Path or No Path

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

I want to want to put everything aside for the moment and review Direct Experience and go into the nature of thought.

First a quick recap of Direct Experience -- here are examples:
Seeing a cup, simply= image/colour
Smelling coffee, simply = smell
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought

Next, I want to focus on thought because that's where the sticking is happening. I want you to clearly see the nature of thought.

Here's an exercise for finding the gap in thought:

Here is a step-by-step description of how to look at thoughts. First thing is to sit for at least 10-15 minutes quietly somewhere, several times throughout your day. Close your eyes and just notice thoughts. Don’t engage with any thought, just notice the thoughts.

1. Notice the current thought that is present.
Like when you sit observing the body, a thought might arise “this is my feet” or “here is a pain” or “my breathing is too quick” or “I am bored with this exercise” or “I have better things to do” or any sorts of thoughts.

2. This thought will pass and another thought will come. So just observe this thought passing.

3. Then wait for the next thought to come.

4. When the next thought is present, just notice it, and see how it passes.

5. Then wait for the next thought to come.

6. Repeat #4 and #5 many-many times.

Between the 2 thoughts there is a gap. It can be very short or subtle, just a second or a few seconds before the next thought come in.

This is how to look at thoughts:-
Looking how they come and go, and
Observing the short gap between them.
Noticing how the current thought is passing.
And waiting for the next thought to come.

Please do the following exercise:
Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.

Let me know how it goes.

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

Hi Robyn,

I've actually been practicing this for quite some time now. Both in formal sitting practice as well as daily life. I'm aware of the coming and going of thoughts. I've experienced long sustained gaps as well as regular short gaps. This so called space. I regularly watch the arising and passing of thoughts. Although previously, I got more caught up in the content whereas now I see through it. It'll take more practice to get situated in it.

I also see that "cause" and "effect" are thought concepts labeled to events. The dissecting of now into moments is similar to the separation of "I" versus "other".

The left mind likes to see things linearly (planning, future, past, anticipating, projecting) and likes to categorize things (me, you, her, this, that). The right mind sees things holistically as one, interconnected, in the moment. So there's a paradox between how the left and right mind perceives the world. Note, this statement is learned.

Thanks

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

I've actually been practicing this for quite some time now. Both in formal sitting practice as well as daily life. I'm aware of the coming and going of thoughts. I've experienced long sustained gaps as well as regular short gaps. This so called space. I regularly watch the arising and passing of thoughts. Although previously, I got more caught up in the content whereas now I see through it. It'll take more practice to get situated in it.

Then, why is it that when you respond my questions you answer with content of thought instead of direct experience? This investigation is not about thinking, it's about looking at what is here, right now and responding from that, not from thoughts. Knowing about something is thought. You always know exactly 'what is' by being directly aware of what is.

I also see that "cause" and "effect" are thought concepts labeled to events. The dissecting of now into moments is similar to the separation of "I" versus "other".

Peter, we will look more at cause and effect later, but for now I want to concentrate on thoughts, as you give thought a lot of credence, when actually, thoughts know nothing. They are simply an appearance, just as is smell, color, taste, sensation and sound. Thoughts are direct experience, however thoughts in and of themselves contain no experience, otherwise the thought itself ‘sweet’ would taste sweet!

The left mind likes to see things linearly (planning, future, past, anticipating, projecting) and likes to categorize things (me, you, her, this, that). The right mind sees things holistically as one, interconnected, in the moment. So there's a paradox between how the left and right mind perceives the world. Note, this statement is learned.

This is all just story, Peter. In direct experience, where is left mind and right mind?
And what is it exactly that "learned the statement?"

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

Then, why is it that when you respond my questions you answer with content of thought instead of direct experience? This investigation is not about thinking, it's about looking at what is here, right now and responding from that, not from thoughts. Knowing about something is thought. You always know exactly 'what is' by being directly aware of what is.

Could you point out where did I answer with content (ignoring where I talk about the brain below)? I just said there's an intention, but I don't know the source of it. I don't even know if the intention is an emotion or a thought. It just is, kind of a feeling. But some intention from who knows where seems to drive the movement of my arm.

Peter, we will look more at cause and effect later, but for now I want to concentrate on thoughts, as you give thought a lot of credence, when actually, thoughts know nothing. They are simply an appearance, just as is smell, color, taste, sensation and sound. Thoughts are direct experience, however thoughts in and of themselves contain no experience, otherwise the thought itself ‘sweet’ would taste sweet!

Yes I agree, this is what has been experienced. I get it.

This is all just story, Peter. In direct experience, where is left mind and right mind?
And what is it exactly that "learned the statement?"

