The ‘Now’ is the point of contact with Truth and Actuality

Kinfonet Discussion
21

I have many thoughts actually but feel the need to go slowly.

With regard to “truth being a perception beyond time/thought/I,” two things come to mind. First I have no idea what that is - I can infer as much as the next person, but that is an idea - and second that type of perception appears to be at play in all three of the scenarios listed above. It is implied in the verb “see” in “seeing the truth as truth, the false as false, and seeing the truth in the false.”

For myself, it has led to a re-assessment of what I am interested in. Is it some vague idea of some higher order truth that may or may not (the more likely possibility) be accessible to the human brain? What is a “truth” beyond time and thought anyway? And what if it is not only beyond time and thought but what if neither space or (chronological) time as well don’t exist? The point is I can only guess. Guessing, I guess, is the biggest issue for me. We all have notions of truth. And we are bound to them. I see those three points and I immediately feel there is truth to them, that is my “what is” of the moment. That is, it is my notion of truth that is the time/thought that is being referred to in the statement and it is that notion of truth which blocks access to “perception of the now moment”. My K-conditioning if you will.

So what do I do? I can as easily as the next person switch my notion of truth to some higher quality of perception I think I can access - let’s call it “X” - that will allow me to “be in the now”. Or, because for some reason or the other, I have become highly sensitive to the nature of what is constraining me, that the description is a sorry stand-in for the described, I refuse to pretend I can do anything other that what I am doing.

What happens when you value honesty over all else. For me, to be honest is to come to grips with the fact that there is no grounds for hope. Unless perhaps the brain can undergo some physical mutation which K has alluded to but which I find doubtful. After all Lamark’s theory of spontaneous generation has been debunked by Darwin’s progressive, evolutionary theory of natural selection. And we are talking about physical brain cells.

So barring that total change of circumstance, as things stand, I can’t change what is going on. I can’t change what is. And if the ideal is gone, what is left? If one really can be there, without it being a trick, another false refuge, having no answer by means of which one can sort the moment, make it other than it is, would that not be something? Perhaps " the ‘razor’s edge’ of the now moment, with our senses operating without the interference of thought?" Can we live there for a few seconds, for a minute? To be that alone, to jettison all we hold as the reasonable next step, to have no next step, to be that serious, that honest, that sensitive, that numb, that intelligent , that psychologically denuded … I really don’t know if such a thing is possible for crude beings like ourselves.

22

I can’t say I grasp completely what you are saying here Dev, but I will try to address the central thread of your post (as I have understood it).

If I have followed your thread of thought Dev, what you are asking is whether we can put aside our notions of ‘truth, timelessness, God, the sacred, the immeasurable’, etc - which are really abstractions, ideas only - and simply face what we are in the present, with complete honesty. Have I understood your meaning?

So no higher-order truths, no ideals of transformation, insight, compassion, enlightenment, perception beyond time, etc.

Just what is: the actual experiences we have right now, the life we have right now, the consciousness we have right now, the actuality of our life as it is - denuded of ideals - right this second (if we can be so honest and clear). And not escape from what we are (into thought, into imagination, hope, the ideal, what should be, etc).

Right?

As I was saying to Rick and Inquiry, I feel that one then has only two ‘possessions’ left:

  1. one’s senses, perceptions, sensory awareness, natural feeling-responses based on one’s sensitivity, bodily awareness, etc.

And

  1. one’s thoughts, memories, images, thought-created experiences and emotions, thought-created contents of consciousness, etc.

So can we live in the present moment with these two ‘possessions’ until they are completely transparent to us, clear to us, so that we understand what we are completely with no more illusions or dreams about what we are: just the unvarnished actuality?

This is more or less what you are asking, aren’t you Dev?

23

Eventually, perhaps. But I sense the possibility of throwing a wrench into the works, a practice I’m trying for the sake of the forum to unlearn.

24

Yes, in a nutshell. I am talking about a doorway into the present that is available to all of us. That isn’t so esoteric.

That comes into being when there is nothing left strong enough to pull you away from the present. Not because you choose it to be so, but because you have 'dis-illusioned" yourself. A natural engagement with life as it is, not a contrived one. I may be mistaken, but I think if we could somehow manage to find that gap, a mindset that doesn’t act so quickly and compulsively to move away, we might come upon a “seeing” of the “fact of thought”, seeing the false as the false, that is the second scenario, and whatever else there is in the moment. I am not saying this is real for me, I am saying that is what interests me, that degree of honesty. Honestly, that is enough for me. I am not driven to pursue enlightenment, any greater Truth.

