Looking for a guide

[Ezra]

Hi J,

OK try this exercise, sit quietly looking out the window for 5 minutes. As you sit quietly notice all the things that are going on in awareness – label each one as it comes up – e.g. “I am looking out the window . . . I am seeing the dog . . . I am hearing the car exhaust . . . I am scratching my nose . . . I am thinking about lunch . . . etc.”

OK now take a short break and stretch your legs.

Now go back to the window and do the exercise again. Notice what is arising in awareness, but this time drop the “I am” – just use verbs . . . looking . . . looking . . . hearing . . . thinking . . . hearing . . . scratching . . . breathing . . .

Was there a different feeling tone between the two exercises? Did either one feel more accurate a description of what’s going on?

Wow.Big difference in the feeling tone. The second time round felt more 'open'. The heart was immediately open and engaged. The tone was stiller, quieter. It was peaceful.
There was a lot more 'hearing' second time round as well. And 'feeling'.
I feel like it would be jumping the gun bit to say if one was more accurate of what's going on than the other. I know I'd rather experience life as it was second time round. Tears in the eyes again. It's a very stirring exercise.
Will do it again in the morning.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK next time you do the exercise just sit and be aware of all the different arisings to the senses. Don't label, just relax into the awareness of the sensations as they arise.

Maybe this metaphor will help explain what I’m getting at – the fullness of “experience” as it arises in awareness is like a symphony – there are maybe 30 different “instruments” (sensations/feelings/thoughts) all “playing” (arising) simultaneously. You can be aware of the symphony playing in its totality but at times certain instruments (trumpets, drums, bass etc.) may rise into prominence and be more apparent. When this happens you don’t stop hearing the entire symphony. It is still there. It’s just that a certain instrument, or a certain melody or refrain arises, and is more apparent for a while, then recedes again as some other sound in the symphony arises to take its place. Imagine that your “experience” is like this symphony. All the sensations that we have been looking at that enter through the 5 sense gates and thoughts generated by mind are always already co-present in awareness. But certain aspects of experience, like a sound, an itch, a flashing light, may arise and for a moment become more apparent – but you never lose sight of the wholeness of experience as it arises in awareness.

Just like with the symphony, “you” don’t need to “do” anything to notice the moderations in the sound – they simply arise in experience and become more or less apparent. Same with sensations arising in experience. Just relax into that space of awareness in which sensation arises and allow the symphony to play out – notice how different aspects of experience arise and recede but don’t follow them, don’t grasp on to them. Don’t label them.

Let me know how this goes.

[Ezra]

the fullness of “experience” as it arises in awareness is like a symphony

Ok. This is a very helpful metaphor.
I did the exercise quite a few times today. Maybe there was a few milliseconds of 'the symphony'. Experience was immediately very subtle. At first I thought I had an awareness of many senses at once. It seemed as if my heart beat and breathing were mostly being held in awareness (usually background but sometimes foreground). Later, I thought maybe the experiences were just- I'm struggling for words - more flowing, more seamless? I wondered if maybe I wasn't really experiencing a number of my senses at once but instead I was more open - less likely to hold onto anything for long.
As I said though, there was a spark - a millisecond or two where something happened at the edges of my awareness.

The feeling quality to the exercise was so soft.

Oh, and just to mention a little 'labelling' did sneak in. A couple of times after getting lost in thought I snapped out of it with a sort of knee jerk "thinking" squeal.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Maybe there was a few milliseconds of 'the symphony'.

OK remember we aren’t trying to develop any kind of ‘state’ – just notice more directly what is actually going on.

Experience was immediately very subtle. At first I thought I had an awareness of many senses at once. It seemed as if my heart beat and breathing were mostly being held in awareness (usually background but sometimes foreground).

When you use terms like “I thought” and “it seems” we are in the realm of thought. Thought is part of direct experience (it is after all an occurrence in awareness like an itch or a sound) – It’s OK for thought to be there – but we aren’t interested in thought’s ‘interpretation’ of what’s happening.

When you are listening to an actual symphony – do you have to ‘do’ anything for the hearing to happen? You may have music playing but not ‘hear’ it due to some obsessive thought story about some crisis or problem – attention is with the thoughts. But if you can find a ‘gap’ - when we aren’t attending to thoughts babbling away you can hear the music directly – but you don’t have to do anything to hear it – once thought is not being attended to – the sounds simply arise and are ‘known’.

Now what is it that ‘knows’ sound or any other sensation? Do you need thought to be present for a sensation to be ‘known’? Is it thought that ‘knows’ or is thought itself also ‘known’ like any other arising in awareness?

