Thread for SD

[Sraddhadharani]

Hi Hare,
Appreciate you posting over the w/end.

"Is the sound directly experienced as keys clicking or is 'keys clicking' a conceptual add-on"........of course it is! But so used to experiencing in this way, with DE and conceptualisation so habitually intertwined even at quite subtle levels.

"Watch thoughts arising for a few minutes"..........not possible to see where thoughts come from, they just come into view and if not paid attention to they either stop or move onto different content. Paying attention to thought seems to perpetuate it.

"Is there a thinker of the thoughts?"..........no, but there is experience of them.

"Can 'you' decide what thought to have next?".........Hmmmm, not actual thought , though in periods of reflection, it seems possible to direct thoughts towards a particular subject of contemplation. Can't predict what thoughts will arise tho'.

"Are there thoughts and someone experiencing them?"...........They are experienced.......in flow of awareness

"In the course of the day........is there experience and someone experiencing it?".......just experience happening with some of that experiencing involving mental proliferation which feels like 'me' having experiences. It goes in and out of focus/awareness but crops up fairly frequently and is not entirely unwelcome.......

Thankyou,
S'dh X

[Hare]

Hi Sraddhadharini,

Some nice investigating happening here.
Just to let you know, I will often ask further questions where there seems to be some identification happening. If I don't comment, generally that means there's nothing that needs picking up on.

in periods of reflection, it seems possible to direct thoughts towards a particular subject of contemplation.

Is there a self-entity directing thoughts? Look. Can a 'director' be found? Or is a particular focus simply arising (perhaps on the basis of a particular set of conditions?)

just experience happening with some of that experiencing involving mental proliferation which feels like 'me' having experiences

Is mental proliferation 'you'? Are 'you' 'your' mental activity? (Or what?) Is there a separate self to which mental activity belongs? Is there a separate self to which anything belongs?

What is it that "feels like 'me'"? Does it have a shape, colour...can you touch it and so on?

Try the following:

Rest both hands on your legs. In the next 10 seconds, raise either the right or left hand, or neither. Watch how the apparent decision arises. Is there a 'decider', directing what happens? Look. report back.

Think of 5 European cities. Watch how they arise. Is there a 'decider' or 'chooser' making these choices? Or do they just pop up?

Try it again with two digit numbers. Same questions.

Look in direct experience. Don't get caught up in assumptions or beliefs - what is directly observed? (Just that!)

Report back.
Enjoy! x H

[Sraddhadharani]

Hi Hare,
Apologies for late posting.

"Is there a self -entity directing thoughts?".........Not a separate self entity. But a mysterious process that keeps arising A felt sense of relationship with the experience of these particular conditions arising, which give rise to these particular mental events.

"Is mental proliferation 'me'?"...........No. In fact no to all these bits. No separate 'me'. And yet, when not really paying attention to DE, a tendency to slip into habit of holding onto self-view even tho' 'I' don't ultimately believe it.

"What is it that feels like 'me'?".............This conglomeration of conditions-but I don't really believe it. It's a compelling fantasy that 'I' seem addicted to.

"Rest both hands on legs etc.........Is there a 'decider'?".............. Can't find decider but hands lifting up (or not) anyway.

"Think of 5 cities.......is there a 'decider' or 'chooser'?' ......Do they just pop up?"........Yes they pop up and no, no identifiable separate 'chooser' or decider'. Want to say but there is.......tho can't actually articulate what it is that there is!! Maybe it comes back to the sense of aliveness and presence aspect of DE, sense of relationship and connection with what is happening even if not actually controlling/directing it.

"Try it again with 2 digit numbers".........definitely not 'choosing' or 'directing' this! Much mental proliferation of 2 digit numbers in various ways! Phew!

Enjoying reporting back,
S'dh X.

[Hare]

Hi!

..a mysterious process that keeps arising

Do we really know what this life experience is? ..Don't expect this inquiry to supply answers! We'll just stick within what can be directly observed. (We'll let the philosophers keep on trying to explain the ineffable!)

" A felt sense of relationship with the experience of these particular conditions arising, which give rise to these particular mental events.

