The Gate

Hey Carolyn.....checking in to see how you are going with rereading your thread and redoing the exercises?

Love, Kay
Xx

Hi Kay
Thanks for checking in on me. I thought of you when I read about that cyclone, though I know Australia is a big country. I used to have a Cuban friend who got really worried about me whenever anything happened anywhere in the US. Still -- you're ok, right?
I'm still working my way along through the binder, about a quarter of the way through, taking it slow and making sure to look. It is definitely making more sense the second time through!
Love
Carolyn

Hey Carolyn....thank you for thinking of me! Yes, the cyclone hit further up north, although we got the rain depression the day after which caused a lot of flooding....but me and mine are safe. :)

Good to hear that everything makes more sense the second time round. If you aren't sure about anything...just pose the question here and we can look at it.

Love, Kay
xx

Hi Kay,
Just to let you know that I'm still working through our "book." It's been great to go through that material again. Not finished yet, however.
The only sticking point I come to is the existence of objects. By that do you mean that an apple doesn't exist because the thoughts ABOUT the apple aren't AE? Or are you saying that objects as physical don't exist? There were some pointers about gaps not existing and therefore objects not existing. Does that mean that the field is seamless and therefore no discrete object can exist?
love,
Carolyn

Hi Carolyn,

The only sticking point I come to is the existence of objects. By that do you mean that an apple doesn't exist because the thoughts ABOUT the apple aren't AE? Or are you saying that objects as physical don't exist? There were some pointers about gaps not existing and therefore objects not existing.

The thoughts about an apple is the actual experience of thought, however is there really an apple? The content of thought is just more thought. The thoughts that describe an apple are just more thought.

So, an apple is colour + sensation (when touching apple), smell, taste, sound (crunching apple sound and chewing sound) and label ‘apple’ and thoughts about and apple.

To make it clearer:

The label ‘apple’ is 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 taste labelled ‘apple’ is AE of taste and not the AE of an apple
The smell labelled ‘apple’ is AE of smell and not the AE of an apple
The sensation ‘touching apple’ is AE of sensation and not the AE of an apple
The sound labelled ‘chewing apple or apple crunch’ is AE of sound and not the AE of an apple.

Do you know an 'apple'?
You know taste 'of an apple'.
You know colour 'of an apple'.
You know sensation 'of an apple'
You know smell 'of an apple'
You know the 'thought of an apple'.
But do you know an apple?

Does that mean that the field is seamless and therefore no discrete object can exist?

Yes…there are no object…there is just AE of colour.

Look at this doodle. It looks like there are a lot of things?




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

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

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

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

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

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


Love, Kay
xx

Hi Kay
Thank you for this lovely post. I'll print it out and add it to the book. Still making my way slowly along. By the way, I shared the conversation with a dear friend-- hope that's ok-- and she said that all you say makes perfect sense to her. Don't know why I am so slow...
Love
Carolyn

Hey Carolyn,

What do you expect will happen when you see? What do you think it will/should look like or feel like?

Love, Kay
xx

PS: The forum is public, so anyone can read the threads, so no problem you sharing with your friend :)

Hi Kay--
So you're saying that anyone can read this conversation between us? Hmm... I thought it was private.

I don't expect anything in particular to happen when I "see." I just wish the looking-- at least certain aspects of the looking-- were easier. It feels pretty natural to look at the body and see how fragmentary and "unreal" that is and to even have some sense of that. It's when I look at objects and try to see seamless color etc. that it feels like a big effort. I feel like I'm forcing myself to see a certain way, trying to talk myself into something.

Whereas for my friend, it all made perfect sense.

love,
Carolyn

I don't expect anything in particular to happen when I "see." I just wish the looking-- at least certain aspects of the looking-- were easier. It feels pretty natural to look at the body and see how fragmentary and "unreal" that is and to even have some sense of that. It's when I look at objects and try to see seamless color etc. that it feels like a big effort. I feel like I'm forcing myself to see a certain way, trying to talk myself into something.

It may have made perfect sense to your friend..that doesn't mean they are seeing seamless colour! So, yes there is an expectation that you won't see colour divided into objects and that all that will be seen is seamless colour! Or that thoughts won't appear to divide colour into objects! Why would that change? If you look around the room that you are now sitting in and ignore all labels...all there is, is colour. What more are you expecting to see, that somehow the computer merges into the computer desk and the computer desk merges into the floor and the floor merges into what exactly?

There are NOT many colours...there is just COLOUR which thought divides into colourS. Drop all the thoughts about different colours and all that is appearing is colour.

Love, Kay
xx

Hi Kay
If through this looking nothing changes, what is the point of it?
Love
Carolyn

Hi Carolyn,

What exactly is it that wants things to change?

Love, Kay
xx

Hi Kay
It's not necessarily wanting things to change. Just wondering what the relationship is between seeing seamless color and no self.
Love
Carolyn

Hi Carolyn,

It's to see that there is no separation....not even in colour...that there are not many different colours which make up many different objects, and that there is no subject/object split...there is just THIS.

Love, Kay
xx

Ok That makes sense Thank you, Kay.
Love
Carolyn

Hi Kay
Just checking in to let you know I'm still exploring. Our conversation was so deep and rich-- there's so much!
Love
Carolyn