the takeaway i get from this post and others like it is something like "you are not thoughts/feelings/body sensations/etc, you are the fact of knowing itself" or something to that effect (maybe the language is not quite correct)
but i take that as an opportunity to look: sit down and if you notice you're caught up in any particular thought/feeling/etc, just drop that. and otherwise just try to kind of feel into or relax back into the fact of knowing itself, the fact that anything at all seems to be happening, etc.
and i feel like i can do that to some degree, but i don't feel the impact of it. and i know that "i don't feel the impact of it" is only a thought. but simply existing prior to thought doesn't seem revelatory to me. which presents a conflict in my understanding of the teachings
either A) it's as simple as it seems but it's not nearly as profound as i thought, or B) being able to "answer" a question like "what is here now prior to thought" or similar pointers is insufficient-- i.e. "the answer" is NOT as available as sometimes advertised and instead requires... something? not exactly sure. clocking a good amount of hours noticing "knowing of"? anyway any thoughts on this apparent dilemma would be great
Thank you for commenting, Sam! I'll offer a few thoughts, please let me know if they help!
"... something like "you are not thoughts..."
Wording can be tricky, unsurprisingly. I prefer a formulation like "You are not defined/constrained by your thoughts/feelings, etc..." The expression "you are not..." can engender a dismissive attitude towards these things in some readers/listeners. The thoughts ARE yours because they are not someone else's. But that doesn't mean they constrain/limit your being/existence, awareness, presence, etc.
"...but i take that as an opportunity to look..." - This is a great mindfulness queue! And I love your goal of relaxing into the "fact of knowing." Yes, it's the *fundamental* that is of the deepest concern!
"...but simply existing prior to thought doesn't seem revelatory to me..." That's okay. Just keep "marinating" with the idea. There is an "Aha!" here, but it's not necessarily obvious. I'll try to offer some clues :) Your self-image *is nothing but thoughts.* Your suffering (as I define it) at its root *is nothing but thoughts.* If you are the luminous, knowing reality that is prior to thoughts... then the self-image is false! The suffering thoughts *require* the self-image to be what you truly are. Does that make sense? The belief that you are the self-image is very, very, very subtle. See if you can "tune into it."
Option A is correct on the simplicity angle! But not correct on the lack-of-profundity. Realizing you are the "Fundamental Nature" is momentous. When it "clicks" you'll know it! The thinking mind has to relax it's grasp on the notion that it already knows what you are. It doesn't! But it *thinks* it does. Arguing with it doesn't really work. An open heart and curiosity are a much better approach ;)
Option B is actually correct!! "being able to "answer" a question like "what is here now prior to thought" or similar pointers is insufficient..." Notice how you put the word "answer" in quotation marks? You are correct that if the question is answered conceptually/intellectually *that is the reason for the lack of profundity in option A.* And it's VERY easy to trade the conceptual notion "I am a separate human being X" for the conceptual notion "I am the fundamental knowing prior to thought." That shift from one concept to another is very sneaky! You have to "answer" the question, NOT with a conceptual notion, but *experientially.* This is done with direct "looking." Examine your experience directly without needing to go to thought. Can you FEEL the primordial? It sounds like you can :)
Once you get a good feel for it, play with the notions I gave above about thoughts. If thoughts can't define you, and all your problems center around a "self" that is made of nothing but thoughts... are those problems *actually* problems? Or are they more like a dog barking down the road, which is of no real consequence?
Perhaps 'Sailor' Bob Adamson's famous question is worth marinating in, if you haven't done that yet: "What's wrong with right now if you don't think about it?" The perfect peace of your fundamental nature isn't "flashy." It's not "bliss." It's not like Moses coming down from the mountain. It's simply the perfect peace of nothing wrong. And it's ALWAYS here.
Marinate with that and shoot me a message when you like. I'd like to hear how things are going!
You know, I came away with a line of ‘coding’ derived from the best of the languages I could grasp, that effectively points to the movement of enlightenment, awakening, call it what you wish. Your reference to fundamental reality, helped.
I can't help but prod this a bit... I'm pesky that way ;) ...but aren't you ALREADY aware of perception?
Very often we may not pay *attention* to some perception or other; but attention can only cover a small percentage of what's appearing in awareness.