In direct experience, is there experience of what's arising in relationship with 'you' ('me'?) - as in two different things? Or just experience... happening seamlessly? Is the former (me + experience) just an assumed way of viewing things that comes from language, which posits a subject and object? Is this actually how it is in DE? Look. Report back.

"Is mental proliferation 'me'?"...........No. In fact no to all these bits. No separate 'me'.

Nope! :-)

a tendency to slip into habit of holding onto self-view even tho' 'I' don't ultimately believe it.

Is self view simply a mental habit and nothing more? Can the existence of a separate self be directly verified in any way?

(Who doesn't believe it?)

Probably there is some residual / habitual belief in a separate self. This often manifests as what we could call a 'yes...but' answer (or a 'no...but'). Notice as we continue with the inquiry, when a 'yes but' (or 'no but') answer comes. Here's an example:

no identifiable separate 'chooser' or decider'. Want to say but there is.......tho can't actually articulate what it is that there is!! Maybe it comes back to the sense of aliveness and presence aspect of DE, sense of relationship and connection with what is happening even if not actually controlling/directing it.

It's clearly seen that there is no chooser. Then the 'but'! OK, let's follow that line of inquiry.

Does "the sense of aliveness and presence" you? Does it belong to 'you'? Is it a separate self?

Or is it simply aliveness and presence? Is the idea of self just a mentally constructed add-on?

Does anything belong to 'you'? 'Your body'? 'Your house?' 'Your dog?' 'Your life?' Look now, directly. Report back.

x H

[Sraddhadharani]

Hi Hare,
Thanks for post.

"Do we really know what this life experience is?".........Not in the sense of an answer, only way to know what it is is to know it through experience, but it's not an explanation. Think DE helps stay steady with the not-known/knowing without ignoring it.

"in DE is there experience of what's arising in relationship to 'me'.......as in 2 different things"....... Doesn't feel like 2 (or more) different things at all, but tricky trying to articulate different aspects of experience without it sounding like different, or separate things. Experience feels seamless in the sense of no boundaries between one aspect and another, but there is something about variations within what is happening moment to moment. DE can contain a lot, it seems, like a landscape.

"Is self view a habit and nothing more"........that's what it seems to be, a compelling habit. Not so much about not believing it-it can't be verified anywhere, but still......something about living 'as if', despite all evidence to the contrary.

"Who doesn't believe it?".........Good question.......no answer arising.......Not even 'yes, but....no, but......'

"Is the sense of presence and aliveness 'me'?".............It's not 'me' as a separate self....more like part of the landscape of DE.

"Does it belong to 'me'?"..........Oh no, it doesn't belong to 'me'. 'I' belong to 'it'. Very clunky language. Not even 'belonging' or 'it', just being, happening, arising. And ceasing. Yes, just aliveness and presence.

"Does anything belong to 'me'?."...... No belonging-conditions arising, coexisting, changing. Experience of that. Richness of experience of that.

S'dh X.

[Hare]

Hi Sraaddhadharini,

Nice investigating happening here.

Doesn't feel like 2 (or more) different things at all, but tricky trying to articulate different aspects of experience without it sounding like different, or separate things

Yes it's tricky, because of the way our language works, but we can try as much as possible to communicate DE. One can give a flavour - often there is not a lot one can say...that's fine.

I just want to mention something about conceptualisation (thought), which is obviously necessary for communication, and for life generally. This is a very important faculty for us humans. There is no problem with conceptual thought, when it is seen precisely for what it is: mental fabrication. The problem comes because we mistake the mental construction for reality itself. For example: recognising fear about a bogey-man is crucially different to completely believing there is a bogey-man just outside your door! ...These are both conceptualisation, the first of which is recognised as such, the second of which is unquestionly assumed to be truth / reality. Neither of which are the same thing as actually seeing / hearing a bogey-man (which would be DE).

Let's substitute belief in self for belief in a bogey-man:

1. Is self-view an unquestioned belief that is seen for what it is?
2. Is it an unquestioned belief that isn't seen for what it is?
3. Is it true and verifiable in direct experience?

Look directly and report back. Which is true?

Experience feels seamless in the sense of no boundaries between one aspect and another, but there is something about variations within what is happening moment to moment

Do those variations require a 'you' in the equation?

DE can contain a lot, it seems, like a landscape.

What isn't contained within DE?

Not so much about not believing it-it can't be verified anywhere, but still......something about living 'as if', despite all evidence to the contrary.

Yes, the habit has it's own momentum and can continue beyond a clear seeing through the illusion of self. This is sometimes referred to as 'selfing' (the habit of liking / not liking certain things and so on...)

"Who doesn't believe it?".........Good question.......no answer arising.......Not even 'yes, but....no, but......'

Excellent.

conditions arising, coexisting, changing

This sounds like a (Buddhist) idea about how reality works. (As theories go, it's potentially a useful way to understand experience.) But can it be directly experienced right now, in the present moment? Look. Report back.


Can the past be found in DE? Look.

Can the future be directly experienced? Report back.

Is there such a thing as 'the present' in DE?

x H

[Sraddhadharani]

Hi Hare,
Thanks for last post. I seem to need a while to mull over your posts, so posting back happening later in day at mo, hope that's ok.

Stuff around conceptualising good to read esp " the problem comes when we mistake mental construction for reality itsself".

"Which is true?"......... I want to say none of them- the first 2 because they are mental constructs and the third one because it's not true and verifiable. But then the first one could fit with the bogey man analogy..........don't know if that makes it 'true' tho.

"Do these variations require a 'me' in the landscape?"...........No, it's all just landscape.

"What isn't contained within DE?"...........Nothing........

"Can it be directly experienced right now"........."Can past/present be found in DE.......is there such a thing as the present in DE?"........Feel a bit lost with this....... something like, these things can't be found in DE, but it doesn't preclude/exclude them either.....so in that sense they are part of DE (as important human faculty tho mental fabrication non the less), but not what it actually is.......Bit lost for words now.

S'dh X.

[Hare]

Morning!

need a while to mull over your posts, so posting back happening later in day at mo, hope that's ok.

That's fine - it's good to allow more time when that's needed. From my end, especially during the earlier part of the week, I may not be able to respond to a late post until the following evening as I leave early for work.

"Which is true?"......... I want to say none of them- the first 2 because they are mental constructs and the third one because it's not true and verifiable. But then the first one could fit with the bogey man analogy..........don't know if that makes it 'true' tho.

The second is mental construction and the third not directly verifiable (therefore we cannot assert its truth). However with the first option, where self-view is "an unquestioned belief that is seen for what it is", the view is not true - the truth is in the direct seeing that this is simply an unquestioned belief (and nothing more).

"Can it be directly experienced right now"........."Can past/present be found in DE.......is there such a thing as the present in DE?"........Feel a bit lost with this....... something like, these things can't be found in DE, but it doesn't preclude/exclude them either.....so in that sense they are part of DE (as important human faculty tho mental fabrication non the less), but not what it actually is.......Bit lost for words now.

This is a classic 'no but...' response. Let's have a closer look:

these things can't be found in DE

(No! They can't!) This is actual direct experience.

(Remember this was observation of the dimension of time, "conditions arising, coexisting, changing.")

but it doesn't preclude/exclude them either.....so in that sense they are part of DE (as important human faculty tho mental fabrication non the less), but not what it actually is....

From the word 'but', this is mental commentary: the mind trying to fit what is directly experienced into views that are already held. (The view presumably being: "There must be time and conditionality, therefore they must be in there, even though they are not directly experienced").

Mind will keep on doing this: trying to fit experience into one's current world-view is one of the main things the mind does. (This is no doubt a necessary function up to a point - but can involve complex mental gymnastics / distortion of the truth / denial of one's actual senses etc! Hence "all worldlings are mad"!) So we learn to watch the mind trying to explain, comment, create a story that fits the bill...the realm of papancha.

Is it possible to watch thought 'doing its thing' in this way; be interested; but not automatically believe the story thought tells?

The point of shift from DE into mental commentary is the heartland of this investigation.

Have a look at this:

Call to mind something you consider to be a major achievement. Can the 'you' who achieved this be found? Look directly, now.

Call to mind some key events from your life (if someone asked for a one-minute life story, the sort of things you might include). Can any of these events - or the person to whom they happened - be found now, in DE? Look and report back.

x H

[Sraddhadharani]

Hi Hare,
Diving straight in!

"The view presumably being 'there must be time and conditionality'.............not my view that there must be time and conditionality-can see they are mental constructs and those mental constructs can be experienced in DE along with everything else. You seem to be saying that the content of mental construction is unimportant in terms of DE, only awareness of the experience of mental construction happening- so in a sense, the concept of time and thinking about what to have for tea are no different, just mental construction. Am wondering about what, in Buddhism, might be called conditioning factors-for example, driving the van. DE of all sense experience, aliveness, thoughts arising etc. And the van is being driven. Am more than happy to say it's not 'me' driving the van, but included in direct experience is knowing how to drive the van. So where is that knowing situated in direct experience? Where does it live, so to speak? I definitely do not think it is 'me', wherever it is! This may all just be mental gymnastics as you said, but seems significant to discuss in the spirit of this enquiry.

"Call to mind something you consider to be a major achievement".........No 'me' that achieved it to be found........

"Call to mind some key events in your life".........Ditto. Both involve memory, which is a mental fabrication...... tho conditioning factor question still hovering......
Thankyou,
S'dh X

[Hare]

Hi again!

mental constructs can be experienced in DE along with everything else

Yes, though the direct experience is of thought rather than whatever the content is. Take this example: You are watching a film about Berlin. There is a direct experience is of the film, but not of Berlin itself.

You seem to be saying that the content of mental construction is unimportant in terms of DE

I'm not saying mental construction is either important or unimportant - I'm simply suggesting that mental construction be seen for what it is: an idea about reality, as opposed to actual reality.

Try this:

Close your eyes and imagine a watermelon as vividly as possible: it's weight; texture; taste; juiciness...Got it? Then open your eyes. Where is that water melon? Was it real? (Just in the ordinary sense - no metaphysics!) - or was it just a fabrication of mind?

Again close your eyes. Call to mind a glass of water. Again, as vividly as possible: the weight and feel of the glass, the clarity and cool taste of the water. Can you drink this water? Can it quench your thirst? Is it real or imaginary?

Is it possible to directly experience a separate self? Or is it simply a construct in thought / imagination, like the glass of water or the water melon?

Report back.

Am wondering about what, in Buddhism, might be called conditioning factors-for example, driving the van. DE of all sense experience, aliveness, thoughts arising etc. And the van is being driven. Am more than happy to say it's not 'me' driving the van, but included in direct experience is knowing how to drive the van. So where is that knowing situated in direct experience?

This is indeed speculation in thought, which is beyond the remit of this inquiry, which is firmly based in what can be directly experienced rather than received teachings or speculative thought. It can be difficult to accept that when we look at 'our own' direct experience, there is so little that can be grasped or known. All we can know in a sense is 'what is, right now'...how any of it works is a mystery, is it not?

(Of course the mind wants to understand and will go on working away at it all...perhaps for many years to come..? No problem, let the mind do its thing, it will anyway! My view, for what it's worth, is that Buddhism gives some good answers on the level of a conceptual framework..we are told that there is a momentum of habits / conditioning / conditions..only that.. not a 'self' driving it...also that everything is ultimately ineffable / sunyata (empty). Nargarjuna argues that even conditionality is a construct.)

No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits,
Empty phenomena roll on,
This view alone is right and true. (Visuddhimagga)

No 'me' that achieved it to be found........

Excellent.

What does 'I', ''me', 'myself' point to in direct experience?

Does Sraddhadharini / Bernadette exist?

Look. Report back.

x H

[Sraddhadharani]

Hi Hare,
Didn't manage to post yesterday, bit of a busy time. Hope you had a good w/end.


Just wanted to go back to something from a couple of posts ago: "Is it possible to watch thought 'doing its thing'?.........Be interested but don't believe the story?"..............more and more of the time it is, but still occasions when I am lost in the realm of mental fabrication. I'm not believing it to be reality, or the truth or 'me' or whatever and I suppose it could be said that part of my direct experience is of that, but paying such attention to the content of my mind doesn't seem to be very direct, compared to when all that drops away and everything else in sense experience comes more sharply into focus. However, I do notice that there is sometimes what someone called 'the thought of lordly rule' that I am completely caught up in-especially in relation to emotional states-which is really compelling and which I am buying into in some way. It can take some conscious effort to disengage and see it more clearly as papancha/mental proliferation etc. Think what you said about mental construction being seen for what it is applies here.

