Guide Request

[bfltsns15]

Hi Fred,

With eyes open, is there an outside and an inside? Sight is tricky, because, like touch, it can lead to a LOT of interpretation. Take a good look around, what do you say? Where does inside stop and outside begin?

There is no inside/outside seen - just the seen. Could say all of the seen is inside, but inside what? Not relevant to what is seen - just an idea.

Where is the experiencing of the sound taking place? Is it over there? Or is ‘over there’ a speculative interpretation?

The experiencing of the sound is not taking place at a location anywhere or perhaps nowhere. Yes, I see, 'over there' is speculative - the location is interpreted relative to the 'body' location.
There are just sounds.

When you say ‘relative to the body location’, can you ever experience any other location? How would you know if there is anything other than that location that we label ‘the body’?

Not sure I get this, feeling confused, but also I think I see what you mean. Cannot imagine experiencing a different location. Well, there is only here and here is wherever here is?
Will continue to look at this...

Thanks,

Jerry

[Freddi]

Yes Jerry, it is simple and I’m sure you see what I mean:
While our conditioned thinking claims things like « here » and « there », can we ever know that there is such a thing as « there »? Can we ever experience it? Why do we assume it does exist?
The same goes for many things, like « now/then » (can we ever experience « then »?), « today/tomorrow », etc.

Fred

[bfltsns15]

Hi Fred,

OK. I think I understand:

There is only inside, no outside to be found - then inside has no relevance or conceptual meaning.

There is only here, no there to be found - then there has no relevance or conceptual meaning.

There is only now, no then to be found - then now has no relevance or conceptual meaning.

Seems conceptual, seems like it should be more clear from direct experience - don't want to fool myself here.

Thanks,
Jerry

[bfltsns15]

Hi Fred,

Need to clarify my previous post.

What I meant is this:

In direct experience it is clear there is only inside, so the dependent concepts of inside/outside is not relevant and the word inside is meaningless.

In direct experience it is clear there is only now, so the dependent concepts of here/now now loses its relevance and the word now is meaningless.

For some reason, the here/there paradigm is the one that seems less obvious in direct experience. It seems to me that two objects in direct perception have a relative distance between each other, and if one of the objects is the body, then there is a relative distance between objects seen although it is an interpretation to "extract" those objects from the complete tapestry and then impute a distance. I'm probably making this more complicated than you intend, but still not completely clear what is meant. If you are suggesting that depth of the visual field or distance of an object from the body is an interpretation and not direct experience, I don't clearly see that yet.

thanks,

Jerry

[bfltsns15]

Hi Fred,

Yet another clarification, well maybe it is....

While our conditioned thinking claims things like « here » and « there », can we ever know that there is such a thing as « there »? Can we ever experience it? Why do we assume it does exist?

Yes, I understand, all experiencing occurs HERE never there. I understand here/there are really meaningless designators just like the others mentioned, but for some reason it strikes me as quite odd - conditioning perhaps - to say, "Can we ever experience it? Why do we assume it does exist?" This still seems weird to me. I think both 'here' and 'there' are meaningless and only have meaning relative to each other.

There is a constructed experience here of the depth of the field of view 'there'. In direct experience, experienced here, there is distance from body location 'here' to another object 'there' or between objects 'theres.'

I don't want to get too 'hung up' on this, just seems like relative location of objects in the field of view is the direct experience.

thanks,
Jerry

[Freddi]

Hi Jerry,

Don’t get hung up about this! Like our conditioning, Rome was not built in a day, so it will take some time to ‘unbuild’ it … but as you are keen to investigate ...

The main point is, as you say:

there is a relative distance between objects seen although it is an interpretation to "extract" those objects from the complete tapestry and then impute a distance

And that is exactly it. Taking one object out of the whole, naming it and separating it from another ‘object’, like cardboard cut-outs, that is all happening in thought. Our mind separates, isolates, to try and understand, make sense, own the experience.

There is only now, no then to be found - then now has no relevance or conceptual meaning.
Seems conceptual, seems like it should be more clear from direct experience - don't want to fool myself here.

We’re all doing our best with the tools we have here, and that is words, concepts, grammar, etc.
When you say ‘it should be more clear from direct experience’, what do you mean?
In your present experience, is there anything other than here and now?
As you say, once seen that there is no ‘then’, then ‘now’ looses its relevance. There is only THIS.

There is a constructed experience here of the depth of the field of view 'there'. In direct experience, experienced here, there is distance from body location 'here' to another object 'there' or between objects 'theres.'

