The Gate

Posted: **Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:53 pm**

Hi Dee,

Thought, images, recollections, planning...

Yes, that’s the observation here too, thanks.
Observing a bit more closely, what is the difference between thoughts, images, recollections, planning? Is there a fundamental difference?

...can I describe this activity as sensations. If I compare it to hearing then I can call the activity of the mind sensations, but I'm not sure if the word sensation is correct.

Well ‘sensations’ is as good a label as ‘activity’. Another, more generic term for the mind is ‘thoughts’.

Bringing it all together, here is an exercise:
- put some music on.
- sit comfortably.
- listen to the music.
Question:
What is experienced in the field of hearing?
No longer parking the thoughts aside, observe and report on the whole process (hearing activity, mind activity) that leads to the simplest qualifiers, or descriptors, without which communication could not occur.

All the best
Dridhamati

Posted: **Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:28 pm**

Hello again Dridhamati

Hi Dee,

Thought, images, recollections, planning...
Yes, that’s the observation here too, thanks.
Observing a bit more closely,
what is the difference between thoughts, images, recollections, planning? Is there a fundamental difference?
They are all similar - sometimes intentional, sometimes they just seem to appear

...can I describe this activity as sensations. If I compare it to hearing then I can call the activity of the mind sensations, but I'm not sure if the word sensation is correct.
Well ‘sensations’ is as good a label as ‘activity’. Another, more generic term for the mind is ‘thoughts’.

Bringing it all together, here is an exercise:
- put some music on.
- sit comfortably.
- listen to the music.
Question:
What is experienced in the field of hearing?
No longer parking the thoughts aside
, observe and report on the whole process (hearing activity, mind activity) that leads to the simplest qualifiers, or descriptors

They are independent of one another. The thoughts sometimes comment on the hearing. As focus is taken more fully to the hearing - there appears to be fewer thoughts and when focus us taken to the thoughts I'm not as aware of the music sensations/hearing

, without which communication could not occur.

All the best
Dridhamati

Best wishes d

Posted: **Sat Mar 21, 2015 9:14 pm**

Hi Dee,

They are all similar - sometimes intentional, sometimes they just seem to appear

Leaving the ‘intentional’ aside for the moment, yes, thoughts, images, recollections, planning are all similar, and generically called thoughts.

They are independent of one another. The thoughts sometimes comment on the hearing.

Looking a bit more closely at these ‘thoughts sometimes commenting on the hearing’, what sort of comments?
Reading your post from March 11, starting: “Yellow mug. Wood coloured table...” Where do all these words come from? Not from direct experience, so?

As focus is taken more fully to the hearing - there appears to be fewer thoughts and when focus us taken to the thoughts I'm not as aware of the music sensations/hearing

Well observed. The more intense the focus, the less ‘thought invasion’ into experience.

All the best
Dridhamati

Posted: **Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:46 pm**

Hi Dee,

They are all similar - sometimes intentional, sometimes they just seem to appear
Leaving the ‘intentional’ aside for the moment, yes, thoughts, images, recollections, planning are all similar, and generically called thoughts.

They are independent of one another. The thoughts sometimes comment on the hearing.
Looking a bit more closely at these ‘thoughts sometimes commenting on the hearing’, [b
]what sort of comments?[
/b]
Pleasant, unpleasant so commenting on Vedana - not direct experience?
Stories about the music - loud, soft, interesting - so not direct experience?
Thoughts were also commenting on the position I was sitting in - brought in a memory - so not direct experience?

Reading your post from March 11, starting: “Yellow mug. Wood coloured table...” [
b]Where do all these words come from? Not from direct experience, so?[/b]
Labels - labelling other experiences - ? so not direct experience
I'm a bit confused here. Is a thought a direct experience or not?
Can you help me a bit more with this please.

Thanks again d

As focus is taken more fully to the hearing - there appears to be fewer thoughts and when focus us taken to the thoughts I'm not as aware of the music sensations/hearing
Well observed. The more intense the focus, the less ‘thought invasion’ into experience.

All the best
Dridhamati

Posted: **Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:58 pm**

Hi again
Is colour, light, dark direct experience or are they labels!? Does the brain do that describing?
Thanks d

Posted: **Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:25 pm**

Hi Dee,

Great, this is the core of direct experience, so to speak.

So, one exercise, and one question only.

Pleasant, unpleasant so commenting on Vedana - not direct experience?
Stories about the music - loud, soft, interesting - so not direct experience?
Thoughts were also commenting on the position I was sitting in - brought in a memory - so not direct experience?...
...Labels - labelling other experiences - ? so not direct experience...
...Is colour, light, dark direct experience or are they labels!?

Rather than ask me, and obtain in return a view, an idea, which is definitely not the purpose of this dialogue, how about going on a discovery?

So take the previous exercises with the physical senses, like vision, hearing, etc. Keep focus on what is being experienced, that is look in direct experience, as deeply as possible.
Now whenever a word such as ‘pleasant, loud, colourful, etc’ emerges ask the following question:
Does “whatever is being experienced” possess an intrinsic and absolute quality of ‘pleasant, loud, colourful, etc’?

If the answer is yes, then that is akin to stating that “whatever is being experienced” possesses an independent, separate existence. At this point I’d ask you to prove this claim! :-)
If the answer is no, then are these words resulting from ‘direct experience’?

I'm a bit confused here. Is a thought a direct experience or not?

Care must be exercised with the use of words here: “direct experience” is not a thing it is a method. In the same way that riding a bicycle, or swimming are methods.
Thought is a label for the mental activity (mental sensations) that can be observed in direct experience. In the same way that light, colour, are labels for visual sensations, and loud, a label for hearing sensations.
Is that clearer?

Does the brain do that [colour, light, dark] describing?

The honest answer: not experienced.
In direct experience, is there a way of experiencing the brain, and what the brain does (if brain there is)?
Perhaps there is confusion between ‘mental activity’ and ‘brain’?

All the best
Dridhamati

Posted: **Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:20 pm**

Hi Dridhamati

So, one exercise, and one question only.

Dee wrote:
Pleasant, unpleasant so commenting on Vedana - not a direct experience

So take the previous exercises with the physical senses, like vision, hearing, etc. Keep focus on what is being experienced, that is look in direct experience, as deeply as possible.
Now whenever a word such as ‘pleasant, loud, colourful, etc’ emerges ask the following question:
Does “whatever is being experienced” possess an intrinsic and absolute quality of ‘pleasant, loud, colourful, etc’? no - it's clear now that they are labels

If the answer is yes, then that is akin to stating that “whatever is being experienced” possesses an independent, separate existence. At this point I’d ask you to prove this claim! :-)
If the answer is no, then are these words resulting from ‘direct experience’? no - those words do not result from direct experience

Dee wrote:
I'm a bit confused here. Is a thought a direct experience or not?
Care must be exercised with the use of words here: “direct experience” is not a thing it is a method. In the same way that riding a bicycle, or swimming are methods.
Thought is a label for the mental activity (mental sensations) that can be observed in direct experience. In the same way that light, colour, are labels for visual sensations, and loud, a label for hearing sensations.
Is that clearer? yes, thank you

Dee wrote:
Does the brain do that [colour, light, dark] describing?
The honest answer: not experienced.
In direct experience, is there a way of experiencing the brain, and what the brain does (if brain there is)?
Perhaps there is confusion between ‘mental activity’ and ‘brain’? I was thinking more along the lines of the message from the eye being received "upside down" and converted, etc. I think I understand now that visual sensations are experienced and colour, dark, etc are labels - so not experienced directly.

Thanks, best wishes d

Posted: **Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:39 pm**

Hi Dee,

Does “whatever is being experienced” possess an intrinsic and absolute quality of ‘pleasant, loud, colourful, etc’? no - it's clear now that they are labels
If the answer is no, then are these words resulting from ‘direct experience’? no - those words do not result from direct experience

Thank you Dee. Great work.

Perhaps there is confusion between ‘mental activity’ and ‘brain’? I was thinking more along the lines of the message from the eye being received "upside down" and converted, etc. I think I understand now that visual sensations are experienced and colour, dark, etc are labels - so not experienced directly.

"I think I understand"... Is this "intellectual understanding"?
What happens when an experience is observed, has understanding anything to do with it?

Example:
- place a mug on a table.
- look at it with open eyes.
- now close both eyes.
Question: is the mug still on the table (not using other senses than vision)?
Observe what comes up in mind, and compare with observation.

All the best
Dridhamati

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:49 pm**

Hi again

... I understand - I meant that I experienced visual sensations. No, it doesn't have any understanding.

However- I've been looking all day! The mind labels so quickly! I still see that things are in front of other things. I see perspective. Mug on table. I see light, dark, colour (and then those labels come in quickly) perspective.

I tried looking around quickly while driving. I saw light, dark, colour in the distance - I knew they were "in the distance". There's something I'm not getting. There seems to be a fine line between seeing light, colour, dark (the sensations) and labelling.

Mug on table - eyes shut - the mind asks if the mug is on the table but when the question stops, there is no way of knowing. The question can't be answered without vision. There is no way to experience mug on table.

Best wishes d

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:42 am**

Hi Dee,

... I understand - I meant that I experienced visual sensations. No, it doesn't have any understanding.
Mug on table - eyes shut - the mind asks if the mug is on the table but when the question stops, there is no way of knowing.

That’s well observed: mind has no way of knowing.
Whatever answer it provides is speculation, isn’t it.

The question can't be answered without vision. There is no way to experience mug on table.

Not only CAN the question be answered, but it HAS been answered:
With eyes shut “there is no way to experience mug on table.”

And that is what the exercise is designed to show: the difference between the speculating mind, offering all sorts of contradictory stories (maybe there’s a mug, maybe there isn’t) and experience, providing a simple, clear and consistent response (can’t be experienced.)

However- I've been looking all day! The mind labels so quickly! I still see that things are in front of other things. I see perspective. Mug on table. I see light, dark, colour (and then those labels come in quickly) perspective.

That’s also well observed: mind labels very quickly.
Apparently it seems the speed and variety of this labelling is what has made us humans such an evolutionary success.
There is no demand here to stop the labelling. Labelling just needs to be paused long enough to allow experience to be observed, directly.
One way is to systematically question what is ‘seen’, ‘heard’, ‘smelled’, etc. Challenge the observation mercilessly in this way: is this what is experienced, or is this a label?

For example:
Is ‘perspective’ really experienced? What is perspective? A concept. A physics concept involving objects and the notion of distance.
Looking again: is distance really seen, or is it assumed?
Are objects really seen, or are they assumed?

I tried looking around quickly while driving.

Please exercise caution Dee, looking in direct experience is an exercise in sustained focus, perhaps not very safe when driving.

I saw light, dark, colour in the distance - I knew they were "in the distance". There's something I'm not getting. There seems to be a fine line between seeing light, colour, dark (the sensations) and labelling.

As mentioned above: challenge the assertion.
”I knew they were ‘in the distance.’” And how was this ‘known’?
Did experience reveal this, or was it mind asserting a concept?

The experience here is that this ‘fine line’ depends more on the readiness to challenge a status quo, than on any special ability.

No new exercise Dee. Use the previous ones (mug, music, etc), practice this challenging, and see where it leads.

All the best
Dridhamati

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:21 pm**

Thanks for the feedback Dridhamati - I'm going to "practice this challenging".

I've only just managed to log on - I'm working all day tomorrow followed by a class in the evening - I will keep experiencing - safely. I might not get back to you until Thurs.

Thanks
D

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:39 pm**

Hello Dridhamati

Really busy days of work - taking work while it's available.
I spent any spare moments listening today. Hearing sensations. Still struggling with the vision sensations. Work in progress.

Best wishes d

Posted: **Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:25 am**

Hi Dee,

I spent any spare moments listening today. Hearing sensations.

Great. Any safe opportunity is a good opportunity. :-)

Still struggling with the vision sensations. Work in progress.

What struggle is that? Can you please expand on that Dee?

All the best
Dridhamati

Posted: **Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:59 pm**

Hi Dridhamati

Vision sensations -

Concept of distance, focus - I can't seem to get beyond that. Attempting to challenge those assumptions. I also seem to bring to mind past experiences which I know doesn't help - setting up expectations.

Best wishes d

Posted: **Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:57 pm**

Hi Dee,

Perhaps there is overthinking going on here Dee,

Vision sensations

Great, so that's what is experienced.

And now, where does what follows belong?

Concept of distance, focus - I can't seem to get beyond that.

Is this also experienced, or is it conceptual, fabricated?

Attempting to challenge those assumptions.

The challenge lies in not accepting the concepts, views, etc at face value, but to test them against experience.
Remember the story: a person encounters a snake on the path at twilight, and becomes frightened. The first reaction is to run away, but instead decides to examine it closely. Upon closer observation, it is revealed that the snake is a rope. The snake was nothing other than an illusion, created from assumptions, fabrications, views, etc. And this illusion generated fear and suffering.

I also seem to bring to mind past experiences which I know doesn't help - setting up expectations

No, not helpful in the least, as in the story above.

Please keep observing experience and challenging thoughts 'about' experience.

All the best
Dridhamati

The Gate

Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please

Re: Triratna OM Guide please