Thoughts can give me a sense of drained energy, or they can be energizing. And this seems to depend on their content, and more importantly, how I relate to them.

In general, when I take a story as true, it will drain my energy. And when I recognize it as just a thought, it will be neutral or even slightly energize.

Why is there an experience of drained energy? I imagine it comes from the image of an “I” or “me” struggling with the wider world, in different ways. Just taking that image as real and true will give an experience of energy drain, tiredness, and at times even exhaustion.

(more…)

“Well,” said Pooh, “what I like best,” and then he had to stop and think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn’t know what it was called.
~A.A. Milne

Even a simple Pooh quote is a question and invitation for investigation.

When anticipating eating honey, it is easy to see that the joy of sweet anticipation is all in the mind. If we like honey, that is.

(more…)

In the context of what we are, the human psyche is minuscle. And we all know it, even if we don’t always recognize it or take it seriously. 

When identification is,  even to some extent, released out of content of experience, we find ourselves as that which experience happens within and as. And this is capcaity for whatever is happening. It has nothing to do with size, and yet has a taste of the infinite, and is also as big as whatever content of experience is here. 

Right now, it is as big as this room. When I go outside for a walk, it is as big as the landscape, the clouds and the wind. At night, it is as big as the furthest stars. 

And although this psyche with its thoughts and emotions is not located anywhere, there is also a sense of it being located in and around this human self. The mental field creates gestalts anchoring it to sensations and images of this body. 

So in the context of what I am, my psyche is minuscle. It is a tiny part of the whole field. What I am is awakeness and capacity for whatever is happening, it is this room as awakeness itself, the landscape as awakeness itself, the clouds, wind and stars as awakeness itself, and it is thoughts and emotions as awakeness itself, as a tiny part of this immensely larger whole. 

When I take myself to be the psyche, it can seem immense and fill up my whole world, leaving just a periphery to the wider world. 

When I forget to take myself as the psyche, there is a shift into what I am and the psyche is just a tiny part of the field. It does its own thing, living its own life, as it always does, but it is just a small player on the stage. 

And we all know it. We all experience it throughout the day when we are out in nature, relax, get absorbed into whatever activity we are engaged in, forget to get caught up in stories for whatever reason. We may not notice, or recognize it as what we are, or take it seriously and as something to investigate further, but it is there. 

It is not mysterious in that sense. 

(more…)

When I differentiate, it can happen within the context of appreciation or not.

If I differentiate - using thought to sort things out - within appreciation, I find that it tends to invite in curiosity and receptivity. I am more free to explore different views and takes on the topic, find the validity in each, and ways these views may fit together into a larger picture. If I am engaging with someone else, there tends to also be more of a sense of us and a recognition of myself in the other. A sense of exploration and partnership, whether the other person is open to that or not.

If I differentiate and it is not within a context of appreciation, it can be quite neutral. But the stage is also set for more easily going in the direction of a rigid view and a closed heart. Instead of a more open exploration, I may go into justifying or defending a particular view. I may go into polarization. I may experience separation to others and the views they happen to use as a guideline.

Either one is of course fine. And the differentiation without appreciation may be an effective tool in some specific situations. (Tough love, but there can be appreciation even there, just not expressed so directly.)

But in general, differentiation within the context of appreciation seems to be more helpful. When the heart comes in and supports the mind, there is more receptivity and curiosity there, and a willingness to explore the validity in a wider range of views. In some ways, there is a certain intelligence that comes from the heart supporting the mind.

Even when the differentiation comes up with the same in both cases, it is at least more enjoyable to do it within the context of appreciation and a deeper sense of us.

(more…)

I know.

(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…)

Here is a slight variation on a common topic…

Our stories create a limited identity for us, and to the extent we identify with it, we are at odds with reality.

There is an identity to justify, defend and prop up. Someone may see something in us that doesn’t fit, and we feel a need to defend against it. Or our human self may do something that doesn’t fit, and we feel a need to defend our identity there too. We are at odds with life as it is, and there is a sense of drama and struggle.

So whenever this happens, it is a great opportunity to notice our identification with a particular identity. We take the offended identity as true, but what is more true for us? What do I find when I explore it for myself.

Someone may say “you are …” (fill in the blank). I notice a reaction to it, a movement to defending an identity, and this is a sure sign that I identify with and take a story as true. There may be stress. Tension. Hurt. Defensiveness. Reactiveness. Getting caught up in stories.

And I can meet and explore this in different ways. I can allow and meet the experience, and the fear behind it. I can notice the belief behind it, and find what is more true for me. I can feel and see the characteristic in me, as a part of my human wholeness, and our shared humanity.

In each case, what I find is that behind the initial reaction, there is pure gold. I find another piece of my lost wholeness as a human being. I am released out of a false - and too narrow - identity. I find another aspect of our shared humanity right here. I experience more of the fullness of who I already am.

If I get caught up in defending the threatened identity, all the usual things happen. A sense of stress. Tension. Conflict. Separation. (To myself and others.) Getting caught up in obsessive thoughts. Hurt. And more than that, I miss out of pure gold. I miss out of finding a previously excluded piece of my own wholeness.

