Exploring the gestalt of a doer…

Where is the sense of a doer located? Head area? Somewhere else?

Can I find sensations as part of that gestalt? If so, which sensations? Do muscles contract to create more stable and noticeable sensations?

What images are part of that gestalt? A center? A small person?

Form the intention of lifting the arm. Then lift the arm.

How is the gestalt of a doer related to this intention and movement?

Is there a series of stories? Of intention leading to lifting the arm? Of a doer responsible for the intention and then the lifting of the arm? Of those stories being true?

Can I really find a connection there? Is there a connection between intention and lifting the arm? Can I see the causality? Is there just correlation, and then a story of causality?

Is there a connection between intention/lifting the arm and the doer? Is that too a story?

What happens when I explore this? What happens to that sense of a doer?

What happens when I explore this innocently, over and over? What happens in daily life?

(more…)

It can be very interesting to explore the different gestalts… emotions, pain, joy, bliss, me as this human self, and the different flavors of I as a doer or observer.

First, where is the sense of an observer? A witness? Where in space is it? In or around the head? Above the head? Behind the head? Somewhere else?

Then, what sensations go with that sense of an observer? Sensations in the head area? The scalp? Throat? Neck? Inside of the mouth?

And what images go with that sense of an observer? An image of a center? Of a view as a cone with starting point,  aperture and direction, and sometimes open in all directions?

Is the gestalt of an observer any different from any other gestalt? Is it content of experience, as any other gestalt? Does it come and go? Is it made up of sensations and images?

If it is different, then when and how? Is it different when there is a shift into witnessing? And how is it different? Is it different in that it is identified with, taken as what I am, while other gestalts are recognized as content of awareness and not what I am? Or not?

(more…)

What will happen in 2012?

Will the mysterious planet Nibiru enter the local solar system and wreak havoc with Earth?

Will the sun rise in conjunction with the milky way and strange things happen?

Will the completion of the thirteenth B’ak’tun cycle in the Long Count of the Maya calendar coincide with a major shift in collective human consciousness?

Will nothing special happen, proving the folks holding those beliefs as kooks?

2012 – like UFOs and other good projection objects – is fertile ground for exploration.

First, what are the practical effects of taking certain stories about 2012 as true or as guidelines for actions? Do I relate to others and myself differently? Do I become more or less engaged? Do I become more receptive or more entrenched in holding certain perspectives and identities? These stories are just tools anyway, so what type of tools are they and what are the effects of using them?

Then, whatever stories I hold about 2012 or others’ beliefs about 2012, I can find it all right here.

I can notice that it all happens within my own world of images. My own stories about it and what I see in others, the wider world and in 2012 is all happening within my own world of images.

I can find the characteristics and dynamics I see in others, the wider world and in 2012 right here as well. How do they happen right here, as I hold onto these stories? How do they happen in my life otherwise?

I can notice all as happening within and as awakeness.

Another way to explore this is to identify and inquire into my beliefs around 2012 and others holding certain ideas about 2012.

2012 is doomsday. 2012 means a major shift in human consciousness. People who think 2012 is doomsday or means a shift in consciousness are flaky kooks, with little or no grasp on reality and science. I know what will happen. My views are right. I am right, they are wrong.

When 2012 arrives, I can notice what happens whether my expectations are met or not. If my expectations are met, do I take it as proof that I was right all along? That I am better than others? If my expectations are not met, do I try to explain it away? Do I take it as an opportunity for inquiry?

(more…)

There is of course a present in a conventional sense. There is something here – this human self and the wider world – and it is here now, not in the past or the future. 

At the same time, it is possible to discover – in immediate awareness – that there is no present in two ways. 

First, when I take “present” to be real and substantial, I have to take past and future as real and substantial as well. The three come in the same package. And when I recognize all three as mental field creations only, then “present” is left as a very useful pointer to what is happening in the sense fields. 

Then, when I notice that past and future are thoughts only, and as ephemeral and insubstantial as a thought, a question comes up: Is the present different? Is what “present” points to, what is happening in the sense fields, any more real and substantial than what a thought is? 

I can notice “present” as a pointer only, as a convenient mental field creation and insubstantial as any other thought. And I can notice what “present” points to – whatever is happening in the sense fields – also as insubstantial as a thought. 

All of this can be explored through the sense fields. And as I become more familiar with it, what happens? 

Do I notice past, future and present as mental field overlays, as they happen? Do I use “present” as a pointer only, to what is happening in the sense fields? Do I notice the sense fields to be no more substantial than a thought? 

What happens to a sense of me here? What happens to a sense of I? Are these also recognized as mental field overlays only? 

What is left? 

How does this human self function differently in the world when these are noticed? Does it need to look very different? Is there still a sense of drama? Does the drama tend to fall away? 

Also, is it true that I didn’t already notice this? 