Later, I thought maybe the experiences were just- I'm struggling for words - more flowing, more seamless? I wondered if maybe I wasn't really experiencing a number of my senses at once but instead I was more open - less likely to hold onto anything for long.

Can you see that experience is always seamless – like in the symphony – can you tell where the sound of one instrument ends and another begins? With all these senses playing at once – where does sound end and touch begin? Can you find a dividing line between each sense?

there was a spark - a millisecond or two where something happened at the edges of my awareness.

For awareness to have ‘edges’ it presumably has a ‘centre’ – can you find a centre or edges in awareness of any arising?

[Ezra]

When you use terms like “I thought” and “it seems” we are in the realm of thought. Thought is part of direct experience (it is after all an occurrence in awareness like an itch or a sound) – It’s OK for thought to be there – but we aren’t interested in thought’s ‘interpretation’ of what’s happening.

I think I'm lost. I don't know how to describe the experience of doing the exercise without using "I thought' or "I felt".
You keep trying to bring me back to direct experience and I'm beginning to think I don't get it. I did read the piece on the site about it and will re read it agin this morning. Can you help me out?

You've told me a couple of times that we're not after developing some kind of a 'state". I've obviously had some expectation of falling into some sort of, I don't know, 'bigger-than-the body state. Ok, I'll try to drop this.

But if you can find a ‘gap’ - when we aren’t attending to thoughts babbling away you can hear the music directly – but you don’t have to do anything to hear it – once thought is not being attended to – the sounds simply arise and are ‘known’.

Can you say more about this - the sounds arise and are 'known"?

Now what is it that ‘knows’ sound or any other sensation? Do you need thought to be present for a sensation to be ‘known’? Is it thought that ‘knows’ or is thought itself also ‘known’ like any other arising in awareness?

Sorry J, I'm lost here. I don't get what you're after with 'knowing' sensation/thought etc.

Can you see that experience is always seamless – like in the symphony – can you tell where the sound of one instrument ends and another begins? With all these senses playing at once – where does sound end and touch begin? Can you find a dividing line between each sense

Yes, I do get that. I can see that.

there was a spark - a millisecond or two where something happened at the edges of my awareness.

For awareness to have ‘edges’ it presumably has a ‘centre’ – can you find a centre or edges in awareness of any arising?

No, I'm afraid I didn't choose a helpful expression. The experience had no edges - I was trying to describe a flash of some fleeting moment of maybe, integration or something like that. That might be me chasing after some sort of 'state' though...Or was it a moment of relaxing? You're using that word a lot? Is that the key for me at this point? Will relaxing into the exercises help me find my way into experiencing whatever is there directly?

So, I'll be doing the exercise agin during the day and will report back tonight anyway. Thought I'd better let you know how confused I am while I have the chance.
Just a thought - Should I read other people's dialogues on the site? Would this help me get a sense of what we're after? I haven't read any as of yet as I thought it might be better to find my own way. What do you think?

[Ezra]

This is my second post today, in case you missed the first one.

I've just done the exercise again twice more. First time I was getting pretty lost in thoughts. Second time round I dropped the word 'symphony' into my consciousness a couple of times and I did indeed have a sense many things at once- the washing machine's noise, my breathing,the clock ticking, muscles relaxing, noise from the other room, thoughts coming and going. It was expansive and relaxed. And, strangely, has stirred some memory I can't place.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Hi Carmel, don’t worry, you’re doing fine.

You could read the “Gateless Gatecrashers” book available as a free pdf download on the main LU site – this has some classic dialogues in it that might help you along – but I wouldn’t read other people’s threads as each journey is quite different, as is guiding style.

Yes, we aren’t looking for any kind of state – insight isn’t a ‘state’ – it’s a change in perspective. Take this example – say there’s a child who lives in a part of the world where there are lots of eclipses and there are some unkind people who scare the child by saying that the sun is being eaten by a sky dragon – so every time there is an eclipse the child is scared that the sun will be eaten and it will be dark forever. Then one day a kind teacher explains about astronomy – about the relationship between the sun and the earth and the moon – and that there is no dragon and there never was. From that point on the child is no longer afraid because she understands that the story of the sun being eaten by a dragon was just that – a story – in reality there never was a dragon. The paradigm has shifted. She can no longer go back to believing in the dragon.

Seeing through the self-view is like this – in reality there is no ‘self’ behind actions and there never was. When we see the reality of this it’s like “Oh right, there is no self!” – it can even be quite funny that we thought there ever was such a thing. Since we now see there is no self a lot of the negative attachment to this idea (ideas of selfishness, self-protection, anxieties about the future, our ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’, fixed views etc.) naturally starts to drop away. But it’s not like you get super-powers or a life of bliss or anything!