The only problem is that most of the time, I don’t know what people think about me. They just don’t tell, at least not if it is anything they see as unfavorable. I miss out of the gold because it doesn’t happen that often. So what can I do?

Fortunately, there is a way around it. I can use any statement that comes my way, no matter who or what it is about and where it comes from (including my own thoughts), and turn it around to myself.

How is it true for me? Can I find it right here? What happens when I inquire into the beliefs and identities preventing me from feeling and seeing it in my human self? What happens when I allow myself to feel and see it right here?

Whatever statement comes up, I can turn it around to find it in myself.

This process leads to a healing and maturing of who I am, as this human self. And it releases identification out of stories, which makes it easier for what I am to notice itself.

It is pure gold, so why wait?

(more…)

I have enjoyed watching Terry Jones‘ (yes, the Monty Python guy) documentaries about the Crusades, Medieval Lives, and the Barbarians. They are all very well done, and give a different perspective than the traditional historical view, for instance pointing out that the way we see barbarians today is largely Roman propaganda, still effective 1500 years later.

(Watch the Crusades, Medieval Lives and the Barbarians online.)

Another excellent documentary is When the Moors Ruled in Europe, showing how the Renaissance - and what we know as modern European culture - was born out of the Islamic Golden Age. (Watch it here.) Islam and Islamic culture has traditionally been seen as an enemy in Europe, and this is a good antidote to Islamophobia and a way to nuance the picture somewhat.

We all know that history is “often what people want us to think happened” as Terry Jones says. History is constructed by those in power, often to protect their own interest.

(more…)

Another inquiry that can be quite helpful…

Something happens. I take it as coming from my human self, and identify with this human self. So I say to myself - or others - I did that.

But is it true? What is really going on here?

A thought appears and another thought says “I thought that”. But where did the thought come from? It seems to have just appeared out of thin air.

A choice is made. It may have followed a set of thoughts, but where did the choice come from?

A shift is made into paying attention to something. Where did that shift come from?

In each case, I find that what I attach the “I” label to seems to just happen on its own. Living its own life. On its own time. A guest.

What I describe above is an exploration of this in immediate awareness, outside - although guided by - thought.

(more…)

As with just about everything here, this too is just life 101. But there is still a draw to write it down to clarify it a little for myself, and also so I can move on and don’t feel I have to remember it.

Thoughts function as an interface, and so also in a spiritual or practice context.

They serve as a pointer for attention, such as bringing attention to the breath, the different sense fields, what comes up when I ask a question of myself (The Work), and so on.

They serve as an invitation for a shift, for instance into allowing experience and into one of the voices in the Big Mind process.

And they serve as a guide for exploration, when I explore sense fields, they dynamics around a belief, or what happens when an experience is resisted or allowed.

In these ways, thoughts serve as a pointer beyond themselves. They initiate something that goes far beyond thoughts, the cognitive or any mental field activity.

Thoughts also serve as an interface in the other direction. The mental field filters, interprets and put words (or images) on what happens outside of the mental field.

So while The Work, the Big Mind process or headless experiments from the outside may appear to happen mainly within the mental field, as soon as we actually try either of them, we find that their effects go far beyond the mental field, and also that the mental field reports what occurs far beyond itself.

One obvious example is how The Work sometimes brings energetic shifts, and also an experience of not recognizing oneself afterwards. It is as if the whole human self has shifted and is different, in a very direct and immediate way. Another example is how what we are notices itself in a direct way through shifting into Big Mind and headlessness. And how we can shift into Big Heart, and hold our human self and any other beings within Big Heart, through the Big Mind process and other practices and explorations.

Trigger: A few instances where someone describes The Work as mainly a cognitive process. I tend to be surprised by this since the main shifts in The Work happens outside of the mental field, but I can also understand how it may appear mainly cognitive when seen from from the outside.

(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…)

I know there are lots of guidelines and maps about stability practice out there, based on the cumulative experience of thousands (millions?) of practitioners, and I am neither very familiar with it or very experienced on my own. As with everything else here, this is just a snapshot of what is alive for me right now, and each statement if followed by a question mark even if it doesn’t show up on the screen.

It seems that many practices are, most of the time, approximate. It is approximate shikantaza, approximate allowing experience, and also approximate stability practice, an approximately stable attention on something.

Here are some of the things I notice which makes my stability practice only approximate. In this case, using the sensation of the breath at the nostrils as the object of attention, with or without counting.

