Guide Available

[Josephkoudelka]

I think the basic problem here is that I do not feel I can just “look at direct experience.”

It is the only way through the fog of thinking mind. A curiosity has to develop to look at what our actual direct experience is in comparison to what we think about our experience. This how an aha moment will arise. When we get it in our bones that what we think about experience is not what is actually happening in reality. When we get that thoughts about experience are the veil that separates us from the truth. When we get that all of our thoughts that are not confirmed by direct experience are what creates the separation that we feel(This why I say that you want to believe in thoughts of separation, all of your common sense thoughts support separation). When we get that there has never been any other thing in the first place.

Direct Experience is always present now, and it always demonstrates a fundamentally different story than our "common sense" one does. Direct Experience is the truth, common sense story is a lie. Returning over and over again, when we have time, to direct experience, has a powerful effect on the mind and alters it. At first, the mind will resist. Persevere.

Now on to some "trippy shit"...

Space is an illusion. Describe space in Direct Experience.

By the way, you are rich with thoughts about what you experience.

[hylas]

This is what I need to hear. Thank you. I realize it’s also what you’ve been telling me all along. But since we seem to use some common sense reasoning here, it’s hard to know exactly when not to use it . . . and then I slip into using it torrentially. Just keep reminding me, it lies, it has no place here, put it aside.

A curiosity has to develop to look at what our actual direct experience is in comparison to what we think about our experience.

I’ve got the curiosity, but I don’t find it easy. Things that are not verbal thoughts seem to get in the way of seeing direct experience for what it is. As will be apparent in the space bit below.

When we get that all of our thoughts that are not confirmed by direct experience are what creates the separation that we feel

Makes sense, but it is not easy to know which thoughts are being confirmed by direct experience. That my hands are there every time I look down to find them seems to confirm the assumption that they were there. But I don’t want to go down that road. Not now. It WOULD be easier if we just said ALL thoughts are unconfirmed by direct experience.

Direct Experience is always present now, and it always demonstrates a fundamentally different story than our "common sense" one does.

Keep telling me this! Always? Aren’t they at least related to each other? It’s not safe to say the former causes the later?

Direct Experience is the truth, common sense story is a lie. Returning over and over again, when we have time, to direct experience, has a powerful effect on the mind and alters it. At first, the mind will resist. Persevere.

Clearly the mind has done it’s resisting. Bye bye mind, just a bit of silence for a while, please. Since we started I have always, though, been returning, as best I can, to direct experience when I can.

Space is an illusion. Describe space in Direct Experience.

Immediately, the mind tries to interpret, tries to toy with what you might mean, what I think you mean based on what I’ve read. I will try to ignore that, and just describe what I see, but certainly the thinking that has occurred, the reading that has occurred, will color it (because what I know right now is part of my experience). Right now, space: before me are all the usual objects, including the things outside the window. I can touch the things before me, cannot touch the building across the street. This confirms the visual sense of three dimensions. Now, visually, it is easy to understand that light and shading creates depth information. But, even with one eye closed, I cannot remove that sense of space. That sense of extension, depth. That I cannot touch those things that seem visually beyond my reach confirms their position in space. [Now, this too, could be an illusion, a sensation placed there by the mastermind, the mad scientist, the joker-demon, the tactile matched up with my visual sense of depth to fool me into buying into the illusion]. Now I know that I can just try try try to see color and shading. But I cannot take the depth out of the picture. I imagine seeing it like a painting, but then it’s a painting with illusory depth. So, back to just what I see. I realize that it is air itself that makes seeing through the apparent illusion difficult. The colors are easy to imagine as flattened against each other [but again, I have to “imagine” to get there, not just see], but that there’s air between me and those things, air between things and each other, that really creates that feeling of space.

By the way, you are rich with thoughts about what you experience.

There was a time when I would have thought that was a compliment . . .

[Josephkoudelka]

Makes sense, but it is not easy to know which thoughts are being confirmed by direct experience.