(more…)

I enjoy exploring that sense of I… in both its versions. 

First, when there is a sense of a separate I, where is it? Where is it located? What is it made up of? 

Looking here now, I find it located in the head area. I find it as a “center” located on sensations in several places on the neck/head area. It seems to be especially located on the more prominent sensations created by more tense muscles. And on top of this is an image of a separate I centered in that same area, and also the image of an observer located outside of/behind/above the head. This image of an observer is also “anchored” on sensations in the head area, but displaced a little in space. 

The details around this is not so important. What is more important is to notice the gestalt of a separate I and how it is made up of simple sensations and images. 

I can then ask myself, is this content of experience? Is it different from any other content of experience? How is it different from the gestalt of my right leg, also made up of sensations and mental field images? Is the only difference in identification? A story telling me that one is more “I” than the other? 

What happens when I see – and feel – how it is all content of experience? Is there a softening of identification out of the gestalt of a separate I? 

These gestalts come and go, and they are content of experience as any other content of experience…

What am I really if I am not that gestalt of a separate I, or any gestalt? 

What am I if I am not any particular content of experience? 

What is the real “I”? 

The first version of that sense of “I” is the sense of separate I located in/around this human self, including in its flavors of a doer or an observer. 

And when I am curious about this sense of a separate I, when I welcome it, explore it, notice where and what it is here now, there is a noticing of this as just a gestalt, just another content of experience, and identification with it is invited to soften and release. Leaving what I really am to notice itself a little more easily.

When mental field imaginations and other sense fields (sensations, sight, sound, smell, taste, mental field) combine, there is a gestalt. And this gestalt can be taken as real, substantial and solid. Or it can be recognized as a gestalt, created from a mental field overlay, and appear ephemeral, insubstantial and a temporary and practical tool only. 

Some of the basic gestalts are those of space, time, me and I. 

The mental field creates an image of space and extent, and map the other sense fields onto this image. 

The mental field creates memories of what is happening in the sense fields, and string them together into memories of the past, images of the present, and scenarios of the future. All adding up to the appearance of time. 

The mental field creates images of a me as a human being in the world, and these are located in space when overlaid on sensations. 

And the mental field creates images of a separate I in its different forms of a doer, observer, center and so on. These images of a separate I are also located in space through sensations, often sensations in the head area. (At least in our culture.) 

As before, when these gestalts are taken as real and substantial, they appear real and substantial and we act and react as if they are. When they are recognized as gestalts, as they happen, they appear emphemeral and insubstantial, and as temporary and practical tools only. 

So it is also with the gestalt of a separate I. When it is taken as real and substantial, there is an identification with it. We take ourselves to be this gestalt, this image of a separate I. We act as if it is true, with everything that comes with it, sometimes at the mercy of fear, attractions, reactiveness. And when it is recognized as a gestalt, there is a release of identification with it. It is recognized as a gestalt as any other gestalt. As images. As content of experience, just like any other content of experience. Here, what we are is more free to recognize itself… as that which all content of experience happens within and as. 

And all of this can be explored here and now, as it happens, through the sense fields. (See other places, including below, for some ways to do that.) 

From the previous post: 

(more…)

Here are a few things about stories, which can be explored through the sense fields…

Any story…

Is a projection of a story and a quality. Imagination is taken as saying something about the world, out there and in the past, present or future. And what that imagination is about is taken as being out there as well. When it is recognized as imagination, it can be a very useful and practical tool for our human self to orient and function in the world. When it is taken as truth, it becomes a blind projection. We are blind for it as an imagination. 

Is imagination, and the world we relate to is quite literally imaginary. It is an overlay of images relating to each other, and those images include images of me. Any drama happens among those images, mostly in the way other images relate to the images of me. 

Is a question, an innocent question about the world. It is sometimes taken as something more, as a statement, fact or truth, which itself is just a story about a story. 

Is a tool. It is a tool for our human self to orient and function in the world. And as any tool, it is sometimes useful and sometimes not. It has only practical value. 

Is no thing appearing as something. Any mental field creation is insubstantial and ephemeral. Like a hologram, it has form but no substance. When it is recognized as a mental field creation, it is noticed as insubstantial and ephemeral. As no-thing appearing as something. When it is taken as true, it appears real, solid and substantial. (Sensations combine with the story to lend it a sense of substantiality, and muscles often tense up to make those sensations stronger.)

Is a mental field overlay. It is a mental field overlay on top of the other sense fields. And separating it out in sense fields (sensation, sight, sound, smell, taste, mental) is itself from a mental field overlay.

For instance, there is a sensation, a story of “pain”, and additional stories of pain as undesireable. All of these create the gestalt of “pain”, and this appears substantial and real when the gestalt is not noticed as a gestalt, and quite differently when it is noticed as a gestalt. 