One of the big things that dawned on me when my confusion lifted:
"Awareness is always already perfectly aware of everything in it."
Of course it's very possible to "talk past" each other since these matters can't adequately be put into words. Semantics are essential, but also often tedious ;) Hopefully we're on the same wavelength :)
Thank you for reading and for commenting! Best wishes!
Ah, I totally see what you're getting at! And, of course, you are free to adopt whatever terminology you like (we all have to). It's, of course, wise to make sure others understand your terminology. The word "perception" can be used many ways... I like "fundamental" because it's uncommon, but straightforward. Anyway! To your point:
Yes, conceptual thinking arises in awareness, and awareness arises in the Fundamental Nature. Neither the Fundamental Nature nor awareness get confused about anything, of course, that's the "privilege" of thinking only ;)
So our thinking processes get confused and myopic; thinking that thinking *itself* is reality. It is, of course, a *part* of reality - but there's a LOT of reality that isn't included in thinking! So we have to gently nudge thinking to go "back" as you indicated. Thinking has to realize awareness itself is more fundamental than thinking. And, even further, that the Fundamental Nature is more fundamental than awareness.
There's a lot of opportunity for word confusion in that synopsis, obviously. But hopefully it makes sense.
The "directionality" you highlight is very important! Thoughts are the most-derivative aspects of ourselves, and there is the foundation/fundamental that is NOT derived AT ALL ("one without a second").
The most-derived gets confused and out-of-touch; our investigation is how it rediscovers it's foundation, its "roots." It's never ACTUALLY separate from the fundamental; it just forgets the fundamental IS there. When that "reverse" journey is completed (as you have indicated), our thinking simply realizes the "Home" it has never departed from :)
Totally on the same wavelength it would seem. I appreciate your articulation as such. That gave me a chuckle: confusion being the privilege of thinking. Helpful reminder indeed ;)
Hi Lance. First of all, thank you so much for your lovely texts that you’ve so generously made available here. It’s of great value to “seekers” like myself. You may want to turn them into book(s) someday.
I was reflecting about how interesting it is, as you wrote in this particular essay, that we know when experience goes away during sleep or any other form of “unconsciousness”. It made me realise that the universe is made of this stuff too and it was shocking. It kinda felt like this “universal consciousness”, or the fundamental nature, as you call it, permeates everything, even inanimate objects. Unfortunately the realisation was short lived and now it pretty much feels like a concept that my mind took hold as I’ve had no shift in identity (arguably one of the landmarks of first awakening).
Hi Rodrigo! That's it too funny! Turning this into a book was *exactly* my goal :) I'm so bad at editing, I just wanted to "get the word" out while the protracted period of polishing takes place :)
"...universe is made of this stuff too and it was shocking."
It's absolutely astonishing!! I have that opening essay about "cautions" because, if someone wasn't ready for that revelation, it could be downright disturbing!
"...it kinda felt like this “universal consciousness”, or the fundamental nature, as you call it, permeates everything, even inanimate objects."
Yes!! Now we have to be careful with words, since words are just concepts, and reality isn't a concept. "Fundamental nature" and "inanimate objects" are concepts. But I get what you're pointing at :) In your experience there literally are no inanimate objects; because what we call "inanimate objects" ARE your experience! They are "made" of your experience! And the fundamental nature is the very vibrancy - the very life - OF experience.
"Unfortunately the realisation was short lived and now it pretty much feels like a concept that my mind took hold..."
No need to worry! That is EXACTLY why I point and - most of the time - how pointing works. I'm basically scattering "seeds" that are concepts, which other minds' "soil" absorbs. The pointers/concepts themselves are not important. A seed is made important in only two ways: either it becomes food for something else, or it germinates into a new life of it's own.
My pointers are not "food" for the mind. They need to "germinate" and flower from the thinking processes and grow into "full color" in direct experience. The pointers INDICATE the reality of your direct experience and nothing more. Once you see "the moon" the finger that was pointing at it no longer is needed :)
This germination takes time usually. The thinking processes have "rails" they run on. If you want to change where a train is going, it takes time to move the tracks. Don't worry about it :) Just keep looking at your direct experience and noticing the amazing and delicious qualities it has - that's all that matters. "Juicy tidbits" of insight will naturally arise all on their own in due course :)
"...I’ve had no shift in identity (arguably one of the landmarks of first awakening)."
