Q: Should I practice repeatedly moving my attention away from thought, and instead focus it on what I can sense and perceive in the current moment?

/

The Pacific Ocean off the northern coast of Washington

Should I practice repeatedly moving my attention away from thought, and instead focus it on what I can sense and perceive in the current moment?

 

 

 

When thought is no longer believed to be substantial and independent, then the need to do anything with it no longer arises.  When thought is recognized as simply an appearance, an appearance no different than the rock beside the road or the blue hue of a passing car, it looses its import and the fixation drops away.

Moving the attention from one object to another can be useful when fixation is the current belief.  Thought, by its nature, can be very convincing and the stories that play often trap the apparent separate self in the conceptual world of the mind.  And trying to pretend it is not believed is itself just another belief (thought) that will maintain the weight that thinking carries.

Moving the attention to what we sense and perceive can break the hold of the thought patterns, and can initially be quite useful in mitigating the obsessive nature of thinking… but it too can trap the separate self through a more subtle form of object worshiping.  As seekers, this practice can weaken the belief in the certainty of the mind, yet in time, one begins to consider it usefulness.

If we look at thoughts a bit more closely, we discover that they are a more magical than intentional and we see that they just appear of their own accord, quite like the ephemeral images that stream past as we drive along the road.

The common belief is that we author thoughts and thus control them, but that belief is really kind of silly based upon our experience. 

For instance, I can now put the word "elephant" in your head simply by writing it. 

And it's easy to do the same without even uttering the word:   "Row, row, row your ____". 

If I asked you to only think about the chair you are sitting on for the next ten minutes, very quickly you would realize the impossibility of such a request.  

And if you controlled your thoughts, then what will your next thought be?

If you look back at the thoughts that passed through your consciousness as you read the last few sentences, how many did you author?  What does it even mean to "author" something?  Isn't "authorship" itself just another concept, another thought?  And if you authored the thought, what authored the thought that authored the next thought?

The ownership that we take for thought is just a thought.  

Close your eyes for about a second.   Now close them again for a second.  How much control did you have over your thoughts the first time your closed your eyes?  And the second time?  How different were the thoughts between each activity?  Did a thought even appear?  Etc.

We hold on to or push away thoughts when we believe them.  Or coming at it another way: How often do you push away image of the gray tile in the lobby of your office?  How much effort does it take to let pass the noticing of third door down the hall when you walk past it?  When you reach for your socks in the morning, do you spend the rest of the day considering where they were located in the drawer?  Each of those is actually a thought, but because we rarely give them significance, you might overlook that fact.

We fixate only on the thoughts we believe to be significant.  When thoughts are no longer significant, they carry no weight and thus are no longer avoided or worshiped (and thus not "in the way").  They then are seen to appear.  Period.  I could also say they disappear, but in fact a thought appears... and another thought may appear noting the "previous thought" is no longer here.  Nothing really happens.  It's just a thought that suggests something "happened".

In the Zen tradition, the appearances are sometimes compared to the wind passing through the leaves of a tree.  Why bother noting a particular "piece" of wind (thought) as it passes? 

As I write this, there is no experience of authorship.  There is no thinking.  The words simply appear.  I don't know how they do or why.  To explore their origin would take effort and it's known that the effort itself would become the author of their "origin".  But why bother?  The next sentence will appear.  Or it won't.   I can be ok with this unknown or I can not be ok with it.  Why would it matter?  Being ok is just another thought appearing.  Being not ok is just another thought appearing.  Why give them significance?  And even if they took on significance, wouldn't that too be just what is appearing?

So when we understand the unsubstantial nature of thought, that is, when we discover that thought is not personal, not personal at all, it is no longer of significance and it falls away just as it appears.  We also see that putting our attention on "the current moment" is no different than fixating on thought (or a rock, for that matter) and the "current moment" ceases to exist as well.

For some, what is being said here is all a bit abstract.  If it doesn't resonate, that's ok - move on and read something that feels more true to you.  There is no "right" way, so trust your own inclinations.