(more…)

I mean, what you got to lose? You know, you come from nothing. 
You’re going back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing! 
Always look on the bright side of life! 
Nothing will come from nothing. You know what they say?
- Eric Idle’s Always Look on the Bright Side of Life from Life of Brian 

A common phrase among teachers is that nothing ever happens. 

It may seem like an absurd statement. Something clearly is happening. And when we are identified with mental field creations, it even seems quite substantial and real. 

So where does that statement come from? 

It comes from what happens when the volume of emptiness is turned up and it is more in the foreground. Here, it is obvious that nothing ever happens. It is all no-thing appearing as something, yet never becoming anything else than no-thing. It is all the play of awakeness itself. It is appearance without substance. 

And any of us can explore it here now, through the sense fields. I can first look at the mental field. What is it made up of? Does it have substance? Are there any traces of what just left, apart from another story about it? Is it awakeness itself? 

When I get a taste of this in the mental field, I can explore the same in the other sense fields. What is sensation made up of? Does it have substance? Are there any traces of what just left? Is it separate or different from awakeness itself? 

And what do I find when I explore sound? Taste? Smell? Sight? Is each one different from the mental field in these ways? In being insubstantial? Having no trace of what left? Being awakeness itself?  

(When doing this, it is best to come from a more open-ended place of receptivity, curiosity and don’t know. These statements are no more than pointers, suggestions, questions to explore in own experience. And what is found may well be different from this, even if it is just a refinement or clarification… because it can be realized and expressed more clearly and simply than this.)  

At the same time, something does happen. Something does happen in all of these sense fields. There are all sorts of appearances. When the mental field overlay is identified with and taken as true, it all seems very substantial and real. And when the mental field overlay is recognized as just a mental field overlay, it is all revealed as insubstantial, ephemeral, as no thing appearing as something. As the play of awakeness itself. 

As Eric Idle so elegantly pointed out, nothing will come of nothing. 

(more…)

A few ways the world is, in a lose sense, a mirror…

First, I can notice the overlay of images on all of the sense fields. These images interpret the sense fields, and are – in a very real sense – the world I relate to. Whenever I see a quality or dynamic in the world, what I am seeing is what an image tells me is going on. I am seeing, and relating to, my own overlay. So in that sense, what I am seeing in the world is my own overlay right here.

If I take this overlay as real and substantial, it appears to be inherent in the world. I project it out on the world and take it as real out there. When I notice the overlay itself, for instance through sense field explorations, I see that it is a creation of my own mind. It is, quite literally, imagined. It can be very helpful for functioning in the world, but it is also imagined and happening right here.

What I see in the world is a mirror of my stories of it right here. When the world is brought into stories, those stories are right here.

Then, I also find that whatever those stories point to is something I can find right here. The dynamics and characteristics they tell me about is something I can find right here in my own human self. I recognize something in the wider world, or in the past or future, and it is right here too.

When I see it only out there, and overlook it right here, it is easy to get blindly caught up in projections. I see desirable and undesirable qualities out in the wider world, or in the past and future, and not also right here, so I get blindly caught up in attraction and aversion. When I recognize those qualities and dynamics also right here, there is more of a freedom from being caught up in blind attractions and aversions. After all, what I see in the wider world is also here. I find myself as less needy. Less of a victim.

Finally, there can be the noticing of whatever happening as Ground, as already empty/awake. It is all God without any I and other. God is a mirror for itself.

(more…)

I mentioned exploring the overlay of images on top of immediate perception.

An overlay of images, and thoughts mimicking the other sense fields, on top of perception. Interpreting it. Asking questions about. And essential for our human self to function in the world.

It can be quite interesting – and helpful – to explore this overlay. First, through dedicated sessions. Then, as it happens in daily life.

Some of the things I find so far…

My world is made up of these images. If I recognize them as images, they become a guideline for actions. If I take them as real and substantial, I act as if they are real and substantial. I act as if what they tell me about the world is true. (As if innocent questions are statements, and these statements are true.)

Any drama happens among these images. More specifically, between the images making up a sense of “I” and other images it relates to. And it happens to the extent that these images, and the relationships among them (interpreted and represented by more images), are taken as substantial and real.

Many practices work on healing these images, such as prayer, tong len, the first ngöndro practice (visualizing all beings taking refuge in the Buddha), well wishing, and so on. And as these images heal, my world changes. Or rather, the world and atmosphere this human self functions within changes. (Easily coexisting with the more conventional and consensus reality images, still used as practical guidelines in the world.)

The mental field overlay, and all of the sense fields, are awakeness itself. They are empty. Awake. Form. One appearing in each of those ways, depending on how the mental field filters it.

(more…)

Exploring the sense fields, it is pretty easy to get a sense of how we imagine the world.

The mental field creates an overlay of images of what is here (in the other sense fields) and what is not here.

