Phenomenology of Enlightened Experience

Again, I know it sounds weird and crazy, but I don't know if you play tennis or golf, or something, but if you try to have empathy for one of your drivers for instance, it will let you know how it wants to be handled, and you'll play better. You can even have empathy for items on your "list" and that helps with organization and prioritizing.

If you pay attention, you'll notice that there are subtle sensations provided by your intuition that are related to everyday activities - like finding a parking place - sometimes you may have a sense to turn down a street you might not have, and there's a place. I recommend testing it, to help identify in your mind when these signals are accurate, and when they are not.

3. All I can say is "Metta!" That's great!
4. Yeah - I still have all that too - but now I have the option of not paying attention to it. It arises and passes as they say. I was musing earlier while posting on this thread "I'm not sure I ever really got rid of my inner monologue - maybe I just project it onto forums now!"
5. This is the most interesting - if anything this is maybe where I've clarified my experience in the last year since I've been thinking about this stuff (in answer to an earlier question by Adam). Yes - on the one hand, most stuff is really out of your control - you just accept it and play the hand you are dealt. The only thing you can really be said to control is what you're doing right now - and in what is done, just the doing. It's sort of like you can control a few things, but there is no one doing the controlling... No one decides, though there may be an decision making process going on that your consciousness participates in. This is at the heart of non-dual experience. My musical metaphor for this is musical improvisation - when you are really engaged in playing a hot solo - there is no consciousness of playing it

Again when playing a good solo - you are not aware of yourself playing it - but you can at times be aware of really hearing and enjoying the music that is flowing out from your playing. Really, in a way, you *are* the music. Now sometimes the sense of controlling it comes up - you might think "Ok, the change is coming up here, and I'm going to shift up two frets to continue to play in the mixolodian mode" or whatever - and then magically, you do it. And sometimes there is the sense of losing control - or "damn, I missed that one." In a way, you are doing this to a greater or lesser extent with everything you do.

Musically speaking, it doesn't even make sense to talk about controlling the music. We talk about being "in the groove" or "swinging." That's what makes sense - because it's a matter of harmonizing and being in synch with everything else being played and all the other musicians. That's what makes sense with any activity and everything you do.

One point about phenomenon - I don't like the metaphor that it is all illusion. Yes - it's much "less real" than the overarching insight that the underlying reality subsumes everything - that we "all have the same inside." But in a sense, the "I -Thou" relationship to that underlying reality is correct. I used to phrase it thus: "God may be me, but I am not God."

Here's an illustration of what I mean - a question that I posed to Kenneth once - not a deeply disturbing issue, but a bit puzzling from a purely intellectual point of view - relates to the question of why you can't access the memories or experiences of other people if there is a "common inside" (which is a metaphor as well in the final analysis - if everything has a common inside, then does it make sense to speak in terms of "inside" and "outside?)

Here's the question I posed:

"What's the deal with *other people*? Are they real? If so, that would mean that I'm real - and I'm not. Are they illusory? Well they damn well don't think so. I can tell you from bitter experience that it's not skillful to treat them like they are either illusory, or "not-other". While you can get non-dual with people when making out with them, playing music, - and I guess in a variety of ways - even conversation, "skillful means" implies respecting their claims to reality.

So do they exist? Well, yes but no, no but yes... My approach has generally been not to worry about it, and simply deal with reality however it presents. It's still a bit of an intellectual puzzler though - which contrasts with the basic intuition is to relate to other bodies as though they are unique individuals.

One interesting thing that I've noted recently is some reports of people interviewing the dream people they encountered while lucid dreaming and performing a kind of Turing test on them - they passed. What if all the beings encountered anywhere, even in dreams - were like sense organs for the great emptiness - part of the collective perceptual field. The Tibetans say that they can use more than one body at a time while dreaming..."

" What do you mean by:
"I can do open-handed magick pretty much on demand."
Is this manipulation of natural energies? Influencing the perceputual systems of other people? Or something else?"

Hey Gozen!

Yes.