Agreed, this is just content, hence I dropped the note that it was learned. There's a very popular neural scientist who had a stroke who described her experience based on the shutting down of her physical left brain. It was interesting to see how she perceived things as a result. Anyway, this last paragraph is more of a side topic. Just content of things learned from books and videos, not direct experience.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

Thought content has been woven into many of your replies.

Here are some examples.

The dissecting of now into moments is similar to the separation of "I" versus "other".

A must occur for B to happen. Event A must occur for Event B to exist. If I don't type anything on the keyboard, this response would be blank.

Time seems more like a construct overlaid on top of reality. So it can be measure in unit of moments passing by.

Life creates this rich personal experience, so these thoughts arose as a result of a long idle sit. Which is expected of most idle situations. However, I saw that "I'm bored" was just a story of the experience and impatience was the emotion or by product of this long sitting experience.

Getting trapped in the contents of the narrating mind.

There's no "as a result", but there's cause and effect. Some experiences that arise can be traced back to certain causes and conditionse.g. turning the key unlocks the door, seeing a scary movie feeling scared, seeing a puzzle and confusion and curiosity arises, pressing the accelerator and the car moves forward, turning on the faucet and water comes out, heating water and water boils, then evaporates. Nonetheless, it's no other than the continuous ebb and flow of life that's always happening now.

When eating an apple, there is the seeing of an apple, touching the apple, bringing the apple to the mouth, biting into it, tasting the sweetness, feeling the texture crispy and crunchiness, smelling the scent. Then comes thoughts of whether the experience is pleasant or unpleasant, and past emotions and memories arise. A chain of experiences that arise from seeing the apple leading to the thoughts and feelings of eating it. Cause and effect.

This one may be less obvious because it seems as if you're talking about direct experience but you weren't eating an apple and describing it in the moment. It's thought content.

In your last message:

There's a very popular neural scientist who had a stroke who described her experience based on the shutting down of her physical left brain. It was interesting to see how she perceived things as a result. Anyway, this last paragraph is more of a side topic. Just content of things learned from books and videos, not direct experience.

There have been many such side topics, often with disclaimers and I had considered them harmless but now I see that they interfere with our work. Please stick strictly to reporting on direct experience for the rest of the time you're being guided, ok?

I'd like you to do the exercise on thought that I sent you yesterday. Let's get direct experience and thought contents completely sorted out for you.

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

The dissecting of now into moments is similar to the separation of "I" versus "other".
This was just commentary. I was drawing parallels to how the mind, content of thought, or language likes to subdivide.

A must occur for B to happen. Event A must occur for Event B to exist. If I don't type anything on the keyboard, this response would be blank.
Is this not true? Was trying to simplify that I see with direct experience the pressing of a key and a letter appearing on the screen. Likewise this morning, direct experience of seeing the turning on the faucet followed by water coming out the mouth. Also, this morning, pressing on the accelerator and seeing/feeling the car move forward and with pressing on the brake and seeing the car stop. All of these actions were directly observed and experienced without thought nor thought content. How they are being experience now however, well they aren't, right now it's just content of memory, which is a thought.

Time seems more like a construct overlaid on top of reality. So it can be measure in unit of moments passing by.
Also side commentary. Like you said, I'll try to stick to direct experience and drop any commentary. I was just suggesting how time appears to be, but time itself cannot be experienced directly. Time itself is a construct, thought content.

Life creates this rich personal experience, so these thoughts arose as a result of a long idle sit. Which is expected of most idle situations. However, I saw that "I'm bored" was just a story of the experience and impatience was the emotion or by product of this long sitting experience.
This was also direct experience. I see and feel in sitting, that I also see thoughts "I'm bored" as a thought and also feel the emotion restlessness as just an emotion. Is this not what makes life rich?

Getting trapped in the contents of the narrating mind.
Yes, this in itself is a story, it is content.

This one may be less obvious because it seems as if you're talking about direct experience but you weren't eating an apple and describing it in the moment. It's thought content.
Although, these are examples aren't drawn by direct experience this very moment. They're drawn by the contents of memory happening now. If I can't speak of any of these examples, how am I to speak of any experiences that occurred throughout the day and report back to you. They're not happening now. The only thing happening now are thoughts arising, words flowing out, being typed, and seeing them appear on the screen.

But yes, for this point forward, I'll stick to direct experience. Just wanted to clarify what was being conveyed. As for the exercise. Yes thoughts come and go. Thoughts arise and pass. There are times when there is a long gap with no thoughts. There are also times when there are short gaps. As direct experiences are encountered throughout the day, thoughts also manifest to comment on these direct experiences. Sometimes they don't manifest and there's just the direct experience. There is a seeing of one experience leading to another, sometimes sequentially sometimes in parallel.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

My apologies. I got super busy today and can't send your reply but will get back to you tomorrow.

Sending love,

Robyn

[Artst]

Peter,

Well, i have a bit of time now and another wind! So, I'm answering sooner than I thought I could.

Thanks for your reply. I was surprised that you commented in a rebuttal/defense way about the comments. I was under the impression that you wanted examples of what I was referring to so you would be clear.

The mischief in your reply is that you operate like the content of thought is true. The point of learning to look only at direct experience is so that you can see reality.

Examples:

I was drawing parallels to how the mind, content of thought, or language likes to subdivide.

This is a story and you talk about it like it's the truth and there's some you that knows it's the truth.

A must occur for B to happen. Event A must occur for Event B to exist. If I don't type anything on the keyboard, this response would be blank.
Is this not true?

Can you see that you're not describing direct experience? This is content of thought.

I'm not going to address every single one in your reply. I hope you get the picture.

Onto what you wrote about the exercise...

As direct experiences are encountered throughout the day, thoughts also manifest to comment on these direct experiences.

Is there such a thing as an individual direct experience or is it that it's possible to directly experience what's happening?

thoughts also manifest to comment on these direct experiences.

Are thoughts not also directly experienced? Thoughts are experienced, right? "to comment on these direct experiences" is about the content of thoughts.

Sometimes they don't manifest and there's just the direct experience.

Do you see that thoughts are directly experienced? It's the content of thoughts, the commentary, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what's real; what's real is all directly experienced. It's critical to this inquiry to separate this out.

There is a seeing of one experience leading to another, sometimes sequentially sometimes in parallel.

In direct experience, there's only now -- no "one experience leading to another." That's a story.

Please try it again and describe only what you directly experience without the labels and theory. Also, it would be helpful if you would send your answers the way I formatted them.
[/quote]

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

Thanks for your reply. I was surprised that you commented in a rebuttal/defense way about the comments. I was under the impression that you wanted examples of what I was referring to so you would be clear.

I suppose I replied as rebuttal because it's truly how things were observed. It doesn't require a "me" to see things the way it was described. As they say, truth is lost when words are spoken. The content of thought breaks apart reality. But as you mentioned, it is just thought. Perhaps I'm not seeing clearly yet.

Can you see that you're not describing direct experience? This is content of thought.

If a key is not pressed, a letter does not appear on the screen. If a key is pressed, a letter appears on the screen.
Can we work with this one? This part is not clear to me. I'm struggling to see how this is content. Because it holds true with what is felt and seen even without thoughts.

Is there such a thing as an individual direct experience or is it that it's possible to directly experience what's happening?

It is possible to directly experience what is happening. There are just experiences.

What I'm confused about here is, if Tom grabs a scalding hot coal and experiences pain, that's direct experience. And Jerry, who is watching does not feel pain because he did not grab the hot coal. Does Tom's experience warrant an individual direct experience. Or is this statement invalid because person A labeled Tom and person B labeled Jerry already creates separate individuals that do not exist if labels were never applied. Or is all of this just more content? Direct experience shows me that this is just the contents of my thoughts. If so, then there's no individual to begin with. The individual exists as an idea or content of a thought. As well as my efforts to draw comparison with language.

Do you see that thoughts are directly experienced? It's the content of thoughts, the commentary, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what's real; what's real is all directly experienced. It's critical to this inquiry to separate this out.

Yes. As I work down to this question, I see everything I stated in the previous question was just a story. It was just commentary.

In direct experience, there's only now -- no "one experience leading to another." That's a story.

I'm still struggling here. From what I see without thought, when I press a key on the keyboard, a letter appears on the screen. When I don't press a key, the marker just blinks. I fail to see how that's not cause/effect or that there is not a sequence of events constantly happening that makeup now.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

First of all, sorry I couldn't answer earlier in the day. I have out of town guests until early next week, so I may continue ot be a bit slow.

Peter, I will address your questions later. They are good questions -- but for now I want you to answer the questions from the exercise. I will be looking at thoughts with you until they are clear. Then the rest will be much easier.

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

No rush. Enjoy your time with your guests. After all, we're not in control right ;)

Please do the following exercise:
Throughout your waking day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.

Let me know how it goes.

but for now I want you to answer the questions from the exercise.

I did not see any follow-up questions with the latest exercise. Only directions for the exercise.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

Thank you for your patience!

You're right - there weren't individual questions. My apology. Even though you described having seen the gap as a memory (thought) rather than doing the exercise newly, I suspect you do get the existence of the gap between thoughts.

