ask dr-robert

ask dr-robert ask psychologist todos santos ask psychologist dr robert saltzman



From the Dr. Robert Forum:




Jennifer :

This is just a simple question for Dr. Robert. Does that "I" before personality have any characteristics whatsoever? If it does can that ever be confused with personality? Or are you talking about that awareness that puts on personality like a pair of clothes and can take it off again? If so then how are you "being" that? It seems like more of an automatic response much like breathing or your heartbeat then something you are. If you are talking about something else then is it possible I just don't have it?

 

 

dr-robert :

Well, Jenifer, no one "has" it, because it is what we are. What "you" are is that, so "you" cannot have it. You cannot have it, because you are it.





ask dr. robert saltzman




Its characteristics are silence, emptiness, openness, and spaciousness. In this context, those four words all mean the same thing. What you know as your personality (desires, fears, etc.) along with the image of a physical body which you, falsely, call "me," is known to you at all because those attitudes and images arise within that emptiness. But the emptiness is not changed by whatever arises within it. You, along with others on this Forum, fail to understand this very simple and completely obvious situation because you habitually focus on the constant changes (desire becomes fear which then becomes anger, which changes to self-justification, etc.) instead of focusing on what does not change, what never changes—the true self—pure awareness—which we all are.

 

Two Zen monks meet in the road. "Where are you, Brother?" asks the first.

"I'm in the place where nothing ever changes," comes the reply.

"But I thought everything was always changing."

"Yes, that never changes either."

 

The constant changes take place, and can be experienced as change only because they occur or arise within a field (awareness) which never changes.

 

An inexact but useful analogy is this: I have a cup in my hand. If someone pours coffee into it, it is called a coffee cup. If someone pours tea into it, it is called a teacup. But those are just names. The cup is not changed, no matter what is poured into it or what it is called. You—the true you—are like the cup. A certain personality can be poured into that original emptiness, and then you call the emptiness "Jennifer." All of us consist of the same original emptiness, so that if some other personality is poured into that emptiness, then is it called "Robert," or "Differential," or "Sifter," or "Hexi." I don't mind being called "Robert," but I—the true I—am not "Robert," but that which is aware of the personality and body called "Robert" as well as everything else in the world. I know that from a certain perspective—you have voiced this here—this may seem to be only a quibble or a word-game, but I assure you, it is not. Awakening is real, and is not a philosophy or point of view, but a recognition of reality.

 

If you take a group of people, the personalities differ, along with the body images, and the autobiographies associated with each personality and body image, but among those people, the original emptiness—the true self—does not differ. For all of us, it was present at birth—before birth, actually—and is here right now, whether you notice it or not. Noticing it, and abiding in it is called "awakening to true nature," or "seeing things as they really are."

Be well.

 

Jennifer:

Are these characteristics something you can become or are you that already?

 

dr-robert:

You already are that. Everyone is. There is no becoming, only being.

 

Jennifer:

Ok, this is not an insult and I'm not leading you into an argument. It's an honest question. Wouldn't that make life bland?

 

dr-robert:

It is what it is, regardless of any views, opinions, or hypotheticals.

 

Jennifer:

That's an interesting combination of characteristics. Can a person attempt to adopt them or would it ruin it or change the outcome? (Btw, I know that tomorrow I may feel completely different about this thread but for right now I've enjoyed it. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.) What you said about being able to recognize change because there is something changeless is also interesting and something to think about.

 

dr-robert:

You are welcome, Jennifer.

You ask if a person can attempt to adopt the "characteristics." What you are calling "a person" (meaning fleshly body, body image, thoughts, feelings, habits, autobiography) is an ever-changing waveform within the emptiness or silence. How can the wave ever know the endless ocean in the vastness of which the wave arises? The part cannot even see the whole, much less adopt its characteristics. You fail to understand this, because you are unwilling to see the illusory nature of what you always call "me" or "a person," and because you are narcissistically engaged with the concept of "me." There is no such thing as "me" except as a concept or point of view which is always changing however one might attempt to cling to it as a fixed identity. You say as much when you write that, "I know that tomorrow I may feel completely different about this thread."