• If I count my breaths, I notice that attention is often split between the sensations of the breath at the nostrils, and the number thoguht. Attention also tends to shift between the two, with one in the foreground, then the other.
• If I have my eyes partly open, even with a soft gaze, I notice attention being split between the sensations of the breath at the nostrils, and the focus of the visual field. (It may be subtle, but still a noticeable split.) This happens whether I count, in which case attention is split four ways (imagined bulls eye as guide for attention, thought of a number and through of sequence of numbers, focal point of visual field, and sensations at the nostrils), or not.
• When I bring attention to the sensations of the breath at the nostrils, I use a visual thought - almost an imagined bulls eye - as a guide for attention. So attention is split between these two as well, with one in the foreground then the other. Even without counting, and with eyes closed, attention is split between these two.
• Sensations themselves flicker inn and out of existence. When they flicker out of existence, the imagined bulls eye remains so attention shifts there. When they flicker into existence, attention shifts back to the sensation. (This rapid flickering happens during inhalation and exhalation, and the sensations also fade in and out of existence during the in/outbreath and the pause in between.)
• Any belief tends to catch attention, in obvious or more subtle ways, either by attention going on the inside of a thought and following it, or by just a flicker of interest when the thought arises. (Belief here means identification with a story, any story.)
• These flickers of interest also happens with non-discursive thoughts, such as image thoughts overlaid on the sense fields. (Imagining what the sounds are, where the sensation is located in the body, and so on.)

So this is one way stability practice, in itself, invites in insights.

Through stability practice, we gain insight into some of the dynamics around a stable, or in this case not so stable, attention.

We may notice the sense of clarity that often comes as a side effect of a more stable attention.

We may notice the sense of energy that comes with it, and other side effects such as a sense of luminosity (even visually) and so on.

We discover how it is much easier to observe and notice what is going on when we can place attention more stably on something alive here now. A more stable attention helps insight directly.

We may notice how thoughts, as anything else, lives its own life, coming and going on their own schedule.

We may notice the difference between attention seeing a thought as a thought, and getting absorbed on the inside of a story. In the first case, allowing it to come and go as a simple thought. In the second case, fueling and elaborating it into a more complex story, and often getting lost in it.

We may notice how attention is more easily drawn to stories we identify with. Stories that seem true, real, important. Stories that define who we, temporarily, take ourselves to be.

We may notice how the activities of thoughts naturally quiet down when attention rests stably on the breath, or something else.

We may notice how the effects of the different layers of thoughts fall away when identification is released out of them. When identification goes out of discursive thought, drama falls away and there is a sense of quiet presence. When identification is released out of more basic layers of thought, such as those creating a sense of extent and continuity, this falls away, and whatever happens in the different sense fields happens without being mapped onto space or time. When identification goes out of a sense of I with an Other, this field of awakeness and its content is revealed as inherently free of an I with an Other, inside and outside, center and periphery.

(The discursive layer is needed for daily functioning, but only to a limited extent, and when identification goes out of it, drama goes out as well. The layer creating a sense of extent and continuity is obviously needed for daily functioning, but it can be interesting and helpful to explore during sitting practice. And the final layer, of a sense of a separate I, is not needed for the functioning of our human self.)

We notice the ephemeral nature of sensations, rapidly flickering in and out of existence, and the ephemeral nature of any sense field.

We may notice sensations, and any sense field, as awakeness itself.

We may notice how the content of each sense field comes and goes, but something does not come and go. What is it that does not come and go? Am I the content of the fields, or that which does not come and go? Are they really separate?

And this is just scratching the surface. Something as simple as stability practice is fertile ground for exploration, going right back to the core of what we really are.

This is another of those topics that seem so simple and childish on the surface, but goes to the core of our life and who or what we take ourselves to be. (I seem to specialize in those…!)

Any story is a tool. One that helps our human self orient and function in the world, or as a guide to awakening. And as any other tool, it has no value beyond the practical.

It is easy to see when we look at physical tools, like a hammer, or nails. We see that they have a purely practical function. They help us in daily life. And they have no value beyond that. If they didn’t help us, we wouldn’t use them or even bring attention to them.

(more…)

The word ego can refer to a sense of separate I, or the psychological ego, the operating system for our human self.

When I explore ego - in the first meaning - through the six sense fields, I find that it is just a thought arising here now, taken as true.

Attention gets absorbed in the inside of the thought, there is an identification with it, it is anchored on certain sensations which lends it an appearance of substance and reality - and also a location in space, it becomes a fixed view and identity, and with the sense of the thought being right and true, its reversals become wrong and false, so there is a sense of I and an Other.

“Ego” then is as ephemeral and insubstantial as a thought, since that is all it is. But taking a thought as true has very real effects for our human self in the world, as we can explore through for instance The Work.

This is of course a simplified version of it. When we explore, we can always find new layers of complexity and richness of this - quite beautiful - process.

In terms of the layers of thoughts, I find a layer of space, mapping the five sense fields on a sense of space and extent. And I find an identification with a thought, any thought, which is then mapped on sensations appearing in particular locations in space, guided by an image thought of this body which maps sensations, and this creates a sense of a separate I, of center and periphery.

A simple way of looking at how our world is built up…

First, the Ground of empty awareness, the no-thing that allows all things. The inherent absence of form which allows any form, the absence of color which allows any color, the absence of sound which allows any sound, and so on.

The, the world of form, which is no other than Ground itself. It happens within, to and as Ground. It is awakeness temporarily happening as form.

These are the sense fields… sight, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

Then, or as part of this, the overlay of thought. Thoughts that interpret and ask questions about the world. Creating boundaries. Mimicking the other sense fields. Forming gestalts with the other sense fields. Helping our human self to orient, navigate and function in the world.

Then, the overlay of beliefs in thoughts. Thoughts telling us that certain thoughts and gestalts are true, substantial, real.

