conceptual understanding into experience

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

Welcome back!

I have an experience of watching, of a 'watcher'

Does the first (an experience of watching) really entail the second (a watcher)?

We say "the wind blows", but of course, there is in reality only "blowing" - there is no "wind" that is "doing" the blowing.

In direct experience, can you find any separation between watching (sense experience) and watcher? Or is there only watching?

When I look, the thoughts and decisions - say about where to focus my attention or the labelling - seem to arise spontaneously without intention.

Great observation!

That doesn't make sense.

Don't worry about whether it makes sense - what is important is what you actually observe.

I mean, I experience them as a continual flow of changing events, NOT directed

good! have confidence in what you are experiencing. If you are not sure, then look again.

but something must be doing it. Aaarrgh. Yes that is an assumption I guess because I can't exactly see or locate it but something is going on, it surely cannot be just a chain of cause and effect without a will no?

these ideas and question are all speculation - identification with thought.

When you are attending to direct experience, and thoughts and questions like this arise, then just notice them as thoughts - just one more component of direct experience.

Do thoughts and questions also arise spontaneously without intention?
How about decisions?
And sense experience?
Awareness?

Can you find, anywhere, "I" driving any of this?

[valentine]

Hi Valentine,

Welcome back!

Does the first (an experience of watching) really entail the second (a watcher)?

In direct experience, can you find any separation between watching (sense experience) and watcher? Or is there only watching?

When you are attending to direct experience, and thoughts and questions like this arise, then just notice them as thoughts - just one more component of direct experience.

Do thoughts and questions also arise spontaneously without intention?
How about decisions?
And sense experience?
Awareness?

Can you find, anywhere, "I" driving any of this?

Hi!

Welcome back too

This is the truth: there is no separate watcher I can find - and I don’t even know who the ‘I’ is in this statement.
I don’t understand it but I had a brief vision of everything, including my thoughts, arising and passing away without intervention - like the airplane noise outside the window.
I am not sure what ‘to make a decision' means in that situation - I don't have a direct experience of it, just the thought that, like the labelling, it may be happening too quickly to detect.

Awareness, or awareness of awareness, seems to arise naturally when I am not absorbed in thinking

But if I conciously direct my focus to sensations around my body, for example if i say to myself: ‘what does your foot feel like?', I become aware of the sensation in my foot.
That is the nearest thing to an ‘I’’ I can find

But did I conciously come up with the idea to have that thought or did it just arise? I don’t know.

Thanks!

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

Wonderful! Really!

I am not sure what ‘to make a decision' means in that situation - I don't have a direct experience of it, just the thought that, like the labelling, it may be happening too quickly to detect.

True - all sorts of mental events do happen very fast, and depending on how aware/concentrated we are, they might or might not be noticed.

However, if elements of the decision making process happen too fast to notice, what does this say about whether they are being driven by "I"? Can "I" do something too fast for "I" to notice? Or are these processes happening in some spontaneous fashion?

if i say to myself: ‘what does your foot feel like?', I become aware of the sensation in my foot.
That is the nearest thing to an ‘I’’ I can find

Can you say any more about where the "I" is here?

did I conciously come up with the idea to have that thought or did it just arise? I don’t know.

If you consciously came up with the idea, surely you'd know?

Here is a funny little exercise:

Decide, and say to yourself: "I am now going to have a thought"...

A thought will, no doubt, arise sooner or later.

Was there any choosing, any decision to have that particular thought?

[valentine]

However, if elements of the decision making process happen too fast to notice, what does this say about whether they are being driven by "I"? Can "I" do something too fast for "I" to notice? Or are these processes happening in some spontaneous fashion?

I don't really know. When you are driving you do this all the time, there are a thousand little decisions just below the level of consciousness. I suppose they are arising in response to changing events. There ei something somewhere - the knowledge of hose to drive but true, that isn;t in direct experience.

if i say to myself: ‘what does your foot feel like?', I become aware of the sensation in my foot.
That is the nearest thing to an ‘I’’ I can find

[quote
Can you say any more about where the "I" is here? [/quote]

Isn't it in the question, in the intention? I have the experience of my thoughts deliberately directing my focus of attention around the body., just as my thoughts now are deliberately directing my actions to write this - well, sort of.
I can see how the thought 'I am hungry' spontaneously arises, provoked by a sensation in my stomach. But then "I' take over and direct myself "I am not going to go to the kitchen until I have finished this'.
Why would that thought arises spontaneously rather than the thought 'I am going to eat right now'?
Because I have an intention to choose to stay and write this.

did I conciously come up with the idea to have that thought or did it just arise? I don’t know.

If you consciously came up with the idea, surely you'd know?