And that world of images is – in a very real sense – my world, when they are taken as true.

Whatever drama I experience all comes from the characteristics and relationships among these images. It comes from the characteristics of each image, and how it relates to all the other images.

In the beginning, it may be easier to notice this through a sense field exploration session. Sitting or lying down, and notice how the mental field creates image overlays on each of the other sense fields (interpretations), and also how the past and future is imagined in the same way.

After a while, this happens throughout daily life as well. As I go about my daily life, I notice the image overlay on the other sense fields (interpretations of what is happening) – and also the image overlay that is free from the other sense fields. (Images of past, future, what is not present in a physical sense.)

Again, it is pretty simple, but can have a profound effect when recognized throughout daily life. I notice – in an immediate way – how the drama is created and happens within my own image overlay.

It is, quite literally, imagined.

If it is not recognized as imagined, there is a sense of being caught up in drama. The image overlay – including that of a doer and observer – seems very substantial and real.

When it is recognized as imagined, the layer of drama tends to weaken or fall away. And what is left is the image overlay as a very helpful – and essential – tool for my human self to function in the world.

(more…)

Some ways of relating to thoughts independent of their source (myself or others) or their content…

I can believe it. Take it as true. Identify with it. Create an identity from it. Prop it up. Defend it. Deny the truth in its reversals. Deny its own limited truth.

I can explore it in the sense fields. How does it appear in the sense fields? How does a mental field overlay combine with the other sense fields to create a gestalt? What happens when it is taken as true? What happens when it is noticed as a gestalt? (I often find that it appears as solid and real when it is taken as true, and that I notice it as emptiness/awakeness itself when it is recognized as a gestalt, but that can change next time I look.)

I can explore it as a question. What happens if I take the story as an innocent question about the world? What happens if I take it as a statement, or as a true view?

I can turn it around to the speaker, and then myself. Any advice is (also) for ourselves. When others speak, and I recognize it as advice for him/herself, it becomes more congruent. And when I turn it around to myself, I find it here too.

I can notice the belief and inquire into it. Do I know it is true? What happens when I take it as true? Who would I be if it was not taken as true? What are the truths in its reversals? What is more true for me than the initial belief?

I can notice the fear behind it and meet that fear. Can I find fear behind the impulse to make a story into a belief? What happens when I meet it? Welcome it, as it is?

And to the extent identification is released out of a story, it is recognized as a tool. It becomes a tool for my human self to orient and function in the world. A story can appear more or less appropriate for any one situation. And as any tool, any story has some things it is good at. (If only to deflate the appearance of absolute truth in its reversal.)

(more…)

Some flavors of present…

Whenever there is a strong belief in the stories of past, future and present, they seem quite substantial and real. The present appears on the razor’s edge between past and future, and it is a difficult balancing act to “stay present”. It is easy to get absorbed into stories about the past and future and experience them as real and substantial.

“Being present” here may be taken as focusing on stories about the (apparent) present, and push aside stories about the past and future. (And then discover that it is not very functional.) Or there may be a temporary shift out of stories and an experience of the timeless now, but a switch back into experiencing the stories of the three times as real as soon as they come back.

As the identification with the stories of past, future and present is released somewhat, we have a more immediate recognition of them as stories only. As mental field creations with a practical function, a tool for our human self to function in the world. It is possible to engage with these stories while recognizing them as just stories.

Early on, it may be easier to recognize the past and future as mental field creations, as (often very helpful) imaginations.

As this clarifies, there is also a recognition of the present as a story, a mental field creation overlaid on the other sense fields. Imaginations interpreting what is happening in the sense fields, in addition to an overlay of the story of present.

The gestalts of past, future and present are still there, and recognized as gestalts as they happen.

(more…)

Any experience can be explored through the sense fields.

How does it appear in each field? How do these field combine – with the help of the mental field – to create gestalts? What happens if these gestalts are taken as substantial and real? What happens if they are recognized, as they happen, as a gestalt?

I was curious about sleepiness again this weekend, partly due to sleep deprivation, so explored it again. What I find – here now – is a set of sensations located in different areas from the chest up. A set of images – often of dark and flat/blank sheet – that are slowly and steadily sinking. And those sensations and images combines as a gestalt. When these sink with little distraction, there is a movement into sleep.

(more…)

In a conventional way – and at the thought level – it is pretty obvious that none of us own anything. We don’t own this body. We don’t own these thoughts. We don’t own these emotions. We don’t own these insights. We don’t own delusion or awakening. We don’t own any thing. It all comes and goes as guests.

Yet, there is a lot more to explore here. 

For instance, what is this “I” that something appears to belong to? 

When I explore it for myself, I find a sense of an “I” here – created by images and sensations. There is an image of myself as a human being owning (or not) something. And there is an image of a doer associated with certain sensations in the head/neck area. 