25

Ah - ok. I guess January is a good time to start practising New Year’s resolutions. I should probably start to putting my own resolutions into practice too!

26

Yes, I follow this. Although I’m not sure that we can pro-actively dis-illusion ourselves, can we? We can drop something false if we have seen for ourselves it is false - then our dis-illusionment is natural, uncontrived. This is seeing the false as false.

A ‘natural engagement with life’ communicates to me the quality of nonjudgemental awareness in the present moment. Living with oneself as one is, without embellishment, false modesty, pride, etc. Just honesty to oneself.

As you say, not moving away.

This does not mean there is not a deeper truth, a wider significance to life. But such a truth cannot exist separately from one’s actual daily life: and so one’s daily life comes first, not our ideas of ‘truth’.

27

When I sit still and do nothing but attend to all sensation and every thought that arises, I feel I’m living in the present moment of sensory awareness, which happens to be accompanied by a train of thought/stream of consciousness that can’t be stopped.

This train or stream, seems to be our problem, what’s wrong with our species. Who, what, are we without this ongoing chatter, this yack track, is the question that arises because it seems that if it stopped, everything that matters to I would be gone, and actuality would be all there is. It seems that I, who wants it to stop, is what keeps it going.

Is the end of continuous thought/imagery such a terrifying prospect that it can’t be allowed to happen? Or is it that the human condition is too deeply ingrained to do anything about it but be aware of it?

28

I dunno. As I see it this matter of seeing something as false is multilayered. There is the grander sense – seeing the observer as the observed for example – and then there are more commonplace examples, like seeing I am fooling myself into thinking I know what silence or immensity or what the other shore is or that the Pope is a direct line to God, etc. The latter it seems to me is entirely within the purview of thought. I don’t think thought is corrupt across the board. We can be rational to a certain degree. Didn’t K say once you have been given a good brain, why not use it? Or something like that.

29

Why do we project it as terrifying to be without the activity of thought?

The terror is a projection of this same activity of thought, isn’t it?

The activity of thought will continue for so long as we haven’t seen through it for what it is: just thought. When thought is absent, will there be terror? Or just the absence of thought?

Haven’t we all been quiet for a few seconds without the activity of thought going on in one’s mind? It is actually very peaceful, fearless, freeing to be in such a state. There’s no terror in it.

We cannot flick a switch to turn thought off, but we can be aware that thought is just thought. It’s a dance going on in one’s brain about which one can do nothing except pay attention, be aware, watch, observe. There’s no terror in observing.

30

Freedom may not possible for I, for the train of thought, compelled as you say it is to keep moving. Freedom may be in awareness itself, actuality as you call it - or, rather freedom is awareness by dint of the fact that it whole. A part can never be free. There will always be a threat of some sort or the other to its existence. Stopping is the greatest threat. Just to put some perspective on what can or cannot be accomplished. The “problem” will always be there as long as there is an “our”. There is no modification to ourselves as individuals that will change the fundamental fact that we need to fight to maintain our status. It is a physical law as real as that of gravity. Nothing stays the same. Everything tends towards maximum entropy. There is no security, not ultimately.

31

Well, I think I shared this view until I spent time on Kinfonet!

It seems to me that a person will only give up an illusion - i.e. see the false as false - when there is no pressure on them to do so, either from the outside or from the inside.

It is clear that people will hold to their illusions despite every rational argument, unless they are already willing to admit to themselves that what they are holding on to is an illusion.

In which case, rational argument is merely a final push in the right direction. So the person will only listen to reason if they have already become suspicious of their own beliefs.

So I think rather than conscious dis-illusionment, it is healthier to start with the freedom to observe, to look, to inquire freely: are silence or the immensity actualities in my daily life? Or am I fooling myself thinking I have touched the highest, etc?

One cannot force oneself to look at oneself in this way - even less another person - but one can still look for the fun of looking, enquire for the fun of enquiring. And maybe in this freedom we can kick the walls down and begin to see how much rubbish we have accepted as real, and begin to move on our own journey from there…

This is why I like that phrase of K’s, ‘freedom is the first (and last) step’. When one is ready to end an illusion, one will do it. The readiness is all - one cannot be forced to be ready. And readiness comes out of freedom.

32

Then why is it always “a few seconds” only? We really don’t know what effect extended quiet might have.

We cannot flick a switch to turn thought off, but we can be aware that thought is just thought. It’s a dance going on in one’s brain about which one can do nothing except pay attention, be aware, watch, observe. There’s no terror in observing.