If what is being said resonates, let yourself explore it.  Trust the curiosity.

-----

Writing about spirituality is really a very absurd venture.  It's not possible to illuminate what is being pointed to.  Language requires the subject-object model and thus a duality that by its nature supports a belief in itself.   And yet the words appear.

 

In the end, silence feels more true.

 

Q: What are the teachers talking about when they claim that I am not separate from the world around me?

/

Mesquite Flat Sand Dunes, Death Valley, CA

Clearly my body is separate from the chair I am sitting on and from the room that I am sitting in.

Can you help me see what the teachers are pointing to?

 

(Before reading the following, consider first reading  Q: The tree over there is separate from me here, right?  if you haven't done so already)

 

It is only the mind that tells us that there is a "me" "in here" and a "not-me" "out there" and it is the belief in this conceptualization that leads us to believe in separation in the first place. 

Let's explore some experiential exercises to see if we really agree with what our mind tells us.  If you can find a quiet place to do the exercises, you may find them easier to follow.

--- 

While sitting on a chair, place your hand on your leg.  Let it rest there for a moment.

Without moving your hand, and with your eyes closed, explore your experience.   Allow your focus to gentle move to the sensations you feel in the hand and in the region of the leg beneath the hand.  Let the mind quiet as you explore the sensations of pressure, touch, etc.  No words are necessary in this exploration.

The thought "I feel my hand on my leg" may rise in your consciousness, but is that really your experience?   Is that really what you are feeling prior the mind's labeling the experiencing of sensations?

Do you feel your "hand" and "leg" or is it instead more accurate to say (based upon your experiencing in this very moment) that you feel sensations (pressure, tingling, perhaps a slight vibration, etc) and that it is your mind that then conceptualizes the sensations into "my hand" and "my leg"?

We are not trying to convince ourselves here.  What is the actual experience before the mind translates it?  

Let yourself stay with this exploration until you can feel the sensations prior to the mind's translation.

Through this exploration we also discover that there is no experience of the boundary between the hand and the leg (because the immediacy of the experience is just sensations) and again it is actually the mind that "defines" the border between the "hand" and the "leg".

----

Ok.  Now move your attention to the soles of your feet. 

Now stop.  Prior to considering your feet, based upon your immediate experience, did your feet exist?  Asked another way: When you were not considering your feet, did you even experience them?  Were they in the foreground of your experience when you earlier explored the feeling of your hand upon your leg, or were they simply a concept that your mind may or may not have considered as you explored the sensations of your hand upon your leg?

How about your shoulder blades against the back of the chair? 

As you were reading that sentence… what experiential evidence did you have prior to that moment that supported for certain that your back even existed?  Don't let yourself be fooled by the mind… Are you absolutely certain, experientially speaking, that your back or your foot (etc) existed when they were not in the field of your attention (and thus when you had no sensation that suggested they existed)?

Be clear: All we are trying to explore here is our immediate experience.  No claim is being made that our hand or leg or foot or back doesn't exist.  Instead, we are simply trying to know our experiences, our experiences prior to the mind's conceptualizing them into "hand", "leg", "foot", "back", etc.

----

If you are following me thus far, let's continue…

Place your hand on a table.  Let it rest there for a moment.

With your eyes closed, explore your experience of the feel of the hand on the table.

(If you have difficulty ignoring the mind's conceptualization, perhaps imagine that you are doing this exploration with a friend, and with your eyes closed they place your hand on a book, or a piece of smooth wood, or upon the table without letting you know which surface they are putting under your hand.)

Without conceptualizing the table, how can you be certain that your hand is touching a table?  Isn't it more true to say that your experience is that of tingling sensations and the feeling of pressure?  Isn't it a conceptualization that the mind makes that translates the sensations into "I am feeling my hand on the table"?  Experientially speaking, is the hand and the table separate, or are they experienced as simply sensations (and thus, neither an object, and therefore not independent of each other)?

Be sure to make your own conclusions here.  Only your own experience can really guide you.

