Just a note: I’ve shifted the “rules” for posting comments on this blog. You will now see your comment appear directly, without a delay for approval. I really want to hear from all of you, so click on the post title, above, and leave a comment!
Pay attention!
Last article, we looked at two “mind states”–experiential and narrative. I want to look at both in some depth.
In Buddhist thought, there are 6 senses — sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, and “Mind.” We tend to forget that these inputs (eyes, ears, body, tongue, nose, “mind”) are meaning or story free. In other words, the data received has no meaning until we tell ourselves a story. We forget this because the process of input to sensing to naming to narrative normally happens “in the blink of an eye.”
Nonetheless, each stage is distinct.
As an analogy, imagine the 6 senses as 6 radio channels on a radio. Now, if the radio is tuned to static, nothing comes through. However, the actual radio signals are “in the air.” That we do not notice (we haven’t tuned in to the signal) is immaterial. The data is there, supposedly?
Supposedly?
Well, we could spend a bit of energy on thinking about whether something is “real” if it is not perceived by someone. This is the basis of “If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?” Let me just toss this out as a weird answer. There is no way to prove the tree makes a sound if no one is there to hear it. Even if you set up a digital recorder to record the supposed sound, this proves nothing until someone checks it to see if there is a sound recorded.
Thus, things are actually not real until someone (not some thing) perceives them.
This is actually important, as we assume that “stuff exists independently of us.” To repeat, the only way to prove something exists is for a human being to notice it.
For example, I just learned that the Google Bot scours the entire web once a day, analyzes each new page it finds, and adds the data to its server database. How do you prove that? You search (a human being searches) the database, and the result shows up. No other way to prove it.
Meanwhile back at my point…
I’m picking up… wait a minute… flowers!
OK. So, signals are (theoretically) all around us, and to go back to the radio analogy, we tune into a channel. We then receive the data. And just like a radio signal coming into clarity as we tune the radio, the next thing that happens is that we begin to translate the sounds into words, or we identify the genre, name, and artist of the song playing. (This is “naming.”)
Then comes what I call the choice point.
As I name, I reach a fork in the road. I can simply immerse myself in the music and let it take me. (We’ve all had the experience of being “caught up” in the music, painting, conversation, project — we call this many things, including being in the zone.)
If I let myself go into the experience, I am, or I become, the experience.
If I tighten up, I tend to begin a process of narrating the experience. And narration is always one step removed from the actual experience.
The narrative fork in the road (using the current example of listening to music):
we decide if we like the song, whether we want to listen to it, tune it out and wait for the next one, or change channels. (This is ‘judging,’ and is a part of our personal narrative.) We then think about other times we heard the song, think about the band/singer, etc. etc.
We tend to notice only one channel at a time.
For example, I have a client who, when receiving bodywork, used to pop into his head and tell himself stories when I pressed on his shoulders. To describe this as above, he was tuned into the “touch” channel, and was simply experiencing the sensation of the bodywork. On the shoulder touch, again there is the opportunity to be “in the shoulder,” or to step away. In his case, he pops into his head, leaves his body, and starts remembering all the times in the past he’s felt overworked and over-responsible. He thus exits the experience, and ends up story-telling. In a sense, he’s “left the table!”
Now, there’s nothing inherently “wrong” about either fork in the road. The issue is one of attention, noticing, vs. escaping into fantasy-land.
Here’s an Experiment or two
The idea behind these experiments is to practice staying “in the body” for a bit. In other words, to have the experience of experience, thus moving rapidly from experience to simple naming to experiencing.
The Fruit Experiment
This one is pretty typical of experience practice. You’ll need a flavourful fruit—say mango slices, or orange segments. Sit, and bring you attention to the fruit in a bowl. Look at the fruit — really look. See how the light reflects off of it’s surface. Notice your Mind, doing it’s thing. It will go: “Mango. Orange colour. Smooth texture. Contrasts the bowl. At a right angle to the piece below it. 6 pieces, stacked in bowl. etc.” This is naming.
As your Mind does this, bring yourself back to looking, without telling a story about mangoes.
Now, get your nose involved. Smell the fruit. Again, Mind will label, or name. “Sweet smelling, mellow, etc.” Keep smelling.
Now, touch the fruit. Really feel it. You can even smoosh the fruit between your fingers. Let yourself play with your food! “Squishy, smooth, sticky.” Feel the fruit.
Now, put some into your mouth. Taste it. (“Sweet, juicy, etc.”) Chew the fruit for 90 seconds, without swallowing it. Move it around in your mouth and notice how the flavour shifts in intensity. Feel what if feels like on your teeth, gums, mouth. Then, swallow.
Likely, you were able to do that, and also likely, your Mind popped into narrative mode every now and again.
You know it was “narrative mode ” because you thought,
“This is stupid. I hate being told what to do. No one in their right mind chews a piece of fruit for 90 seconds. I can’t believe I’m sitting here doing this. I could be getting some real work done. I wonder what people would think if they saw me doing this.”
Mind. Narrative—telling stories.
Hopefully, as such things arose, you simply shifted attention, and came back to the experience.
Paired Experience
You can do the same experiment with another person. In this case, prepare a platter with the range of flavours—sweet, sour, salty, astringent, bitter.
- Person receiving, wear a blindfold, to cut off sight (our dominant sense.)
- Giver, feed bits and bites of the food on the platter to your partner.
- Receiver, remember to “just experience” each piece, as well as the sensation of being fed. As Mind kicks in, breathe, and come back to the experience.
Why do this?
I want you to have a choice. Most of us spend 90% of our time up in our heads, telling ourselves stories— narrating our lives instead of living them. We drop out of presence and drift off into our stories. Again, nothing “wrong” with our stories — except that they are not real.
Real is our moment-by-moment experience.
So, we need to come up with ways to experience experience.
Darbella and I do level 2.5 Iyengar Yoga. At last night’s class, we were all laughing about how hard we’d found last week’s class. I mentioned how, when I got home, I had a hard time walking up the stairs, as my legs were tired and sore. This is narrative. We all had a story to tell. No problem.
Where this would be a problem would be if I went: “Wow. I must be getting old and achy. I can’t do this.” And gave up yoga.
Last night, we did a fairly long headstand practice. We were using a belt to experience different ways to elongate the shoulder muscles, and to move the shoulder blades down the back (this forms a solid base for the headstand.)
My Mind had a few things to say. “Wow. Your sinuses are getting full. Your neck is tight. You need to engage your shoulder muscles.” This is “naming.”
Mind, telling stories—narrating: “Are you sure you want to do this? Can you do this? You’ll have a headache tomorrow. Why can’t you do this better?”
Those comments came as I was in headstand!
So, I breathed, and came back into the experience of the headstand. Again and again.
Next week, I’ll suggest a couple of whole body experiences.
Related posts:
Tagged with: attention • Bodywork • Buddhist • mindful • stories
[…] Experiments in Experience […]
Most of us spend 90% of our time up in our heads, telling ourselves stories…“Nattering” our lives instead of living them…??
Ha, Ha
R
Yes, nattering indeed. Nothing worse than sitting there and talking to yourself, instead of living life!