Otis

As we all know, we do not experience the real world directly. Instead, our senses fire off a series of nerves, which are interpreted in our brain to create a simulacrum of the world, a big surround-sound 3D IMAX movie re-presentation. This simulacrum is built not only from immediate experience, but also from habit, whose heuristics separate out object from background, solid from liquid, noise from meaning, reflection from "real", etc. All separation, all function, and all adjectives are supplied by our brains, in re-creating this internal mock-up of the world. This isn't as much of a problem for much of the non-living world, because the chair we experience usually does support our weight, and the stairs that we step on, rarely turn out to be a mirage. But when it comes to other people, in particular, then our simulacra and the actual world tend to come wildly into conflict with each other. Information comes into my head from my senses and my memory about who this other person is, and mixed with my biases, my mood, and whatever other variables are playing in that moment, I create an interaction with them. If I believe that person to be dishonest, then I will probably hear dishonesty in what they say. If I believe someone to be an a**hole, or saintly, or desperate, or stupid, or wise, then I will probably experience our interaction as a reflection of these preconceptions. If I happen to be feeling pretty irritable or righteous or horny when I interact with another, there's a good chance that my mood will play a big part in interpreting their behavior. If two women, one beautiful and one horribly ugly, approach me separately, but act in the exact same way, it's likely that my experiences of the two will be very different. So, I know that "other people" are not what I experience. I experience my own re-construction of them, chock full of my own delusions. And yet, unless you believe in solipsism, other people clearly do exist. Don't they? So, my question for the Bums is: who are these mysterious "other people" that are hinted at, but never truly experienced? How do I interact with someone, when I know that I'm really interacting with my simulacrum of them? How do we have compassion for "other people", when the only "other people" that we experience are in our heads? Can I find out who the actual person is, or is there no end to that delusion?

On second thought, Blasto, keep away from the weed.

Ah, I think that's it's own thread: meeting and not meeting strangers' eyes. For me, the first step was to learn not to care, but now I am seeking to come back again, meet other people's eyes, and learn again to care (not about what they're thinking, which is forever a mystery, but about them).

Agreed. Left and right are not opposite sides of me, because they are not opposed. They are necessary complements. Even the things in the universe that seem the most like opposites (such as matter and antimatter) are more accurately described as symmetries. One needs the other.

Excellent!

This is great! How easy it is to accidentally influence our children. That's why it always amazes and appalls me, when parents talk about their kids to other grown-ups, when the kids are present, but as if the kids won't notice what's being said. "Oh, he's such a little trouble-maker". What a concept to lay on the kid: "This is who I am - a troublemaker". Even precision in language is defeated, if we say one thing but do another. I saw a mother at the airport, whose kid was whining like mad to get a bag of chips. Mom finally relented, and then, while the kid was eating his chips, she told him how he shouldn't whine. Yeah, right. You've just taught him that whining works, and now you're going to pretend that these words change all that? Kudos, Scott, on your attitude about "squeamishness" in your child. Especially with girls, I think it's sad how divorced we make kids from the natural world. Everything is "icky" and "dirty" to the parents, and so there is created a distrust of the natural. Best yet, I think, if we can play with our kids, rather than teach them. If we can get down on the ground with them, and share their exploration of the icky and dirty. Let us model "learning" and "discovery" and "curiosity" instead of always telling them "No, No, No ..."

I haven't thought so much about the benefit to others, largely because my public practice forces me to surrender projection. But that's the beautiful benefit to myself. When I spin my staff or do Qi Gong at the beach, I am confronted by my self-consciousness, which is always trying to project my wishes and fears on passersby. "How do they think I look?" comes up, in various ways, as stray thoughts. My practice then becomes the reminder to surrender my projection, to let go of this fake judgmental version of "other people" that my head has conjured up. Let those "other people" be unknown and utterly out of my experience. They stand there, they face my direction, but I don't need any stories in my head, guessing what is going through theirs. Practicing at the beach was how I started letting go of this fake "other people", but my public interaction videos were the next step in the process. Go out and dance or do a stunt, in plain view of other people, and not let it bother me. This helped me realize that throughout my life, "other people" have embodied my inner judge for me. Everywhere I looked, I saw judgment, because of course, it was my fear of judgment, projected upon these others.

