|
|
Post by chanchan on May 22, 2011 4:57:12 GMT -5
... The goggles do nothing!!
(quote from The Simpsons)Hello, I'm trying to look at the roots of being 'me' and there is a question I can't digest or forget, and the answer doesn't come. I thought that maybe we could toss it around a little and see what comes out. I'm a practical man, a technical mind: it seems that overarching spiritual theories and abstractions just don't stick for long to my memory and after a while they irremediably fade away. Day to day life instead is always here close at hand and that's the level where I try to understand spirituality. Now to the problem itself: as everyone knows, eyeballs have an internal muscle: the iris expands or contracts to let in more or less light through the pupils. It's an automatic, involuntary reaction. Well, I clearly don't have any direct control over the iris, no capacity to act at all even if I wanted to. At most I can be only a passive witness to its automatic contractions. Ok? On the other hand, the experience is radically different with voluntary muscles: "I" feel that I can actively turn my eyes where I want, up, down, right  . I mean, there is a distinct, precise sensation of using my willpower to control these muscles. We can make these observations with a completely silent mind to bypass the blabbering mind altoghether. Most of the time the eyes do automatically their work and I'm not conscious of it at all. But it's when I become conscious of them that the experience diversifies: I can only be the witness of the irises, but when I want I can be the master of the eye-turning muscles. So, what changes when I feel that I'm the "master"? Is this the illusion of ego/selfhood staring right at my face? *** Since this is my first post (excluding the intro), I'll write a few words for context. Always an introspective boy, years ago I picked up a book. The author spoke with a strange charisma about something I couldn't understand at all: enlightenment. It didn't make any d**n sense, so I got frustrated and then angry and then suddenly... Poof!... I exploded disappeareing completely! The infinite looked at itself recognizing its all-encompassing essence... wow. They call it (now I know) an episode of cosmic consciousness. What an understatement, if it was for me I'd call it the YAHOO! experience, go figure  Anyway, 'I' returned, but the lasting effects were these of a sledgehammer tearing open a hole into the brick-wall of my beliefs. Classic: I found my head helplessly stuck into the tiger's mouth, a quite appropriate image. For some years I just "had to" read many spiritual books about advaita/non-duality. Now I just love mental silence and wordless self-enquiry. I believe that selfhood is not my real essence but a process, like a software program that can be active or not. I thought I had a "mission", a path, but now I have to admit that in truth, beneath the surface, I'm propelled by an unfathomable mysterious force. It's mostly a good ride with a lot of fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 22, 2011 10:30:55 GMT -5
Some body functions don't need to be controlled by conscious thought and others do. The assumption is that there is a 'you' that controls thought, and yet that just happens the same way the iris contraction just happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 22, 2011 15:39:17 GMT -5
... The goggles do nothing!!
(quote from The Simpsons)Hello, I'm trying to look at the roots of being 'me' and there is a question I can't digest or forget, and the answer doesn't come. I thought that maybe we could toss it around a little and see what comes out. I'm a practical man, a technical mind: it seems that overarching spiritual theories and abstractions just don't stick for long to my memory and after a while they irremediably fade away. Day to day life instead is always here close at hand and that's the level where I try to understand spirituality. Now to the problem itself: as everyone knows, eyeballs have an internal muscle: the iris expands or contracts to let in more or less light through the pupils. It's an automatic, involuntary reaction. Well, I clearly don't have any direct control over the iris, no capacity to act at all even if I wanted to. At most I can be only a passive witness to its automatic contractions. Ok? On the other hand, the experience is radically different with voluntary muscles: "I" feel that I can actively turn my eyes where I want, up, down, right . I mean, there is a distinct, precise sensation of using my willpower to control these muscles. We can make these observations with a completely silent mind to bypass the blabbering mind altoghether. Most of the time the eyes do automatically their work and I'm not conscious of it at all. But it's when I become conscious of them that the experience diversifies: I can only be the witness of the irises, but when I want I can be the