Hi Kay, good morning to you.
Sit in a chair somewhere quiet and take in a couple of deep breaths to settle the dust and start to notice just the ‘body’, the chair, floor, rugs, furniture and walls. Without thought, all there is, is colour which thought then labels as clothes, or body, chair, wall etc (we are only looking at colour for this exercise).
Now look carefully.
1. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘body’ and the colour labelled ‘chair’ be found?
No.
2. Is there a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘chair’ and the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’?
No.
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniturel’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour
No space, only color. (I understood this space question better this time).
3. Can a dividing line between the colour labelled ‘floor/rug’ and colour labelled ‘furniturel’ be found? Is there ‘space’ between ‘floor/rug’ and the ‘furniture’ or is there just simply colour
No space, just color.
Is there an actual dividing line between any of these “colourS” or are they just simply seamless colour which thought divides into ‘things’ and further divides in into many different colourS and labels them as pink, black, yellow, green etc?
I see this now... no line, border or dividing line, just color.
Is there such a thing as “space” or “distance”?
This is a good comparison, space can be the space of knowing, because theres no borders, just knowing. And no distance also. Distance is more clear to see what you mean. Space would be where everything 'appears'.
Is there an actual body/you sitting in a chair, or all there is, is colour?
Just color, thanks for this.
f it is AE of colour…where is the space?
Exactly.... thank you. No space, only color.
Is there really a door and a wall, or is there just colour?
Again, thank you. Yes, without going to thought, just color...
I gave you the following exercise already…but it is a good time to do it again. It is a good idea to go back and read what we have already done. We cover a lot in this exploration and don't retain it all. So go back and start rereading your thread and redo exercises you feel a desire to redo.
Actually Ive done this a bit.... was thinking in writing down the different exercises so I could have then available to do at other times. Ill re-read the exploration from the start, when the opportunity presents itself (this color body has to work to make money also lol). But yes, Ive thought about it. So much valuable information and your responses in blue too.
----
Notice that when you go by direct visual experience alone, the way the tree is distinguished from the sky is by colour only. The ‘border’ or the ‘dividing line’ between the tree and the sky is just a sudden change in colour.
Normally we believe that shadow implies depth. But shadow is just a darker shade of colour. When going with seeing only, there is nothing else in the image about shadow than the difference in colour from the surrounding areas.
And what about light? Light is the same as shadow. Just a change in colour, nothing else.
Look at the tree. There are some changes in colour labelled ‘darker’ or ‘lighter’, which thought implies as differences in depth and distance, but actually they are just some changes in colour.
Can depth actually be experienced?
Is there really a 3 dimension or only 2?
To be honest, doing this exercise (which I did not only with a tree, but the surroundings while driving around in the car) is easier looking at the tree image on the computer. Its easier to see it as a flat image. Going 'live', walking around, its not that easy to disconnect the conditioning of the mind to say theres just a flat 2d image of color. So if I dont go to thought, just standing looking a tree, I can say its a 2D, only color. But then the tree moves with the wind, and now its more difficulty to say its 2D. Same if Im driving the car. I know AE is only color, but to say its 2D, I would be lying if I said that was the case.
Look at the white colour labelled ‘clouds’. Are some actually closer to the tree, while others are further away from the tree?
Is the tree closer than the clouds?
No.
Can ‘closer’ and ‘far’ be experienced at all?
No, Ive answered this one before and I can see that is the case.
Is there a foreground or a background?
No
Is there an experience of ‘tree’ apart from colour?
No
We normally believe that colour is coming from the independent object (tree).
But is there really an object hiding somewhere behind the colour, or an object which is ‘emitting’ the colour?
Is there the experience of a physical object (tree) behind the colour, or that is independent of colour?
Without going to thought, no. Only color. Thats the only AE.
For the last several posts, we have been looking at the these ideas of separation ie seer/seeing, hearer/hearing. Have you found any division at all?
No division.
Have you found a seer of the seeing? A hearer of the hearing?
No, this is clear.
If not then how can Knowing know itself as these?
It was probably thought trying to explain this. Also, sometimes the language barrier gets in the way.
You are aware of the story ABOUT seeing, hearing, smelling…but where are the actual divisions?
No divisions, no limits ot boundary's. This has been seen clearly.
Where can an entity be found that is seeing, hearing, smelling etc?
No entity to be found.
I don't want you to THINK you know what I mean...I want you to LOOK and see what is being pointed at.
Without thought, those divisions wouldn’t exist either. Thought divides Knowing/experience/THIS in to sound AND thought AND smell AND colour AND taste AND sensation. There is only soundthoughtsmellcolourtastesensation. NO division, no labels.
Ok
If you look at a table, and for the sake of this experiment, let’s say it is the colour brown. Now totally ignore the label ‘table’ and you are then left with the label ‘brown’. Totally ignore the label ‘brown’ and you are left with the label ‘colour’. Now ignore the label ‘colour’ and what are you left with, what remains...what is here and always IS?
Knowing
The AE of ears = thought. Though points to colour and labels it ‘ears’. Colour is known, are ears?
Yes, I answered this one from the perspective if I was looking at the ears, so I would see color. But without looking, theres just thought.
So ears being AE of thought….can they hear? Can colour hear?
No and no lol. Theres no one or thing that hears, theres hearing.
The idea of ears and what they are and do etc are known…but are ears actually known?
No, its just a label.
Yes, exactly, So can a Knowing be found that is smelling?
No, no knowing cant be found. It just IS.
Best regards Kay, _/\_