OK let’s backtrack a bit and do some really simple DE exercises.

The distinction between mental activities (thoughts and images primarily) and direct experience of the five ‘body’ senses should be pretty obvious but it’s surprising how the mind can subtly ‘simulate’ direct experience and hoodwink us into believing that a thought or image about an experience is the same as the direct experience itself. So it’s important to be clear – experientially – about the difference. This is actually very simple – the main thing is just to notice.

A fairly straightforward way of doing it is to notice the difference between the mental simulation and the direct experience of the five senses in turn. You may find it enough to do just one of these to get the point, but in any case, these observations needn’t take you very long. You can easily enough devise variants on what I've suggested, but don’t labour it if you’ve got the point.

Sit with your eyes open, look at what is appearing. Note this as a direct sense experience of seeing. Close your eyes and imagine the scene you were just looking at. Identify this as a mental activity – imaging. Repeat until you’re completely clear about the difference.

Now with hearing. If you’ve got a bell or some kind of musical instrument you could use that – or some music on a CD, for instance. Imagine the sound, then listen to the sound. Mental activity … direct experience. Know the difference, directly.

With body (tactile) sensations: try mentally imagining / naming ‘hand’, ‘foot’ and other parts of the body and then bring attention to the direct sensations of the part you’ve just named.

Notice the process: is it ‘hand’ … mental image of hand … actual sensations of hand? Or what? Or, try it by imagining lying down on the floor. Then lie down, feel the pressure/weight/sensations of contact with the floor. Or, imagine crossing your legs. Now cross them. Similarly, you could imagine walking, then walk, imagine pinching your skin, then pinch.

This is simply a matter of getting clear in experience that tactile experiences themselves are totally different to any kind of mental activity about a tactile experience.

Let me know if the above is clear in your direct experience then we’ll look a bit more at what’s behind the ‘knowing’ of the experience.

[Ezra]

Great. Thanks. I see a big difference. The mental imagining or recreating is totally different and relies on information I have already or ideas about how things are. Big surprise - I couldn't begin to recreate the window I had been looking at - couldn't see it at all - just a bunch of information about the wood, the shadows, the hinge - couldn't put it altogether to see anything. Same with everything else.
Ok. Good. This should prove very helpful. Thanks.
I'll start dipping into 'The Gateless Gatecrashers'.

[Jack'n'theBox]

The mental imagining or recreating is totally different and relies on information I have already or ideas about how things are.

OK this is a great observation. We could say that our ‘reality’ is assembled moment by moment, as you say, relying ‘on information I have already or ideas about how things are’. But what we are doing here is challenging this ‘reality’ through checking in with direct experience to see what is REALLY happening (not what thought thinks is happening).

So let’s go back to the experience ‘symphony’ exercise.

Can you just relax into the experience of the moment and just notice what arises, without labeling? When you listen to an actual symphony, you don’t sit there going “Oh drums, trumpets, chorus, violin, cello” etc. as the music flows. You don’t listen with the mind. So try to ‘simply be’ with experience as it arises.

OK now, as sensations and thoughts arise, consider is there any ‘thing’ that these sensations arise to? I mean are there two things in the experience – the sensation and some other separate thing that experiences it?

[Ezra]

Right. Just been doing the 'symphony' exercise.
Got a lot to report and am trying to get this written before the kids get up so I amy not be as eloquent as I'd like.

That was fascinating. There was so much LIFE to experience. It was exhilarating, at first.
Then, sound led me into something interesting. I noticed thought was directing me - 'here comes a car, listen to the car". So I listened. Then listened - with something other than my ear - I listen to the CAR- not my idea of the car. The experience was so different. It was like side-stepping something.
I was beginning to sniff something out. The wardrobe opposite me. The tree outside the window - there is the tree outside and I'm in here. I'm beginning to see what I'm doing. I'd didn't get beyond the tree, the wardrobe etc as I did with the car but I'm beginning to see it. I think. I think.

Hope I'm making some sense. I'll try to do the exercise again later and report in again if I can.

Your question - "IS there anything the sensations arise to?"
I hope I've begun to answer that. I'm beginning to see the trickery I think . THe car noise didn't arise 'to' anything. It just came and went.
I wish I could give this more time right now. Feels like I'm getting closer to something.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Hi Carmel, good work!

Is there a ‘here’ and a ‘there’ in direct experience? Can you separate the sound as a separate ‘thing’ from the experiencing of the sound? I mean, is the sound somehow ‘over there’ and the experiencing of the sound ‘over here’? Can you separate the sound from the experiencing?