D

"As fortune would have it, some of her (less tolerant) friends walked up right at that moment. She affected a sneer, and responded with an insult which left no doubt about whether she'd be going to the show with the likes of me
I involuntarily cocked an eyebrow and she looked down. I could feel her wither inside as she struggled to steel her face, her grief at losing this chance, causing the one she secretly admired (me) pain, and intense shame at her own cowardice - all while the other girls laughed.

There was a time when I would have been deeply contemptuous of this young lady's hypocrisy, and angry at her for failing to be true to herself, and ragefull at the clique of friends that could so determine who she liked or did not. I would have been hurt and embarrassed, and I'm sure I would have hung onto it for weeks.

I did feel a brief flush of embarrassment which passed through me and disappeared. Instead of all those things, I found myself thinking of the girl - trying to figure out how to make it less awkward for her - feeling very sorry for the unfortunate timing and the pain this was obviously causing her all while understanding that her pride would be unable to let me console her directly. I felt sorry for each of the girls in the clique, who were deeply insecure, and deeply afraid of rejection or slander... and I gracefully exited, and I did not think about it for the rest of the day. In fact, the rest of my day continued to be wonderful - just as that one moment was seen in it's poignant beauty.

I could go on and on about this. All of the sudden, my relationship with my parents, which had been deeply conflicted, was instantly transformed. All of the sudden I could completely understand their perspective, and while I felt that their values were deeply misguided their love was real."

Man, I love that story.

"
Man, I love that story.
"

Thanks, telecaster! Yeah - just the fact that I could have an experience like that, and have it be everyday ordinary shows how different my reality became. Interestingly, I've talked to a few people who knew me around that time, and they say that they didn't notice a big personality change - they say that "maybe you became a little happier." For me, it seemed that subjectively I was a completely different person. I felt like I changed from some grim existentialist Hemingway character that had showed up in a Saul Bellows piece to the life of the party.

Sorry Gozen! I had to do that, because you're a Zen guy, and you probably deserve it. You probably deserve no further explanation either, but I like you, so you're going to have to pay off your probable karmic debt for cryptic statements some other way. No, I can't directly influence the perceptual systems of others (at least in terms of sensory awareness), at least not intentionally. Yes, I can manipulate "natural energies," work with formations to influence events or processes or beings, and work directly with the Void if need be, all in real time. "Open-handed magick" just means spontaneous magick without ritual planning in the moment. It's considered difficult, because often it seems that certain moments are opportunities where doing something will work, and others are not. I suppose anybody *could* do open-handed magick on demand, but most people couldn't do *effective* open-handed magick on demand. I would say that the efficacy of my open handed magick is about what it would be if I planned out a ritual and performed it. Not many people can say that.

By the way - probably I got a lot done when I was 18, but I was working on the consequences of this for years - I think there was some development until about 25.

"
Musically speaking, it doesn't even make sense to talk about controlling the music. We talk about being "in the groove" or "swinging." That's what makes sense - because it's a matter of harmonizing and being in synch with everything else being played and all the other musicians. That's what makes sense with any activity and everything you do."

Regarding the above quote, (and I truly do think this is worth it's own post):

Both musically and metaphorically speaking, the great paradox is that, when one is really "in the groove" (which by definition implies that one is selflessly attuned to, in synch, and harmonizing with the "music" - the larger systems, the world) - that is when one's individual voice most shines through and is most distinctive.

"How clear are you on formations and what they are? Can you identify them in your own experience?"

I dunno, David. If you tell me what you mean by "formation" I'll tell you if I can identify them

"I had to do that, because you're a Zen guy, and you probably deserve it."

Gozen, I like you, too, but this is FUNNY.

Edit: to add levity commentary.

"The only thing you can really be said to control is what you're doing right now - and in what is done, just the doing. It's sort of like you can control a few things, but there is no one doing the controlling... No one decides, though there may be an decision making process going on that your consciousness participates in. This is at the heart of non-dual experience. My musical metaphor for this is musical improvisation - when you are really engaged in playing a hot solo - there is no consciousness of playing it,"

David, I've been experimenting with this a lot for the last month or so. At first it completely freaked me out. Watch what happens when you're just walking around and you "decide" to turn left, right, around, or stop. Exactly when is the decision made to do that? You cannot find that point. It's like this: there is no essential "you" and on top of that there is no "decision." Stuff just happens. Experiences float by, changes occur, all in a massively parallel way. You can pay full attention to about one channel of existence at a time while all the rest keep on trucking at whatever they do. This IS at the heart of the non-dual nature of things. There is a completely artificial contruction made by mind that we all pretend is real. Wake up!