And finally, from beliefs, the overlay of drama. The drama of maintaining and protecting beliefs. The drama of an I with an Other. The drama of story management.

The ones up through thought are there as long as this human self are around, whether Ground is awake to itself or not.

And the two last ones - beliefs and the drama of beliefs - are there when Ground is not quite awake to itself, when Ground forms itself into the appearance and belief in a separate I.

This map is only helpful - at best - as a preliminary roadmap while exploring this for ourselves, suggesting what to look for on the way.

And for me, labeling practice and exploring the sense fields is the most direct and effective way to explore it, along with all the other practices such as the Big Mind process, headless experiments, The Work, and being with experiences.

A few things about thoughts…

(more…)

I continue to explore thoughts through the practice of labeling the different sense fields: sound, sight, taste, smell, sensations and thoughts.

It is a great help in differentiating perception and thought, exploring the different interactions between them, and also how thoughts are really just another perception, mimicking the other sense fields and arising as anything else in the sense fields.

Some things I notice…

• When I close my eyes, I notice how thoughts create images of what is in the space around this body, and of the body itself. In fact, thoughts create the whole experience of space, when the eyes are closed and also when they are open. An overlay of thoughts organize and makes sense of perception, creating a sense of space.
• Attention is guided by thoughts in terms of sense field, location and boundary. For instance, with eyes closed or open, thoughts guide attention to any sense field, any location, and an area of any size. It can guide attention to sensations of my whole body, or the toe, or sounds from the street, or anything else.
• Thoughts label perception, often just as an image or also with associated sounds, tastes, smells, sensations. Something arises, it is placed somewhere within the image of space, and an image guessing what it comes from is placed on top of it. For instance, there is the sound of a car from the road, it is located in relation to the space image, and an image of a car is placed there. This happens all the time, with most or nearly all sense perceptions.
• Thoughts mimic the other sense fields: sounds, sights, taste, smell, sensations. It creates an imagined world that mirrors the world of perception, whether it is overlaid on or separate from perceptions arising here and now. In the first case, it is often not noticed. In the second case, we call it imagination or daydreaming or thinking about the past or future.
• Thoughts create a sense of continuity. Thoughts mirror perceptions that just left, anticipate what may be about to happen, and string them all together into an appearance of continuity. There seems to be a funny mix of thoughts of past (perceptions from a while ago), present (perceptions that just left), and future (anticipation), and of perceptions arising here now, all together creating an appearance of continuity and time.
• Through the labeling of nearly all perceptions, thoughts trigger responses and reactions. For instance, there is a thought of hunger (image/sensation), a thought of food in the fridge, and then the response of getting up to make some food and eat it. Or an image of me as man, someone else as a particular type of woman, images of a potential combination, and attraction. Or rain, me miserable in rain, and aversion. Without these thoughts, and an identification with them, none of it would happen. The whole world of attractions and aversions is created in this way, through these overlays of thoughts.
• Thoughts create the basic organization of perception, such as extent/space and continuity/time, and also a sense of I and Other, with a particular boundary and content of each. The field of perception is filtered into Other, which is typically whatever arises as not this human self, and I, which is typically whatever is associated with this human self such as sensations, sights of this body, sounds made by this body, thoughts, and so on. Combined with this imagined I-Other boundary, there are thoughts of inside and outside, center and periphery, and so on.
• The sense of I is anchored in whatever arises in the field of perception that falls inside of the I-Other boundary, and some of these more than other. For instance, within the sense field I notice how - for me right now - the sense of I is especially anchored in sensations in the upper neck/lower head area.
• Thoughts also filter perception to create a sense of a doer. Something arises, and is seen as happening on its own or through the actions of someone else, of the wider world, of Other. Or it may happen within the boundary of this human self, and still for some reason be filtered as Other. Something else arises, filtered to appear within the boundary of this human self, of I, and of I as a doer, and there is a sense of this I being a doer of whatever happened.

And the interesting thing about all this is that it can be seen as it happens. Simply. Clearly. And in that way, thoughts appear transparent, and there is also a transparency in a different way in terms of how this whole sense of an I with an Other is created.

Not knowing comes in two distinct flavors…

There is the not knowing outside of thought and stories, and the not knowing inside of thought and stories.

Awareness is inherently free from knowing, and this is noticed when this field of awakeness and form awakens to itself as a field, inherently free from the filter of any story, including the stories of a separate self, a center, a subject and object, and so on. This is the not knowing outside of thoughts and stories, the not knowing inherent in the Buddha Mind. And we can notice this one in a simple way by asking ourselves: is knowing inherent in the awareness of what is happening here now, or does a sense of knowing come from the filter of thought overlaid on this?

Then there is the conventional not knowing, the not knowing within the context of stories. The world is always more than and different from our stories about it (our maps, theories, assumptions, guesses, beliefs), so our stories are of temporary and practical value only. They help us orient and navigate in the world, but not much more than that. Inherent in any story is the not knowing from it having only limited and practical value, at best, and from the equally limited truth in each of its reversals.