And also, I find that what I am is that which all of this happens within and as. That is the “I” without an “other”, so not really any “I” at all. 

Also, how does it feel to stay with this realization. What happens when the body “gets” it?

As always, this inquiry is for myself and for my own sake. And whatever I find can easily coexist with the conventional ways of looking at ownership – although they tend to come up as needed, for a specific situation, and held lightly.

When I was at the zen center, my teacher gave me the “what am I” koan. I worked on it the usual Rinzai way, repeating it to myself with great intensity and otherwise not knowing what to do with it. It does fuel motivation and intention, which is very helpful, but it was also an exercise in spinning my wheels.

Along with giving someone the “what am I” koan, it is helpful to offer a few tools and pointers on how to use them…! After all, that is how we do it in any other area of life.

If I ask someone to dig a ditch, I show him or her the tool shed and where the shovels are, I’ll point out where the ditch is going, and if needed, I’ll give enough instructions to get the person started.

In the case of the “what am I” koan, there are – at least – two focal points for inquiry.

(more…)

One of my practices lately has been to explore the sense of doer.

How does it appear when I shift into Big Mind or headlessness? I find that even the sense of doer happens within and as what I am. There is a release of an exclusive identification with a sense of doer and into the field that allows and is whatever is happening.

(more…)

One view of how the mind/brain works imagines something like a little person inside the head looking at screens and pulling levels, as if in a control room or operating a space ship.

It may sound funny, but when I look at it for myself, I see where the idea comes from. It is a mirror of what is going on right here.

There is content of experience, awareness and then someone being aware of content of experience. There is doing, awareness, and a doer. Thinking, awareness, and a thinker. Choosing, awareness, and a chooser.

Something is happening within and as awareness, and then there is a sense of a middle man mediating between the two.

If I explore this from Big Mind, I see that the middle man – obviously – is part of content of awareness. There is no “I” inherent in the middle man, no more than in anything else.

And if I explore it through the sense fields, I get to see the dynamics of it more in detail. I notice how the middle man – the observer, doer, thinker, chooser – is a mental field creation. It comes from a mental field overlay on top of the other sense fields.

There is a thought arising within and as awareness, and then an imagined thinker placed on top of it. An action of this human self in the world – arising within and as awareness – and then a mental field overlay of a doer. (This mental field creation – for me at least – visual. Taking the form of an outline of this human self, center-periphery, and so on.)

So no wonder the control room analogy came up in our minds. It is a direct representation of what is really going on, here now. It reflects direct experience when this experience is filtered through this mental field overlay – and it is not recognized as just a mental field creation.

It is a discredited theory in science. What happens when I explore it for myself, here now? What happens if I take the middle man as real? What happens if I see it as a mental field creation?

(more…)

Time is a mental field creation, so no wonder our experience of time changes.

When I look at my own experience of time, I find a few different aspects…

First, a sense of infinite time between now and something that happened in the past. It seems very far away, even if it happened recently in conventional (clock) terms. For instance, between now and when I got up – which is only a couple of hours ago – it feels like a very, almost infinitely, long time. It feels like centuries or millenia may have past, although I of course know that is not the case. Right now, this experience is relatively stably in the middle or foreground in daily life.

Then, a sense of collapsed time. Of the time between now and a particular memory from the past – or scenario about the future – as nonexistent. It feels like no time between now and particulars in the past and future. No time between my birth and now. No time between now and my death. There is a sense of immediacy here. This experience comes into the foreground when I look at it, but it otherwise more in the background.

I can also access conventional clock & calendar time of hours, days, months and so on. I can easily funciton within this framework, although my experience of it is more along the lines of the other ones mentioned here. This one is available as needed.

And finally, a sense of timelessness. Of everything – including my mental field creations of time, memories and scenarios – as happening within and as timelessness, this timeless now. Everything happens within and as timeless awakeness. This is the context of all of the other ones, independent of how they show up. And it is in the background or foreground of experience depending on where attention goes.

Trigger: Sometimes surprising myself in realizing that something that feels like it happened a very long time ago, really happened just a few hours earlier or the day before.

Whether I work with allowing experience, inquire into beliefs, noticing whatever happening as awareness itself, or something similar, I can notice a tendency to take certain gestalts as more real than other.

Some gestalts serve as cues to take them as more substantial, more real, more true, and to act accordingly: to resist experience, take a story as true, take them as more solid than awareness itself.

At some point, it is helpful to become more familiar with these dynamics for ourselves. 

Which gestalts do I tend to take as more substantial? What are the cues? What happens when I shift into take them as more substantial? What happens when I shift out of taking them as substantial? What do I fear could happen if I don’t take them as substantial? 

(more…)

Facing death squarely can have a few different effects…

In terms of growing up (healing/maturing as who I am, this human self in the world), facing death invites in a motivation to grow up. I have limited time here, and want to make the most of it. Similarly, facing death helps me clarify my priorities. I am invited to clarify what is most important for me, and align my life with that.