At first this was frightening. Then it became profound, then very liberating, but not as a way to avoid responsibility or to deny free will or affirm some kind of nihilism. No, it makes me feel very close to actually knowing once and for all "what" I am... and THAT makes me feel much closer to everything in my life. I'm not sure why that feeling is the result, but it is. It feels sort of like a primordial itch has been scratched. Or like some mysterious confusion, about what I did not know, that has been naggingly present every second of my life has now been solved.

Weird.

". Watch what happens when you're just walking around and you "decide" to turn left, right, around, or stop. Exactly when is the decision made to do that? You cannot find that point. It's like this: there is no essential "you" and on top of that there is no "decision." Stuff just happens. Experiences float by, changes occur, all in a massively parallel way. You can pay full attention to about one channel of existence at a time while all the rest keep on trucking at whatever they do. This IS at the heart of the non-dual nature of things. "

I think the key phrase is "all in a massively parallel way."

I still reject the notion that somehow "stuff just happens" in a literal sense and that I'm merely a passive observer - but it sure seems like that at times and in retrospect. I think I can sense small urges and other notions regarding turning left and so forth on the level of formations (see page 206 in MCTB for description of formations. Chris told me in an offlist conversation he's been seeing those for a while) - but in a certain way it doesn't even make sense to speak of "when" a decision is made it's so non-linear.

I've formulated this somewhat with the idea that I'm much "bigger" than my conscious awareness (yes, there's that theme again of being a part of something bigger) - that my unconscious handles most things. Sort of like breathing and heart rate - all that goes on without me having to think about it - same way with deciding to turn left, stop, or right.

Whatever "I" am is well beyond my ability to rationally think about it or comprehend.
Post edited for grammar and clarification

Despite the inadequacy of English linguistic concepts to relate the actual experiences we are describing - words like "will," "decision," "self," "control"... they are not wholly inadequate, but they vastly overemphasize the active part of the process.


Most of what I experience is more like a "tuning" of awareness - a kind of mindfulness of internal (and external) sensation, and an allowing things to flow - a sense of playing in the groove, and harmonizing.

When you reach your hand out to grab something - if you notice the sensations closely - you cannot think your hand and arm over there - no matter how loudly you think it. Neither can you really "will" your arm to move. In fact, you'll paralyze your arm if you try too hard to do that. The only way you can do it, is to just do it, to let it flow out from you, to be the movement.

In a way, breathing is the primordial action - it is neither active, nor passive. Perhaps this is why it receives so much focus in mystical traditions

"'I've formulated this somewhat with the idea that I'm much "bigger" than my conscious awareness (yes, there's that theme again of being a part of something bigger) - that my unconscious handles most things. Sort of like breathing and heart rate - all that goes on without me having to think about it - same way with deciding to turn left, stop, or right. "

Oh, heck yeah, I absolutely accept this formulation, David. I think it's probably more accurate in a phenomenological sense than what I said. Mine was the almost childish, emotional "Hole Crap! Looks what's actually going on here!" version. I really have no idea how it all actually works. I do know how it appears to me, however, and the manner in which that affects my view of it.


