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

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

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

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

(more…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I explore how a sense of I and Other is formed, I find three general zones:

First, a sense of subject, of an I as subject, experiencer, doer, and so on. This one is usually located in or around the head area, but can also be extended to other areas of this human self.

Then, a sense of self as object, as experienced. This is usually the rest of my human self and whatever thoughts filter as belonging to this human self, such as thoughts.

And finally, the rest of the world as object, which is made up of whatever is not a self as subject or object.

I also notice how the sense of subject and object are located in different areas of space so they can be differentiated from each other, which also means that when I bring attention to where the sense of subject seems to be located, it shifts to another location in space. Only the sensations it was placed on remains, but now as an object, as content of awareness, just like anything else, and free from a sense of subject.

For this sense of subject to appear real and substantial, it seems that it needs to be kept away from attention and awareness. Like the man behind in the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, it is kept hidden from view, and that is how its manifestations gets their appearance of reality and mystery.

But it is certainly possible to bring this sense of subject into attention and the field of awareness.

I can bring attention to the sensations the sense of subject is placed upon, and recognize them as just sensations. I can notice the thoughts placed on top of these sensations to create a sense of subject. I can notice how it shifts around when I bring attention to where it just was.

And I can also shift into Big Mind or headlessness, and immediately and directly see that what I previously took as subject - these sensations and this idea of a subject - itself is part of the content of awareness, just like anything else, and that a sense of identification with it can be released.

(There is a release of a identification with the with the sensations and thoughts making up the gestalt of a subject - even as they are still there, which is an interesting experience. The “I” goes out of the subject, the doer goes out of the doing, and so on.)

In each of these cases, I am looking directly at the man behind the curtain, and the reality of its manifestations falls apart. What initially seemed so real and substantial is now revealed as just appearances.

(more…)

I dreamt about a wolf which looked very real, but turned out to be a knitted wolf, made of yarn. This is another analogy similar to the traditional one of a snake being revealed as a rope.

In the beginning, it appears very real, as a vicious and dangerous animal of flesh and blood. Then, it is revealed as just a knitted animal, or a rope.

Some ways to explore the vicious animal…

• Being with whatever we are experiencing, in a wholehearted and heartfelt way. By doing this, which in my experience feels like a gentle and soft docking, the content of experience changes. When resisted, emotions for instance seem very real, solid, substantial, and clearly definable as fear, anger, grief, and so on. But when there is a soft docking and a heartfelt being with whatever is there, it changes, often into a sense of fullness and sweetness that is not easily definable. The bloodthirsty wolf is revealed as a cute knitted wolf.
• Labeling the sense fields, and differentiating them clearly in our own experience. In this way, we see what is there in each of them, and how they combine to create appearances of gestalts which are solid and real in themselves. For instance, when the components of fear are not differentiated, fear appears very much solid and real. But when it is clearly seen as just sensations and a story about these sensations, the gestalt becomes transparent, ephemeral and may even dissolve.
• Inquiry into beliefs is another way to get to know the vicious animal. When there is a friction between our stories about what is and what should be, it inevitably gives rise to various emotions such as fear, anger and so on, and if we try to squash (awareness of) it, then maybe depression. Again, the gestalt of beliefs and emotions seem very real, very substantial, in the beginning. But when we investigate the story, we see how attaching to it as true creates the gestalt, we see the clarity and spaciousness when there is no attachment to it, and also find the grain of truth in its reversals. All of this invites the attachment to the belief to release, revealing the wolf as only a knitted animal.

This dream image may have come up since I delved into some new layers of beliefs and fears before falling asleep last night, again seeing how they appear as real and dangerous when resisted, but are revealed as something quite different when there is a heartfelt being with of whatever is there.

In exploring resistance, a few things stand out:

First, that whatever arises, and in particular emotions and strong sensations, are filtered by resistance. They appear in an often entirely different way when there is resistance and when there is not. With resistance, there are clearly recognizable emotions such as sadness and anger, and clearly recognizable sensations such as pain. When there is a heartfelt being-with of whatever arises, each of those are revealed as something else… for me, often as a sweet fullness which cannot easily be labeled even if I wanted to.

Then, that resistance is not what it appears to be. When I explore the anatomy of resistance, there is really not much there. That too, is a gestalt formed by a variety of components, and when these components and the ways they form a gestalt is clearly seen, resistance - as I knew it - falls away. As with a sense of a separate self, it falls into its components.

And finally, resistance is only resistance when it is identified with. Resistance without identification is only part of what arises, as anything else. But with identification, it becomes something that appears very real, solid, substantial, creating a clear sense of I and Other, and separation. In this way, it is no different from anything else identified with. (And all I can ever really identify with is a story, which makes it appear as if I am identified with something else such as resistance.)

(more…)

This is a topic that has come up in conversation a few times recently… usually when I describe a pattern I notice in own experience, and the other saying something along the lines of “don’t try to change the content of experience”. It is good advice, but also a little too general and simplistic.

When I notice what is already more true for me about what is experienced, the content of experience does change… almost as an unintended side-effect.

An emotion of sadness comes up. I bring attention to it in an heartfelt way, and the character of the experience changes to a tender sweetness. (I see that the initial experience of sadness came from resistance to the experience, when when there was a more wholehearted allowing of it, the content of the experience reveals itself as different flavors of bliss.)

An emotion of irritability comes up. I bring attention to what is really there, and see that all there is is a sensation and a story about the sensation, which together make up the gestalt of irritability. By seeing this, in real time, the gestalt falls into its components, and there is simply a sensation recognized as sensation, and a story recognized as just a story. Again, the content of experience inevitably changes due to a more clear and differentiated seeing of what was already there.

An emotion of anger comes up. I identify the story behind it (she should be more careful), inquire into it (is it true, what happens when I believe it?, what happens without the story?, what are the truths in its turnarounds?), and again see in a more clear and differentiated way what is already more true for me. This invites the attachment to the story to fall away, and along with it the pattern of reactivity giving rise to the emotion. Again, the content inevitably changes simply from seeing what is already more true.

Of course, it does matter what the motivation behind it is… Do I explore experiences to see what is more true for me, or to change it? If I do it out of curiosity, to see what is revealed when I explore it, then a change of content is just a side-effect, and not really that important apart from something else to notice. If I do it to change content, I have an image of the outcome, and possibly also of how the process itself should look, which makes it a less sincere, genuine and open-ended investigation.

In that sense, the advice is a good one. But it is also important to allow the content itself to change on its own, as a consequence of whatever investigation we engage in.

Just before falling asleep, and after waking up, I have take some time to explore labeling-images. It is an interesting phenomenon, although maybe not exactly earth shattering.

The job of the mind is to produce thoughts, and one category of thoughts are these labels that take the form of images.

Labels of sounds are usually quite clear cut. There is a sound, and then an image of an appropriate airplane surfaces. Another sound, and an image of a section of road and a car. Another sound, and the image of a person (as a shadowy outline) walking on gravel. The image labels surface with a suggestion of what the sound most likely represent, and there is an appropriate response (which usually is no response) to the image (not the sound itself). Most of the time the image surfaces outside of conscious attention. It is there, has effects, but is not necessarily noticed itself.

Where the labels of sounds typically represent the most likely physical source of the sound, labels of sensations are a little more complex.

(more…)