled as tree is not appearing in your lounge-room, unless you have one growing in your lounge-room!

If thought says that you saw a spectacular ‘sunrise’ yesterday, is that sunrise experience as you presently find it? No…so it is just thought story ie ‘imagination’. If however, the colours labelled spectacular ‘sunrise’ is experience as you presently find it (ie now), then thought is pointing to actual experience as you presently find it (ie your direct, actual experience). In other words the colour that thought is referring to as a 'sunrise' is what is actually appearing now. Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or it is pointing to thoughts about thought. So if the ‘sunrise’ is not the current experience, it only equates to story...thought fluff/imagination – thoughts about thoughts.
Is this clear?
Now I start to explore more about the tree and the (raw) experiences of color, width, texture, height, potentially smell and touch (sensation). Again, I do not know / actually experience the tree.
Do the colours or sensations suggest in any way that they know anything about width, texture or height? What overlays raw experience of colour and sensation with those components?

What is the AE of width?
What is the AE of texture?
What is the AE of height?


Label ‘tree’ is AE of thought and not AE of a tree
Colour labelled ‘tree’ is AE of colour and not AE of a tree
Sensation labelled ‘tree’ is AE of sensation and not AE of a tree
Smell labelled ‘tree’ is AE of smell and not AE of a tree
Thoughts about a tree and what it is etc are AE of thought and not AE of a tree

So there is a knowing of what is known (knowingknown) ie label + colour + sensation + smell + thoughts…but a tree, in and of itself, is not known.

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

User avatar
swendell
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:03 am

Thoughts don’t know anything?

Postby swendell » Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:13 pm

I am glad we are moving slowly and I hope you can find me an exercise to get past this. On a positive note, we have worked enough to more specifically identify exactly where I get stuck. I feel I am getting most of this and I am not lost on much except one concept.
I was not exploring the philosophy of what I am. I know you feel that detracts from the exercise.
Instead the prescribed looking exercise made me realize that knowing could be another type of thought to look for, distinguish, dissect and explore.
There are word thoughts, image thoughts, so why not knowing thoughts? Maybe knowing is one thought recalling a stored previous thought.
When looking at the fundamental experience I did not see a distinction between the initial fundamental container thought direct AE and knowing.
If you can have thoughts about thoughts as we have explored, why not thoughts that 'know' other thoughts. Other thoughts, like the thoughts of a raw experiences?
Considering we do not know what knows, it could be thought.
It is easy to see layers of thought and how they build upon each other and how story arises but not as easy to see that there is anything but thought. I can distinguish the initial experience from the subsequent labels but that is not the same as defining the initial experience as anything but thought.
If thought + sensation + smell + sound + colour had never been linked by thought - labelled and storied - then all you would know is colour and nothing more. Everything learned from childhood is imprinted in the mind; that is why it is difficult to just see raw experience for what it is.
Here it seems you are saying knowing 'tree' is thought+sense experience linked by thought. So it even seems like you are indirectly saying knowing is thought.
How did you go trying not to label or story colour into an object?
It is difficult to look at a chair and have no chair thought/label.
Is this clear?
Yes, imagining a chair in my mind while not looking at it 'now' is an imaginary picture thought about a thought. Looking at a chair 'now' is a visual image AE of of color.
Do the colours or sensations suggest in any way that they know anything about width, texture or height? What overlays raw experience of colour and sensation with those components?
No, for example, the raw experience of color does not know about height. Thoughts overlay the raw experience with labels and judgments.
What is the AE of width?
What is the AE of texture?
What is the AE of height?
The AE of width, texture and height is the AE of thought expressed as labels describing a direct raw experience
So there is a knowing of what is known (knowingknown) ie label + colour + sensation + smell + thoughts…but a tree, in and of itself, is not known.
I understand the concept 'tree' is a fictitious label that is not directly experienced or known. The color and smell are known. These comments are mutually exclusive from the idea that a special type of thought (or combination of thoughts) could be knowing.

User avatar
swendell
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:03 am

Re: My question

Postby swendell » Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:21 pm

If my comments above are not totally clear; the focus above is, what is knowing (maybe thought) NOT who/what is the knower. As you pointed out, we may never understand the knower

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5963
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: My question

Postby forgetmenot » Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:41 am

Hello Scott,
Instead the prescribed looking exercise made me realize that knowing could be another type of thought to look for, distinguish, dissect and explore.
There are word thoughts, image thoughts, so why not knowing thoughts? Maybe knowing is one thought recalling a stored previous thought.
When looking at the fundamental experience I did not see a distinction between the initial fundamental container thought direct AE and knowing.
If you can have thoughts about thoughts as we have explored, why not thoughts that 'know' other thoughts. Other thoughts, like the thoughts of a raw experiences?
Considering we do not know what knows, it could be thought.
It is easy to see layers of thought and how they build upon each other and how story arises but not as easy to see that there is anything but thought. I can distinguish the initial experience from the subsequent labels but that is not the same as defining the initial experience as anything but thought.
All the above is a thought story (thoughts about thoughts) which the mind wants to get bogged down in because looking for the self you think yourself to be and not finding it, is a fearful prospect. If I am not the Scottself, then who am I? Will I be the same, will I disappear, what will my life be like? We are here to deconstruct beliefs, not take on new one’s that somehow fill a gap that the mind wants to fill with a story about thoughts that have their own consciousness and are aware, therefore do their own thinking!