 ---

What we are attempting through these exercises is to discover that we experience our body first through raw sensation and then the mind conceptualizes that experiencing into "my body" with concepts such as my hand, leg, foot, back, etc.  We also experience the world in a similar way; we experience it through the sensations of touch, sound, sight, etc (which we could call perceptions).

For the reader's who still finds it difficult to follow the claim that the experiential order is 1) Sensation -> 2) Conceptualization -> 3) "Body" (or "World"), consider the following:

When you stub your toe on a rock or bang your leg against the corner of a table, does your mind first claim "rock" (or "table") and then your body's sensations exclaim "OW!"?  Of course not.  It is first sensation (pain) and then conceptualization (naming the body part that bumped into the named object).

With a little practice with explorations like the above, we can see that in fact we experience sensations first and then conceptualize those sensation into "my body" or by extension, into "not my body", and thereby into "me" "my body here" and into "not-me" "the world over there".

So based upon the immediacy of your experience, how can you be so certain that you experience separation? 

Isn't it more true to say that you don't experience separation at all, but instead simply conceptualize it after the experiencing of sensations (and perceptions)?

Let that sink in for a moment.

 

Doesn't it strike you as significant that it is only thoughts (the mind) that insists on separation? 

If we don't actually experience separation, how can we be so certain that it exists?

 

Without the mind, there is no separation.

Without separation, there is no "you". 

Without "you", there is no "me". 

Without "me", no "you" 

No me, no you.

No separation. 

Only this.

This. 

 

Q: How can I tell when suffering is unnecessary?

/

Capitol Reef National Park, Utah

I suffer because I don't have a partner.  How much of this is non-egoic suffering — that natural suffering that is part of being human and thus of having basic needs such as for intimacy and social connection.

How can I tell when it is egoic suffering and unnecessary?

 

 

 

 

 

This type of question is very difficult to answer because the question usual comes from the suffering itself.  A holding and compassionate response frequently is far more useful than the one I am likely to give here.  Exploring the specifics of suffering is best left to a psychological consideration or perhaps to body-work, and it is often better suited to a one-on-one interaction, something that writing does not allow and I will not attempt here.

So with that as an introduction, please forgive my response if you find it offensive.

Suffering is never necessary.  It can even be said that it is entirely of the "mind" and thus not real in any absolute sense.  Pain is part of the human experience, but suffering need not accompany the pain.  Loss and longing are often painful, but when the mind fixates on the pain, suffering is the inevitable result.

It is important to distinguish here the difference between "pain" and "suffering".  Pain is one of the body's responses to the physical world.  Pain can be mild and easily incorporated in one's life, and it can be severe, so pervasive that it dominates the current experience.

Suffering is one of the mind's responses to the world.  I am distinguishing "thought" from "mind" and loosely define the latter as thought patterning that is accompanied by a sensation of continuity (and perhaps in some circles called "ego").  Without the mind, without ruminative thoughts, there is no suffering.

When we loose a loved one or experience a deep longing such as the desire for relationship (or the loss of one), much of the discomfort we experience can be described as a rejection of the current situation or lamentation of a past situation (which of course can only happen currently).  Some of the discomfort is the body's response to the loss or longing, but the dominant experience is usually the mind's response and its amplification with many layers of thought patterns and ruminations.  We could also describe suffering as the mind's insistence on attempting to live in the past or future (which is of course not possible and thus deeply painful).

When we look at the suffering of others, it is often easy to see much of their discomfort comes from their relationship to their life-situation, and not the life situation itself.  Yet when we are in the midst of our own suffering, our mind easily thwarts clear seeing and our own stories often dominate in a convincing way and thus leading us to believe our own story has deep seated truth (and thereby trapping us within the belief of the suffering).

There are a number of therapeutic practices that offer explorations to ease the experience of suffering (such as ACT or CBT) and there are also a number of spiritual practices that can provide relief as well (such as meditation or Buddhist Metta practice).  Because of the nature of this blog, I will direct my response to a deeper truth (but please don't read that as a "better" truth) and perhaps point to another avenue of exploration...