Facing death at this level happens mostly within the dynamics of stories. I realize that everyone and everything I love and know, incluing myself, will die. I see it. Feel into it. Find genuine appreciation for it. (After all, death at all levels of the holarchy of the universe is what makes life possible. We are made up of stars that died a few billion years ago. We wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for the whole process of life and death that went before us, at the levels of stars, species and individuals. Also, life is dynamic, dynamic=flux, flux=death.) Make it alive for myself. Allow it to work on me and reorganize me as who I am.

In terms of waking up (noticing what I am), facing death may invite in a motivation to wake up. This human self is around for only a limited time, and I want to make use of this opportunity to invite what I am to wake up to itself.

Equally important, I can explore death – or rather, impermanence – here and now, through the sense fields. I can notice how anything happening within each sense field is flux, guests living their own life, coming and going on their own schedule. There are no stable anchors within content of awareness that I can place an “I” on. But still, there is a sense of what I really am not coming and going. What is it that is not coming and going?

There are many ways to explore what I really am, such as headless experiments, the Big Mind process and exploring the sense fields.

For instance, when I explore the sense fields, I can…

• Bring attention to each sense field (sensation, sound, sight, smell, taste, mental field), one at a time, and ask myself:
  • Is what is happening – here now – within this field, content of awareness? Content of experience? (And maybe notice that That it is all content of awareness. Content of experience.)
  • Does it stay? Is it ephemeral? Even if it looks stable, is it really stable? (Notice that it all comes and goes, on its own time, living its own life.)
  • If it is content of awareness, is it I? If it comes and goes, it is I? (An invitation to notice that since there is a seeing of this content of awareness, there is no real “I” there. And although content of awareness comes and goes, something does not come and go.)
  • What is this sensation/sound/sight/smell/taste/mental field activity made of? Is it awareness itself? (Maybe notice that it is all awareness itself, taking the form of sensation, sound, sight, smell, taste and mental field activity.)
• I can find what I tend to identify with most readily.)
  • Maybe certain sensations, the head area (sensation/image gestalt), thoughts, a sense of being center, a sense of being on the inside of an I-Other boundary.
  • And then ask myself:
    • Is this too coming and going? Is it different from other content of the sense fields in this way?
    • Happening as content of awareness?
    • Is this content different from the content I don’t identify with- like the sound of a passing car?
    • What am I if this content was not around? What am I right now, if this human self is not here?

(more…)

One of the questions that come up for many is how do I relate to thought? Or how do I relate to stressful thoughts?

I can try to push them aside, or even learn to set them aside through certain practices, but that only gives a temporary relief. They have a habit of coming back, and with them, my tendency to get caught in them.

I am aware of two especially helpful ways of relating to (stressful) thought.

One is to shift identification out of them, even as they continue to go about their business. I can do this through the Big Mind process, headless experiments, choiceless awareness and other practices. Here, I shift into that which is witnessing thought and other content of awareness, or into that which content of awareness happens within, to and as. There is an increasing familiarity with seeing thought as thought, and not getting caught up in them as if they were anything else.

Another is to inquire into them in different ways.

I can inquire into the content of them. Is it true? What happens when I believe it? What happens if I don’t have that thought? What are the truths in its turnarounds? In this way, I become more familiar with some of the dynamics around thoughts, what happens when they are believed in and not, and what is more true for me than the initial story.

Or I can explore it through the sense fields. I can see discursive thought as a creation of the mental field. I can explore what happens when it combines with the other sense fields, creating gestalts. I can explore what happens when I take those gestalts as substantial and real, and what happens when I see them as just gestalts – created by an overlay from the mental field on the other fields.

One of the things we may notice, doing either of these practices, is thoughts as innocent.

They are awareness itself, ephemeral, insubstantial and transient.

They appear in verbal form, one at a time, and usually noticed as thinking. And they appear in wordless form – for instance as images – and are then often not noticed.

(The wordless thoughts function as source and guide for the verbal thoughts. They are stories, just as the verbal ones. For instance, there is a sound and then a mental image of a car placed where the sound seems to come from. And they can be taken as true or not, just as verbal stories.)

They are questions about the world. Stories created in the mental field to help our human self function and navigate in the world.

They appear stressful (stress inducing) only when they are taken as true, when we try to make them into something they are not.

Beliefs are shoulds that clash with our stories about how the world is, was, or may be, and this creates stress.

And beliefs differ from what is more true for us, which is also stressful. (What is more true may be the truth in each of its reversals, and the limited truth in each of those stories.)

In becoming familiar with thoughts in this way, there is a natural compassion and kindness for myself and what happens when they are taken as true. There is an appreciation of thought, for what they are and their inherent innocence. There is an easier noticing of when stories are taken as true, and the tension and sense of having to protect something (a view, position, role) that goes with it. There is a familiarity in how to relate to and work with them. And there is a deepening into a trust in the whole process.