So called 'interpreting thoughts' does not point to thoughts having a mind and will of their own that are interpreting experience as it appears. ‘Interpreting thoughts' is a label given to a classification of thoughts…in this case thoughts that are deemed to give meaning to labels and other thoughts. Just like a dictionary gives meaning to specific words. They are learned. We will be looking at thought later, so what thought is, will become clearer.
If thought + sensation + smell + sound + colour had never been linked by thought - labelled and storied - then all you would know is colour and nothing more. Everything learned from childhood is imprinted in the mind; that is why it is difficult to just see raw experience for what it is.
Here it seems you are saying knowing 'tree' is thought+sense experience linked by thought. So it even seems like you are indirectly saying knowing is thought.
Let’s look at this logically even. When you teach a child language, you point to colour and label it a ‘tree’. You then let the child touch the tree and tell the child that the sensation is that of a ‘trees texture’. Further, you tell the child that the smell is that of a ‘tree’. So, can you see how association between raw experience is linked by thought? We, as parents teach them that. A + B + C = D. Without all of these taught associations between raw experience, a child would not know any of these things. Without a child being taught language, it would not even know what a tree is, the child would simply know 'colour' + 'sensation' + 'smell'.
How did you go trying not to label or story colour into an object?
It is difficult to look at a chair and have no chair thought/label.
Great. So be aware of this when you are breaking down supposed objects to AE everyday, throughout your day. You can’t just sit and ponder, you actually have to apply the ideas to your life; see them in action on a daily basis.
Is this clear?
Yes, imagining a chair in my mind while not looking at it 'now' is an imaginary picture thought about a thought. Looking at a chair 'now' is a visual image AE of of color.
Terrific
Do the colours or sensations suggest in any way that they know anything about width, texture or height? What overlays raw experience of colour and sensation with those components?
No, for example, the raw experience of color does not know about height. Thoughts overlay the raw experience with labels and judgments.
Yes, exactly.
What is the AE of width?
What is the AE of texture?
What is the AE of height?
The AE of width, texture and height is the AE of thought expressed as labels describing a direct raw experience
Wonderful! So it is clear that width, texture and height cannot be experienced and are simply AE of thought and what they point to is thoughts about thoughts. In other words, the content of the thought 'width' is simply more thought.
So there is a knowing of what is known (knowingknown) ie label + colour + sensation + smell + thoughts…but a tree, in and of itself, is not known.
I understand the concept 'tree' is a fictitious label that is not directly experienced or known. The color and smell are known. These comments are mutually exclusive from the idea that a special type of thought (or combination of thoughts) could be knowing.
The label itself is not fictitious as it is AE of thought. What the label points to is fictitious because a tree cannot be found as direct actual experience.

We aren't using assumptions and guesses to assume. We are actually LOOKING at evidence of what IS, as opposed to the thought stories learned about what IS.
If my comments above are not totally clear; the focus above is, what is knowing (maybe thought) NOT who/what is the knower. As you pointed out, we may never understand the knower
My apologies if I gave confusion. THIS, the ALL THAT IS cannot be known by the mind. It cannot be found as an object of any shape, form, it cannot be described or interpreted...it simply IS. For there to be a knower of the known would mean there is a subject/object split...which would mean that the idea of separation was real...and it isn't. And for now, this is where I will leave this.


I would like you to do the following exercise over a couple of days and try as many times throughout the day as you can to label daily ACTIVITIES, OBJECTS AND EMOTIONS simply as colour/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:

Seeing a cup, simply= colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell,
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation.
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thoughts about drinking the coffee, simply = thought. (Eg, “mmmm, this coffee tastes really nice this morning”, or “I should stop drinking so much coffee” etc),

Just break down objects, emotions and daily activities into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go, giving some examples please.

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

User avatar
swendell
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:03 am

Re: My question

Postby swendell » Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:24 pm

Kay,

I understand when you say, the belief that awareness itself could possibly be another thought, is itself a thought, likely generated from a fear. You say we are here to deconstruct beliefs; how would you suggest I deconstruct this belief?

I do see how linking A+B+C=D. I like that explanation.

Thought Classification 'Interpreting thought': Because it is difficult to see a chair without a thought/label 'chair'; I am blurring the distinction of the raw experiences that make up a chair with the label. This is why I get stuck repeating awareness could be different type of thought.

Why is the label 'Tree' NOT fictitious? A bunch of people told me color + shape is the word / label 'tree'. 'Tree' is just a made up label for something that other people agreed upon and told me to use when I see the color and shape of a tree. It is even possible, it is not a tree...The label is fictitious even if it 'attempts' to accurately describe a combination of raw experiences.
Just break down objects, emotions and daily activities into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go, giving some examples please
Short example: I look at phone, see color, shape, sub shapes, sub colors, hear a ring....thought/label it 'phone'
Expanded example: I look at apple, see red, some roundness, notice the red is not totally solid, it is multiple shades of red. I take a bite, notice the sensation of the bite's resistance, then notice the resistance of the bite is not the same. That resistance gets easier to bite at a certain point. I focus on the smell and taste again. At first the taste was a general sweetness, then I notice hints of sour, honey and citrus. When I focus on each experience, it is clear there is a timeline / continuum from a broad sensation experience to more detailed dynamically changing nuances of the experience. Depends upon focus.