"Most of what I experience is more like a "tuning" of awareness - a kind of mindfulness of internal (and external) sensation, and an allowing things to flow - a sense of playing in the groove, and harmonizing. "

Maybe the deep, inner workings of the human mind is massively parallel while the conscious mind is running in single-threaded series mode. That would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

"
"'I've formulated this somewhat with the idea that I'm much "bigger" than my conscious awareness (yes, there's that theme again of being a part of something bigger) - that my unconscious handles most things. Sort of like breathing and heart rate - all that goes on without me having to think about it - same way with deciding to turn left, stop, or right. "

Oh, heck yeah, I absolutely accept this formulation, David. I think it's probably more accurate in a phenomenological sense than what I said. Mine was the almost childish, emotional "Hole Crap! Looks what's actually going on here!" version. I really have no idea how it all actually works. I do know how it appears to me, however, and the manner in which that affects my view of it. "

Don't feel like you have to accept it! That's why this thread is here, to discuss things like this. I have no idea if I'm right, and I have no idea how it actually all works either. Also, I've formulated all this without reference to "enlightenment theory," so I really want to invite an exchange of ideas, because this is a big mystery.

"Massively parallel" is the best phenomenological description I've heard so far, by the way. I guess I'm an expression of a creative process. You hear people talk about the sensation of "being lived" - and while I can see that, there's always something that prevents me from completely jumping on board with it. Maybe it's because the sensations of intention and awareness seem to be related in some way to what actually happens (or what you "do"). For instance, I get a certain idea, and then a bit later, I find myself talking about it. Or I might have the intention to improve my guitar playing. Later I'm practicing, then later down the road, that comes out in my playing. If I gain insight into something, my behavior seems to be changed...

"Don't feel like you have to accept it!"

David, if I don't agree with or even just grok what you say I'll say so. I promise. I really do think your description is just better and more accurate than mine. Is it untlimately right? We may never know, at least until science can figure out how to describe what's going in inside the most complex natural structure that we know of.

"

Maybe the deep, inner workings of the human mind is massively parallel while the conscious mind is running in single-threaded series mode. That would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

"

Ok Chris, I knew I could count on you to disagree!

The quote above is an extremely compelling theory. Yep - it sure would explain a lot - and it agrees with what I know about neuroscience. Most of the brain does function in a "massively parallel" way - in fact the only part that doesn't really is the left hemisphere. This again goes along with the idea of developing "intuitive transpersonal awareness" - maybe we are integrating the functions of our two hemispheres. I'm thinking that not only is the lived process "massively parallel" but also that there may be imposed upon that a hierarchy - that's why having insight matters.

You know - what I love about this message board is that this is the part where in a lot of places someone might drop in from on high, level and index finger and shout "Anagami!" at the mere thought that somehow we play an active role in our experience, even in part, and then when asked to explain their perspective, simply drop out of sight. I don't think that's going to happen here. I mean, if it's the case that my development isn't complete, or that I'm missing something - that's ok, I want to know that - but the deal of loftily claiming that I haven't really understood all and then departing is not very helpful.

Ah, David. You've now put your finger on something that really, really matters. This idea that progress against a set of maps or expectations is what matters in our practice is something we all need to examine very carefully. What matters is how I live from second to second. What mattes is how I experience those seconds and how my massively parallel processes combine with my single in-line processes to form this human being's view and this human being's reactions. I am practicing only because of those two things - to understand what I am and to allow that understanding to inform what happens as I pass through my experience. That's all I'm after. If I never have another insight or get to the next path I'll be satisfied. I would hate like hell to be in a position to have to defend any kind of status, stage or accomplishment. That's dangerous territory. As far as I can tell that's what made Kenneth very, very cautious about "coming out." I get that. It's something I respect, not because I can even contemplate coming out because I can't, but because it demonstrates a sensitivity that I admire and respect very deeply.

You can't buy, barter or steal integrity. That's something you have or you don't, and if you give it up God help you if you ever want to get it back.

Anagami indeed

"Ah, David. You've now put your finger on something that really, really matters."

Umm... what was that? (I have this rule that if I think of a stupid question, I have to ask it).

Now here's a place where Ramana Maharshi disagrees with me:
* In the vast ocean of cause and effect, actions happen and impermanent results follow. If one takes them as '˜my' actions the idea of having a free will gets stronger. This sense of personal doership gives rise to a feeling of guilt or pride and effectively blocks the spiritual understanding that everything happens according to the will of God.
* When there is total acceptance that all actions happen purely by the will of God, and if the fruits and the consequences are accepted as His grace, the mind gets purified and attains freedom from expectations.