There is experiencing of sounds, and those sounds can contain some spatial cues, ready-made for interpretation. There is no experiencing of actual distance, that is the interpretation of the spatial cues.
Listen to some music on your stereo. Notice how some sounds seem to come from the left speaker and other seem to come from the right speaker. One speaker may even seem like it is further away if the sound is not as loud. Interpretation of the cues can reconstruct an entire orchestra, but, in actuality, is there any more than vibration appearing to come out of speakers?

Thanks!

Fred

[bfltsns15]

Hi Fred,

When you say ‘it should be more clear from direct experience’, what do you mean?
In your present experience, is there anything other than here and now?
As you say, once seen that there is no ‘then’, then ‘now’ looses its relevance. There is only THIS.

I meant that 'my' direct experience gives the appearance of containing 'there' and 'distance.'

Yes, in my present experience, there is only here and now. There is only THIS.

There is experiencing of sounds, and those sounds can contain some spatial cues, ready-made for interpretation. There is no experiencing of actual distance, that is the interpretation of the spatial cues.
Listen to some music on your stereo. Notice how some sounds seem to come from the left speaker and other seem to come from the right speaker. One speaker may even seem like it is further away if the sound is not as loud. Interpretation of the cues can reconstruct an entire orchestra, but, in actuality, is there any more than vibration appearing to come out of speakers?

Yes, I understand it is a mental construction. There is experiencing of sounds as sounds. Distance is a mental construction.

Not sure where to go from here...

Thanks,

Jerry

[Freddi]

Hi Jerry,

Let’s explore thoughts. I would like you to observe thoughts as they happen in your most immediate, first-hand experience. Some stay a little longer and insist on telling us stories. Don’t get involved in the content of them, that is not the point here. Just acknowledge them and see how they dance.

Can you see where they come from and where they go when they leave?
Can ‘you’ plan the next thought?
Can ‘you’ stop a thought in mid flight?
Are ‘you’ the thinker of these thoughts?
Do you see the difference between the direct experience of thoughts (what’s happening) and their content (what’s not happening)?

Thanks!

Fred

[bfltsns15]

Hi Fred,

Took a look at thoughts. No surprises there...

Can you see where they come from and where they go when they leave?

No. They just show up and then they are gone. I cannot see where they come from nor where they go.

Can 'you' plan the next thought?

No. It is never known what the next thought will be.

Can 'you' stop a thought in mid flight?

No I can't. It can stop in mid-flight, but that typically does not happen. There are training methods for learning to stop a thought in flight or immediately upon arising with certain meditation practices designed to do that with varying degrees of success. For example, with the practice of labeling the current thought with just "thought" without following the content, then the previous thought may not complete, or if it does it is not known that it does. Another meditation practice example is to temporarily "zap" thought as if it were a video game (like the old asteroids video game from the eighties) where the object of the game is to "zap" the thought immediately upon arising. Even with the practices that may stop a thought in mid flight or upon arising, there is no one stopping the thought in mid flight - it is just what is happening with training. Sometimes it happens, sometimes not. Obviously these are not typical daily life experiences of stopping thoughts, but it can be done especially under high concentration meditation states.

Are 'you' the thinker of these thoughts.

No. I am not. ;-) The thinker is a thought label which points to an imaginary entity. The thinker cannot be found in direct experience.

Do you see the difference between the direct experience of thoughts (what’s happening) and their content (what’s not happening)

Yes! Clearly. The thought event happens with sometimes an energetic sensation in the head associated with it. The content of the thought event is never the actual event. The map is not the territory. The content points either to what is being experienced (e.g. raining, or 'it' is raining) or what is imagined to be experienced (e.g. I see the rain.)

This all seems very clear to me…Thoughts were actually quite sparse today. There were some thoughts during meditation and other times when I stopped to watch them for a while, but not many. Some days thoughts are much more busy, and stressful, but not today. I understand what you mean about just how unruly thinking can be at times - like little mind stream storms with a "mind of their own." 'I' like the idea of watching them 'do their dance' I think you called it. Sounds more playful and fun to watch them as an energetic sort of dance, and 'I' hope the next time 'I' get really 'caught up' in some silly mind stream storm or whirlpool, that 'I' will remember to just treat it as an energetic dance with no real significance or meaning for 'my' life.

Thanks,
Jerry

[Freddi]

Hello Jerry,

'I' like the idea of watching them 'do their dance' I think you called it. Sounds more playful and fun to watch them as an energetic sort of dance, and 'I' hope the next time 'I' get really 'caught up' in some silly mind stream storm or whirlpool, that 'I' will remember to just treat it as an energetic dance with no real significance or meaning for 'my' life.