Also try not to worry about this. There are essays on "identity" as well. If you haven't yet read them, give them a go. Hopefully they will clarify the situation somewhat. The VERY rough gist of it is: compare what you find in direct experience *as it is* with your preconceived notions of what-you-are (that is your self-image). You direct experience simply is-what-it-is. Your self-image, however, is both inaccurate and malleable. You will ALWAYS "identify" as your "self-image" unless your thinking processes go completely "offline." So don't try to NOT identify with your self-image - rather look into your experience directly, and *re-work* your self-image to *comply with what you find* in your investigation.
Most people take their preconceived notions of self, hold tightly onto those, and then try to validate them with what they find in direct experience. This is EXACTLY BACKWARDS. You *already* are what you are, so forget what you THINK you are and *just look* and see what's here! THAT is the truth. Your thinking needs to be brought into *alignment* with what you are - you should not try to "cram" experience into the mold of your preconceived notions (this is the default, normal human operating mode, by the way).
I hope that's not too much! Please look at those "identification" essays for more (better) detail and please drop me a line if you have any questions.
Thank you very much for reading, for your kind words, and for the comments! Wishing you all the best!
Of course! I love hearing from readers! As you read further, please send me questions or comments!
Haha! I'll definitely announce the book to subscribers when we get to that point. Thank you so much! I have a few more essays to write and publish, and then a truckload of editing to do :) I'm in no rush, I want to do it right. That was the motivation in going the piecemeal essay route. I've never eaten an elephant before ;) Best wishes!
the takeaway i get from this post and others like it is something like "you are not thoughts/feelings/body sensations/etc, you are the fact of knowing itself" or something to that effect (maybe the language is not quite correct)
but i take that as an opportunity to look: sit down and if you notice you're caught up in any particular thought/feeling/etc, just drop that. and otherwise just try to kind of feel into or relax back into the fact of knowing itself, the fact that anything at all seems to be happening, etc.
and i feel like i can do that to some degree, but i don't feel the impact of it. and i know that "i don't feel the impact of it" is only a thought. but simply existing prior to thought doesn't seem revelatory to me. which presents a conflict in my understanding of the teachings
either A) it's as simple as it seems but it's not nearly as profound as i thought, or B) being able to "answer" a question like "what is here now prior to thought" or similar pointers is insufficient-- i.e. "the answer" is NOT as available as sometimes advertised and instead requires... something? not exactly sure. clocking a good amount of hours noticing "knowing of"? anyway any thoughts on this apparent dilemma would be great
Thank you for commenting, Sam! I'll offer a few thoughts, please let me know if they help!
"... something like "you are not thoughts..."
Wording can be tricky, unsurprisingly. I prefer a formulation like "You are not defined/constrained by your thoughts/feelings, etc..." The expression "you are not..." can engender a dismissive attitude towards these things in some readers/listeners. The thoughts ARE yours because they are not someone else's. But that doesn't mean they constrain/limit your being/existence, awareness, presence, etc.
"...but i take that as an opportunity to look..." - This is a great mindfulness queue! And I love your goal of relaxing into the "fact of knowing." Yes, it's the *fundamental* that is of the deepest concern!
"...but simply existing prior to thought doesn't seem revelatory to me..." That's okay. Just keep "marinating" with the idea. There is an "Aha!" here, but it's not necessarily obvious. I'll try to offer some clues :) Your self-image *is nothing but thoughts.* Your suffering (as I define it) at its root *is nothing but thoughts.* If you are the luminous, knowing reality that is prior to thoughts... then the self-image is false! The suffering thoughts *require* the self-image to be what you truly are. Does that make sense? The belief that you are the self-image is very, very, very subtle. See if you can "tune into it."