Particularly when discovering new music. I forget, for the moment, who I was, and so am open to new possibilities. Helps show that "who I was" is a framework of certainty, and an impediment to growth.

Agreed. I very much see everyday life as my practice realm. I'm also a huge believer in play as practice, because I think the emotional context of play is perfect for staying open and joyful, and yet remaining fully committed.

Agreed. Balance, efficiency, clarity and compassion are examples of things, of which there is no end to the potential for growth. Waking up is not only about shrugging off sleep, but also stretching, getting out of bed, and moving on.

Thanks, Steve.

Good stuff, Aaron and everyone else. For me, self-definition is a trap, so I don't see usefulness in believing or disbelieving a concept like "enlightenment". That said, from what I have observed: there are many revelations that help to wake me up from who I was, and open me to freedom. I don't think that any one of them is THE deal, but each one makes it easier to find balance and shed baggage. I can remember the first "lightning bolt" experience, but there were certainly smaller quieter revelations that preceded it. As Aaron has said, even the "lightning bolts" are not IME instant fixes. They are merely permission, and a path, for beginning to surrender habits and self. From there on, change becomes easier, even joyful, but habits are deeply entrenched and not easily dissolved, so a realization does not substitute for practice. In that sense, I agree: the awakening is just a beginning, not a destination itself. There is a great gulf between "being able to see a revelation clearly" and "living clearly". The latter is a growth process that may never have an end. I hope it doesn't. How exciting to be on the path, but how dull to have arrived.

In fact, the 3 steps above are very much how I approach my own emotions. I think the above quote is really the lynchpin for me, at the moment. It's choosing to practice, even when tired, even when cross, even when I feel susceptible to irritation. That is what I've been avoiding, and that avoidance puts me right back into my old habits. Intellectually, I understand that step 4 is necessary: be aware, but change nothing. Don't force a change, because then my system will not learn its own path out of that mood. Emotionally, it's hard to do, because that means "be aware that I'm in a bad mood around others, but don't change it". I think that's the wisest course for practice, but it's the hardest one, when viewed through the lens of my social fear. It's when in that mood that everything I say and do, seems to come out wrong. But it's also clear that social avoidance is also problematic, and loses me friends (nearly) as fast as being socially clumsy. I realize that TTB is one place for practice, in which I can observe the emotions, and have plenty of time and space, in which to still act with clarity. Facebook is also good practice for staying in the realm of the constructive. And I should probably say yes more to eating lunch with people at work, etc. But I'm a bit addicted to alone time as my re-centering time. I guess I need to challenge that addiction, and face those avoidances, and really commit to practice.

It really is a fantastic response, Steve F. Lots to meditate on. Thank you.

Are you up by the 118? That's quite a view. I live in the heart of the city (Koreatown), where there is no green space, at all. I escape by going to the beach or up to the hills.

Excellent, Steve, thanks. My beliefs match what you have written. But I find myself sometimes triggered (I let my buttons get pushed) by other people, so my awareness becomes eclipsed by irritation. I do feel called to practice, like you suggest, but I'm afraid of being irritated around others, because of the social karma of my attitude. So I resist practice, because I don't want to alienate, but then I stay alienated, because I'm afraid of practice. Any thoughts?

Great share, Scott, and congratulations! I love this interpretation of the TTC, so far. I think it's brilliant, and dead on. Language learning, by definition, is conceptual learning. Early language learning is all based on "no" (because that is how we define boundaries), which is the foundation for duality and suffering. Experiential learning, however, is what all species were raised with, pre-language. I also like the idea of not trying to hurry speech, but allowing it to emerge on its own, as just a byproduct of interaction.