Check this out with all the senses – is any sensation separate from the experiencing of it? (i.e. are there two things involved – a sight/sound/smell/taste/touch/thought – and a separate ‘thing’ that experiences them?)
Here’s how the Buddha put it in the Bahiya sutta:

In the seen, there is only the seen,
in the heard, there is only the heard,
in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no ‘thing’ there . . .
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
‘you’ are therefore located neither ‘here’ nor ‘there’ nor in any place
betwixt the two.

[Ezra]

Check this out with all the senses – is any sensation separate from the experiencing of it? (i.e. are there two things involved – a sight/sound/smell/taste/touch/thought – and a separate ‘thing’ that experiences them?)

Right now, in my experience, no. No. No.
I've been sitting for a while now doing the 'symphony' exercise and something has shifted. Part way through the sounds around me 'sounded' (birds singing, cars on the road, a chainsaw buzzing) without me straining to 'hear' them. They are still 'sounding' and somehow, every noise is slightly surprising, a tiny bit wondrous.

I've just checking through your list above - sight/ smell/ taste/ touch/thought - I can't find a separate thing experiencing them. Even thought (the one I struggled with) - coming and going.

Sorry, I didn't get a second chance to post again yesterday but probably will get online tonight.

Thanks J.

[Jack'n'theBox]

OK great. So when I say to you -- "turn your attention to each sensation as it arises. Is there some 'thing' separate from the sensation experiencing it?" and you say "No" . . .

How does 'attention' move from one sense arising to another -- is there an 'I" that moves it (like you'd shine a flashlight around?' -- To put this another way, can you find a thing separate from the sensation that is somehow observing it? Is there an observe-er?

[Ezra]

Hi J,

How does 'attention' move from one sense arising to another -- is there an 'I" that moves it (like you'd shine a flashlight around?' -- To put this another way, can you find a thing separate from the sensation that is somehow observing it? Is there an observe-er?

I've been working away on this this morning for a long time now and am very stuck.

What seems to be happening is this - I sit quietly, I listen, I look. Sounds come and go - sensations too, thoughts. There is a huge 'fullness' to everything. I mean, there is a 'bursting' quality in the sounds and even in the moments of quiet.

But, I can see that 'I' have to set it up. 'I' have to mindfully listen and look to begin the exercise, then pretty quickly it feels like sensations, thoughts,feelings etc just come and go.


Mmmn. Yesterday felt so close to opening up but today "I' seem to be back in the driving seat.

Sorry - just realised I haven't answered your question. I don't see that flashlight moving around. Everything just seems to arise and fade but as I said, there does seem to be a thing setting it all up.

[Jack'n'theBox]

Hi Carmel it’s normal to meet resistance from thought which says “I did this!” or in your case “I set this up”.
But let’s look at how anything actually happens.

You say you're in the driving seat, but is there a "you" that drives? For example, thought may say “I got in the car this morning and drove the kids to school and then the supermarket” – seems like a sensible description. But look at the momentary flow of experience which is all there ever is, right? (There is no direct experience of ‘driving the kids to school’ – that is a thought story/memory assembled from a seamless flow of actions and events).


So you are in the car, the kids are playing up, you are trying to find the news on the radio tuner, you are thinking about what you need to get for supper, maybe your phone goes off, you manage to attend to all these tasks AND drive a car and not hit anything – is there an “I” that is turning the wheel, looking in the mirror, fiddling with the radio, telling the kids to stop it, thinking about dinner – do you see how all these activities and events flow seamlessly?

Is there some “mini-me” behind all this pulling levers and deciding to shift from one task to the next?
Reflect on your daily routine and see how it’s pretty much on auto-pilot – it just does itself with no need for control.

Of course your partner may ask you when he comes home “What did you do today” and you can real off a long list “I did XYZ.” But this is thought constructing a whole out of a seamless flow of momentary events. Have a look at your routine and see if you can get a sense of it all just happening.

Here's a really simple exercise that helps you focus in on whether there is a controll-er that somehow makes things happen -- have a go and let me know what comes up:

OK tap with two or three fingers on the leg. Tap, tap, tap. Then, hold the fingers poised ready to tap. Just waiting in the air for a command to tap.

Looking at the fingers in the air, it’s not quite known when they will tap. In fact, the thought “tap now” can quite happily show up and yet the fingers remain in the air.

See if you can notice the moment when the command is issued and from whence it comes SUCH THAT the fingers simply have to obey. Notice if other commands to tap can be issued which have no effect on the fingers, leaving them remaining in the air.

Is it true that in direct experience there is no command that can be issued to make the fingers tap?

What causes the finger to tap? Anything?