Looking for an Order Member from Triratna to guide

[Ragnor]

Hello

Following a conversation with another order member the other evening who has done through the gate something has changed... experience is different , meditating is different. I would like to dialogue to clarify and explore. Padmanatha

[Jack'n'theBox]

Hello

Following a conversation with another order member the other evening who has done through the gate something has changed... experience is different , meditating is different. I would like to dialogue to clarify and explore. Padmanatha

Hi Padmanatha, I'm an OM and would be happy to help -- but what you are going though isn't a Triratna thing, it's not even a Buddhist thing, it's not something that can be labelled or owned by the mind. So please put aside any expectations that only a certain kind of 'person' could help you.

So let's start by telling me what it is that is 'different' -- is there a 'before' and 'after' in any experience? What is it that could know that?

metta,

JV

[Ragnor]

Ok difference...

Experience is fluid, open and pleasant, even blissful vedana is frequently present. It's not a before and after rather a change in perception. Consciousness is not claiming particular things that arise as 'mine' . When a strong habitual impulse arises it's as though 'I' can see its emptiness , it's not 'me' just a pattern.
If we're going to communicate openly I'd appreciate knowing who you are 'jv'

[Jack'n'theBox]

Ok difference... If we're going to communicate openly I'd appreciate knowing who you are 'jv'

OK no problem – check your PMs above.

Experience is fluid, open and pleasant, even blissful vedana is frequently present.

OK, great. Experienced meditators see these ‘states’ blow through often. Is seeing through the self-view dependent on experience being ‘fluid, open and pleasant’?

It's not a before and after rather a change in perception.

Yep.

Consciousness is not claiming particular things that arise as 'mine' . When a strong habitual impulse arises it's as though 'I' can see its emptiness , it's not 'me' just a pattern.

OK great. You mention ‘consciousness’ and ‘I’ here – are they the same thing?
This ‘habitual impulse’ – when you say it is seen as a pattern, what is it that sees this, exactly? Are there two things in experience – the pattern and that which sees it? Take a close look and let me know what’s going on.

[Ragnor]

No experience need not be fluid etc I was merely trying to explain, it's just there. I think it's a result of a greater openness , less clinging. I use the word consciousness to describe ongoing awareness , moment to moment. When mediating in particular within awareness I can almost see 'ego' name it trying to assert itself as 'will' but when this is 'seen' it looses power or momentum. I'll look closer at the patterning and seeing link and report back.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK great. At LU we use an approach that relies on looking to direct experience (DE) to see what is really going on. This means observing arisings to the five 'body' senses plus thoughts (thoughts as a kind of ‘mind object’ – not the content of thoughts or what we call thought stories/papancha). So let’s have a look and see what we can find. Here’s an exercise that can help you clarify what is happening:

Sit quietly for a five minutes and allow awareness to rest on your changing experience from moment to moment – can you find anything going on that cannot be put in a broad category of sensation (stuff happening in ‘the body’), feelings (emotions and feeling-tones like pleasant or unpleasant) and thoughts/mental images?

Once that is clear – notice how there is a constant flow of experience – different sensations, feelings and thoughts/images pop up and move on like bubbles in a stream. Maybe there is the noise of a dog barking, a feeling of irritation, an itchy nose, an empty feeling in the stomach area, thoughts about pizza, salivation in the mouth, a sudden crink in the neck, a random thought about a TV show, a snatch of song . . . on and on.

As these different arsisings appear look to see – where are they happening, exactly? Is there an ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ to experience? How are different arisings ‘noticed’? Is awareness like a flashlight – is it something that ‘you’ can direct or move around? When, for example there is a sudden sound, like the dog barking. What is it that recognizes ‘dog’? Can you find ‘dog’ in direct experience?

BTW if you click a link below it will alert you when I reply to your posts. It’s early morning now in OZ.

[Ragnor]

Clicked on subscribe so messages coming through loud and clear - will try the exercise in the morning and get back to you.

[Ragnor]

Ok during the exercise sound arises and passes feelings arise and pass etc mind / awareness if curious looks and comments - operating like a sense on its own a commentarial sense if you like. Mind may tell me a story about where and how things are happening such as where the dog is, but in direct experience there is just sound, no dog to be found.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Mind may tell me a story about where and how things are happening such as where the dog is, but in direct experience there is just sound, no dog to be found.