I know you're not responding to me, Jack, but I have to point out this awful use of "you" again. In the past, I've usually liked what you post, but all of this projection about someone else's awareness "level"; I don't see how that's not just pure delusion. Whenever I hear you telling someone else who they are, it sounds like you're lying (to yourself), because all you are responding to, are words on a screen. Somehow, you believe in the non-substantiality of the imagined 'self', but you insist on the substantiality of your imagined "Twinner" and "Otis". Can you really justify this talk? If you take zero short cuts in your reasoning, can you really find a solid and non-self-referential reason to make such distinctions about people you've never met? Can you really distinguish worth, without relying on your own beliefs as yardstick? I don't know what's in your head, or how far your senses reach, but I don't see a reason to distinguish what you've written about others from just a projection of your own wishes and fears (like every other ego). I am the same, Jack. I have a limited view, because I am a limited organism. But that's why I won't tell you what "level" you've achieved, because that concept would just be a creation of my own imagination. I will, however, point out when I hear what sounds like delusion, but which is trumpeted as wisdom.

At a surface level, it seems to be "me" who thinks. But when I slow down and pay attention, thought seems to happen, without "my" volition. Thoughts sound like "me", but they are sometimes surprising to me. Maybe a thought is just an alarm, like the conceptual component that comes up with emotions like jealousy, fear and anger. Or maybe the thought is just "my" interpretation of the emotion. Maybe a thought is just a subroutine, like the reminder to buy milk. Am I reminding myself? Or is there a function in my brain, whose job it is to remind "me"? If I have a chronic thought, like "I hate my life", then it sounds almost a tape recorder, playing the same message, over and over, when the conditions are right. What about non-language thoughts, like images and inspiration? Are they thoughts, too, or does a thought have to be in language? How about you bilingual bums? Do you experience thought in multiple languages? Is it really thought that gets in our way of experiencing reality, or is it just "taking thought too seriously"? Aren't thoughts useful, at times? Are all thoughts from the same source? Are some from the emotional brain, some from the visual brain, some from memory? Or do these other functions merely stimulate the "thought brain", and evoke a story to help me (the ego) make some sense of the other input? What is the relationship between thoughts and beliefs? How do you relate to thoughts? How do you choose which thoughts are useful, important, or accurate? Do you use thoughts to evaluate thoughts, or is there another mechanism? C'mon Bums, share your thoughts on thoughts!

Well, that's the tricky thing. We won't know until we wake up to it. That's why, IME, avoidance is the hardest thing to change. An example from my own life. Only a couple years ago, I finally woke up to the fact that I have been avoiding mirrors, my whole life. Of course, my grooming was pretty poor, as consequence. Now that I am conscious of the avoidance habit, I've done a lot of practice to shake up that fear (by making faces at myself in the mirror), and I have made a good deal of progress with it. But it still hasn't gone fully away, because my habit of not looking is so well etched into my brain.

I disagree. I think that what they warn against is not "being a body", but "having a body". Having a body means believing my own concepts about my body, including my shame or narcissism. It is believing my (view of my) mirror. It is the body-map (the construct of how kinesthetic sense relates to body lay-out). It is seeing the body as a vehicle for the self, or as an indicator of my worth. All these things are delusion. When I "am my body", then the body map goes away. I do not feel each limb as separate from the others, nor each sense as being separate from the next. There is no concepts about my body or its worth, and I do not experience myself as being "within" my body. When I am my body, suffering vanishes, old habits are transcended without trying, and "I" don't exist at all.

I think of beliefs as just a subset of habit. Belief includes the language component, whereas habit also includes all that pre-language stuff. Of course, some of my habits are habits of avoidance, and those are even less obvious and thus, more insidious. At least attachments make some noise, so I know how to pay attention to them. But the avoidances are self-blindness, and it's hard to see what I don't see.

I'm sure that the technology is similar to the Shakti helmet, but in the Nova special, they used a wand to stimulate one area at a time. Great question about whether the person was self-conscious about the weirdness caused by the stimulation. I wondered that as well, while I was watching, but unfortunately they didn't address it.

Awesome! All of it.