Thank you,
Scott

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5963
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: My question

Postby forgetmenot » Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:05 am

Hello Scott,

You are going to have to read what I post several times very carefully. Learning to see things differently ie learning to LOOK instead of thinking takes time and can become very frustrating because we are so used of thinking rather than LOOKING at what actually is. Language is also a barrier in the beginning, because terminology used, is different. You are overthinking and overcomplicating something that is very simple ie becoming aware of raw experience,and the thoughts about the raw experience.
I understand when you say, the belief that awareness itself could possibly be another thought, is itself a thought, likely generated from a fear. You say we are here to deconstruct beliefs; how would you suggest I deconstruct this belief?
By LOOKING at what I am pointing at, instead of thinking.
Thought Classification 'Interpreting thought': Because it is difficult to see a chair without a thought/label 'chair'; I am blurring the distinction of the raw experiences that make up a chair with the label. This is why I get stuck repeating awareness could be different type of thought.
Yes, I have said, several times, that shifting from thinking to LOOKING takes time and needs to be practiced diligently on a daily basis. Many years of habitual thinking doesn’t give over in a couple of hours or days.

Do you or have you ever meditated?
Why is the label 'Tree' NOT fictitious? A bunch of people told me color + shape is the word / label 'tree'. 'Tree' is just a made up label for something that other people agreed upon and told me to use when I see the color and shape of a tree. It is even possible, it is not a tree...The label is fictitious even if it 'attempts' to accurately describe a combination of raw experiences.
A label is a thought. There is no difference between a label and a thought, they are one and the same thing. Thoughts/labels are known phenomena just as sound, sensation, taste, smell and colour are known. As I have said, several times - thought either points to AE or it points to thoughts about thought.

The thought ‘tree’ itself is not fictitious. It is an arising thought and is AE of thought. You are aware of it as it arises…just as you are aware of smell, taste, sound, sensation and colour as they arise. However, what does the thought ‘tree’ point to? Does it point to AE or does it point to thoughts about something called a tree? I will give you the breakdown of what a tree actually IS. Please read it carefully.

The thought-label ‘tree’ is AE of thought and not AE of a tree
Colour labelled ‘tree’ is AE of colour and not AE of a tree
Sensation labelled ‘tree’ is AE of sensation and not AE of a tree
Smell labelled ‘tree’ is AE of smell and not AE of a tree
Thoughts about ‘tree’ (the content of the thought ‘tree’) is just more thought and is AE of thought and not AE of a tree.

So what is found as direct actual experience (what is actually known) is:-

Thought-label + colour + sensation + smell + thoughts ABOUT tree. However, a tree is not known. A tree cannot be found in direct actual experience.
Is this clear?

Just break down objects, emotions and daily activi
ties into these categories (which are all actual experience) and report back how you go, giving some examples please
Short example: I look at phone, see color, shape, sub shapes, sub colors, hear a ring....thought/label it 'phone'
I would really like you to break down this example in the same way that I gave you the ‘coffee’ example. The reason being, is that it writes it out clearly, which is for your benefit…so that you begin to see clearly how to break things down to what actually IS, as opposed to what thought says is.

You have said yourself that you are blurring the distinction of the raw experience that make up a chair with the label, so, I am showing you a way to get passed the blurring and to become clear. So that when the thought 'chair' arises you can recognise it as AE of thought that overlays AE of colour. You then begin to see that the thought arises, unbidden, but you can still just see that what thought is calling a 'chair' is simply AE of colour. So your direct actual experience in that moment is thought + colour.

Please do another couple days of the following exercise, and give me a few examples of the breakdowns.

So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:

Seeing a cup, simply= colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell,
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation.
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thoughts about drinking the coffee, simply = thought
Expanded example: I look at apple, see red, some roundness, notice the red is not totally solid, it is multiple shades of red. I take a bite, notice the sensation of the bite's resistance, then notice the resistance of the bite is not the same. That resistance gets easier to bite at a certain point. I focus on the smell and taste again. At first the taste was a general sweetness, then I notice hints of sour, honey and citrus. When I focus on each experience, it is clear there is a timeline / continuum from a broad sensation experience to more detailed dynamically changing nuances of the experience. Depends upon focus.
This is nothing more than a thought story...fiction. It has nothing to do with actually LOOKING at the raw experiences being experienced. It has nothing to do with the simplicity of LOOKING at your direct actual experience, which is simply sound, colour, taste, sensation, smell and the noticing of thought - and then, from this perspective, write what you actually experience.

Kay

PS: The following was written by a former seeker who came to the forum to explore the idea of the seeming separate self and this is what he noted and shared:-

To see This, first, you must be 100% committed to seeing it. It can’t be a nice idea, an intellectual curiosity. You have got to pursue this as if you have no other choice.

Second, you must be open with a willingness to set aside your current beliefs about how things are and engage in rigorous inquiry. No-one can give this to you.

Your beliefs might rush in saying, “Yeah, but…”, “OK, but what about…?”, “I was taught that…”, “My other teacher or the book I read said…” All this must be pushed aside and sometimes quite aggressively.

Third, you must engage in active listening. Listen carefully to the words your guide is using. Be sure you are clear on the context within which the words are being used. Sometimes, when you review what was asked or said, you realize that what you thought you heard versus what was actually said are two different things.