Noticing and becoming familiar with both of these forms of not knowing is of great value in our lives. The first not knowing help us notice what we really are, free from and outside of any stories. The second not knowing helps us see stories as only tools of practical and temporary value. Both help us find ourselves as that which is already free from stories, see thoughts as just thoughts, and free us from taking stories as anything more than just stories. There is a mutuality between both, one offering insight into the other.

And they are really just two ways of talking about the same.

I was reminded of an interesting parallel at a science pub last night…

In terms of our current scientific creation story, space unfolded from the Big Bang, and with it time (which is change within the world of form). There was no space before BB, so no time, so the question of what was before BB has no meaning.

Similarly, an overlay of thoughts on pure perception creates a sense of space and time, or of extent and continuity. Outside of this overlay of thoughts, there is no space or time. Prior to, or outside of, this layer of thought, questions of before or after have no meaning. (Other posts have more on this.)

So our story of the Big Bang mirrors what is alive here and now.

As any creation story, and any story in general, it is a projection of what is alive here and now, in two ways…

It is a projection of what is on the inside of a thought, making it appear out there, in the past or the future or at another location. In this case, making it appear in the past, as something substantial and real, even as it is all from just a thought.

It is also a projection of what is happening here and now. There is a field of awakeness and form, prior to and free from space and time. And there is an overlay of thought creating the appearance of extent and continuity, mapping perceptions in space and time. The story of Big Bang mirrors this process quite closely, and is projected onto the universe as a whole and back in time to the very beginning of form.

With an overlay of stories, a sense of extent and continuity is created, and this allows for the whole rich multitude of differentiations and processes we experience in our daily life. A whole universe is created from these stories, whether we see recognize them as just stories or take them as something more than that.

And this too is reflected in the BB creation story. With the BB, space and time unfolds which allows for a whole universe, increasingly rich and complex, to come into being and evolve in time.

Realizing the BB story as a projection does not take anything away from it, apart from its possible sense of solidity. It is only placed in a different context, and has another layer added to it.

In continuing to explore thoughts, I keep discovering how thoughts first create a sense of extent and space, and then use this space to map perception and thoughts themselves.

For instance, all perceptions get mapped onto space, which also allows for a sense of I and Other. I, as a separate self, is located here, in the center, somewhere in or around this body and especially this head, and Other is out there, in the periphery, as anything else arising. A sense of extent allows for an easier differentiation, and it also allows for a sense of an I with an Other.

And thoughts in general also get spread out in space. When I notice the play of thoughts and images arising, and how the mind creates connections among them and shift from one set to another, it is very clear how the mind spreads thoughts - mimicking any and all senses - out in space, and then uses it as a canvas for shifting focus around, for exploring relationships, and so on.

At least for now when I explore it, it seems very similar to the gestural interface used in Minority Report. A wide range of images and information are spread out in space, and manipulated in space to make sense of it.

When I first learned the labeling practice, differentiating the six sense fields of sensation, taste, smell, sound, sight and thought, thoughts came up saying thought, that is not really a sense field, but OK, I can see it can be called that to not make it too complicated.

But the more I explore thought, the more I come to see it as a sense field, similar to the others in several ways.

The thought field is similar to the other fields in that it…

• Is content of awareness, just like sensations, sight, etc.
• Comes and goes on its own, lives its own life on its own schedule, as the other ones
• Really just mimic the other fields, with visual thoughts (visualizations), auditory thoughts, and so on.

So in immediate awareness, the thought field is not so different from the other sense fields.

Yet it is also different in an important way.

Thoughts create an overlay onto the other sense fields, sometimes making it difficult to sort out what is what unless we look. This is how conglomerates are made, or gestalts taken as solid and real and “out there” in the world if not noticed as gestalts, or as simply an appearance made up of for instance sensation and thought when they are.

This is how an emotion comes to appear as real and substantial in itself, when it is really just a sensation and a story.

(Most obviously, the label, the story of which emotion it is. Then, possibly stories saying it shouldn’t be there or go away, which creates resistance which in turn makes it appear even more substantial and real. And then also, initially and often fueled throughout the process, the stories of how what is or what may be should be different, which triggered the emotion in the first place.)

And also a sense of extent, of perception spread out in space and each one appearing in a different location in space. Of continuity, a stitching together of thoughts such as memories of what was, thoughts of what is (which is really just a memory of what just was), and scenarios of what may be. Of an inside and outside, formed by an imaginary boundary which lassoes certain areas of the sense fields saying it is inside (a selection of sensations, sounds, sights, tastes and smells, which thoughts say comes from this human self, and also most or all thoughts.) Of a center and periphery, with the center located in a specific place in space. Of subject and object, with the subject often located in space at or close to the center. And finally, of an I and Other, which is created through imaginary boundaries such as inside/outside, of an overlay of center/periphery, and subject/object.

A few weeks ago, I talked with someone who had it all figured out. For every topic, she seemed to have a flow chart ready in her mind, rattling off the lists and the flows. It was impressive and slightly disturbing at the same time, especially as I could see myself so clearly in her…. as this blog itself is evidence for:

Something is alive for me in immediate awareness, often outside of thoughts, but then quickly gets channeled into sorting and mapping and figuring it all out, creating a sense of control and safety that way.