You'd think so. I am getting a bit confused!

Here is a funny little exercise:

Decide, and say to yourself: "I am now going to have a thought"...

A thought will, no doubt, arise sooner or later.

Was there any choosing, any decision to have that particular thought?
[/quote]

No. Damn it, But somehow it still feels as if there is a choice, intention, not just a fatalistic stream of events arising flavoured by 'watching'

thanks!

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

Let's look some more into intention and choice:

I have the experience of my thoughts deliberately directing my focus of attention around the body

then "I' take over and direct myself

I have an intention to choose to stay and write this

somehow it still feels as if there is a choice, intention, not just a fatalistic stream of events arising flavoured by 'watching'

OK - so there is intention and choice in experience - let's accept that for now.

The question is: do intention or choice require "I"?

Let's set up a situation in which this can be explored...

Taking choice first: I assume you have a bookshelf? OK, you're going to choose a particular book - the one you would most like to read (or re-read) next.... While looking over the books and making the choice, observe the direct experience involved in the choosing process. Where is "I"?

We can look at 'intention' next time.

[valentine]

The question is: do intention or choice require "I"?

Let's set up a situation in which this can be explored...

Taking choice first: I assume you have a bookshelf? OK, you're going to choose a particular book - the one you would most like to read (or re-read) next.... While looking over the books and making the choice, observe the direct experience involved in the choosing process. Where is "I"?

When I look at this, again it is rather mysterious. Like the labelling, it just seems to happen.

If there is an 'I' choosing it is too fast for me to notice, it. But then who is the 'me'?

As I scan the books, there seems to be a series of reactions, 'not that one, not that, maybe that one ... that one'. Are these reactions thoughts or feelings or a combination the two? The closer I look, the more difficult it is to tell - or why I am more drawn to one book and less to others. The almost instant reaction can be followed up or justified with some thoughts - 'I already read it' or 'it looks boring' or 'I am not interested in that'- but they seem to come a little later.

Cchoosing seems to be going on instinctively without conscious control - at first anyway. Or as though all the myriad experiences, current conditions and personal history combine to make the choice.

Outside of these observations, I can feel I am building some resistance to this way of experience somehow!

thanks!

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

it just seems to happen [...] choosing seems to be going on instinctively without conscious control

good observations

If there is an 'I' choosing it is too fast for me to notice, it. But then who is the 'me'?

and a very good question!

"me" cannot be "the chooser", so what, indeed, is "me"?

Is this just a trick of language, or does "me" point to something real here? What can be found in direct experience when you investigate what it means for "me to notice" ... can you express what this means in terms of direct experience?

Outside of these observations, I can feel I am building some resistance to this way of experience somehow!

interesting - do say more! What is beneath the resistance? What is the resistance protecting you from?

[valentine]

Hi!

"me" cannot be "the chooser", so what, indeed, is "me"?

Is this just a trick of language, or does "me" point to something real here? What can be found in direct experience when you investigate what it means for "me to notice" ... can you express what this means in terms of direct experience?

In direct experience, there is no one thing I can fix in a place as 'me' . Only sensations and thoughts coming and going, activated by something labelled conciousness. In the moments without thinking, there is no sense of identity. 'I' think 'myself' into being. There is a spaciousness and an equality of experience in that. Noticing / awareness is going on and the is an assumption (thought driven?) that there is a me behind it. The thought is: 'there has to be someone doing this".

Outside of these observations, I can feel I am building some resistance to this way of experience somehow!

interesting - do say more! What is beneath the resistance? What is the resistance protecting you from?
[/quote]

One hand, there is a frustration that the few moments of direct experiencing without identification do not seem to fully convince me there is no 'me' on the other it feels almost impossible to let go of the belief that there IS a 'me' - even though I can't see it. The fact that my usual neuroses and preoccupations flood back in seem to indicate that I haven't really taken this in.

The resistance is a kind of restlessness - both an impatience to 'see' truly and some fear of the consequence if I do!

thanks!

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

Your observations are really on the mark - it's a joy to read!

Working backwards:

The fact that my usual neuroses and preoccupations flood back in seem to indicate that I haven't really taken this in.

This points to some expectations you have, which might be blind you to the significance of what is actually going on.

What you report is completely typical, even where insight has clearly arisen.

Habits have their own momentum, and they do not simply stop dead. If the habits are a runaway train, barrelling along the tracks, then all that insight can do is to disable the engine. Eventually, the train will grind to a halt (and there are also techniques for applying the brakes, but that is another story).

You are, in effect, saying "I can't have disabled the engine, the train is still moving!".

