Q: The tree over there is separate from me here, right?

/

China Camp Park in Marin, California

Clearly the tree over there is in a different location than I am.  Why do some teachers suggest it is not separate from me?

 

 

 

While you may believe that the "tree over there" is separate from the "you here", certainly it is not your experience that it is so. 

Let's explore this. 

When you look at the tree, where do you experience it?  Do you experience it "over there"?   Do you really experience it over there?

Sure, maybe the mind says "it is over there", but is that really your experience?   Isn't it more true to say that you are experiencing the tree here, here within the experience of the "me" that you sense yourself to be?

Pause and really explore this.  Don't let these words convince you; let your own knowing be your guide.  Is the tree experienced over there or is it experienced here, here in the immediacy of the experience of yourself?

...

If you are following what is being pointed to here, you can see that your experience of the tree “over there” is actually an experience here that labels the experience as a "tree" "over there"?

And isn’t it also true that the knowing of the tree is happening in the same place as the experiencing of the mountain in the distance and that of the grass beneath your feet?  Don't they all happen here (wherever here is)?

While one could look at this "scientifically" and recognize that of course the light from the tree over there travels to my eyes and into my brain which is here, that mode of exploration would be dependent upon concepts, dependent upon external frameworks that require knowledge to support their basic thesis's, and is thus entirely of the mind (which is itself a concept). 

What is being pointed to here is to use our own experience, void of interpretations.  When we do this, it becomes clear that Yes!, yes the tree over there is experienced in exactly the same "place" as the mountain, and the same place as the grass!  All is experienced here. 

So now let's ask: "Where do I experience 'me'?"  Where?

...And lo and behold, we discover the "me" is also experienced here!

Isn't it true?  Isn't it true that you experience the tree over there in exactly the same place as your sense of "me" here?

If the tree "over there" and the me "here" are experienced in exactly the same place, then how can we be so certain that they are separate?   Sure, we may believe that they are separate, yet after the above discovery can we now maintain with absolute certainty that they are separate?  We may conceptually separate them, but our knowing of them makes no such distinction.

How about if we add our other senses to this exploration?  Where do we experience the sound of the wind rustling through the leaves of the tree over there?   Of the car horn in the distance?  Of the breath of the person next to us?  Of our feet against the ground?

Aren't they all being experienced here, here in exactly the same location as the tree over there and the “me” here?

How about thoughts?  Where are you experiencing them?  Where is the current thought happening?  Isn't it also happening here?!

So where is the separation that our minds insist on?   Where exactly is it?  Isn't the "separation" just a thought that is happening here?!  Isn't it just a concept, an interpretation/translation, another appearance no different than the tree and the sound of leaves, all happening here, not separate from all else that is happening here?

Don't trust these words on face value; Only your own experience will offer you the clarity you seek.  What is your experience?

Do you really experience separation... or is it possible that you simply believe that you experience separation?

What exactly is that belief?  

Isn't a belief just another thought and thus also an experience happening here?

Perhaps the teachers are on to something...


Q: How do I know that experience is the right litmus test for reality?

/

Near Crump Lake in the high desert of South Central Oregon

 

I used to reference thought as my basis of reality.  Now my teacher says that I should instead base it on experience.

How do I know that experience is the right litmus test for reality?

Maybe there is something else?

 

 

All paths point to the same place.  Some may be more direct than others, but even the most indirect ends up in the "same place".

It's not likely that your teacher is saying that you must use experience, but she is instead offering it as one "path".   She is probably also suggesting that if you choose to use the mind as your path of exploration, then do so with integrity.

The inquiry into what is "real" is an exploration that usually begins with the belief that a "rock", or a "tree", or a "thought" is in an absolute sense separate and distinct for other objects.   For this discussion, we can start by defining "real" to mean immutable, indivisible, and always true. 

When we begin to explore what we "know" to be true, we quickly bump into the recognition that what we believe "real" is more conceptual than concrete. 

For example, is it complete to say "I know the sky is blue"?  No, of course not.  

How about: "The sky above my head is blue"?  

Or "Right now the space above my head appears blue."  

Or "Within my vision, my ocular nerves are sending signals that my brain then translates into 'blue sky'."  

Or "Neurons are firing and the thought 'Blue sky' is appearing."

Or "Carbon, oxygen, et al, are combining and recombining in billions of combinations…."

Or "Electrons and neutrons are interacting in statistically significant ways and they…."

… etc, down the rabbit hole of "knowledge".  Everywhere we start, we quickly recognize it is conceptual, based upon a previous layer of concepts, and thus it is a belief built upon a previous conceptualization of "reality".  Yet each layer can be divided, broken down into more basic parts.  In the end we hit a wall and must concede: I don't know anything for certain!

What I "know" is simply what I believe I know…  and a belief is just a thought.  So if our knowledge isn't safe to base our understanding on, then what is?  At this point in our exploration, we might begin to explore our experience.

What do you really know other than your experience?  And while we are at it: What is this thing that we call "experience"? 

Testing our experience, we can of course go through the same exercise as we did above, but in the end, we again bump into a wall (as I am sure your teacher has walked you towards).  So instead, for simplicity, we will take another tack and consider experience itself.

When we say:  "I had an experience", we really mean: "I am now experiencing remembering that experience".  After all, is it possible to have a past experience?  Of course not.  So that means that all experience is simply the "recalling" now of a "past experience."

We can also recognize that an experience occurs in time, and therefore must include the past.  This is true because there can be no measurement of time in the immediacy of this singular moment, and therefore an experience must be an object in time because it describes an event, or sequence of events, which has a start and an end (the start being the more distant past and the end being a less distant past).

Again: Is it possible to experience something in the past?  No.  So how can an experience really exist if it can't exist now?  It can't!

So we have again come full circle, via another path of exploration within our "experience", and we conclude:

All we can possible know is experiencing itself.  Just the experiencing of the immediacy of NOW.

Be clear: what is being pointed to by your teacher is just a pointing.  It offers the "individual" a way of questioning its existence as a separate self.  Our belief in the subject-object model is just a belief.  It is just a conceptualization…  and it is happening right NOW!

What is actually happening right now?  Right NOW?

Is this real?