* Accepting and understanding that God has created the world for His sport and God is playing the lila through billions of body-mind organisms, is better than chanting the sacred names of the Lord, which in turn is superior to worshipping the image of the Lord with body, mind and speech.


*When there is an understanding that God himself has become the manifestation; when, by His grace, one feels His presence in the phenomenal existence one obtains the blessings of worshipping the Lord of eight-fold forms without neglecting one's responsibilities.


* Understanding that nothing happens according to '˜my' will and merely witnessing the billions of body-mind organisms act under God's will is excellent. It is superior to singing the glories of the Lord or reciting His sacred names.


* When there is an understanding that God's will prevails all the time and witnessing happens without any '˜one' to witness, it is like the stream of ghee (clarified butter) or the flow of a river. This is true meditation.

Now I understand Maharshi's point - on some ultimate level he's right that "God has created the world for His sport and God is playing the lila through billions of body-mind organisms." Ultimately "I" have no role in anything. It certainly simplifies matters quite a bit. It's also kind of easy to just slip into that belief system with no further reflection on the matter.

What I don't like is the passive deterministic stance which that confers, and the absolution of personal moral responsibility. If I never think that I could do other than what I did, then why should I feel guilty when I act irresponsibly? In some ways, it's a dangerous position to espouse, particularly to those without a large degree of insight.

I think the matter is a little more complicated - that there is a universal and a particular aspect to experience, and to everything in the universe - that I function as a holon.

My thinking has preserved the "I-Thou" stance in order to address this - because no matter what my level of realization, I'm going to be stuck with this particular body-mind for the duration of this lifetime - and it's pretty clear that my beliefs tend to affect my behaviors. That's a definite pattern.

"Ah, David. You've now put your finger on something that really, really matters."

"Umm... what was that? (I have this rule that if I think of a stupid question, I have to ask it)"

The issue you touched on, David, was that on this message board you can have a dialogue. That's all I was referring to. Then I made some rant about not wanting to defend claims of enlightenment that made sense at the time but not so much now, other than that integrity is always a big deal

GOZEN: " What do you mean by:
"I can do open-handed magick pretty much on demand."
Is this manipulation of natural energies? Influencing the perceputual systems of other people? Or something else?"

DAVID: Hey Gozen!

Yes.
'¦ later'¦
DAVID: Sorry Gozen! I had to do that, because you're a Zen guy, and you probably deserve it. You probably deserve no further explanation either, but I like you, so you're going to have to pay off your probable karmic debt for cryptic statements some other way. No, I can't directly influence the perceptual systems of others (at least in terms of sensory awareness), at least not intentionally. Yes, I can manipulate "natural energies," work with formations to influence events or processes or beings, and work directly with the Void if need be, all in real time. "Open-handed magick" just means spontaneous magick without ritual planning in the moment. It's considered difficult, because often it seems that certain moments are opportunities where doing something will work, and others are not. I suppose anybody *could* do open-handed magick on demand, but most people couldn't do *effective* open-handed magick on demand. I would say that the efficacy of my open handed magick is about what it would be if I planned out a ritual and performed it. Not many people can say that.

GOZEN Replies: No problem, David. I probably deserve a lot of stuff for my cryptic statements'”even those statements that were not intended to be cryptic. Or maybe **especially** for those statements that were not intended to be cryptic!

Thanks for providing such a clear, non-cryptic reply. I didn't expect that. Nor do I deserve it. I'll consider it a free lunch
You said "most people couldn't do *effective* open-handed magick on demand."

[cont'd]

Yes, now that I know what you mean about open-handed magick, I agree.

While almost any act by any person could be potentially magick if it were done with the right intent and connected to the correct factors (contributing to the formations), this is not what usually happens. For most people most of the time, 'what the right hand does the left hand un-does.' The typical man (person) is always undermining himself. He cannot see clearly the space-time complexion of his moment (the formations) or the infinite potential of the omnipresent Void. So he muddles along in bewilderment, wondering why his life caroms senselessly from surprise to disaster.