Fourth, this ties in with number 2… practical application… You can’t just sit and ponder, you must apply the ideas to your life; see them in action. Do the work.

Fifth, be 100% honest with your guide and with yourself. You can’t cheat your way through this. Wherever you are in your understanding or lack thereof is fine, but your guide can’t help you if you are withholding. Withholding is unfair both to the guide and yourself.
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
https://freedomalreadyis.com/

User avatar
swendell
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:03 am

Re: My question

Postby swendell » Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:37 pm

Do you or have you ever meditated?
YES
Thought-label + colour + sensation + smell + thoughts ABOUT tree. However, a tree is not known. A tree cannot be found in direct actual experience. Is this clear?
I am trying, guess I am not getting subtle distinctions yet and as a result not understanding exactly what you are asking. I feel like I grasp a concept, then when you introduce in your language another distinction to notice, I can misinterpret your intention. I think I was expressing 'fictitious' from a different perspective, not the perspective you were asking about. I was noticing that mind was fictitiously expanding upon experience to apply a label "tree". I now think you were asking to see that the thought about the tree is real, it was experienced, nothing more. It does not matter that thought accurately represents anything. That is not the 'fictitious' perspective you were asking about. It does not matter that the tree exists physically. And you can not actually experience the label / concept 'Tree' but you can experience there was a thought 'tree' and wow, that is subtle. In short, no 'thing' is experienced or known, only thoughts and sensations.

There was additional confusion about content of thought. I was associating that with fictitious somehow. The initial thought 'Tree' is a thought actually experienced. "This is a tall tree" is another thought about that first thought forming layers of thought which is also actually experienced. When my mind starts down the path of real vs fictitious thought; it confused the exercise and me.

Please do another couple days of the following exercise, and give me a few examples of the breakdowns.
Please help redirect me on this example before I go too far off the path with regard to content in this exercise:
When holding pen
See pen = see color, shape, length and texture = AE of seeing
Thought about color (purple) = AE of thought
Thought about shape (tubular) = AE of thought
Thought about length (4") = AE of thought
Thought about texture (looks smooth) = AE of thought
Touch pen = sensation = AE of sensation
Thought about texture (feels smooth) = AE of thought
Content of thought in (parenthesis)

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5963
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: My question

Postby forgetmenot » Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:50 am

Hi Swendell,

I wasn't sure if you were continuing, as I hadn't heard from you. Glad to see that you are.
Do you or have you ever meditated?
YES
Great! This will be of use when we start to look at the nature of thought and learning to observe all thoughts as they arise.
Thought-label + colour + sensation + smell + thoughts ABOUT tree. However, a tree is not known. A tree cannot be found in direct actual experience. Is this clear?
I now think you were asking to see that the thought about the tree is real, it was experienced, nothing more. It does not matter that thought accurately represents anything.
We are distinguishing between actual experience and interpretation by thought of actual experience. So thoughts can either point to AE or to thoughts about thought.

If you go back to the sunrise example I gave you…it distinguishes between thoughts pointing to AE and thoughts pointing to just thought ie what’s imaginary and what actual experience is appearing, in the current moment.

If you saw a spectacular ‘sunrise’ yesterday, the colours labelled as ‘sunrise’ are not your direct actual experience as you presently find it. So it is a thought story of an apparent ‘sunrise’ (imagination) that isn’t actually there. Thoughts are simply pointing to thoughts about thought.

If however, the colours labelled spectacular ‘sunrise’ is experience as you presently find it (ie now), then thought is pointing to actual experience as you presently find it (ie your direct actual experience). In other words the colours that thought is referring to as a 'sunrise' is what is actually appearing now. Thought either points to actual experience as you presently find it...or they point to thoughts about thought. In this case, as you are directly experiencing the colour labelled as ‘sunrise’, then thought is pointing to AE in the moment. It’s not that the sunrise is something real, it’s just that in the current moment, the word ‘sunrise’ is pointing directly to your actual experience of colour.

Is this clear?
That is not the 'fictitious' perspective you were asking about. It does not matter that the tree exists physically. And you can not actually experience the label / concept 'Tree' but you can experience there was a thought 'tree' and wow, that is subtle. In short, no 'thing' is experienced or known, only thoughts and sensations.
Yes…nothing but AE is known.
The tree doesn’t actually exist physically. A tree cannot be found as actual experience. All that is known is colour + sensation + smell + thought with an arising label ‘tree’. Without thought, it cannot possibly be known that the culmination of those raw experiences is that of a tree.
There was additional confusion about content of thought. I was associating that with fictitious somehow. The initial thought 'Tree' is a thought actually experienced. "This is a tall tree" is another thought about that first thought forming layers of thought which is also actually experienced. When my mind starts down the path of real vs fictitious thought; it confused the exercise and me.
The thought ‘tree’ and the thought “this is a tall tree” are actual experience. You experience these thoughts…you are aware of them. However, the content of those thoughts, what they point to is fictitious.

Thought ‘tree’ is AE of thought only and nothing else. The meaning, the interpretation of what the word ‘tree’ means is the content of that thought ‘tree’ and is fictitious.

How can meaning be given to something that is, in reality, the AE of colour only?
Colour labelled as ‘tree’ is AE of colour and NOT AE of a tree.
So, the meaning/interpretation/stories of colour labelled as ‘tree’ are all thought stories ABOUT the AE of colour.
Without those thought stories…all there is, is colour.