I’m not suggesting there is. I’m just wondering why the brain can’t be quiet for more than a few seconds. Call me greedy, but it’s a valid question.

33

Maybe it can. I am not wanting to create a limit. But realistically this is all most people are capable of.

The point is, if one can be in a state of attention or quietness for a few seconds, why can’t one be quiet for a minute, or even two minutes… ?

You see? It doesn’t rule out a more sustained quietude. But if the challenge is too great then no one will feel as though they can be in a state of attention at all.

One can look at a bird or a tree or a flower for a few seconds without thought. One can listen to music or to another person or to the sound of the wind for a few seconds without thought.

And if one can do this, then why can’t such listening, looking, quietness of the brain be extended? Of course it can. But to assume it can when one has not even been quiet for a few seconds is to put the cart before the horse.

34

I’m not assuming it can - I just know it doesn’t. The first time I brought this up, you said not to be greedy for more than two seconds. Now you seem to be saying that one must accept the challenge of learning how to extend quietude beyond the two seconds we all have.

Have you developed this ability? Do you experience more than two seconds of silence before thought intrudes?

35

I have forgotten what the context was for this present discussion…?

I think it was a reply of mine to a post you had written in which you suggested that we are terrified of the stream of thought stopping.

I questioned whether this state of “terror” is not merely a projection of this same stream of thinking.

As part of this reply I brought up the experience many of us have had of being quiet for a short while (a few seconds or a couple of minutes), when thought was absent - and that it was a peaceful state, not a terrifying state.

This was the context for my talking about a “few seconds” of quiet.

If you are saying that you want more than a few seconds of quiet, of being without thought, I am not blocking you from exploring this.

36

We all seem to have about two seconds of choiceless awareness/direct perception before our conditioning reacts by distorting, denying, or dismissing what we’re aware of. The brain doesn’t experience pure awareness because it holds beliefs, assumptions, prejudices, notions of what should/should-not-be that react to what actually is. It gives greater importance and significance to who/what it chooses to be as an individual than to our immediate environment. It is more rooted in the past, the known, to be open and receptive to what is present, by being choicelessly aware for no more than the two seconds it takes to react.

If the conditioned brain did not react to awareness but stay with it in silent, thoughtless attention, the brain would be free of its conditioned response and, for the first time, be living actually, not conditionally. So my question is, Why does the brain not do this, despite its conditioning? If the brain knows its condition is just a bad habit formed over time to create a false sense of security, why doesn’t it act accordingly and free itself of its content?

37

I have brought up on your new ‘brain’ thread that I do not understand this phrase.

38

The issue with bringing into the discussion Buddhist theory, is that - as my own studies of Buddhism have shown me - there is no complete consensus on what the Buddha said, or what he meant by what he said. So there is a lot of sectarianism, differences of interpretation, differences of emphasis.

For me, the skandhas can be understood in the terms I have already set out on the thread:

  • the physical body
  • sensations
  • perception

These have to do with our sensory awareness, our sensory perceptions of the world.

And

  • mental formations, ideas, thoughts, psychological conditioning (karma)
  • consciousness (and its contents)

These have to do with the activity of thought - with mental time.

My understanding of this is that psychological problems and difficulties (such as suffering) arise at the level of the mental stream of thinking - not as a result of physical sensations, sensory awareness or perception.

When thought interferes with sensation, with perception, problems arise. But there is no problem if sensation and perception are left to themselves.

This is why I feel there are only two essential arenas of activity in the present moment:

  • physical or sensory perception and awareness

and

  • the mental or psychological activity of thought

Furthermore, one might say that the senses live in the present, but thinking lives in time - in the past and the future.

That is: the act of thinking takes place in the present, but the content of thought is always from memory, projected into the present or the future.

39

That’s the issue with bringing almost any epistemological method/model into the fray, right?

I’d quibble with that (e.g. sanna-perception includes interpretation, thought). But in general I think your argument holds: You can categorize the skandhas (roughly) as sensory and mental.

Seems right.

Essential for what, from what/whose pov?

40

We were saying that there are essentially two distinct arenas that exist in the present moment. As you write:

The difference is that while

As we are inquiring into what is involved in the present moment, this seems to be a fairly significant fact to notice.

Alongside the nature of the psychological present, the thread is also exploring the difference between actuality and thought-created reality (to use the language of the OP). Therefore another important fact to notice is that:

Do you see how these factors are linked?

It means that the thought-created contents of mental time are not actual, in the way that present moment sensory perception is actual.

A reminder: