Requesting Ghata as guide

[JavaJeff]

Is there any evidence for it that the thought is the same one or another one with the same content?

I don’t think there is evidence either way. But, I would guess technically they are different thoughts, just all reiterating the same core, favorite theme(s). A single thought arises, persists for a time, then ceases. Just as there is no permanent soul that goes from body to body as lives arise and cease, so perhaps there is no permanence to thought. Maybe the common themes that go from one thought to the next are like the ‘karma’ of individual thoughts?

Find out how thoughts work. Slowly look from one side of the room to the other. What is actually seen, the raw sense data?

And what is added by thoughts? When does it get added? Before it object is seen, during or afterwards?

The raw sense data - for the sight sense, at least - occurs immediately, and is a combination of two things: (1) color and (2) intensity. When I move my head from one side of the room to the other, all “things” that are seen are simply combinations of little pinpoints that have a certain color (frequency in the spectrum), and brightness (intensity). Those are assembled into “things” by mind.

Form (e.g. “round,” “straight,” “shiny,” “dull,” etc.) is a mental construct. “Objects” are another layer of mental construct on top of that. The mirror is a combination of four “straight” “sides” that has a “shiny” center. The “carpet” is an expanse of “dull” and “off-white” color, with slight variation in intensity, and with small darker-colored spots here and there, which I call “dirt.”

This additional mental constructing - what turns color and intensity into “shapes” and “patterns” that then further get turned into “objects” - seems to happen almost immediately upon sensory contact. Definitely not before the object is seen...that is certain. But almost immediately upon seeing. I see the color red that is interpreted by mind as “towel.” And then once the “towel” is recognized, mind starts piling higher and higher level thoughts on top of it…”that towel is wet…” “...why is it on the floor and not hanging to dry?”

This seems to accord with the Buddha’s teaching in MN 148 (Chachakkha Sutta):

"'The six classes of feeling should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling..."

As SOON as the raw sensory data is processed by the eye (or ear, nose, etc.), mind steps in, and starts to “make sense of it.” [And BTW, haha, funny and ironic English saying there, to “make sense” of something is to assemble raw data into a construct that the mind is comfortable with. The very phrase “to make sense of” seems to imply that the sensory input is not enough - that it has to be interpreted to mean something that a mind can understand…]

[Ghata]

Hi Jeff,

thank you for your answer. Let's examine thoroughly what is concept and what is "your" direct experience. This is crucial for the further examination, so I am going to be thorough

I don’t think there is evidence either way. But, I would guess technically they are different thoughts, just all reiterating the same core, favorite theme(s). A single thought arises, persists for a time, then ceases

These are ponderings, thoughts, not direct experience. Just to mention it: It is not about dismissing thoughts as bad. The Illusion of self and all other illusions can only be seen through, when "In the seen there is only the seen".

Just as there is no permanent soul that goes from body to body as lives arise and cease, so perhaps there is no permanence to thought. Maybe the common themes that go from one thought to the next are like the ‘karma’ of individual thoughts?

Is this direct experience or thoughts?

When I move my head from one side of the room to the other, all “things” that are seen are simply combinations of little pinpoints

Direct experience or thought? Are the raw sense data little pinpoints?

Those are assembled into “things” by mind.

Direct experience or thought?
Have a look, is "the mind" a direct experience or a thought?

Form (e.g. “round,” “straight,” “shiny,” “dull,” etc.) is a mental construct. “Objects” are another layer of mental construct on top of that. The mirror is a combination of four “straight” “sides” that has a “shiny” center. The “carpet” is an expanse of “dull” and “off-white” color, with slight variation in intensity, and with small darker-colored spots here and there, which I call “dirt.”

Yes, the raw sense data are indescribable. They can only be experienced. All words are mental constructs, so in order to communicate we do have to use some that come closest to direct experience.

This additional mental constructing - what turns color and intensity into “shapes” and “patterns” that then further get turned into “objects” - seems to happen almost immediately upon sensory contact. Definitely not before the object is seen...that is certain. But almost immediately upon seeing. I see the color red that is interpreted by mind as “towel.” And then once the “towel” is recognized, mind starts piling higher and higher level thoughts on top of it…”that towel is wet…” “...why is it on the floor and not hanging to dry?”

Lovely looking :-)

This seems to accord with the Buddha’s teaching in MN 148 (Chachakkha Sutta):

"'The six classes of feeling should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling..."

Now I am getting ruthless. Refer to your first-hand experience only. Yes, the Buddha said this. It doesn't matter. You are here to see for yourself :-).

As SOON as the raw sensory data is processed by the eye (or ear, nose, etc.),

Direct experience or thought?

And BTW, haha, funny and ironic English saying there, to “make sense” of something is to assemble raw data into a construct that the mind is comfortable with. The very phrase “to make sense of” seems to imply that the sensory input is not enough - that it has to be interpreted to mean something that a mind can understand…

Hahaha, that is funny indeed :-)

I am looking forward to your answer.

Sending love,
Ghata

[JavaJeff]

Just as there is no permanent soul that goes from body to body as lives arise and cease, so perhaps there is no permanence to thought. Maybe the common themes that go from one thought to the next are like the ‘karma’ of individual thoughts?

Is this direct experience or thoughts?

I can’t tell. As noted before, thoughts arise. They persist for some time. Then they cease. Some thoughts seem to be gathered around the same topic. I don’t know if that is a re-appearance of the same thought, or a different thought based around the same topic. I don’t think it really matters.

When I move my head from one side of the room to the other, all “things” that are seen are simply combinations of little pinpoints

Direct experience or thought? Are the raw sense data little pinpoints?

I meant this somewhat metaphorically, like a computer screen has tiny pinpoints of light called ‘pixels.’ I cannot discern with enough precision if there is a fundamental, irreducible size to what is seen. I supposed that would be photons...although they are themselves indeterminate, having both (or either) wave or particle characteristics depending on how they are observed.

My *direct experience* when I move my head from side to side in the room is that color and form are seen.

Those are assembled into “things” by mind.

Direct experience or thought?
Have a look, is "the mind" a direct experience or a thought?

I don't know.

This seems to accord with the Buddha’s teaching in MN 148 (Chachakkha Sutta):

Now I am getting ruthless. Refer to your first-hand experience only. Yes, the Buddha said this. It doesn't matter. You are here to see for yourself :-).

OK. That is fine.

As SOON as the raw sensory data is processed by the eye (or ear, nose, etc.),

Direct experience or thought?

Unless my observation is just not keen enough, this is direct experience of how raw sensory input is turned into thought. It seem immediate to me.

[Ghata]

Hi Jeff,

I can’t tell. As noted before, thoughts arise. They persist for some time. Then they cease. Some thoughts seem to be gathered around the same topic. I don’t know if that is a re-appearance of the same thought, or a different thought based around the same topic. I don’t think it really matters.

No, whether it is the same thought or another one doesn't really matter.

What matters for the inquiry is that you can tell the difference between direct experience and conceptual overlay.

Direct experience is everything that can be experienced with the 6 senses. Seeing, hearing, touching/sensations, smelling, tasting. Then there are thoughts. The fact that there are thoughts can be experienced as well. The content of thoughts though cannot be experienced with the five senses, it is a word or mental image and therefore not direct experience.

Just as there is no permanent soul that goes from body to body as lives arise and cease

Direct experience or thought?

My *direct experience* when I move my head from side to side in the room is that color and form are seen.

Right :-)

For this inquiry any physical explanations won't help. They are not what is actually seen. I can't emphasize this enough. Any conceptual overlay will obscure what is truly there.

Have a look, is "the mind" a direct experience or a thought?

I don't know.

Now that you know the criteria, give it a second go. What is the direct experience of "mind"?

Unless my observation is just not keen enough, this is direct experience of how raw sensory input is turned into thought. It seem immediate to me.

Please describe in detail how raw sensory input is turned into thought. How does it work, what happens? Speak from direct experience only.

Sending love,
Ghata

[JavaJeff]

What matters for the inquiry is that you can tell the difference between direct experience and conceptual overlay.

Yes, this is what I am trying to discern.