Does colour labelled as ‘tree’ suggest in any way that it is a tree? Or do arising thoughts suggest that the colour is something called a tree?

Does the colour suggest in any way that it knows anything about height, texture, width, what type of tree it is, where it grows, if it sheds its leaves or not etc?

Without thought overlaying AE of colour with the label and those stories…this cannot possibly be known. All that is experienced is colour + thought.

This is a tall tree is AE of thought only
The ensuing thought of what that means, the interpretation of what that thought means is the content of that thought and is fictitious.

Can you find “a tall tree” in actual experience?
What does the word ‘tall’ point to? Does it point to colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation or thought?

Please help redirect me on this example before I go too far off the path with regard to content in this exercise:
When holding pen
See pen = see color, shape, length and texture = AE of seeing
Seeing pen, simply = colour, FULLSTOP

When you look at colour labelled ‘pen’, does the colour alone suggest in any way that is has a shape, length or texture…or does thought suggest this? It’s thought, and therefore has nothing to do with AE of colour. They are thoughts about something called a ‘pen’ and are AE of thought only.

Can a pen be found as actual experience?

The thought 'pen' in this instance is pointing to your direct actual experience of colour labelled as 'pen', as it is your current moment experience, but what a pen is and does is the content of thought 'pen' and is story, fiction.
Is this clear?

Thought about color (purple) = AE of thought
Yes! The label ‘purple’ is AE of thought.
In this instance, the label ‘purple’ is pointing to your direct actual experience of colour, in this current moment.
The thoughts about the colour ‘purple ie its hue, are AE of thought and not AE of colour, and are a story – fiction.
Thought about shape (tubular) = AE of thought
Yes! What the word ‘tubular’ refers to (points to) cannot be found as actual experience and points to nothing but story, fiction ie thoughts about thought and is AE of thought only.
Thought about length (4") = AE of thought
Yes! What the word ‘length’ and what 4” refers to (the content of the word ‘length’ and 4") cannot be found as actual experience and points to nothing but thought story, fiction.
Thought about texture (looks smooth) = AE of thought
Yes! What the word ‘texture’ refers to cannot be found as actual experience and points to nothing but story, fiction. Nor can what the thought ‘looks smooth’ refers to, be found as actual experience, other than that of AE of thought.
Touch pen = sensation = AE of sensation
Yes! Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a pen? Can a ‘pen’ actually be found as actual experience?

Thought about texture (feels smooth) = AE of thought
Yes, sensation labelled as ‘texture’ is AE of thought.

Can ‘texture’ be found in actual experience, other than that of thought? Can 'texture' be found as colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound...or only as AE of thought


So I would like you to provide me a few more examples please.


Providing you with another example to help you out.

Seeing a dog, simply= colour
Smelling a dog, simply = smell,
Feeling the fur of a dog, simply = sensation.
Hearing a dog barking, simply = sound
Thoughts about taking the dog for a walk, simply = thought

So what is known is colour + smell + sensation + sound + thoughts, they are actual experience, however a dog cannot be found as actual experience and is simply AE of thought and is a story that overlays the raw experience listed.

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

User avatar
swendell
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:03 am

Re: My question

Postby swendell » Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:12 pm

Is this clear?
Partially, but lets dig into the subtle initial layer that occurs so fast and creates a little confusion. If I see "now" the sunrise; I have thoughts about that Actual Experience. Right now, that actual visual experience includes (before I start labeling) colors (without names) and areas having dimensions/size (again without a name for the shape or length). Am I correct that all I just mentioned is thought pointing to the AE? Then when I start saying, "ten feet red square", that is additional thought pointing the initial thought of the actual experience, correct?
I really don't want to go much further without confirmation I am clear in this distinction.
Does colour labelled as ‘tree’ suggest in any way that it is a tree? Or do arising thoughts suggest that the colour is something called a tree?
No, subsequent arising thoughts about the visual experience contains which contain label tree is fictitious.
Does the colour suggest in any way that it knows anything about height, texture, width, what type of tree it is, where it grows, if it sheds its leaves or not etc?
Humm, Generally NO but this bleeds into my fist response above where I explain I am getting confused in subtle distinction. The actual direct visual experience contains colors, shapes, areas... before we apply labels and distinctions. So I want to make certain I understand the question. If you are asking if a color literally knows about any thing, I would have to honestly answer, I doubt it but I don't know anything about what color really is or experiences to answer on its behalf.
Can you find “a tall tree” in actual experience?
I can not find that label in the actual visual experience
What does the word ‘tall’ point to? Does it point to colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation or thought?
The "tall" Label is a subsequent thought about the initial thought (about the direct visual experience)
Can a pen be found as actual experience?
The thought 'pen' in this instance is pointing to your direct actual experience of colour labelled as 'pen', as it is your current moment experience, but what a pen is and does is the content of thought 'pen' and is story, fiction.
Is this clear?
"Pen" is a subsequent thought about the initial thought (about a direct visual experience). My actual experience is a thought that contains the fictitious story label "pen".
Maybe this is all about the definition of color, maybe language is the obstacle? Do we have a common meaning /assumption? So let me start with my definitions to see if language was contributing to confusion. I have senses, vision and hearing. In the case of vision, I have a visual experience (before any labels). That direct visual experience in the moment has a variety of aspects which can subsequently be labeled with other thoughts. This raw visual experience can not be easily described with words but does contain experience we 'know' as colors in areas with boundaries. After that knowing, the mind may step in to say that boundary is spherical or red or ... Same with sound, the direct experience has a knowing of amplitude and pitch well before we label them. So I would have to say, based upon my definitions, Yes, if color = direct raw visual experience; it does suggest shape. But definitely not a label for that shape like sphere...
Touch pen = sensation = AE of sensation
Yes! Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a pen? Can a ‘pen’ actually be found as actual experience?
The sensation alone is a known actual experience. "Pen" is a subsequent thought about an initial thought (about the direct sense experience)
Can ‘texture’ be found in actual experience, other than that of thought? Can 'texture' be found as colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound...or only as AE of thought
The label "texture" is a subsequent thought about the initial thought (about the direct sense experience)