But is it really all that safe to have it all figured out?

If I get caught up the creations of my own thoughts, I am blinded by it. I won’t so easily see what is outside of the terrain it maps out, including the truth in the many reversals of the initial stories. Also, if I take it all as real and true, it tends to clash with the world as it shows up on its own, which then trigger reactive emotions. I identify with and get caught up in these reactive emotions since I identified with the belief triggering them in the first place, and this only blind me further.

So in the sense of the safety of this human self, getting all fascinated by how the mind can figure things out is not necessarily safe. It may illuminate some things, but it certainly blinds me as well.

Also, does having it all figured out mean I don’t have to experience fear?

When I tell myself I have it all figured out, it seems that everything is under control. I don’t have to experience fear anymore. But it is still there, I am only distracting attention away from it.

And having it all figured out in itself creates fear. I am afraid that I got it wrong, and know somewhere I inevitably did. I am afraid life will show up differently from my neatly worked out map, which it, again, inevitably will. So both before and when my map falls apart, there is fear. And then there is the stress of having to try to keep it all together, even as it falls apart.

Having it figured out may look appealing, especially to the world of thought, and especially in our culture which places so much emphasis on it and trust in it.

But when I look at it a little more closely, I see that it can easily blind me, and it does not help avoid having to experience fear or anything else I would rather not experience.

(more…)

I am getting back into the Feldenkrais lessons/explorations again through a friend studying to become a Feldenkrais practitioner and also classes just down the street.

These sessions are great opportunities to explore body image and how this mind creates an image of the body and uses it in different ways.

Some of the things I notice…

• Thoughts create a visual image of the body. This one is most easily noticeable when the eyes are closed, but can also be noticed as an overlay over the visual perceptions when the eyes are open.
• This image provides mapping for sensations
• It is used for anticipating or remembering movements, visualizing what can be or was
• It serves as a guide for attention, for instance when we are instructed to bring attention to our left foot
• And it also serves as a map for a sense of subject and object. Each of these are located in different areas of space and the body, creating a sense of distance between the two, which also makes it possible to differentiate the two. Without a sense of distance between them, no subject or object.
• When I explore the sense of subject and object, I notice the visualization of a fuzzy boundary around the head area serving as a location for a subject, seer, and doer. And the rest, such as other locations of the body and also the wider world, then becomes object and seen. If attention is brought to this sense of subject, the boundary shifts (usually to slightly in front of and above the head) and what previously appeared as subject now becomes an object. The specifics of how this works is probably different for different people, and changes over time as well.
• All of this happens on top of basic visual thoughts of extent or space, which allows us to experience perception as spread out in space and located in different areas of space. These are basically visualizations of space, which allows us to map perceptions on top of it.

Here is an experiment I have found useful for noticing how thoughts create an appearance of extent or space.

Close your eyes, and visualize the room you are in. Notice how any sounds and other sensory inputs are imagined to occur in particular locations within this space. And notice how the experience of space, and of perceptions being located within this space, all comes from imagination, from visual thoughts.

Then open your eyes, and see if you can notice how there is pure perception, and also an overlay of this same image of space, which then helps spread out, organize and locate the various perceptions in different locations in space.

With some practice and exploration, it is possible to experience directly this overlay, and see that it comes only from thoughts.

When we see for ourselves, even to some extent, that the sense of separate self, and also space and continuity, and much more, all comes from thoughts, it can be a little shocking at first. After all, we typically see thoughts as just the verbal type, the one that it seems “I” am thinking and producing, consciously. How can that thought create this sense of separate self, and space and continuity, which seems so substantial and real? It doesn’t make sense.

And it doesn’t make sense, because the thoughts producing all these core beliefs and experiences are of a different type. They are not verbal. They are rarely if ever consciously noticed. They are certainly not produced by me, consciously. And they underlie our whole experience of the world, throughout the day and even in our dreams at night.

For me, these thoughts are image thoughts, and they organize a whole elaborate system of other thoughts, which all filter perception in a certain way, making this filtered perception appear very real and substantial. So real, in fact, that it is rarely if ever questioned. And if it is, then usually only in an intellectual way, as a fun idea to play around with.

It is quite different to notice it as it happens, through for instance labeling practice or choiceless awareness, or any other practice that helps us differentiate pure perception and thoughts. (Thoughts themselves are also within the field of perception, but for this purpose it helps to differentiate that one into two.)

Now, we can see the thought image of space overlaid on perception, allowing perception to appear spread out and be localized in particular places in space. We can see how thoughts create the appearance of continuity and time through memories. And we can see how a sense of a separate self is created through image thoughts of a center in space, of an inside and outside, of a subject and object, and other similar ones all contributing to creating a sense of a separate self, and of a doer responsible to thoughts, choices, behaviors and so on.

Some pretty basic things about language and thoughts, easily noticed through a labeling practice…

Language (as defined very generously) helps us communicate with ourselves and others.

When I use language to communicate with myself, it helps with mapping, navigating, orienting and functioning in the world. And this self-talk comes in two forms: non-discursive and discursive, or non-verbal and verbal.