Unless we are examining the direct experience of thoughts, thoughts are not direct experience. The senses - seeing, touching, smelling, hearing, tasting - provide the data of direct experience. Then when we write about what we have found through these mediums we must employ thought. At this point, we try and describe the sense data as its is, as precisely as possible. We drop all interpretation that the mind attempts to formulate(create a story about) and just describe the experience its self.

As an example, there is a sense of tactile pressure that occurs at no distance from right here, now when I depress a character key on the keyboard. I close my eyes and experience this sensation, drop the thoughts that claim distance because no distance is actually present in the sensation. Even finger tips are not present when I isolate the sensation itself. There is just this pressure that is momentarily present in this ever present space of awareness.

Most of the time, what is actually found in direct experience consists of much less than what the mind makes it out to be with its elaborate stories concerning whats out there or in here. Take space for an example, I never find space as an object in my direct experience. My senses do not detect it. Thoughts infer it. Do your eyes actually see space? What is there to see if there were no objects anywhere, or no light.

This is how all illusions work. There isn't a new mystical seeing that suddenly, magically appears out of nowhere that enables us to recognize what the sages have been speaking of enlightenment. There is simply what is present now, unadorned with the illusions created by thought. Thought still happens, but it is in its rightful place, just another happening among many with no more importance than any other happening in the seamless field of now. And thoughts stories are seen as stories to be taken with a grain of salt because in most cases, they embellish the actual experience of this moment now very elaborately causing a misinterpretation of what is happening now. Thoughts come and go like clouds in an empty sky.

Look at your left hand now. How far away is it in direct experience?

[hylas]

Tyring to suppress thoughts here.

We drop all interpretation that the mind attempts to formulate(create a story about)

Some of these stories, I am assuming, are so deeply ingrained that we do not need thought, or a narritive like story, to have misunderstood Direct Expereince. Please correct me if I'm right here, or affirm if I'm right. Space is a great example. I do not need to think any words about space to feel that I am walking in it, experiencing it, or, of course, labeling it (no one walks around all day saying "this is space, I'm in space, I see space). It's my day to day assumption that there is space that is the illusion here, and it's one that is so deeply ingrained as to not need thought, or at least a thought about it, for that illusion to persist. I wish we had another word for this kind of thought. It's a valuable distinciton to make. It's easy to dismiss stories that are actual narrtive stories with words (assumptions about people, morals, what we should be doing with our lives), harder to dismiss the kind of thought that doens't even need to be thunk.

So yes, when I stare at my left hand, it is true that there is no specific data that says space. I can't stop imagining it in space (whereas, again, it is easy for me to imagine sound as not in space). The confluence of tactile and visual, joining forces to make a case for space to the imagination, continues to annoy me. But I am tyring to drop that line of questioning and just focus on the direct expereince. Yes, all the shading of the hand is just darker color here, darker lighter there. Nothing but habit says that that is any kind of depth.

I long for such an understanding to lead to a moment where I see those colors and shading as absent from depth and, thought I realize there's no such depth in DE, it's impossible not to see the depth. Where with sound I can bring it RIGHT HERE, somehow the air between me and my hand underscores the illusion, and I cannot bring what could easily be just a flat visual to right here.

Tactile things have a similar problem. Yes, the tactile obviosuly doesn't come with space information. And yes, fingertips are also not present. Yet it is impossible for me to drop the idea that the sensation is either to my right or left, forward or behind.

In a world where every last item and part of an item has a word, and after a lifteime of using them, looking at DE to get behind the concepts is not simple task.

[Josephkoudelka]

The ‘I’ thought is like a filler that the mind comes to rest upon when it is not occupied with creative, loving, enquiring or practical thoughts.

As soon as these creative, loving, enquiring or practical thoughts are finished, the mind creates a pseudo self, a pseudo doer, a thinker, a feeler, who claims the credit for the previous activities.

This imagined separate self becomes the default position for the mind, like the screen saver on the computer screen, which is there to obscure the apparent dullness of the blank screen when no other documents are open. The screen is considered to be dull only from the point of view of the images, because it is the complete absence of everything that it knows, that is, the complete absence of objects.