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5963
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: My question

Postby forgetmenot » Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:32 am

Hello Scott,
Is this clear?
Partially, but lets dig into the subtle initial layer that occurs so fast and creates a little confusion. If I see "now" the sunrise; I have thoughts about that Actual Experience. Right now, that actual visual experience includes (before I start labeling) colors (without names) and areas having dimensions/size (again without a name for the shape or length).
There is no such thing as shapes or areas with dimensions and size. Without thought overlaying the raw experience of colour with these thoughts about shapes, dimensions and sizes, they would not be, and are not known as actual experience, other than that of thought only. Seeing and colour are one and the same. There is NO separation.

What do the words shapes, dimension and size point to? They point to AE of thought only. Can you find these as anything other than AE of thought? The colour itself does not suggest in any way that it has a shape, dimension or size…it is thought that suggests this.
Am I correct that all I just mentioned is thought pointing to the AE? Then when I start saying, "ten feet red square", that is additional thought pointing the initial thought of the actual experience, correct?
No. "Ten feet red square” is the initial thought...because that thought is overlaying the actual experience of colour that is being seen in the moment. Any subsequent thoughts about the 'ten feet red square' are subsequent thoughts... content of that initial thought.

There are no shapes, sizes or dimensions in actual experience. The thought 'red' points to AE of colour, and colour is all that is known.
The rest of the thought "ten feet square" is AE of thought. Thought is describing the colour as a something, as an object and it is a story...fiction. Colours are NOT objects.

So a 'ten feet red square' cannot be found in actual experience. All that is known, all that is actually experienced is colour + thought.
Can you see this?

Does colour labelled as ‘tree’ suggest in any way that it is a tree? Or do arising thoughts suggest that the colour is something called a tree?
No, subsequent arising thoughts about the visual experience contains which contain label tree is fictitious.
Yes, ‘tree’ is the thought that overlays the raw experience of colour. Any other subsequent thoughts about a 'tree' is the thought content of that thought.
Does the colour suggest in any way that it knows anything about height, texture, width, what type of tree it is, where it grows, if it sheds its leaves or not etc?
Humm, Generally NO but this bleeds into my fist response above where I explain I am getting confused in subtle distinction. The actual direct visual experience contains colors, shapes, areas... before we apply labels and distinctions.


No. the direct visual experience is colour ONLY. The raw experience is colour, nothing else. That’s how simple this is. What is seemingly seen, what thought is defining as an object, is simply AE of colour…nothing more. That’s it.

The distinction of shapes and areas has nothing to do with the AE of colour. They are AE of thought…as they are trying to describe something that is indescribable.
So I want to make certain I understand the question. If you are asking if a color literally knows about any thing, I would have to honestly answer, I doubt it but I don't know anything about what color really is or experiences to answer on its behalf.
LOOK instead of saying you doubt it. I’m not interested in whether or not you think colour has its own stand alone Consciousness. What I am wanting you to do is to LOOK at your direct actual experience and tell me from that perspective what is experienced. I am only interested in you LOOKING at your direct raw experience of colour, sound, taste, smell, sensation and face value of thought and tell me what the experience actually is.

I want you to LOOK at your direct actual experience and tell me if the colour you are seeing (ie labelled as a 'tree') suggests in any way that it has height, texture, width, what type of tree it is, where it grows, if it sheds its leaves or not etc? Without thought, how would this be known?

The idea of trees shedding their leaves...is just that, an idea! A thought story...a fiction. What is actually experienced is the movement of colour, which thought overlays with the story of it being a tree shedding its leaves.
Can you find “a tall tree” in actual experience?
I can not find that label in the actual visual experience
I am not asking if you can find the label ‘tall tree’ as your visual experience. I am asking you if you can find an actual object labelled as ‘tall tree’ in your direct actual experience.
What does the word ‘tall’ point to? Does it point to colour, sound, smell, taste, sensation or thought?
The "tall" Label is a subsequent thought about the initial thought (about the direct visual experience)
It seems you are using the words sound, colour, smell, taste, sensation, thought that are used to point actual experience as being the initial thought. And that is not it. We have to use some words to be able to point to what IS. I am wanting you to LOOKat what thought labels colour as, because it is those thoughts that defines colours as object. Objects are not found as actual experience. This is what I am trying to get you to see!