Option A is correct on the simplicity angle! But not correct on the lack-of-profundity. Realizing you are the "Fundamental Nature" is momentous. When it "clicks" you'll know it! The thinking mind has to relax it's grasp on the notion that it already knows what you are. It doesn't! But it *thinks* it does. Arguing with it doesn't really work. An open heart and curiosity are a much better approach ;)
Option B is actually correct!! "being able to "answer" a question like "what is here now prior to thought" or similar pointers is insufficient..." Notice how you put the word "answer" in quotation marks? You are correct that if the question is answered conceptually/intellectually *that is the reason for the lack of profundity in option A.* And it's VERY easy to trade the conceptual notion "I am a separate human being X" for the conceptual notion "I am the fundamental knowing prior to thought." That shift from one concept to another is very sneaky! You have to "answer" the question, NOT with a conceptual notion, but *experientially.* This is done with direct "looking." Examine your experience directly without needing to go to thought. Can you FEEL the primordial? It sounds like you can :)
Once you get a good feel for it, play with the notions I gave above about thoughts. If thoughts can't define you, and all your problems center around a "self" that is made of nothing but thoughts... are those problems *actually* problems? Or are they more like a dog barking down the road, which is of no real consequence?
Perhaps 'Sailor' Bob Adamson's famous question is worth marinating in, if you haven't done that yet: "What's wrong with right now if you don't think about it?" The perfect peace of your fundamental nature isn't "flashy." It's not "bliss." It's not like Moses coming down from the mountain. It's simply the perfect peace of nothing wrong. And it's ALWAYS here.
Marinate with that and shoot me a message when you like. I'd like to hear how things are going!
You know, I came away with a line of ‘coding’ derived from the best of the languages I could grasp, that effectively points to the movement of enlightenment, awakening, call it what you wish. Your reference to fundamental reality, helped.
Do with it as you will.
“I intend to be aware of perception.”
:)
That's great!
“I intend to be aware of perception.”
I can't help but prod this a bit... I'm pesky that way ;) ...but aren't you ALREADY aware of perception?
Very often we may not pay *attention* to some perception or other; but attention can only cover a small percentage of what's appearing in awareness.
One of the big things that dawned on me when my confusion lifted:
"Awareness is always already perfectly aware of everything in it."
Of course it's very possible to "talk past" each other since these matters can't adequately be put into words. Semantics are essential, but also often tedious ;) Hopefully we're on the same wavelength :)
Thank you for reading and for commenting! Best wishes!
There are worst things to be than pesky :)
Keeping it as simple as I can, because semantics is a finicky thing indeed, how about this?:
Perception —> Awareness —> Conceptual
which then potentially can loop back through:
Conceptual —> Awareness —> Perception
I’m substituting Perception for Fundamental Reality.
What do you think?
Ah, I totally see what you're getting at! And, of course, you are free to adopt whatever terminology you like (we all have to). It's, of course, wise to make sure others understand your terminology. The word "perception" can be used many ways... I like "fundamental" because it's uncommon, but straightforward. Anyway! To your point:
Yes, conceptual thinking arises in awareness, and awareness arises in the Fundamental Nature. Neither the Fundamental Nature nor awareness get confused about anything, of course, that's the "privilege" of thinking only ;)
So our thinking processes get confused and myopic; thinking that thinking *itself* is reality. It is, of course, a *part* of reality - but there's a LOT of reality that isn't included in thinking! So we have to gently nudge thinking to go "back" as you indicated. Thinking has to realize awareness itself is more fundamental than thinking. And, even further, that the Fundamental Nature is more fundamental than awareness.
There's a lot of opportunity for word confusion in that synopsis, obviously. But hopefully it makes sense.
The "directionality" you highlight is very important! Thoughts are the most-derivative aspects of ourselves, and there is the foundation/fundamental that is NOT derived AT ALL ("one without a second").
The most-derived gets confused and out-of-touch; our investigation is how it rediscovers it's foundation, its "roots." It's never ACTUALLY separate from the fundamental; it just forgets the fundamental IS there. When that "reverse" journey is completed (as you have indicated), our thinking simply realizes the "Home" it has never departed from :)
Totally on the same wavelength it would seem. I appreciate your articulation as such. That gave me a chuckle: confusion being the privilege of thinking. Helpful reminder indeed ;)
I've always appreciated a bit of humor in these weighty matters ;) Thank you very much for reading and your thoughtful comments!
Hi Lance. First of all, thank you so much for your lovely texts that you’ve so generously made available here. It’s of great value to “seekers” like myself. You may want to turn them into book(s) someday.