However, the screen in itself is not an absence. It is presence. In fact, it is the sole substance of the apparent images. It is an absence only from the point of view of the mind.

Likewise, from the point of view of the mind, which knows only apparent objects, awareness is a boring nothingness. It does not know and cannot know that awareness is, in fact, its own substance. To avoid this apparent nothingness of awareness, the mind creates a pseudo presence, a pseudo identity, the separate inside self, which impersonates the true presence of awareness.

This pseudo self gives the mind something to be busy with in between other thoughts, images, sensations and perceptions. This pseudo self seems to become the background of our experience, apparently always present, running between and within all other perceptions. It is the arch impersonator.

As our exploration of the nature of experience deepens, it becomes more and more obvious that the pseudo self is not the permanent background of experience but that it is rather one of the innumerable changing faces of experience itself. It is seen clearly that the screen saver is not the background and substance of all the documents, but is simply another document or image.

Spira, Rupert (2012-05-05). Presence: The Intimacy of All Experience (Kindle Locations 1777-1792). . Kindle Edition.

Rather than write out a long essay to address your continued resistance to reporting Direct Experience as it is, I have provided the above passage. It states the issue succinctly.

This resistance is your belief in a self. Even when you cannot find one outside of a thought. You cannot provide any Direct Experience description of a self. Yet you cling tenaciously to your pseudo-self.

Please correct me if I'm right here, or affirm if I'm right. Space is a great example. I do not need to think any words about space to feel that I am walking in it, experiencing it, or, of course, labeling it (no one walks around all day saying "this is space, I'm in space, I see space). It's my day to day assumption that there is space that is the illusion here, and it's one that is so deeply ingrained as to not need thought, or at least a thought about it, for that illusion to persist.

Total nonsense. This is just another thought and not Direct Experience.

I have given you clear instructions on how to report Direct Experience in the posts above. Please review them and try again.

[hylas]

I'm having a hard time getting to an honest answer that is not filted by thought, and not argumentative.

I would say that I cling tenaciously to thoughts, not to the idea of self. It must seem obvious to you why it is unclear to me that the former implies that later, but it is not obvious to me.

The Spira quote is helpful, as is another passage of his about space. I have to give up a lot more of the thoughts that think they can understand an illusion (as they can understand the time illusion).

I think I am inching forward to a less though-filtered DE. I will try to give you a fuller account of space in DE when I have a chance to sit in solitude for half an hour or so . . .

[Josephkoudelka]

I'm having a hard time getting to an honest answer that is not filted by thought

I am willing to try this a completely different way if you are. This new approach would not give emphasis to direct experience in the way that we are looking now. We would be using the seer-seen discrimination approach.

In the seer-seen method, anything that is perceived by the senses, or known by the mind, is an object of our experience, and therefore, not the perceiver. Subject-object discrimination. This approach could take at least as long as we have spent looking at direct experience up until now. Do you wish to give this a try instead?

If yes, we will begin today.

First question - Do you agree that you could never be an object of your own experience?

[hylas]

I'm definitely ready for whatever you might think might work. I am suprised that the direct experience method could work so quickly on others (and a bit saddened to give up on it). Seems like it would take serious practice to see "through the fog of thinking mind." The fog of the thinking mind, is clearly the problem, and if you think think seer-seen grapples with better, I'm game.

First question - Do you agree that you could never be an object of your own experience?

In the way that I have come to understand that I am nothing but my perceptions, I don't know what it would mean to be an object of those perceptions. No one thing of my perceptions is me, so I don't see how I could the object that is perceived.

Before we started I might have said something like "thought can be about consciousness, can come to a conclusion about conciousness, and is also a produce of consciousness, so, ultimately yes." Seems nonsensical now, in part because of the way it makes awareness a thing.

[Josephkoudelka]

In the way that I have come to understand that I am nothing but my perceptions...

This would be an ultimate understanding like consciousness is the basis for all perceptions therefore all there is is consciousness. However, you still believe you are a thought, a separate self. So you don't actually understand the ultimate understanding. It is just a piece of information for you at this point. This is the difference between understanding and a belief. Anyhow, your not there yet, or we wouldn't still be having this conversation.

Seems like it would take serious practice to see "through the fog of thinking mind." The fog of the thinking mind, is clearly the problem, and if you think think seer-seen grapples with better, I'm game.

We will still be using direct experience, we're just going to incorporate this method into our exploration. Traditionally the method is called drg-drysa-viveka in Advaita Vedanta. It is a tried and true method for understanding nonduality, which includes understanding that a puny discrete self is an illusion, and has been used for centuries, up to and including present day instruction. Swartz uses it, Goode uses it, traditional swamis use it.

Seer-seen discrimination separates everything out so that the witness\awareness\consciousness stands alone and undefiled.

First, it is understood that anything that changes is not awareness. Second, anything that changes is an object of awareness. Third, if it is an object of awareness, it is impermanent. Fourth, anything that is impermanent is not real fundamentally.

Also, in order to be known, that which is known, is an object of awareness. If it is an object, it is impermanent. It is not always there, it comes and goes. It is not real.

We can take any experience and examine it with this model and determine where we stand within that experience. If it changes, is an object of experience, then it is not who I am.

The only thing required to employ this method is a sharp intellect. It is the intellect which discriminates between this and that and chooses. In traditional Advaita Vedanta, if one cannot differentiate using this method, they are considered unfit for the teaching.

In my opinion, we all have the capacity to discriminate. What really is crucial is honesty. We have to honestly want the truth, no matter what. This separates the wheat from the chaff.

Is thought an object knowledge or the knower itself?

[hylas]

However, you still believe you are a thought, a separate self.

I don't know what I believe. I don't feel like I believe anything. Trying to answer as honestly as possible lead me to answer as I did. But, actually, I believe that you have a better grasp of what I believe, than I do, odd as that may seem. However this is really just an aside. So, onward.

The method, as you describe it, makes sense to me and seems appropriate. That the intellect is involved is somewhat of a relief. It is also what attracted me to Swartz.

I am after the truth at all costs.

Is thought an object knowledge or the knower itself?

This, thankfully, I am sure of. Thought is no knower. It's an impermanent object (perhaps the most impermanent of objects). It may or may not be useful in uncovering knowledge (be it conventional or the thorn that gets out the thorn) but itself knows nothing. It seems odd to even consider that it could. It's not much different than an inert sentence on a page. But, knowning that, I still find myself often lost in thought, unpacking them where I should (for our purpose here) watch them float away.

[Josephkoudelka]

Thought is no knower. It's an impermanent object (perhaps the most impermanent of objects).

With this knowledge, do you agree that that whatever you are, you are not a thought object?

[hylas]

With this knowledge, do you agree that that whatever you are, you are not a thought object?

Yes!

[Josephkoudelka]

With this knowledge, do you agree that that whatever you are, you are not a thought object?

Yes!

Ok. No we will augment our looking with this in mind. I cannot be any object that I know.

Is there any thing that you experience that is not known?

[Josephkoudelka]

Ok. Now we will augment our looking with this in mind. I cannot be any object that I know.

Is there any thing that you experience that is not known?

[hylas]

Is there any thing that you experience that is not known?

I think the most basic, answer to this, is a simple "no." For something to enter my world of experience, it becomes known.

Of course, I tend to overthink things. It's immediatly obvious that the simple word "known" is not so known. It's perfectly conceivble that some sound was heard by some subconscious part of my brain, stored there in shot term memory in case it later became relevant, and then discarded when it was not. In such an example, though, the subconcious does the knowing. Or you could just as easily say if it's discarded, then it's not known. If my attention is turned to it, it becomes known. So, ultimately, I come to the same conclusion.

If you find this annoying, just say "Ok, he thought about it too much again . . . it's what he, as an organism, does."

I also find that my sense of what it means to really know something is up in the air. But I don't think that's what you're getting at.