Pain is a natural part of the mind/body's experiencing.  When we stub a toe or break a leg, the body informs us that attention may be necessary to remediate the situation.

Suffering is of the mind and is fundamentally a demonstration of the deep-seated belief in our sense of separation, our sense that we are distinct and separate from the outside world.  Suffering could also be described as a belief in thought, a belief in the mind's patterning, and a by product of that way of thinking is the belief that we are (in part) our thoughts.  While there is often physical sensations that are associated with suffering, more often than not those sensations are the body's reaction to the thought/belief patterning (and not the other way around... although the suffering may initially be the reaction to a physical stimuli).

When we ask ourselves: "Is it absolutely necessary that we suffer in this current life-situation?" our own knowing will lead us to the obvious answer: "No it is not absolutely necessary and it is possible to imagine that there is another response to this situation which would not cause suffering"… and there lies the recognition that we in fact know that our suffering is not necessary and that it is instead of the mind (the ego, in some parlance) and not because of the our life-situation.  By no means interpret this as a judgement or as a claim that we "shouldn't" suffer.  It is instead just a clear seeing of the fact that suffering is not required in the situation.

When we can acknowledge this, we may then become curious about the basic dynamic that is occurring when we are suffering and we may discover a pattern that includes a fixation on thought and the rumination of why our life-situation is as it is or how it should be instead, and we notice that the thought patterning is rejecting the immediacy of our experience.  At this point, the mind might try to analyze this patterning… and thereby again getting itself lost in more mind patterning.  Yet if we instead hold true to the exploration of the dynamic itself and not of the content, we can then explore the nature of thought and discover that all thought is relative and thus it is dependent upon opposites.  

Without "up" there can be no "down".  Without "light" there can be no "dark".  Without "here" there can be no "there". 

"Up" is down when we are above it.  No night is "dark" relative to absolute darkness.  "There" is here when we are there.

When there is an "inside" there must be an "outside".  When there is "red" there must be "non-red".  When there is "tall" there must be "short".   When there is "me" there must be a "you". 

We can be "outside" a room and still be inside a house.  Yellow is "non-red" but it is also a mix of red and green.  You may be "tall", but it is likely you are shorter than a building.  From your perspective, "you" is me.

With this recognition, we eventually discover that all thoughts are relative and thus only relatively "true" based upon some previous thought… which itself is no more real than… well... not real at all because it is dependent upon a "before" thought which was no less relative than the current thought.

For many, this is a very difficult to grasp.  Most of us hold steadfast to the blind faith in our thoughts and words, yet all the while ignoring how relative they are to a particular perspective (life-situation).  One day we think X is true and the next day Y is true instead.  If you allow yourself, you can see that that fixation on the truth of our thoughts is really quite absurd.

If you stay with this exploration long enough, the final conclusion is that no thought is true.  None.  Nada.  Not even this one!  Yes, thoughts can be quite useful at times, but only when they are seen for what they are; thoughts are simply appearances like any other appearance (object) and by definition relative and thus "defined" by their relationship to other objects (which are constantly "changing" and thus not real in any absolute sense).

So perhaps at this point we recognize that suffering occurs when we believe our current thoughts to have absolute truth.  Said another way: suffering occurs when we believe the immediacy of the moment could be different (again: when we believe what our thoughts are telling us).

Without thought, can there be suffering?  When "No" becomes the clear answer, we can then return to the basic experience of suffering and see that it is causeless… and like any appearance, it is known to be already accepted and like all appearances, it "passes".  Without the fuel of the belief in thought, suffering can no longer have a hold on us and it stops becoming the focus of our attention.  Without the belief in the mind-patterning (the story) that maintains the suffering, why would we even care about the suffering (or for that matter, even call it "suffering")?

So if suffering is thought patterning and if thoughts are not real, then what is?

Does anything exist without thought?

Clearly there are gaps "between" thoughts…    

          Does existence cease "during" those gaps?

                       Do "we" disappear between thoughts?