If you are looking at a tree and say that this is ' AE of colour'...that is not the initial thought. The initial thought is 'this is a tree'. We are looking at how thought creates objects that seem to be all separate things, including the me! I am trying to show you how the idea of separation comes about. It will all start to make sense as we move through this exploration. But we aren't going to get anywhere if you keep wanting to put your own spin on what is being pointed to.
Can a pen be found as actual experience?
The thought 'pen' in this instance is pointing to your direct actual experience of colour labelled as 'pen', as it is your current moment experience, but what a pen is and does is the content of thought 'pen' and is story, fiction.
Is this clear?
"Pen" is a subsequent thought about the initial thought (about a direct visual experience). My actual experience is a thought that contains the fictitious story label "pen".
'Pen' is NOT the subsequent thought. ‘Pen’ is the initial thought that overlays the raw experience of the colour seen. The label ‘pen’ or ‘this is a pen’ is THE initial thought! Any further thoughts about the pen are the subsequent thoughts, including texture, shape, length, weight etc...they are all AE of thought and nothing else.
Is this clear?


Just like you look at your computer screen. The initial thought is ‘computer screen’ which overlays the actual experience of colour! The subsequent thoughts about the ‘computer screen’ are the content of that thought.
Maybe this is all about the definition of color, maybe language is the obstacle? Do we have a common meaning /assumption? So let me start with my definitions to see Yes, if color = direct raw visual experience; it does suggest shape. But definitely not a label for that shape like sphere...
Colours DO NOT suggest shapes. Thoughts do. Shapes are different shades of colour. Without a thought saying that the colour is round, square, rectangular…..you would have no idea that this is what colour is. If you never learned language…you would have no idea about shapes, dimensions or size, all you would know is that you are seeing something which we, for the time being, are calling ‘colour’. Why? Because without using the labels colour, sound, sensation, taste, smell and thought, I certainly wouldn’t be able to point to what actually IS, and you wouldn’t be able to see your way through your beliefs.

There are NO objects in actual experience. What I am trying to get you to see is that without those thoughts, all there is, is colour. It is thought that divides Consciousness into many different things…and it is through this exploration that, by LOOKING, you will get to see that there is no such thing as separation. The AE of colour has nothing to do with shape, depth, dimension, size or anything else. We are simply seeing COLOUR, just like this picture….JUST COLOUR.

Image

Slowly look around the room you are in and watch your thoughts name the objects. Watch how thought automatically labels them as chair, table, window, door, wall, floor, rug, TV remote, computer, pot plant, keyboard etc. They are all thoughts (labels) that are given (overlay) the raw experience of colour. Thoughts is defining colour as these things, as these objects.
Report back what you noticed.

Touch pen = sensation = AE of sensation
Yes! Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a pen? Can a ‘pen’ actually be found as actual experience?
The sensation alone is a known actual experience. "Pen" is a subsequent thought about an initial thought (about the direct sense experience)
You are complicating something that is so simple. You see an apparent object. The object has a label. Whenever we see that particular object, the label is attached to it. That is what we are looking at. There are no other initial thoughts. You see colour and the thought ‘bird’ is attached to that. That IS the initial thought. Every other thought about the bird are subsequent thoughts.

So colour labelled ‘bird is seen. But a bird is NOT known in actual experience. All that is known is colour + thoughts. Thought overlays the colour with a label ‘bird’ + thoughts about birds…when in actual experience all there is, is colour.
Is this clear?

Can ‘texture’ be found in actual experience, other than that of thought? Can 'texture' be found as colour, taste, smell, sensation or sound...or only as AE of thought
The label "texture" is a subsequent thought about the initial thought (about the direct sense experience)
And what was the direct sense experience exactly?
We are looking at what thought is labelling that direct sense experience. And I’m not referring to the labels of colour, sound, sensation, smell, taste or thought. I am referring to the label that thought gave the seeming object…in other words, the label that thought gave the colour. In this case a ‘pen’.

So the word 'texture' is a subsequent thought about the thought 'pen'. Colour does NOT have texture. Texture is a word thought uses to describe colour as a means to make it a separate stand alone object ie separation. But the raw experience of colour does not have texture. Texture, when LOOKED at is the actual experience of sensation and has nothing to do with colour.
Can you see this?


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

User avatar
swendell
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:03 am

Re: My question

Postby swendell » Sat May 01, 2021 4:16 pm

Kay,

Wow a lot here, so I will chip away at this, one hour at a time. And as an agile process, chunking into smaller pieces is wise to spend less time on some tangent.
Can you see this?
Sorry, I know it is frustrating for both us but we are supposed to be honest here and my direct experience hearing (so far) is a sound that has unique aspects/sounds. My visual experience has one or more colors/aspects taking more or less space in my visual experience. The concept of that colored space having area boundaries is part of that direct visual experience, just as hearing is direct experience of various aspects/pitch.