Since thoughts mimic the (other) sense fields, the non-discursive language takes the form of thoughts of sound, sight, smell/taste and sensation. It is non-discursive, so most animals probably have this form of language, at least to some extent. When our cat recognizes the sound of our car, it uses sound thoughts, memories of the sound. When it walks up to the food bag, it probably uses image and smell/taste thoughts. And so on. She talks to herself, using nonverbal thoughts mimicking her sense fields.

The discursive thoughts also mimic sense fields, combining sound with and image, and often whatever other sense fields are appropriate. For instance, I can tell myself that I want to get up early tomorrow, have a bacon and egg breakfast, and then go our and dig out the soil for the retaining wall, and all of that is a combination of sound (words spoken to myself), images, and at least one smell/taste thought or memory.

This type of self-talkalso helps with mapping, navigating and functioning in the world, and is a slight extention of the non-verbal self-talk. When I look at it, the similarities between the two are more striking than their difference.

And of course, language can also be used for communication with others, and again, in the same two forms: verbal or nonverbal. I can speak with words, or I can draw, paint, make music, dance, move or anything else that expresses whatever non-verbal sense field thoughts I want to communicate.

There is, most likely, no end to how much we can discover when we explore this, even if we do it only by noticing what is alive here now in immediate awareness.

For instance, in terms of how the nonverbal and verbal thoughts interact, I see how the nonverbal thoughts serve as a storehouse for verbal thoughts to emerge from and draw upon. There is a sound, then a thought-image of a car placed where the sound seems to emerge from, and this can fuel verbal thoughts such as a car is passing on the street, it is pretty noisy, maybe there is something wrong with the muffler. Similarly, the verbal thoughts can easily evoke non-verbal thoughts. I tell myself that I’ll have icecream with strawberries tomorrow, and right away there is an image of just that, a smell/taste thought, and also a sensation-thought.

And by exploring this, I see how all of these thoughts are really just memories. Even if they are scenarios about the future, they all draw from the past.

I also notice how thoughts, whether they are non-verbal or verbal thoughts, live their own life, on their own schedule. Verbal ones are more easily noticed so there is a tendency to attach an idea of a doer to them, and the nonverbal ones are often less noticed so appear outside of the realm of the doer. But when I explore this more, I find only the idea of a doer - organizing perception in a certain way - and no doer outside of that idea.

Thoughts happen, and that’s it. They happen, they are sometimes precedet by something that seems to trigger them, and they seem to have certain effects. But no doer is needed anywhere there.

As long as there is still a sense of a separate self, we can explore thoughts in different ways.

One is to recognize a thought as just a thought, through for instance labeling practice. This practice helps us differentiate perception into the different sense fields of sensation, sound, sight, smell/taste and thought, and recognize how thought filters perception. Thoughts create an overlay on what is, which creates a sense of boundaries, splits and so on which are not inherent in what is.

And whether we recognize a thought as thought or not, we use the information in that thought to help this human self navigate and function in the world. Or, more accurately, we use what appears through the overlay of thoughts to help this human self orient in the world.

We can explore impermanence in two ways, at least, and both are useful.

First is the exploration of impermanence in the world of thought, and also in terms of what it brings up in terms of emotions and so on. This may be in the form of high level generalization thoughts such as all is impermanent, and then also explorations within thoughts in more specific ways. I can for instance explore my day or my life, or the life of my parents, or my culture, or human civilization, or the Earth, or the Universe, and specifically see how it all changes over time, including how it all will be gone at some point in the future. This is an exploration of impermanence using thoughts of change, continuity, past and future.

To make it a little more real for me, it is helpful to bring it back to my own life. Everything I have experienced in the past is gone and will never come back in the same way. My life is limited. My days are counted, and there is a specific year, day, hour and minute that I will die, although I don’t know what it is. In a hundred year or so, I and everyone I know will be dead. In less than two hundred years, all memories of me will probably be gone, or at least not kept alive much.

In some thousand years, most of what is happening in my lifetime will be forgotten. In some hundreds of thousands of years, or maybe millions of years, humans will be gone, and everything humans have done will be gone and there will be nobody to remember it. In some millions of years, this Earth will be burnt to a crisp and all traces of human civilization will be gone (unless we went to another solar system in the meantime.) In some billions of years, this whole universe will either collapse into a big crunch, or disperse enough to die a slow heat death. Then, at the very least, will all traces of humanity be completely gone, and there will be nobody left to remember it either.

Also, what happens if I have a vivid, felt-sense of knowing that I will die in ten years? In five years? In a year? In six months? In a month? In a week? Tomorrow? Next hour? Next minute? What comes up for me then? How does it reorganize my priorities? What becomes more important? Less important? How would I live my life then?

This way of exploring impermanence can certainly have an effect, especially in terms of my priorities and what seems important in my life. Trying to impress others seems quite a bit less important, because it will all be forgotten and gone in a while anyway. Living a meaningful life, in a way meaningful for me, becomes more important.

The other way to explore impermanence is through how it shows up here and now, in immediate perception.