For this inquiry any physical explanations won't help. They are not what is actually seen. I can't emphasize this enough. Any conceptual overlay will obscure what is truly there.

Please clarify - are you saying that “explanations of physical phenomena won’t help?” If so, then yes, I agree with that.

Have a look, is "the mind" a direct experience or a thought?

I don't know.

Now that you know the criteria, give it a second go. What is the direct experience of "mind"?

The direct experience of "mind" is through thought. I am aware that there are thoughts. The collection of them at any given time seems to be “mind,” along with memory.

Unless my observation is just not keen enough, this is direct experience of how raw sensory input is turned into thought. It seem immediate to me.

Please describe in detail how raw sensory input is turned into thought. How does it work, what happens?

Raw sensory input impinges upon one of my sense doors. If no attention is placed upon the sensory input, nothing arises in the mind. It is like clouds floating across the sky, not noticed. Or a bird flying under the radar, not seen.

For example, right now, as I am typing this, I am listening to a recording of a park in spring (I work in a noisy lab and this helps drown out the noise). There are sounds of some birds chirping and fluttering wings, squirrels chattering, some cars driving by and honking - all of this is hitting my ear. But when concentrating on writing this, I do not notice. No thoughts about the sounds arise. However, those sensory inputs can be noticed if I place attention on them (or in retrospect, they can be recalled). In that case, thoughts about them arise: "That is a noisy squirrel!" "Why are so many cars driving in a nice park?" "I wonder if it is sunny for the animals."

Same exact thing applies to the other 4 physical senses: sight, touch, smell, taste.

So, sensory input gives rise to thought when attention is placed there.

It appears that only one sensory input can be processed at a time, and there is some sort of built-in “precedence detector” that gives precedence to the inputs based on their intensity (more intense inputs come to attention easier than less intense ones). From this sensory input, a thought arises and labels start to get applied: “that is a bird chirping.”

[JavaJeff]

Late afternoon update.

I was sitting out on the patio at work enjoying the day during a break. Pondering things...emptiness, in particular...which I used to think meant "non existent." But which I have learned means more like, "empty of any specific solidity or being on its own." And finally it struck me. I'm empty!

I am empty of self.

I don't exist independently. There is no one thing that I can pin down and say, "That's Jeff, right there."

I mean, I exist, meaning that I have a body. I have a brain. I have a personality, and I am sentient. I seem to be aware of my own existence. I interact with the "rest of the world." When poked with a stick, I yell in pain. When I haven't had food for a while, "thoughts" arise within this body that say "hungry." And when someone says "Jeff," there is this conditioned response and I turn my head to the speaker, and answer with language.

But I am not this super-important, independently existing Self that resides inherently, on its own, in some little "Jeff" center somewhere buried deep inside of me. "Jeff" can't be pinned down.

I knew this stuff intellectually before, but this was a direct insight. And it wasn't like the heavens opened up and suddenly infinite clarity reveled itself to me in its immense depth. It was more like a crack in a door suddenly got a little wider, and some light shone through. And it made me laugh. It was like everything in the universe suddenly became a little lighter, and a little more friendly.

Just then a spider ran by on the table and I smiled at it, sent thoughts of loving kindness, and wished it well on its spider journey.

By the way, Jeff is not particularly fond of spiders. :-)

[Ghata]

Dear Jeff,

what a lovely read :-)

Let it sink in and notice throughout the day how life feels now. What changed, what remains the same?

To whom did this insight happen?

Sending love,
Ghata

[JavaJeff]

Dear Jeff,

what a lovely read :-)

Let it sink in and notice throughout the day how life feels now. What changed, what remains the same?

To whom did this insight happen?

Sending love,
Ghata

Good morning, Just checking in.

What changed: nothing. Life and the universe are exactly the same as they were.

What changed: everything. My perception - my view of life - seems to have made a small shift, and nothing seems to be so serious anymore.

For example, I am under a lot of pressure at work to complete some testing by the end of this week, and everything is currently broken and all tests are failing. Most of it is out of my hands...because I'm just the tester, not the developer. In days past, I would have worried or gotten angry. I might have worked late and compromised my family time to "get things done." But yesterday I left work at my usual time, with the attitude of: "It's OK. It will work itself out. It is mostly out of my hands. I just continue to do my job, as best as I can, and things will work out." I mean, even if the worst happens and the project gets canceled and I get fired, so what?? There are lots of other jobs out there.

All of this "insight" didn't "happen" to anyone. In the first place, there isn't really a Jeff for it to happen to. It sometimes feels like there is, and there is still this body with very Jeff-like tendencies - but inside, there is a lot of stillness and there is most certainly not any specific entity called Jeff.

I'm going to go get my coffee and sit on the veranda and just enjoy this incredibly beautiful late-summer morning.

[Ghata]

Hi Jeff,

good to hear that relaxation is setting in :-)

I am empty of self.

I mean, I exist, meaning that I have a body. I have a brain. I have a personality, and I am sentient. I seem to be aware of my own existence. I interact with the "rest of the world." When poked with a stick, I yell in pain.

What does the word "I" refer to? Where is it felt in the body, which body sensations are present?

Have a fresh look.

Sending love,
Ghata

[JavaJeff]

What does the word "I" refer to?

Well, it's just a label, right? Way easier than saying "the assemblage of organic human parts that act in that peculiar Jeff-like way."

I've looked for "I" and I can't find it. It's just not in there, at least not in some definite, 100% locatable way. And as we've discussed before, it morphs and moves around depending on circumstance.

Where is it felt in the body, which body sensations are present?

"I" seems to have a concentrated density (or strength) in the head. When I say "I" out loud, the thought that arises seems to point back behind the eyes again.

But I did notice that the location can move to the chest/heart area when "I" am threatened. Yesterday I had someone at work badgering me publicly (they were criticizing me on this big email thread that had about 20 people on it, including my boss). That caused an immediate contraction that moved down into my chest. I grew shorter of breath. My jaw hardened. I felt hot in the face and in the chest. It was definitely a "fight" reaction, and I found myself immediately writing a nasty response before I even knew it. I didn't send it but the reaction was definitely there!

"I" in these cases is more than a label - it's a protection mechanism.

[Ghata]

Dear Jeff,

Well, it's just a label, right?

You tell me :-). We are going to look into the self illusion until it is completely clear in experience and you can speak with certainty.
It needs to be really clear otherwise going forth won't work.

But I did notice that the location can move to the chest/heart area when "I" am threatened. Yesterday I had someone at work badgering me publicly (they were criticizing me on this big email thread that had about 20 people on it, including my boss). That caused an immediate contraction that moved down into my chest. I grew shorter of breath. My jaw hardened. I felt hot in the face and in the chest. It was definitely a "fight" reaction, and I found myself immediately writing a nasty response before I even knew it. I didn't send it but the reaction was definitely there!"I" in these cases is more than a label - it's a protection mechanism.

Is there a separate entity, a protective mechanism, orchestrating the sensations and the reaction or does it happen on it's own?

Sending love,
Ghata

[JavaJeff]

Dear Jeff,

Well, it's just a label, right?

You tell me :-). We are going to look into the self illusion until it is completely clear in experience and you can speak with certainty.
It needs to be really clear otherwise going forth won't work.

Yes. It's a label. A pointer. To something that doesn't inherently exist. "I" exist in the sense that there is a body with a brain, and a whole lot of conditioning. But there is no permanent, static Self in here.

I know this, which is a big step forward from where I was a year ago. I'm not still struggling to prove that I exist. I have looked and looked, but cannot find it anywhere. By process of elimination, that means it's not there.

But the knowledge is still primarily intellectual. It has only appeared directly on a couple of brief, flitting occasions, and then that clarity has faded and I return to the usual, self-centered state of affairs, where "I" am inside the body, and have all the usual thoughts, urges, desires, etc. I don't experience this permanent, deep sort of true vision that those who have "really got it" seem to. (You know, those spiritual folks on YouTube who seem to just be experiencing the bliss and awe of raw experience for minutes at a time whilst saying nothing to the camera.)

OTOH I am not worrying about being not-100%-clear. I have absolutely no control over the "velocity of my awakening." I know I'm still a little cloudy. But through my cloudiness, reality is still shining. I will be blind to the full depth of the Truth, until I'm not.

Is there a separate entity, a protective mechanism, orchestrating the sensations and the reaction or does it happen on it's own?

No of course there's no separate entity doing this. It's not being done by any THING or any ONE, but it does happen. It is all interconnected, and causal: something arises for no particular reason, and in response to that arising, this specific conglomeration of other arisings (that we traditionally call a Person) - this specific one labeled "Jeff" - reacts in a mostly-conditioned way.

The protective "mechanism" is simply a set of behaviors that has adapted to ensure the continued existence of this body-unit.

[Ghata]

Dear Jeff,

thank you for your honesty! It is a great asset for the inquiry. :-)

I know this, which is a big step forward from where I was a year ago. I'm not still struggling to prove that I exist. I have looked and looked, but cannot find it anywhere. By process of elimination, that means it's not there.But the knowledge is still primarily intellectual. It has only appeared directly on a couple of brief, flitting occasions, and then that clarity has faded and I return to the usual, self-centered state of affairs, where "I" am inside the body, and have all the usual thoughts, urges, desires, etc.

Very well seen, Jeff.

From now on, refer to your actual experience, not to what you know. What you know will not help you.

I don't experience this permanent, deep sort of true vision that those who have "really got it" seem to. (You know, those spiritual folks on YouTube who seem to just be experiencing the bliss and awe of raw experience for minutes at a time whilst saying nothing to the camera.)

Oh please, don't wait for this to happen when seeing through the illusion of self, it is highly unlikely. Where you in bliss and awe when seeing that Santa doesn't exist?

No of course there's no separate entity doing this. It's not being done by any THING or any ONE, but it does happen.

Very good :-)

It is all interconnected, and causal: something arises for no particular reason, and in response to that arising, this specific conglomeration of other arisings (that we traditionally call a Person) - this specific one labeled "Jeff" - reacts in a mostly-conditioned way.

During a situation in which "Jeff" is responding, have a look:

Can a connection be experienced? If so, how does it look like and what is connected to what?

How does the causal relation of arisings work. Describe the process in detail.

Speak from direct experience only, from what can be perceived with the senses.


Sending love,
Ghata

[JavaJeff]

During a situation in which "Jeff" is responding, have a look:
Can a connection be experienced? If so, how does it look like and what is connected to what?

If we are talking about direct, actual experience - in other words, based on the 5 senses - then the connections we’re talking about here (the interdependence of stuff) cannot be experienced. It can only be inferred by the mind, which notes that when A happens, B happens; when A doesn’t happen, B doesn’t happen. From experiencing these events in the world over and over, the mind forms relations that it can then infer to the current situation.

But I can’t look at something that is interdependent with something else and actually see the connection.

How does the causal relation of arisings work. Describe the process in detail.
Speak from direct experience only, from what can be perceived with the senses.

I admit it, that I parroted this from my Buddhist teachings. :-) In which I have absolute faith, but I will not bore you with here. I'm sure you already know it anyway.

[Ghata]

Hi Jeff,

If we are talking about direct, actual experience - in other words, based on the 5 senses - then the connections we’re talking about here (the interdependence of stuff) cannot be experienced. It can only be inferred by the mind, which notes that when A happens, B happens; when A doesn’t happen, B doesn’t happen. From experiencing these events in the world over and over, the mind forms relations that it can then infer to the current situation.

Very well seen :)

You might be interested in this quote:

"When the real nature of things becomes clear to the ardent, meditating Brahman, then all doubts fade away, since he has understood the cessation of causation." Mahavagga 1.1

But I can’t look at something that is interdependent with something else and actually see the connection.

Is it interdependent then?

I admit it, that I parroted this from my Buddhist teachings. :-) In which I have absolute faith

I have to hit you with a Zen stick. Absolute faith is the exact opposite of what the Buddha wanted. He said: "Come and see for yourself."

Put your fingers on the keyboard. What can be felt?
Is there a border between the fingers and the keyboard?
Is there a feeler and the felt or simply feeling?