Trigger: An email where someone mentioned a practice of setting aside thought. And also Jill Bolte Taylor’s video which could be misunderstood and taken as anti left-brain/thought.

(more…)

So far, I notice a few different effects from exploring sense fields…

At the level of who I am (this human self), there is a release from being caught up in habitual patterns, and also a softening of the patterns themselves.

So in a purely psychological sense, it seems that exploring sense fields can be helpful in a range of different ways. There is a release from being caught up in habitual patterns, including taking stories as true and its effects such as reactiveness, compulsions and more. There is a release from being caught up in content of experience, including emotions and moods. And there is a release from being caught up in narrow identities, and its effects of being in struggle with oneself and life in general.

Especially noticing what is happening in sensations, how the mental field overlays interpretations and stories, and the difference between taking those gestalts as real and substantial, or seeing how they are made up of sensations and mental field activity, seems helpful.

When I take the sense field + mental field gestalts as real and substantial, I tend to get caught up in them and be identified with content of awareness. When they are seen as gestalts, and I notice what is happening within each field distinct from the other, there is a softening and release from being caught up in it, and identified with content of awareness.

(I am not the first person to notice that, which is why these types of practices are being used more in psychotherapy.)

At the level of what I am (that which experience happens within, to and as), exploring the sense fields helps what I am notice itself more clearly. For instance, I can explore impermanence in each sense field, see how it all is in flux, and that what I am is not in flux. Or I can notice that what happens in each sense field is awareness itself. Or that a sense of an I-Other, center-periphery, inner-outer, all comes from a mental field overlay on each of the fields.

And at the transition between taking myself as who and what I am (the shift from one to the other), I can explore impermanence in each sense field, and find that I am not content of experience. I can notice whatever is happening within each sense field as awareness itself. I can notice how the mental field creates an overlay of I-Other on each sense field, and see that too as content of awareness as anything else, and what I am is not quite that.
(more…)

Working with death is like working with anything else.

I can visualize my own death sometime in the future and see what comes up. What if I knew I would die in one year, a half year, one month, one week, one day, one hour, one minute, one second? If I make it as vivid and real as possible for myself, what comes up?

I can notice beliefs and stories coming up an take them to inquire later on. I can fully allow and be with emotions, as they are, in a wholehearted and heartfelt way.

I can allow myself to reorganize within this new context of knowing that my death is imminent. How would I live my life differently? What becomes more important? Less important? How can I bring that into my life here and now?

I can do the same with the death of those close to me. I can bring up the memories of people in my life who have died. I can visualize those alive dying in the future.

I can do the same with human civilization, the earth and this universe. I can visualize it all being gone, which it will be – first when my human self dies, and then when it dies.

In all of these cases – visualizing my own death, the death of those close to me, and the death of everything I know and appreciate – I can work with what comes up in the same way. I can notice beliefs coming up and take them to inquiry. I can fully allow and be with emotions in a heartfelt and kind way. I can allow my human self to reorganize within this new context, seeing how priorities and motivations change, and see how I can bring it into daily life.

Daily life offers other opportunities to work with this, such as when death is a theme in the news and movies.

These are all ways of working with death and impermanence within stories.

But there are also ways of working with impermanence outside of stories.

The simplest I have found is to explore impermanence within the sense fields. I bring attention to the sense fields, one at a time, and notice the impermanence there. Each sense fields is flux.

The appearance of permanence is only a mental field overlay of a story of permanence, whether it is an image or discursive thought, or a mental field memory/mimicking of sense fields such as touch or taste.

Some teachers use how we experience sensations as a quick test for where we are.

Bring attention to where your foot meets the ground. (Or your hand on your thigh, or anything else.) What do you experience? Do the sensations belong to the body, with the floor on the other side of the boundary? Do they appear in space?

It seems that there are at least three possibilities for how these sensations are experienced.

Sensations may appear in space, with not much else happening. There is no sense of an I with an Other associated with it.

Sensations appear in space, but with an overlay of mental field activities such as an image of the body and the foot, and an image of the ground. But these mental field activities are seen as just that, imagined boundaries to aid our human self function in the world. They do not have substance.

Sensations belong to this foot, with the floor on the other side of that boundary. There is a strong sense of an I with an Other, and of the sensation/mental field gestalts (body, foot, floor) being real and substantial.

So to summarize: Sensations can appear in/as space, and that’s it. There are sensations, and mental field activity seen as just mental field activity. Or sensations are entangled with the mental field, and the gestalts are not seen as gestalts.

For me, I see that when I bring attention to it, sensations appear in and as space – with or without a mental field overlay, and although both are awareness itself, they are also distinct from each other. But sometimes in daily life, there is still the habit of taking the gestalts as real. (Beyond just a gestalt.)