The AE of thought (for me) starts when I subsequently conceptualize in thought "shape" and it's contents (circle), including the words, shape, dimension and size. That conceptualization in mind does create fictitious objects that don't exist, the mind is trying to describe the indescribable. Prior to that, it is pure experience. Where we seem to differ, is I claim that pure experience can have aspects to it. The direct raw experience of color is not the same every time I see. I am a lost cause )=: And I do agree that, "The colour itself does not suggest in any way that it has a shape, dimension or size…it is thought that suggests this."
I want you to LOOK at your direct actual experience and tell me if the colour you are seeing (ie labelled as a 'tree') suggests in any way that it has height, texture, width, what type of tree it is, where it grows, if it sheds its leaves or not etc? Without thought, how would this be known?
I agree, none of this would be known but I am pretty sure this is not where we seem to differ. I am just saying every time I open my eyes, that direct visual experience of color as you say differs. And those different aspects is what I have been expressing as possible a communication and/or understanding difference between us. We definitely agree that those different aspects conceptualized as shapes, heights, etc are just the mind working to objectify the different aspects in an attempt to know what can not be known.
I am not asking if you can find the label ‘tall tree’ as your visual experience. I am asking you if you can find an actual object labelled as ‘tall tree’ in your direct actual experience.
NO, the direct actual experience is color. Subsequent thoughts about that are different such as; there is a shape, color, texture and combining them forms another fictitious object layer called "tree"...

More to come...

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5963
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: My question

Postby forgetmenot » Sun May 02, 2021 12:41 am

Hello Scott,

I am honestly not interested in whether you agree to what is being pointed at or not. I have guided many people to realisation and I certainly don't question the methodology used, nor an I prepared to compromise it. The bottom line is, do you want to realise that you are not the separate self you thought yourself to be, or do you wish to argue and hold onto ideas and beliefs that reaffirm what you think you are? As I said at the beginning, this exploration isn't a debate, a discussion or an argument. When you signed up for LU, you expressed that on the scale of 1 to 10 that you are a 10 on the willingness scale to question any currently held beliefs...and it seems that this is not the case.

I have seen through the separate self. My life is one of peace, lightness and ease. I am not guiding here for my benefit, nor am I here to convince you of anything, and I am not going to waste my time or your time doing so. There is nothing to be convinced of when we actually start to LOOK. However, if you are not really interested in exploring with an open mind, but more interested in trying to sell me your point of view...this is where you and I part ways. I will leave you with the following link and wish you the best on your journey. If and when you decide that you are actually ready to look, because you actually have a burning desire to have the realisation that you are not the self you thought yourself to be, more so than your own thoughts and points of view, let me know and we can continue.

http://www.liberationunleashed.com/reso ... ar-seeker/

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

User avatar
swendell
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:03 am

Thank you and good bye...

Postby swendell » Sun May 02, 2021 3:10 pm

Thank you for your time. I am grateful for all you have done. I feel we have made much progress unraveling a lot in the month we worked together. This includes dropping concern about non-duality and 'what' is aware as well as distinguishing between most layers of thought.

When I look, I honestly tell you what I see, and because I am not seeing the raw experience as I am supposed to; I naturally explain in more detail so you can see where I missed the mark and let me know where. It is not about agreeing or disagreeing or selling you my point of view; it is just about looking and being honest with my responses. And clearly, I want to realize I am not the separate self which is why I am spending so much time on this. I have been questioning beliefs and sometimes I grasp it and other times I do not. You told me,
"Learning to see things differently ie learning to LOOK instead of thinking takes time and can become very frustrating because we are so used of thinking rather than LOOKING at what actually is.".
So I think the last and deepest layer I just can't grasp. When I look at (raw visual experience) and I see just color having various aspects, that experience is never the same. Those different aspects experienced are later conceptualized by my mind as shape and texture. I guess this response told you, I just was not looking properly and we were not making progress.

I guess I just do not see what I am supposed to and it has become a block. I look and look and see the same thing and nothing changes and there is no more guidance. So I am overcomplicating it, I am still thinking or something but without direction I can understand, I am not sure what to do next.

Thank you again, and be well,
Scott

User avatar
forgetmenot
Posts: 5963
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:07 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: My question

Postby forgetmenot » Mon May 03, 2021 12:15 am

Hello Scott,
So I think the last and deepest layer I just can't grasp. When I look at (raw visual experience) and I see just color having various aspects, that experience is never the same. Those different aspects experienced are later conceptualized by my mind as shape and texture. I guess this response told you, I just was not looking properly and we were not making progress.
The mind will continue to conceptualise raw experience. That isn't going to change. We need to be able to live in this world and concepts are needed in order to do that. Of course, experience changes, but even so, we can still become aware of raw experience as it appears, no matter how or what it is SEEMINGLY appearing as. We are simply looking at colour, and not the story about the colour. However, it is not difficult to look at something and just notice that it is colour, and then notice that thought is conceptualising colour into an object with size, texture, noun, description, purpose, meaning etc. That is all I wanted you to see. Nothing more. I am not asking you to NOT see shape, dimension or size...I am asking you to notice these thoughts, but just notice that what is being seen is simply the actual experience of colour. I am not asking your mind to stop verbalising what it is verbalising about raw experience...that would be an exercise in futility.

You look at a tree...just see the colour. Period. What the colour is ie shape, size, texture, description is just thought. It is the conceptualisation of colour that makes us believe that colour is an object and that there is a subject/object split. I would suggest you read your thread from the very beginning very carefully and redo the exercises AE exercises to see if that gives you any clearer insights...because there is no way of pointing to what IS, other than to just work with the raw experience and to notice the thoughts about the raw experience...that is why we started with an exercise using sound. Look out your window and notice the world is a world of colour...without thought that is all that is seen, AE of colour.

Actually don't read your entire thread. Read from the beginning and redo the sound exercise we did and then reread and redo the apple exercise. Let me know how you get on and what you noticed etc.

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