Since thought creates a sense of continuity, and also tells us that different experiences are the “same” as previous ones, it is helpful to differentiate the sense fields, to explore sight, sound, sensation, smell/taste and thought distinct from each other. By doing that, it becomes easier to notice how all the sense fields are in constant change. What was here a moment ago is utterly and completely gone, only a thought is left at best, a memory, but this thought is here now, brand fresh and new, even if another thought says it looks a lot like a thought from the past.

Everything arising, in each of the sense fields, is fresh and new. A thought may say that it looks similar to a memory of something that was, but that is a story of the past. What it refers to, both as here now and as something happening in the past, is already gone.

This form of exploration undermines the whole tendency to take stories as anything more than a thought, arising here now.  Attachment to stories is weakened, revealing everything arising as awakeness itself.

Exploring perception and the overlay of thoughts can yield a great variety of insights, and one of the most effective ways of exploring this that I have found so far is the choiceless awareness practice, differentiating the sense fields and thoughts through labeling.

The practice helps me see how thoughts are overlaid on perception to create a sense of extent and space, continuity and time, a center and periphery, inside and outside (not in my case, but I see how it can happen), and related ones such as seeing and seen, seer and seen, a doer, a chooser, and so on.

The practice also helps me in seeing how these thoughts come in different forms.

In general, I notice how thoughts mimic the sense fields. There are image thoughts, sense thoughts, sound thoughts, smell thoughts, and taste thoughts. Thoughts create a whole imaginary sensory world, and make up its own sense field.

Then there are the discursive thoughts, the ordinary self-talk (”I wonder how the presentation tonight at Luna will be. At least the beer will be good.”)

There are also image thoughts overlaid on perception. One type of these are interpretations and suggestions for what the perceptions are, such as in image of a car put on top of a particular sound. Others are overlaid on perception and create a sense of extent, continuity, center and periphery, and so on.

This noticing is in real time, as it happens, during more formal practice sessions and also daily life.

And this differentiation of the sense fields, and particularly thought, also helps me see how gestalts are formed through the combination of sense fields.

For instance, what may appear as an emotion is just a sensation and a story about this sensation. And what appears as a separate self emerges from the combination of perceptions in a particular area of space (bodily sensations, and sights and sounds from this human self) and image thoughts of a separate self. The image thoughts of extent (space), continuity (time), center and periphery, seeing and seen, seer and seen, doer, and so on, helps flesh out this particular gestalt, making it appear very real if not see directly as this conglomerate of components.

As I continue to explore the thoughts through choiceless awareness practice (labeling the six sense fields, including thoughts) it becomes easier to directly see thoughts, and their effects, as they arise here and now. The jumble of perception and thoughts mixed in with each other is differentiated, which makes it easier to see what they are in their selves, and also how they combine to create gestalts.

It is especially interesting to explore the image thoughts, thoughts mimicking the visual field. These are overlaid on most perceptions in different ways, and serve as cues for emotions and reactions, and as a source of material for discursive thoughts.

The basic image thoughts include…

• Space, a visual image of space overlaid on perceptions, creating a sense of space and of perceptions spread out and located in particular areas of space.
• Continuity. Or rather, an image of time (past, future, present) with memories of perceptions overlaid onto it. Without this, no sense of continuity.
• Body image, which serve to map bodily sensations, smell and taste, and other perceptions. Body images also serve as a guide for identifying sensations that can serve as an anchor for a sense of a separate self, and then amplify these sensations when needed through tension, so they are more prominent and even give a sense of solidity to lend to the sense of separate self. And body images also serve in locating thoughts in and around this body, even thought they arise nowhere and everywhere in immediate perception, prior to this particular filter.
• Separate self image, and an image of a center here and periphery our there. This one is usually anchored to the body image. The body image serves as a guide for where to place the separate self image, and where the center is located in space. Space image > body image > separate self image > center/periphery image > identity images > etc.
• Identity images, defining how this particular separate self is different from other ones. As soon as there is a sense of separation between this separate self and another, I can find an image to go with it, and see how this image is taken as real and identified with. For instance, there is physical attraction, and I see that images of me as man and the other one as woman is there, triggering the sense of attraction (along with other images saying what is attractive). And in seeing that, the solidity of it falls away (although it is still available to play with).
• Boundary images, as permeable or more solid, creating an I and Other, and an inside and outside.
• Metaphors we organize our world by, such as up=good, down=not so good, etc.
• And even the archetypes in a Jungian sense…. the wise old man, the hero, and so on.

They are all image thoughts, organizing and mapping perception, serving as cues for emotions and reactions, providing material for discursive thought, and much more. And they are all directly seen as they arise, overlaid on naked perception.

Labeling practice is very helpful, which helps me see how image thoughts are placed on top of just about any perception. A sound, then an image of a crow. A sound, an image of a car on the road. A sensation, an image of the ankle. A taste, an image of the mouth and tongue, and an apple.

Simple experiments are also helpful, such as first visualizing my left hand with eyes closed, then move the hand and notice how the image of the hand moves with it, then opening my eyes and notice the perception of the hand with the thought image of the hand overlaid.

Lately, as I go about my daily life, I can especially see how identities only come from image thoughts, overlaid on pure perception.