Watermelon was a fabrication of mind.
Glass of water is imaginary.
Separate self is a compelling construct in thought/imagination.

"It can be difficult to accept that there is so little that can be grasped or known.......how any of it works is a mystery.....let the mind do its thing, it will anyway".........I guess when I hit the yes but/no but stuff there is some difficulty around acceptance of how little can be grasped or known, maybe fear around the ultimate mysteriousness of existence/experience, which includes any idea of 'me' which might be being held onto despite all evidence and experience to the contrary. it can feel easier to let go into a much deeper connection with mystery, unknowability and so on in meditative experience than when I'm caught up in more worldly life where constructs of separateness etc are being reflected back from those around me.
"Everything is ineffable"........feels a very satisfactory thing to read. Also glad to get a bit of Buddhist perspective in.
"Nagarjuna argues 'even conditionality is a construct'........brings to mind image of dharma as a raft which must be left behind when one reaches the farther shore of enlightened experience. I'm not ready to leave behind the raft yet, tho can see that it would be logical progression.

"What does 'I', 'me, myself' point to in direct experience?" ......that there is some sort of mental fabrication happening. They can't really point to anything more than that in terms of DE, because they aren't what DE is.

"Does Sraddhadharani/Bernadette exist?"........not as a separate and unchanging 'self'. A load of processes with the label Sraddhadharani could be said to exist in relative terms but then it all gets a bit cosmic-form is only emptiness, emptiness only form and all that.

Have no idea how all this is going!

Thankyou,
S'dh X.

[Hare]

Have no idea how all this is going!

You're straying away from direct experience far too much here. This dialogue isn't a doctrinal discussion. It isn't about any preformed or received view; Buddhist or otherwise. This is ONLY an investigation of what is directly verifiable to the senses, in actual experience, now.

Watermelon was a fabrication of mind.

This sounds like catagorisation in thought; an explanation, rather than an expression of actual experience.

Glass of water is imaginary.

Yes.

Imagine your glass of water again, as vividly as possible.

Now get a real glass of water. Directly experience the difference as you touch, see, taste.. get really clear on the difference between direct experience and thoughts / ideas about experience. Don't neglect the obvious! It's not enough just to assume that of course an imaginary glass of water isn't the same as a real one. Experience the difference. Directly, experientially, learn the difference between reality and ideas about reality.

If you are thirsty, only a real glass of water will do. For this inquiry, only direct, actual experience is required. Theories, views and teachings that are not directly known are as pointless as an imaginary glass of water here. In fact, they get in the way of genuine investigation.

Separate self is a compelling construct in thought/imagination.

Thought coming up with 'the right answer' rather than direct seeing.

glad to get a bit of Buddhist perspective in...I'm not ready to leave behind the raft yet

There's no point in pursuing this dialogue unless you are prepared to let go of what you think you already know and LOOK DIRECTLY.

"What does 'I', 'me, myself' point to in direct experience?" ......that there is some sort of mental fabrication happening. They can't really point to anything more than that in terms of DE, because they aren't what DE is.

This is theorising, not direct experience. " They can't really point to..." - this is deduction, not actual looking. When you LOOK, what do you SEE?

"Does Sraddhadharani/Bernadette exist?"........not as a separate and unchanging 'self'. A load of processes with the label Sraddhadharani could be said to exist in relative terms but then it all gets a bit cosmic-form is only emptiness, emptiness only form and all that.

More explanation in thought ("could be said to exist" is a dead giveaway: a reasoned argument, not a direct observation.)

For 10 minutes, write your direct experience now, sitting at your computer or whatever, as closely as possible. Any sign of theorising, edit it out. Avoid the words 'I', 'me', 'my', 'myself'.

Is there a 'you' doing this excersise that can be sensed directly (seen; heard; touched etc)? NO THEORY. JUST LOOK. Report back from DE only

H

[Sraddhadharani]

Hello.
Will try watermelon exercise again.................I cannot find watermelon anywhere outside of my mind, so it cannot be real, it must be a construction. There seemed to be some sort of physiological response to the construction as my mouth actually watered.

"Imagine glass of water again as vividly as possible"............Ok. "Now get a real glass of water.".......Have done that. Imaginary glass of water experienced in mind only. Real glass of water experienced by other senses too, possibly with the exception of smell.

"Thought coming up with the right answer, rather than direct seeing"............I cannot find a separate self in my direct experience. Mental fabrication can sometimes be what I pay attention to, but there is no separate self to be found there either, although there may be aspects of thought or mind that present themselves as if there is belief in a 'me'. When I look clearly I can see this for what it is-a compelling construction, a habit of mind. This is not easy to articulate.

"What does 'I', 'me', 'myself' point to in direct experience?"..........Will try this again. Am sitting on my cushions, just dropping in those words-I, me, mine. There is experience of sitting here-sense experience, feeling of aliveness, presence. Those words in my my mind-I, me, mine. But just there, just words, don't seem to be any associated images or feelings. They don't seem to be pointing to anything.
Tried doing same substituting words 'Sraddhadharani/Bernadette'. Again, experience of sitting-sounds,smells, visual and tactile sensations especially vivid. No response to those words being dropped into my mind. Just those words/thoughts-they don't seem to mean anything.

"For 10 minutes write your direct experience"........Sound of noise in area of left ear, listening to noise which mind labels tinnitus. Sighing. More listening to noise. Looking at objects to the front in field of vision-eyes just seeing objects. Sounds outside-mind identifying as gate closing. Tightness in chest area, slight churning sensation in belly. Mind labels as anxiety and some associated mental narrative arising around what 'should' be being done instead of this. Sensations in lower belly which mind identifies as needing to pee. Sound of humming from what mind names as computer. Visual and felt experience of activity of typing. Sighing-felt sensations of this and sound. Slight ache in place mind calls upper back and sensations in what mind labels bum and lower legs, which mind identifies as coming from contact with what it calls cushion and floor.
That was 10 mins.

"Is there a 'you' doing this exercise?".........There isn't a 'me' to be found, but the exercise is being done and there is an experience of the exercise being done. Well, there's just experience-DE-and naming that experience 'doing this exercise'.

S'dh x.

[Hare]

Hi Sraddhadharini,

OK this post is better; staying closer to DE :-)

Where is 'self' in the arising and passing of experience?

Keep looking throughout the day, in different situations.

Are the five body senses made to arise or experienced by a “self”?

Is there a 'self' who 'does the thinking'?

Look and report back.

x H

[Sraddhadharani]

Hello Hare,

I wrote out questions from your post and have been looking at them regularly throughout the day.

"Where is the 'self' in the arising and passing of experience?".........There has definitely been the arising and passing away of experience and an awareness of this. Language tricky here, but something like-an assumption that the 'self' is having the experience or is connected to the awareness, or is awareness, until looking directly and then seeing this is only an idea located in thought. Therefore it can't be true, because it's only the mind making that assumption, it can't actually be found anywhere in direct experience, only the experience of thoughts/ideas arising. It isn't clear where these thoughts/ideas arise from and pass away to, they just come and go in awareness.

Are the 5 body senses made to arise, or experienced by, a 'self'?...........The 5 body senses don't seem to be made to arise, they are always present, to greater or lesser extents, in awareness or experience. There is awareness or an experience of them and in unexamined moments an illusion/assumption/idea of a self which is experiencing them. But following on from previous question, when looked at directly this is found not to be substantiated anywhere in direct experience, just experience of ideas/thoughts arising and passing. In fact, I'm not sure what this self is supposed to be, seeing as I can't seem to find it anywhere to have a good look.

"Is there a 'self' that does the thinking?"........... Thoughts seem to arise and pass away, as I said before. The idea of the self seems to be located in thought, or the mind, but when attention is turned in that direction there is nothing substantial there, just an experience of thoughts/ideas arising and passing away. This idea/thought/assumption is persistent, tho-it seems to reinstate itsself over and over again, even tho when looked at directly it means nothing, is just the experience of thinking/having an idea. Reminds me of those birthday cake candles you can get which just keep relighting every time they get blown out.

S'dh X.