When I am headed for disaster, I am never surprised by it

Regards,
Gozen

"Despite the inadequacy of English linguistic concepts to relate the actual experiences we are describing - words like "will," "decision," "self," "control"... they are not wholly inadequate, but they vastly overemphasize the active part of the process.
..."

The scientific research by Libet on the question of volition and action is quite fascinating. See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

Here's a brief excerpt:
"...researchers recorded mounting brain activity related to the resultant action as many as three hundred milliseconds before subjects reported the first awareness of conscious will to act. In other words, apparently conscious decisions to act were preceded by an unconscious buildup of electrical charge within the brain - this buildup came to be called Bereitschaftspotential or readiness potential."

""...researchers recorded mounting brain activity related to the resultant action as many as three hundred milliseconds before subjects reported the first awareness of conscious will to act. In other words, apparently conscious decisions to act were preceded by an unconscious buildup of electrical charge within the brain - this buildup came to be called Bereitschaftspotential or readiness potential."
"

Hi Gozen,

Regarding this this phenomena, Jung says somewhere, in his usual manner, something like he would be find it consistent that all conscious functions were once unconscious. We tend to think the conscious is separate from the unconscious evidence like this makes me think the conscious is of the unconscious or from the point of view of the conscious what is being "revealed" is all from and part of the unconscious.

Hi Gozen and Garyh,

I'm aware of the "intention wave" as it is also referred to, though I probably should look at the experimental design again. This is often invoked to support the idea that consciousness is an epiphenomenon - that is, only weakly emergent. We do what we are going to do, and then explain it later - there is no free will, or even will, just the illusion of this. This is a position that Ramana Maharish probably would have agreed with.

While it may be true, this is not a position that I'm a big fan of, nor is it a point that should be easily conceded as it has numerous downstream consequences for the history of Western thought, not least of which is striking a huge blow for deterministic materialism, logical positivism, and reductionism. I'm a strong emergentist, and that's the only position that seems to make sense so far in terms of explaining a great many phenomenon that I'm familiar with such as parapsychological effects. I also feel that while there is a relative disconnection between conscious awareness and physical action, there is not an absolute disconnection but rather a hierarchy of levels and complex feedback loops on various levels of scale involved. I more or less agree with garyh's thoughts about "making the unconscious conscious" (though the idea of the unconscious is more and more becoming thought of as a heuristic, and increasingly neural correlates of unconscious functions are being referred to such as "implicit memory" and so forth).

Austin has some interesting speculations on the neurological basis of prajna - intuitive wisdom or knowing. He hypothesizes that it has a subcortical basis (that is some of the lower brain functions and structures directly linked to our physiology) and is relayed to cortical areas (read higher brain structures) through the thalamus.

Continued

Austin goes on to note that the thalamus has a relative sparing of afferent (or output) fibers to the temporal lobes, which would be involved in both linguistic formulation as well as the sense of timing or sequence of the information. The information then goes directly to the frontal lobes and is processed before the temporal lobes get wind of it, and by the time they do, the information is already in a form that is difficult to interpret linguistically and may have a quality of dysynchrony with our more linear processing.

This may account for some of what we are discussing above, and for the experience of formations. I think as we begin to get a sense of formations in real time, we begin to increase our awareness of and sense of actively participating in the "massively parallel" processing going on. (I just remembered last night that Shinzen Young also used the self-same phrase to describe pre-linguistic cognition - presumably referring to formations).

The experience of formations is a huge topic which is quite difficult to convey to those who have not become aware of them, but is a very important one in terms of the subject matter of the thread.

Before we go there, let me relate one more phenomenological experience which is interesting. Shinzen Young tells a story describing the kind of experience he had when his car was stolen, saying something to the effect of "On one hand, my mind started producing thoughts like 'Ok, what do I do now? I need to call the police. What was in the car I will need to replace? I may need to call for a ride...' and on the other there was a part of me riding around with the people in the car, hoping they were enjoying it..." I have that kind of experience too, a fair bit, though I have learned that I can not always trust it to give me reliable intuitive information - like I couldn't have assumed that the people who stole my car were actually enjoying it.

David, please someday read "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett. I would love to hear your reaction to that book