Imagine you’re on a station platform, and you observe thoughts as trains coming in and out. Some are fast, some slow, some big and loud, some stay for longer. They all leave again. No need to board these trains!

There are training methods for learning to stop a thought in flight or immediately upon arising with certain meditation practices designed to do that with varying degrees of success.

You have looked in your present experience, and cannot find a thinker. You say that there is only THIS, doing what IT does, in this moment. You say that the « thinker » is a thought label. So what could train and practice and stop a thought, in a kind of timeline?
You say « there is no one stopping the thought in mid flight - it is just what is happening with training ». Look again at this statement. 'Just what is happening', then the proviso of 'training'.
Does training not imply time, evolution, progress?
Does training lead to a certain happening?
Is there some cause and effect link between the practice and the happening we call ‘stopping a thought’?
Is it really « just what is happening » or can it be controlled, provoked?
Come back to your breathing, notice all that is happening around you. Where is that time needed for such a practice? Can you see/hear/touch/smell such things as « sometimes », « typical »?
Question all assumptions, Jerry, don't leave any stone unturned.

Thanks!

Fred

[bfltsns15]

Hi Fred,

Appreciating this exploration of thought based assumptions - that's great.

You have looked in your present experience, and cannot find a thinker. You say that there is only THIS, doing what IT does, in this moment. You say that the « thinker » is a thought label. So what could train and practice and stop a thought, in a kind of timeline?
You say « there is no one stopping the thought in mid flight - it is just what is happening with training ». Look again at this statement. 'Just what is happening', then the proviso of 'training'.
Does training not imply time, evolution, progress?
Does training lead to a certain happening?
Is there some cause and effect link between the practice and the happening we call ‘stopping a thought’?
Is it really « just what is happening » or can it be controlled, provoked?
Come back to your breathing, notice all that is happening around you. Where is that time needed for such a practice? Can you see/hear/touch/smell such things as « sometimes », « typical »?

There 'appears' to be a process of training or cause and effect in time, but the only place where this can be found is in a thought based story or interpretation of what is happening now.

It seems that 'time' or the passing of time is a mental interpretation of what is always happening now. A kind of story being told as the happenings of the present now moment constantly change. So the memory of the story or the construction of the story from memory of what's always happening now implies a process of training or conditioning that can have an effect on the current moment or future moments. The only place I can find 'training' is in this story told from memory. This story from memory presumes or implies a duration of time with sequential continuous moments remembered as a story. And this story implies that one thing that happened affected something else that happened.

So I understand the contradiction in my previous statement, "- it is just what is happening with training."
The "with training" part of the statement is a thought/memory based story to explain or interpret what is happening now, an assumption - but there is only NOW everything else is a story from memories of the past which may arise in the present moment which attempt to explain and reify time duration and cause and effect relationships. It is a thought based interpretation of what is happening. Nowhere can I find this story except in memories arising now. I cannot actually find 'training' happening now in this present moment because the word 'training' implies time duration, and time duration is part of the story too.

So I can say what is happening, but I cannot explain why or how it is happening without a story, a mental interpretation of cause and effect. I cannot truly say that training happened or even happens - not with certainty - there is an appearance of training or cause and effect, and it is very compelling, but there is no way to verify it because there is only now, this moment, completely outside of the mental construction of time. This now moment seems mysterious and ungraspable - It is constantly here, but where is here? Constantly now and constantly changing experiences, but of no actual verifiable duration…

Does life train itself? I don't know. It 'appears' to. For example watching a toddler learn to crawl or walk or stand over a 'duration of time' but 'I' don't see anyway of verifying this in present moment direct experience without a story of interpretation. Same way with our interactions, there is the appearance of a gradual learning for which 'I' am grateful, but what is it really? 'I' don't know.

Can you see/hear/touch/smell such things as « sometimes », « typical »?

No, obviously not. It is just part of the story to explain how 'life' works, but 'I' really don't know how, and 'I' don't know that it is knowable either.

Thanks,
Jerry

[Freddi]

Hi Jerry,

Thanks again for your detailed and clear answers.

Appreciating this exploration of thought based assumptions - that's great.

That makes two of us :-) And you know, the funny thing? All assumptions are thoughts.

I feel that you have seen through the illusion of the separate self, Jerry, and I would like to ask you a few mop-up questions at this stage, just to make sure we’ve covered all areas.

1) Has anything changed since the beginning of our exchange?

2) In your most immediate experience, have you found a ‘self’ that is the ‘experiencer’, the ‘doer’, or a self that makes decisions?

3) Have you found a self who ‘does the thinking’?

4) When you say « I », what are you referring to?

5) Does experience belong to the body, or does the body belong to experience?

6) Is there a self ‘in here’ which is separate from the world and others ‘out there’?

7) Is there an experiencer experiencing, or is there only experience?

8) Is there doubt or unclarity that in all these cases the ‘self’ is nothing other than a mental fabrication?

9) Would you say, unequivocally, that you have seen through the illusion of separate self?

And finally, let’s have an other go at this:
10) How would you describe it to somebody who has never heard about this illusion but is curious about it?

Take your time, as usual, don’t scan your thoughts for the answers, just what is true, here and now.

Thanks!

Fred

[bfltsns15]

Hi Fred,

Still contemplating, looking, feeling, hearing, tasting, thinking as it arises. Last night there were some feelings of sadness. And then the stories explaining the sadness: because our interactions would soon come to a close, because 'I' will not have someone to talk to about this, (what irony - feeling isolated and alone because of oneness), because there is not a greater sense of detachment or disassociation from experience without really knowing what that would be like anyway, because the interaction has not created a more obviously dramatic change, still the ongoing construction of the apparent separate self-centered experience as if there were an expectation that it would suddenly just disappear and stop - a sense of still being stuck with myself. Then seeing that the stories were the self-centered experience. Just as what I am writing now is still more of the self-centered experience - the 'self' wanting to be less 'self'' or "no-self" so that a better or different experience will happen in the imaginary future. Still this ghost of an idea that somehow I can influence life, influence what happens in the future, that there are more or less skillful approaches for a 'me' to take, but unable to find an approach. Then, seeing more specifically how the sadness was not mine, that this experience of sadness was not happening to me, that experience in general does not happen to me, it just happens. Really seeing and feeling that I was not there, was not experiencing the sadness, that no one was experiencing the sadness, just sadness. Then lying down, there was some tension in the body, the back and shoulders and realizing that I was not experiencing this body, this tension, then what seemed like a lot of tension released and energetic sensations in the back and shoulders that continued for quite a while -it felt like very strong vibrations radiating energy from the body, then seeing that no one was feeling the vibration sensations, just vibrations. This continued until I fell asleep. This morning still looking at what 'seems to be true' versus what is - especially the idea of 'this experience is happening to me' versus this experience is happening. Looking at the statements, "There is no one looking and This experience is not happening to me." Looking at thoughts such as, everything seems the same, what's next, how will the story unfold, etc...Then realizing just how hard the mind is working to make sense of all this, to find some kind of position or point of view or approach to life with an 'apparent self program still running' and the disbelief in the apparent self program - seems weird. Yes, it is seen clearly AND the scripts are running...

[Freddi]

Hi Jerry,

Yes, it is seen clearly AND the scripts are running...

Welcome to the club! No one can claim that the scripts don’t continue to run. They do. Just as no one can stop dark clouds from obscuring the sun. It is a bit like an engine which, when turned off, continues to run for a while.
Seeing through the illusion is a first step. Much exploration follows. Life becomes a meditation. And some habitual thinking still kicks in, especially in stressful situations. That is why we have various post-gate support groups, where guides and others are able to deal with any residual stuff, or share experiences.

And then the stories explaining the sadness: because our interactions would soon come to a close, because 'I' will not have someone to talk to about this,

Who says that it is the end of our interactions? Is this not another assumption? When you are through the gate, we can start a new dialogue/thread in a different part of the LU forum (only accessible to blues and reds). There, we can look at whatever issue comes up, on a one to one basis.

Warm wishes,

Fred

[bfltsns15]

Hi Fred,

Who says that it is the end of our interactions? Is this not another assumption? When you are through the gate, we can start a new dialogue/thread in a different part of the LU forum (only accessible to blues and reds). There, we can look at whatever issue comes up, on a one to one basis.

Yes, yet another assumption...Oh, that's great! Thank you Fred. That sounds like a great resource, and I really appreciate the help with this and the possibility of future dialogues. Before gate, after gate, what gate? - doesn't really matter...

That previous post seems a bit melodramatic - mostly a big mind stuff dump - sorry about that. Yes, even with the clouds, the sun is 'always' already shining - completely unaffected, completely irrelevant to the clear view!

I'll keep working with the questions list and get back with you later today or tomorrow. Not really difficult to answer them, just wanted some time to contemplate and experience, just letting it all soak in...

Warm wishes to 'you' too,

Jerry