I'm not saying that a significant breakthrough has necessarily happened, just that asking the question "have all my habitual patterns dropped away?" is not going to yield a useful answer.

Another question that is not useful is "am I now always seeing in terms of direct experience?" - that is not the goal, as we discussed earlier, it is a technique that leads to a truer understanding of experience, not a practical mode of being in the world. Treat it as a raft, to put down once it has been used.

There are other questions that are more useful, for example:

"Is there any remaining doubt that the 'self' I used to believe in was an illusion?"
"Does this seem significant, does it change anything?"
"Is this something I am ever likely to forget altogether?"
"Is this something I could recall again, given the right conditions?"

Taking the first of these questions, it is worth distinguishing 'a doubtful thought, recognised as a thought' from actual entrenched doubt.... so when you say:

The thought is: 'there has to be someone doing this"

I wonder: is that just a thought that arises and passes, just as other elements of experience arise and pass?

.... or is it 'sticky', a burning question that "you" identify with?

Or perhaps both at different times?

If a thought starts out 'sticky', what happens when you notice thought as thought?

That is probably enough for one day, however, I can't resist asking:

'see' truly and some fear of the consequence

What would the consequence be?

[valentine]

Hi

"Is there any remaining doubt that the 'self' I used to believe in was an illusion?"

There is some I think. In thought, it seems to still be around the role 'intention' plays

"Does this seem significant, does it change anything?"

It does. I can see a dramatic vista opening if I could begin to live more on this basis. Briefly, I had the experience of being without gender, without identity and that my history, the things that I assume connects me with my childhood, were flexible and not fixed - and that felt real and good.
And I have noticed some actual changes - being less reactive mainly...

"Is this something I am ever likely to forget altogether?"

I don't think so BUT I have had 'realisations' before and old (or new) habits have eclipsed them!

"Is this something I could recall again, given the right conditions?"

For sure - but I think I will need to make this a practice - I would not assume that it has become irreversible

The thought is: 'there has to be someone doing this"

I wonder: is that just a thought that arises and passes, just as other elements of experience arise and pass?
.... or is it 'sticky', a burning question that "you" identify with?
Or perhaps both at different times?

In these moments of direct experience, it is a thought that arises and passes - just perhaps hovering in the background, Outside that, it is still sticky I think.

If a thought starts out 'sticky', what happens when you notice thought as thought?

Today I experienced it as an assumption - not a fact. That perhaps is not the same as saying I no longer agree with it- but that definitely a new possibility has come in.

'see' truly and some fear of the consequence

What would the consequence be?

[/quote]

That is very good question. I guess it is just such unfamiliar and uncertain territory. What might happen? The first thing that spontaneously occours is that I would have to become more ethical - and take the consequences of that.

Thanks so much - I particularly appreciate your image of the train rumbling on but that if the engine is turned off - it will eventually slow and stop.!

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

Thanks for your detailed answers... let's look some more at 'intention' then.

What exactly is 'intention' in direct experience?

How does it arise?

Is it fundamentally different from other thoughts and feelings that arise?

Perry

[valentine]

Hi Valentine,

Hi

What exactly is 'intention' in direct experience?

How does it arise?

Is it fundamentally different from other thoughts and feelings that arise?

Just before I try to answer that, I want to write where I have got to. In direct experience, there is no self, no manager, I can find. There is a myriad of interacting sensations, thoughts, feelings (sensations plus labels?), environmental events. The thoughts are sometime discursive, sometimes images, memories, fantasies. Labelling is going on (via thoughts). And there is watching. there is a sense of 'i' or 'me watching but when I examine this, there is no way to describe that 'i' or 'me' separate from what is being watched. The emanates of experience are deep and spacious - mysterious and simple and there is a sense of liberty about them. Is this the gap in pratitya samupada?

BUT this is when I sit in the morning - in kind of meditation. At other times (and even when sitting like this sometimes) it is difficult to see past a thick layer of thinking which almost seems to be trying to prevent me seeing.. And it is like some doubt and fear is hovering in the background unwilling to let go control.

With regard to intention, I looked at what I thought it was and it seemed to disappear! But how is it different than other thoughts? You asked me to examine it. I carried that that thought with me. So whilst some thoughts, for example 'I am hungry' arise spontaneously, the thought 'examine intention' seemed to be carried somehow and then deliberately implemented - not spontaneous.

The following is speculation so perhaps beyond this enquiry but If intention does not exist, then how to explain karma, ethical responsibility, right action?


Thanks!

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

You describe direct experience quite beautifully! I wouldn't worry about whether it is "the gap in pratitya samupada" for the time being - there is no hurry to label what is going on, best for now just to experience directly.

it is difficult to see past a thick layer of thinking which almost seems to be trying to prevent me seeing.. And it is like some doubt and fear is hovering in the background unwilling to let go control.