So, I'd like to move on to this one:

Here is a thought exercise. Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear without you doing anything at all.

Where are they coming from and going to?

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

Can you predict your next thought?

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully -- is there an organized sequence?

Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or 'they take content from previous thought,' or that ‘one thought follows another thought?'


I look forward to your answers,
Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

Where are they coming from and going to?

Don't know. They appear and disappear on their own.

Did you do anything to make a particular thought or thoughts appear?

No.

Could you have done anything to make a different thought appear at that exact moment instead?

No.

Can you predict your next thought?

Nope.

Can you select from a range of thoughts to have only pleasant thoughts?

Nope.

Can you choose not to have painful, negative or fearful thoughts?

Nope.

Can you pick and choose any kind of thought?

Nope.

Is it possible to prevent a thought from appearing?

Nope.

It seems that thought has some logical ordered appearance, but look carefully -- is there an organized sequence?
No, thoughts appear and disappear.

Or is that just another thought that says ‘these thoughts are in sequence’ or 'they take content from previous thought,' or that ‘one thought follows another thought?'

Yes it's another thought when I attempt to verbalize or communicate it. The sequencing and creation of a linear story of occurrences is also a thought. It's a very subtle thought from attempting to sequence what we call events or moments. It's a story applied on experience and appears linear when thought of and communicated. This is what I missed. But I see that the experience itself is always now.

I know we're not supposed to go off topic but while we're on the subject of no control of thoughts. I had a terrifying, awestruck, and insightful experience yesterday. I experimented with DMT and had what they call a breakthrough experience. I watched my body and arms shrink from an adult, to a child, to a baby. Then I attempted to get up and make sense of everything, but saw my body and hands break into fractals and geometric shapes and fell back down on to my bed. There was no visual depth to reality. Next thing you know I struggled to make sense of anything with my senses. All my sense faculties went haywire and it just felt like spinning and spiraling down into some void. All of reality was deconstructed and what looked like big blob of geometric shapes and pixels. All the senses were garbled, here and there consciousness attempted to make sense of reality and I experienced last thought contents about my parents, not wanting to die, and about work trying to grip or cling to life and then I blinked out of existence. Shortly after, I came back online and the sensory faculties started coming online as well. Coming back online, I saw detailed layers of reality being quickly assembled from basic geometric shapes until more and more detail was added to what we visually see as reality as it is now. Layers of color, curves, and details were applied as the effects wore off.

As I finish typing this, I acknowledge that this is all story and content, but it's memory on what was experienced. If this was not appropriate, then I won't bring it up again. But I thought it might be relevant as it pertains to sensory experience.

[Artst]

Hi, Peter,

Good job on the exercise.

It's a very subtle thought from attempting to sequence what we call events or moments.

What is it that is attempting to sequence events or moments? "Subtle thought" is report of thought content. Also, is there any such thing as an event or a moment in direct experience?

It's a story applied on experience and appears linear when thought of and communicated.

The instant you go into explanation, you're in story-land, not direct experience. "appears linear when thought of and communicated" is inconsistent with the answers to the questions from the exercise where direct experience shows there's no certain way experience appears, nor 'thinking' done by a 'thinker,' just thoughts. You reported the content of thoughts here.

Here's what has often been the case in what you've sent me:
1. Report on the direct experience. Cool.
2. Then thoughts of explanation of how it is arise. No longer a report on direct experience, but rather into the realm of reporting thought content.
3. You cap off your report to me with the contents of thoughts, not seeming to recognize the difference.

This is what happened in what I quoted at the top. Do you see the difference between your answers in the exercise from the shift back to story/thought content as I just delineated in #1-#3?

Let me know. Then I have another exercise for you.

As for the DMT, congratulations on the breakthrough! That was an amazing description of it. We're not going to go into it here, but there's certainly a good chance that that experience will enable you greater access to simply experiencing experience. Also, I sent you an email.

You're doing great, Peter.

Sending love,

Robyn

[pwsamadhi]

What is it that is attempting to sequence events or moments? "Subtle thought" is report of thought content.

Just thought.

Also, is there any such thing as an event or a moment in direct experience?

No, event and moment are also thought content, labels.

The instant you go into explanation, you're in story-land, not direct experience. "appears linear when thought of and communicated" is inconsistent with the answers to the questions from the exercise where direct experience shows there's no certain way experience appears, nor 'thinking' done by a 'thinker,' just thoughts. You reported the content of thoughts here.

I see what you mean. That was a thought story about thoughts being sequential lol.

This is what happened in what I quoted at the top. Do you see the difference between your answers in the exercise from the shift back to story/thought content as I just delineated in #1-#3?

Yes.