Ok good to see this. As the Buddha says in the Bahiya sutta “In the heard just the heard.” The naked, unadorned sense arising just is. The mental elaboration is secondary – as you say – the story about “what” the sound is (a dog) and when/where it is happening is an add on.

Can you discern what it is, exactly, that adds this information on?

awareness if curious looks and comments - operating like a sense on its own a commentarial sense if you like

Let’s look at this more closely. As you noted above, there is an immediacy to sense arisings – there is sight, there is sound, there is sensation (touch) – but the interpretation (or fabrication) of the immediate sense input into an ‘object’ – such as ‘dog’ requires additional steps. You say here that it is awareness that ‘looks and comments’. Let’s check this out more by doing a simple exercise. Let’s start with sensation in ‘the body’ since this is the clearest and most immediate.

Sit in a chair and bring awareness to all the contact points your body has with the chair and the floor. Feel the sense of pressure in your feet, move up to the pressure in the backside and the back. Close your eyes and focus just on the raw experience – ignore the ‘inner picture’ that has constructed the experience as ‘my body sitting in a chair’. Can you feel where the body ends and floor/chair begins or is the experience itself seamless? Can you find ‘backside’ or ‘chair’ in the sensation itself?

Without using thought – before thought intervenes – what is the nature of the experience? Where is the experience taking place? What are its qualities? Is there a ‘centre’ to this experience? Is there a ‘thing’ separate from the sensations that the experience is ‘happening to’? When thought tries to intervene, don’t follow it, allow awareness to remain in the raw experience. Let me know what comes up.

[Ragnor]

Ok - there is just contact, sensation - it's not 'my' sensation , just sensation - when I open my eyes - eyes see feet, mind sees feet story begins. But again if I just look there is just sense experience , shape and form. There is no thing that this is happening to until mind begins to describe or comment. As for qualities it appears quality free, qualities only begin to arise when mind begins to analyse sensation. I guess if it was something physically painful there would be a clearer quality perhaps?

[Jack'n'theBox]

Ok - there is just contact, sensation - it's not 'my' sensation , just sensation - when I open my eyes - eyes see feet, mind sees feet story begins. But again if I just look there is just sense experience , shape and form.

Yes, right. What is direct experience of ‘eyes’? What is direct experience of ‘feet’?
Just shape and form (but even these terms are concepts).

There is no thing that this is happening to until mind begins to describe or comment.

Great. But what is direct experience of ‘mind’? Look closely – what is it, exactly, that describes and comments?

As for qualities it appears quality free, qualities only begin to arise when mind begins to analyse sensation. I guess if it was something physically painful there would be a clearer quality perhaps?

For me to help you I need to see answers to all the questions – can you look again and let me know:

WHERE is the experience taking place? What are its qualities? Is there a ‘centre’ to this experience? Is there a ‘thing’ separate from the sensations that the experience is ‘happening to’?

[Ragnor]

Ok will come back to this tonight - family now up and about!

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK cool. When I say is WHERE is anything arising or is there a 'centre' -- I'm inquiring if you can find 'dimensions' in experience? Is there some centre point or 'point of view' from which some experiences can be judged as 'nearer' or 'farther' -- inside or outside -- up or down -- etc. for example, is the sound of the dog barking somehow 'further' away than the sensation of a nose itch?

Can you work with this today and let me know?

[Ragnor]

Will do

[Ragnor]

Ok initial response will work on this more during the day.

Where is experience taking place? Nowhere - it's just happening and then labels and ideas are applied to create a narrative; it's here or there.

Is there a centre?

Well there can appear to be in the sense that many sensory areas are located in around the head: mouth, tongue, ears, eyes , ' mind' . As experiences arise and fall and coincide so there is a sense a focal point- rather like water being drawn into a whirlpool.

Is there a thing that's separate ?

When concentrated in meditation or lost in a day dream , no just a flow of experience. When mind is commenting lots it can appear like a thing in that there is arising and ceasing and arising and ceasing in quick succession. But when I look closely its not a thing just repeated arising. The rapid continuity gives the sense of a thing.

When sensation arises and a thought coincides I'm linking the two and calling it mine, eg sensation, itch, my nose close or sound children talking, can't make out, far away.