This does not sound very comfortable, but it is not something that you need consider to be a problem. These 'thick headed' states will not all drop away at once, but the very fact that you notice them for what they are indicates that your new seeing is active and growing.

Whatever state like this might be going on, just notice and investigate it for what it is - there is no need to try to change it, just to notice. Notice the components of the experience, and particularly, notice any 'story making' around what is going on.... Is there really anything in experience that is "trying to prevent" you from seeing? Or is this a shorthand way of describing some lower-level pattern of thought / feeling that is going on? Are there other stories that pop up during these states? Notice stories as stories, as thoughts arising and passing ... of course, they will often be 'sticky' at first, and pull your attention inside of themselves, but noticing stories as stories is a skill that develops with practice.

I'm not sure from what you wrote whether there was any actual experience of fear, or just that you suspect that there must be fear there, even though it is not something you were feeling at the time.

Either way, if you do notice fear arising (or lurking!) it is good to investigate it. Fear is a protection mechanism, something that has evolved to protect our bodies from physical danger... It is worth acknowledging that it is trying to look after you (thanking it even!), and then you can investigate it by asking: what is this fear trying to protect? What is it trying to protect from?

Good observations around 'intention'. So it is something relatively long-lived, and other actions flow from it. You ask:

If intention does not exist, then how to explain karma, ethical responsibility, right action?

It is not a question of whether intention exists or not - let us assume it exists in experience, that it is a primary element of experience just as thought, feeling, and sense-impressions are primary elements of experience. The question is: is there anything about intention that implies or requires some separate "self" entity to own it or drive it? What makes intention different from other elements of experience?

[valentine]

It is not a question of whether intention exists or not - let us assume it exists in experience, that it is a primary element of experience just as thought, feeling, and sense-impressions are primary elements of experience. The question is: is there anything about intention that implies or requires some separate "self" entity to own it or drive it? What makes intention different from other elements of experience?

Hello Perry

It feels like we are getting towards the end of something but Intention seems like a sticky one for me - more so than Choice did. Your suggested exercise around choosing a book from a shelf provided the insight that choice itself could be the spontaneous result of a thousand factors of experience and history. I am finding that more difficult to see and to experience for Intention for some reason

The thought returns that the intention is being carried somewhere - that there is a prevailing will holding it. Can i see it? No! But it is still installed rather firmly as a belief.

The idea of a self seems to be a 'logical' answer, a 'reasonable' answer to the mystery of how the mechanism of Intention works, so my thinking sees to be holding onto that still

thanks for your patience!

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

Intention seems like a sticky one for me [...]

The thought returns that the intention is being carried somewhere - that there is a prevailing will holding it. Can i see it? No! But it is still installed rather firmly as a belief.

The idea of a self seems to be a 'logical' answer, a 'reasonable' answer to the mystery of how the mechanism of Intention works, so my thinking sees to be holding onto that still

We are touching here on philosophy rather than direct experience ... normally on LU we steer clear, but let's paddle here for a bit...

I can see how 'intention' could be particularly sticky ... it is essentially the same as 'will', and it therefore brings to mind 'free will'. Who would not want 'free will', after all? The alternative is frightening. And if there is free will, then surely there must be an agent to exercise that will? It stands to reason! This is a very normal train of thought, at least for us Westerners.

Ask yourself exactly how this 'logical' and 'reasonable' idea of an 'intending self' would work... clarify the idea as far as you can. In the light of this, here are some things to consider:

• 'free will' is normally understood as a 'self' exercising 'intention' or 'will' .... does this even make logical sense? How does this 'self' decide what intention to exercise? Is there another self inside the first self that freely decides which 'intention' to exercise? How deep do the Russian dolls go?
• could this idea of a 'self' exercising 'intention' be just a linguistic trick? When we say "the wind blows" we know that really there is just "blowing". When we say "I will", why must there be more than just "willing"?
• it may seem that the alternative to "I" exercising "free will" is that "I" am acted upon by external forces with no freedom at all.... the opposite to 'free will' is normally understood to be complete bondage. I am suggesting a third possibility - there is no "I" to exercise free will and ALSO no "I" to experience bondage - phenomena like "will", "thought", "feeling" and "sensing" ALL arise and pass without any central controlling entity "I". The alternative to free will is not scary bondage, but beautiful spontaneity.

Back this up with observing direct experience around intention - does 'willing' really need to be any different in how it arises and passes from 'feeling', 'thinking', 'seeing' and so on? Compare your ideas about 'willing' with your experience of it - do your ideas measure up?