I was reflecting about how interesting it is, as you wrote in this particular essay, that we know when experience goes away during sleep or any other form of “unconsciousness”. It made me realise that the universe is made of this stuff too and it was shocking. It kinda felt like this “universal consciousness”, or the fundamental nature, as you call it, permeates everything, even inanimate objects. Unfortunately the realisation was short lived and now it pretty much feels like a concept that my mind took hold as I’ve had no shift in identity (arguably one of the landmarks of first awakening).
Anyway, I just wanted to share. Thank you!
Hi Rodrigo! That's it too funny! Turning this into a book was *exactly* my goal :) I'm so bad at editing, I just wanted to "get the word" out while the protracted period of polishing takes place :)
"...universe is made of this stuff too and it was shocking."
It's absolutely astonishing!! I have that opening essay about "cautions" because, if someone wasn't ready for that revelation, it could be downright disturbing!
"...it kinda felt like this “universal consciousness”, or the fundamental nature, as you call it, permeates everything, even inanimate objects."
Yes!! Now we have to be careful with words, since words are just concepts, and reality isn't a concept. "Fundamental nature" and "inanimate objects" are concepts. But I get what you're pointing at :) In your experience there literally are no inanimate objects; because what we call "inanimate objects" ARE your experience! They are "made" of your experience! And the fundamental nature is the very vibrancy - the very life - OF experience.
"Unfortunately the realisation was short lived and now it pretty much feels like a concept that my mind took hold..."
No need to worry! That is EXACTLY why I point and - most of the time - how pointing works. I'm basically scattering "seeds" that are concepts, which other minds' "soil" absorbs. The pointers/concepts themselves are not important. A seed is made important in only two ways: either it becomes food for something else, or it germinates into a new life of it's own.
My pointers are not "food" for the mind. They need to "germinate" and flower from the thinking processes and grow into "full color" in direct experience. The pointers INDICATE the reality of your direct experience and nothing more. Once you see "the moon" the finger that was pointing at it no longer is needed :)
This germination takes time usually. The thinking processes have "rails" they run on. If you want to change where a train is going, it takes time to move the tracks. Don't worry about it :) Just keep looking at your direct experience and noticing the amazing and delicious qualities it has - that's all that matters. "Juicy tidbits" of insight will naturally arise all on their own in due course :)
"...I’ve had no shift in identity (arguably one of the landmarks of first awakening)."
Also try not to worry about this. There are essays on "identity" as well. If you haven't yet read them, give them a go. Hopefully they will clarify the situation somewhat. The VERY rough gist of it is: compare what you find in direct experience *as it is* with your preconceived notions of what-you-are (that is your self-image). You direct experience simply is-what-it-is. Your self-image, however, is both inaccurate and malleable. You will ALWAYS "identify" as your "self-image" unless your thinking processes go completely "offline." So don't try to NOT identify with your self-image - rather look into your experience directly, and *re-work* your self-image to *comply with what you find* in your investigation.
Most people take their preconceived notions of self, hold tightly onto those, and then try to validate them with what they find in direct experience. This is EXACTLY BACKWARDS. You *already* are what you are, so forget what you THINK you are and *just look* and see what's here! THAT is the truth. Your thinking needs to be brought into *alignment* with what you are - you should not try to "cram" experience into the mold of your preconceived notions (this is the default, normal human operating mode, by the way).
I hope that's not too much! Please look at those "identification" essays for more (better) detail and please drop me a line if you have any questions.
Thank you very much for reading, for your kind words, and for the comments! Wishing you all the best!
-Lance
Hi Lance,
Thank you so much for taking the time to reply to my comment and for the pointers. I will definitely take a look at your other essays.
Thanks for this treasure you’ve given us. And please let us know when your book comes out. I’d be more than happy to buy a copy.
All the very best,
Rodrigo
Of course! I love hearing from readers! As you read further, please send me questions or comments!
Haha! I'll definitely announce the book to subscribers when we get to that point. Thank you so much! I have a few more essays to write and publish, and then a truckload of editing to do :) I'm in no rush, I want to do it right. That was the motivation in going the piecemeal essay route. I've never eaten an elephant before ;) Best wishes!
-Lance