master of the eye-turning muscles. So, what changes when I feel that I'm the "master"? Is this the illusion of ego/selfhood staring right at my face? *** Since this is my first post (excluding the intro), I'll write a few words for context. Always an introspective boy, years ago I picked up a book. The author spoke with a strange charisma about something I couldn't understand at all: enlightenment. It didn't make any d**n sense, so I got frustrated and then angry and then suddenly... Poof!... I exploded disappeareing completely! The infinite looked at itself recognizing its all-encompassing essence... wow. They call it (now I know) an episode of cosmic consciousness. What an understatement, if it was for me I'd call it the YAHOO! experience, go figure Anyway, 'I' returned, but the lasting effects were these of a sledgehammer tearing open a hole into the brick-wall of my beliefs. Classic: I found my head helplessly stuck into the tiger's mouth, a quite appropriate image. For some years I just "had to" read many spiritual books about advaita/non-duality. Now I just love mental silence and wordless self-enquiry. I believe that selfhood is not my real essence but a process, like a software program that can be active or not. I thought I had a "mission", a path, but now I have to admit that in truth, beneath the surface, I'm propelled by an unfathomable mysterious force. It's mostly a good ride with a lot of fun. Nothing changes… When I play tennis, I can ' experience' the game 2 ways. I can relax and let the body hit the ball, you know believing the thought there’s no ‘me’ hitting the ball. Or I can hit the ball harder or try to place a shot, believing the thought there’s a ‘me’ asserting it self as you say, as the master. The funny thing is that the ' experience' irrespective of which thought I believe in, is always the same. I make shots and I miss shots. Believing there is a ‘me’ or isn’t a ‘me’ is irrelevant to the ' experience' of tennis. Same thing with feelings, sometimes I’m feeling good, sometimes angry and the ' experience' always remains the same. I make shots and I miss shots. It is not the illusion of ego/selfhood you should be concerned with. It is the awareness of a thinker that ‘thinks’ there is the illusion of ego/selfhood. Folks will tell you that life will be better or others like at the Ruthless Truth forum, will tell you that you can attain freedom, by realizing there is no self doing anything. The only problem is who is it that is gaining freedom? Is it the thinker that ‘thinks’ there is no ‘self’ to be found anywhere in the world that is now free? Is relieving the thinker of a thought freedom or do we need to transcend the thinker? And if we transcend the thinker of ‘thoughts’ what’s left? Pure ' experience', making shots and missing shots, and that's OK by me... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by chanchan on May 22, 2011 16:28:03 GMT -5
Some body functions don't need to be controlled by conscious thought and others do. The assumption is that there is a 'you' that controls thought, and yet that just happens the same way the iris contraction just happens. Hello Enigma, yes I agree with everything you wrote. Undestanding the "me" as an assumption is intellectually feasible. But the real problem is feeling and seeing it as an assumption. That's quite another story, at least for me. It's these feelings that conscious thought, as you wrote, can control certain body functions that gives boundaries and the appearance of reality to this 'me'. If we imagine for the sake of argument, that every muscle in the body was involuntary like the iris, then it would be easy to say, "yes it's clear, I'm only the witness of the body and its movements are automatic, I do nothing". Instead I feel that conscious thought, as you said, can control certain actions. Looking at my present experience, this, I think, is one of the main roots of the personal sense of selfhood. It's more of a feeling, an experience, than an idea. An idea can be dissolved in the mind with a good amount of scrutiny: that horrible snake is after all a rope, now that I look better; and the experience of fear ceases. But a physical feeling has roots deeper than the mind, outside of it. So how to deal with it? |
|
|
|
Post by chanchan on May 22, 2011 18:15:36 GMT -5
Thanks for your reply therealfake,
I should really be running happy and mindless on my wheel, but I confess that being a pensive hamster, sometimes I enjoy some mind games...
Nice argument, I think this is right on the spot. This just makes me realize that I don't quite perceive this 'me' as a belief, but more as an experience. It's not like believing in an abstract santa claus, but like seeing santa claus while everyone tells me that he doesn't exist. OMG I'm hallucinating!
If I play tennis, well, as you imply, I just play tennis. I mean, there is no reflection, the body is on autopilot.
Instead it's i.e. when I have to learn some new kind of shot that the experience of self becomes really evident: I don't know about you, but I have to use mind and reflection to consciously control the muscles to learn the new movements, and remember what the instructor showed me and compare if my movements are really matching his, and so on. This is the ego: the sensation of willpower, control, effort. If the universe moves me, why should I feel this fatigue? Can it go away?
From this sense of power over my body, arises the sense of power over my mind itself and this is where this power becomes perhaps more a belief than a reality and causes nasty problems. On that I agree.
Here you lost me, a "thinker" is a concept so abstract that I have serious difficulty to understand it. What's the thinker? I don't see or perceive it. There are certainly many thoughts; they arise from outside my field of consciousness and appear in it fully formed. It seems the thinker is outside the consciousness. Probably it's the whole body plus the environment, certainly something immensely bigger than the conscious mind.
Right now the problem for me is not an abstract thinker, but what kind of thoughts and experiences appear and how I experience them.
Here I must be very sincere. Do I seek freedom? Truth? I don't really know what I seek. I don't even care. Enligthenment, no-self, are just ideas, placeholders for something that I can't actually name. I don't know why I read spiritual books, frankly I don't even like most of them. I prefer novels. But I need them. The explosive experience of cosmic consciousness I had 10 years ago was the outward symptom of something BIG in motion, I tried to forget it, but this seeking just goes on and on with a frightening intensity at times. I can't stop it, even if it goes towards self-destruction.
It seems a movement towards the release from something.
Right. But "experience" can be pleasant or not so pleasant. The feeling that I have to control this and that is not part of the pleasant experiences. I'd like to let go of that burden.
Anyway, in the meantime, this is a nice place to write and read.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 22, 2011 19:30:17 GMT -5
Here you lost me, a "thinker" is a concept so abstract that I have serious difficulty to understand it. What's the thinker? I don't see or perceive it. There are certainly many thoughts; they arise from outside my field of consciousness and appear in it fully formed. It seems the thinker is outside the consciousness. Probably it's the whole body plus the environment, certainly something immensely bigger than the conscious mind. Ya, sorry, what I mean by the ' thinker' is the generator of thoughts. And it is well within the observation of the awareness. Normally we ' think' the thoughts that we become aware of are our own. They are in fact completely impersonal. Where some thoughts mean nothing to me, they will drive you around the bend. The thoughts you choose to believe are the ones that make up who you ' think' you are. Hope that clears it up a bit for you.  |
|
|
|
Post by teetown on May 22, 2011 20:05:20 GMT -5
This is a great question and I'm curious to hear the answers.
I've delved into what this "me" thing really is, and from a certain perspective, it's just another object in consciousness. It's sorta meaningless. There seems to be this basic sense of existence that I think Niz referred to as the "I AM," and it seems to get entangled somehow with certain thoughts and actions so that there is a feeling that I am controlling these actions and thoughts.
I wonder if the feeling of consciously controlling things ever leaves. If it's seen for what it is, is it still a problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 22, 2011 20:59:02 GMT -5
Some body functions don't need to be controlled by conscious thought and others do. The assumption is that there is a 'you' that controls thought, and yet that just happens the same way the iris contraction just happens. Hello Enigma, yes I agree with everything you wrote. Undestanding the "me" as an assumption is intellectually feasible. But the real problem is feeling and seeing it as an assumption. That's quite another story, at least for me. It's these feelings that conscious thought, as you wrote, can control certain body functions that gives boundaries and the appearance of reality to this 'me'. If we imagine for the sake of argument, that every muscle in the body was involuntary like the iris, then it would be easy to say, "yes it's clear, I'm only the witness of the body and its movements are automatic, I do nothing". Instead I feel that conscious thought, as you said, can control certain actions. Looking at my present experience, this, I think, is one of the main roots of the personal sense of selfhood. Right, that's mind identification; the idea that I am the mind that controls certain body functions. The idea that it's an experience or a feeling is just the result of the belief in the assumption, which makes it seem experientially real. Yes, verifying a visual perception is easier. You can walk up to the snake and give it a kick and see that it's a rope.....or not! You can hike out to the oasis and see if there's really any water. The sense that there is a thinker/controller can't be tested in that way because it involves observing how mind is functioning without falling into it. The intention to do something with the body happens without intention. The controller is absent. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 23, 2011 13:32:53 GMT -5
If I play tennis, well, as you imply, I just play tennis. I mean, there is no reflection, the body is on autopilot. Instead it's i.e. when I have to learn some new kind of shot that the experience of self becomes really evident: I don't know about you, but I have to use mind and reflection to consciously control the muscles to learn the new movements, and remember what the instructor showed me and compare if my movements are really matching his, and so on. This is the ego: the sensation of willpower, control, effort. If the universe moves me, why should I feel this fatigue? Can it go away? I see what you’re saying, and I also see it as the ‘belief’ in the ‘ thought’ that there is a ‘me’ or ‘no me’ learning a new movement. I see it as just the experiencing, the learning of a new movement as a ‘ happening’. Part of learning is the body finding its balance and coordination. It seems like egoic input is necessary to help the body out, but I don’t see it like that. The minds attempt to ‘ do’ something is a reaction to the bodies initial stumbling around in the learning process. When you first learned how to walk you fell down a lot, but that falling down wasn’t bad. The body was learning from that falling, and eventually it learned to walk. Part of learning is fatigue, but that’s not bad or good, it’s part of the experience. It’s part of the happening. Does the belief in the ‘ thought’ of wanting or not wanting it to go away affect the experience in any way? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 23, 2011 14:54:40 GMT -5
This is a great question and I'm curious to hear the answers. I've delved into what this "me" thing really is, and from a certain perspective, it's just another object in consciousness. It's sorta meaningless. There seems to be this basic sense of existence that I think Niz referred to as the "I AM," and it seems to get entangled somehow with certain thoughts and actions so that there is a feeling that I am controlling these actions and thoughts. I wonder if the feeling of consciously controlling things ever leaves. If it's seen for what it is, is it still a problem? Teetown: There comes a point in time when one realizes, in an embodied way, that selfhood is an illusion. Intellectually understanding this does not provide freedom; freedom occurs only when the structures of thought that once supported a sense of selfhood collapse. Selfhood then ceases to be a problem, and seeking comes to an end. Afterwards, one acts, but rarely reflects upon what is happening. If reflection occurs, as it sometimes does, there is no attachment to the reflective thoughts. The body/mind thinks and acts, but everything remains empty, fluid, dynamic, and whole. What can be imagined as "purposeful action" is no longer reflected upon or psychologically invested in in the same way as before. |
|
|
|
Post by chanchan on May 23, 2011 15:41:24 GMT -5
I wonder if the feeling of consciously controlling things ever leaves. If it's seen for what it is, is it still a problem? Thank you teetown for bringing this up, I was just going to to ask the same question. And thank you zendancer for providing your answer. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 23, 2011 16:14:11 GMT -5
I would just add to what ZD said by saying that realization is not the only way a person comes to know they have always been free.
An experience can give rise to a negative feeling or anxiety as one experience’s an aspect of human freedom and responsibility.
I felt this on a recent cruise. While standing near the railing I looked out at nothing but ocean for hundreds of miles in all directions.
A fearful thought entered my mind of falling over the railing and being abandoned in the middle of the ocean. I confronted that fear by simply standing there at the rail.
I also experienced a feeling of dread from the possibility of throwing myself off the ship.
In the experience that "nothing was holding me back", I sensed the lack of anything that predetermines me to either throw myself over or to stand still, and I was actually 'experiencing' my own freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by chanchan on May 23, 2011 16:16:17 GMT -5
Ya, sorry, what I mean by the ' thinker' is the generator of thoughts. And it is well within the observation of the awareness. Normally we ' think' the thoughts that we become aware of are our own. They are in fact completely impersonal. Where some thoughts mean nothing to me, they will drive you around the bend. The thoughts you choose to believe are the ones that make up who you ' think' you are. Hope that clears it up a bit for you. Yes, now I think I see that you mean. It's the constellation of beliefs that I implicitly accumulated and trusted that creates my image and identity as the thinker. In these terms, I try to avoid adding new beliefs and at the same time I try to leave alone that image hoping that it will become less and less relevant with time. I see what you’re saying, and I also see it as the ‘belief’ in the ‘ thought’ that there is a ‘me’ or ‘no me’ learning a new movement. I see it as just the experiencing, the learning of a new movement as a ‘ happening’. Part of learning is the body finding its balance and coordination. It seems like egoic input is necessary to help the body out, but I don’t see it like that. The minds attempt to ‘ do’ something is a reaction to the bodies initial stumbling around in the learning process. When you first learned how to walk you fell down a lot, but that falling down wasn’t bad. The body was learning from that falling, and eventually it learned to walk. Part of learning is fatigue, but that’s not bad or good, it’s part of the experience. It’s part of the happening. Yes exactly as you wrote, it seems like egoic input is necessary to help the body. And it's because of this identification that I still can't see experiences as impersonal happenings but as 'my' good/bad experiences. Not only that, but I judge the outcome of my actions as good only if they fulfill my expectations. Probably suffering happens because I try to use this same model not only for simple body-learning but even for psychologcal experiences. Like "why I can't be better than this?" It's a pattern so ingrained that it's difficult to step outside of it. Certainly. This thought is indeed part of the problem! |
|
|
|
Post by chanchan on May 23, 2011 16:53:13 GMT -5
Right, that's mind identification; the idea that I am the mind that controls certain body functions. I understand. It's hard to accept what you say. You know, it's perversely fascinating to be able to look at this "identification" so clearly and yet at the same time not being able to see through it as an illusion. I feel like these people that stare for hours at stereograms, unable to see the hidden 3d image. The idea that it's an experience or a feeling is just the result of the belief in the assumption, which makes it seem experientially real. Yes, verifying a visual perception is easier. You can walk up to the snake and give it a kick and see that it's a rope.....or not! You can hike out to the oasis and see if there's really any water. The sense that there is a thinker/controller can't be tested in that way because it involves observing how mind is functioning without falling into it. The intention to do something with the body happens without intention. The controller is absent. This is terrible, even worse than I feared, but explains a lot. That's why it's so hard for everyone to realize that these almost physical sensations of power and control are consequences of this assumption, because it's completely counterintuitive. So you say that I trust the mind too much, even unconsciously and my unquestioned beliefs become more convincing than pure reality. Lately I'm looking at this mind-landscape silently, with an undertone of disbelief. Do you think there is any benefit in using reason to dismantle the me/controller assumption or it's better to just relax into self-enquiry? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2011 19:32:16 GMT -5
Marie and I had a great squirrel satsang today. A couple of years ago, when we would approach the subject of 'no free will', or 'no volitional person' or 'no doer', she would get dizzy as her own unique way of avoiding the subject. Hehe. Last year when the subject would come up, she'd call for 'a moment of silence', which we still tease each other with. Today, the 'squirrels' asked the question about free will, which is the willingness we've been waiting for.
I asked her where the thought to come to the park came from. What followed was a series of 'mind objects' like desire, willingness, openness, followed by my asking where that came from in each case. Then, knowing she was going to cook lunch for me today, I asked her where the thought came from to cook today. One of the possible reasons I suggested was that it came from love, and when I said that, it clicked for her.
We took a 'real' moment of silence (hehe) while she 'looked', and after a few minutes she got it, and proceeded to describe what she was seeing perfectly. What made it register for her was the example, because it was very recent and she was able to look back and clearly see that the thought to cook was a spontaneous thought that came directly from her desire that I eat a good meal (Which doesn't happen when I 'cook' for myself) with no mediator in between; no chooser choosing the thought or declaring a choice. The thought arose and was seen, the willingness was present in her 'conditioning', and it was a done deal. No choice was declared and none was needed.
The implications of this realization are still sinking in, but it's already clear that there's nobody to blame anywhere for anything. WooHoo!
|
|
. I mean, there is a distinct, precise sensation of using my willpower to control these muscles. 