Vince has a good post on ways teachers and traditions sometimes speak about enlightenment, and what types of dynamics it may set up in the group.

The verbal level is of course important, partly because it sets up maps people use to navigate by.

Yet, something else is as important: The tools we are given. First, to have an immediate taste of what we are. Then, to work with beliefs and stories directly, no matter what they are about.

The tools I am familiar with here are the ones I have written about many times before.

Some tools for inviting in a taste of enlightenment include headless experiments and the Big Mind process. These give a taste of what we are and ways to explore it for ourselves, although obviously not with the same clarity as a full blown awakening. Doing this can be helpful in letting go of some of the more exotic ideas about enlightenment. What we are is something that is quite simple, available to be noticed here now, and not really out there in others or the future.

And there are also good tools available to help us unravel beliefs and stories about enlightenment, teachers or anything else. The Work helps us explore the effects of beliefs, and find what is already more true for us. And exploring the sense fields helps us see thought as thought, and how an overlay of thought on each of the sense fields create gestalts. It also helps us find ourselves as what we are, outside of what any story tells us.

At least for me, having and using these tools – with some sincerity – is far more important than any models, mainly because they first help me explore the terrain for myself, and then because they help me unravel beliefs and attachments to any story and identity.

Also, any model can become a belief, an identification with a story. So it is helpful to work with any model we are presented with – or come up with on our own – in this way, no matter how accurate it appears to be. In a conventional sense, some models are more accurate, meaning they have more practical value. But really, all models are equally far away from what they appear to be about.

I also see that I personally prefer practices aligned with awakening, but with an emphasis on the practical and day to day aspects of it. So in that sense, I would be more in the “no need to talk about it too much” camp. (Although I obviously explore it quite a bit here, but that is on my own.)

(more…)

It is popular these days to talk about the ways language construct reality, slicing it up in a particular way and creating objects, relationships, characteristics of both, and more.

When I explore the sense fields, I see that language is doing this, but I also find another layer which is equally important: the wordless activities of the mental field. And these do the same.

I find images, and these are an overlay of boundaries on each of the sense fields, they serve as a source and fuel for language and discursive thought, they combine with activities in each sense field to create the appearances of gestalts, and much more.

It seems that language informs these images, including where boundaries go. But these images certainly inform language as well. There is an activity in the sense fields, an image of a singing bird overlaid on the sound field, and this can inform discursive thought about a bird singing, and also other activities of our human self such as walking over to the window to take a look.

Seeing this overlay, it is pretty clear that it is arbitrary. Boundaries can go anywhere. What happens in the sense fields can be sliced in innumerable ways. Yet since its only function is to help our human self live in the world, we tend to do it in the ways that are most functional, and this is determined in part by our particular culture and individual circumstances.

Of course, we can also go into stories about all of this. We can tell ourselves that language early on in our life helped informed where the boundaries go, including the wordless image ones. And that these images then helps support language, and serve as a guide and material for discursive thoughts. And that where the boundaries tend to habitually go, the relationships of the objects that emerge, and the characteristics of both, have infinite causes, stretching out to the extent of the universe and back to the beginning of the universe – going through the habits of this universe, the characteristics of this solar system and this living planet, the evolutionary history of this species, culture, individual experiences, and more.

All of that may be quite helpful and functional, but it is also good to see that those are just stories. Just other activities of the same mental field, constructing a partly imagined reality.

When I explore space, I find two quite distinct ways space appears.

One is how the mental field creates a sense of space. When I close my eyes, the mental field can easily produce a visualization of space and its content. It can easily visualize this body, the various body parts and their relationships to each other, the room, the relationships between the objects in the room, how my body moved and was positioned in the past and may be in the future, and so on. And when I open the eyes again, I can get a quite clear sense of this mental field overlay on top of the visual field.

Space does not seem inherent in any field, and only appears through an overlay of the mental field. An overlay that helps map whatever happens in each field (visual, sound, sensation, smell, taste) in space. Even the mental field itself is mapped in space, giving a sense of thoughts happening in/around the head/body area.

This overlay of a visualized space is crucial for our human self navigating in the world. And also, it is crucial for creating a sense of a separate I. Without space, no I with an Other. A sense of a separate I is anchored here, in and around this body, and the rest of the world is out there, in the periphery.

The imagined separate I depends on visualized space to exist. And when I don’t notice how the mental field combines with the other fields to create a sense of space, space and the sense of a separate I seems solid, real and substantial. When I notice it, the sense of a separate I softens and fades.

The other seems to be free from an overlay from the mental field. This is just a sense of spaciousness absent of any end, inherent in awareness itself.

The first type is essential for mapping the sense fields in space. The second may be just an inherent property of awareness, existing independent of the first one.