This statement implies, mistakenly, that there is a fixed "I" who "has" feelings, and whose feelings change while "I" remain the same. You base this on the seeming persistence of a fleshly body called "Jennifer." But that body is always changing too, just like "feelings." The body has no real permanence, and neither do the"feelings." Because the body seems to change more slowly than the feelings, you imagine that "myself" is fixed and only the "feelings" change. But "myself" is my feelings, along with my body image, my remembered and falsely constructed autobiography, etc.

All of that is changing constantly, and yet you attempt to cling to it as if it had some permanence. You call it "me," and imagine that this imagined "me" remains fixed and permanent while "my feelings" change. The feeler is the felt. There is no separation, no difference. The seer is the seen. The thinker is the thought. If the thought changes, the thinker changes. If the feelings change, the feeler changes. The "you" who wrote your last post is not the you who is reading this one. This is utterly obvious, and you even said as much, but you remain blind to it simply because you cling to the idea of a fixed "myself." It is from that clinging that one awakens, and then all is seen afresh. Personality continues, but is not "me."

Be well.

p.s. This is from an interview with Joko Beck who passed away last week:

How old were you when you started meditating?

Charlotte Joko Beck: Thirty-nine, forty, somewhere in there.

Did you have any realization through meditation?

No. Of course we have realizations, but that's not really what drives practice.

Will you say more about that?

I meet all sorts of people who've had all sorts of experiences and they're still confused and not doing very well in their life. Experiences are not enough. My students learn that if they have so-called experiences, I really don't care much about hearing about them. I just tell them, "Yeah, that's O.K. Don't hold onto it. And how are you getting along with your mother?" Otherwise, they get stuck there. It's not the important thing in practice.

And may I ask you what is?

Learning how to deal with one's personal, egotistic self. That's the work. Very, very difficult.

There seems to be a payoff, though, because you feel alive instead of dead.

I wouldn't say a payoff. You're returning to the source, you might say - what you always were, but which was severely covered by your core belief and all its systems. And when those get weaker, you do feel joy. I mean, then it's no big deal to do the dishes and clean up the house and go to work and things like that.

Doing the dishes is a great meditation — especially if you hate itÉ

Well, if your mind wanders to other things while you're doing the dishes, just return it to the dishes. Meditation isn't something special. It's not a special way of being. It's simply being aware of what is going on.

Doesn't sitting meditation prepare the ground to do that?

Sure. It gives you the strength to face the more complex things in your life. You're not meeting anything much when you're sitting except your little mind. That's relatively easy when compared to some of the complex situations we have to live our way through. Sitting gives you the ability to work with your life.

I read your books.

Oh you read. Well, give up reading, O.K.?

Give up reading your books?

Well, they're all right. Read them once and that's enough. Books are useful. But some people read for fifty years, you know. And they haven't begun their practice.

How would you describe self-discovery?

You're really just an ongoing set of events: boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, one after the other. The awareness is keeping up with those events, seeing your life unfolding as it is, not your ideas of it, not your pictures of it. See what I mean?

 

Jennifer:

That's interesting what you wrote about the body. In church they taught us that the body is a temporary housing for the person. When I've been to a funeral and have seen a dead body I see it as the person has left. This is what makes your comment about change even more interesting. While I do identify with my body, it has the eyes I see with and the ears I hear with, I know it's not me but mine rather. Not identifying with the ever changing thoughts, feelings, autobiography, etc is not so easy because that's what interacts with the world and even there identifying is not the right word. Your inner world sounds so different then mine. I'm sure my inner world is made up of mostly fantasy but has been there so long that I don't recognize the reality which makes this all very difficult to grasp. But, I will continue to contemplate this and maybe something will change.

 

 

dr-robert:

Beautiful reply, Jennifer.

"I'm sure my inner world is made up of mostly fantasy but has been there so long that I don't recognize the reality which makes this all very difficult to grasp."

Exactly! The only thing that keeps any of us from seeing things as they are is the story we tell ourselves from the moment we awaken from sleep until we fall asleep again. That story, which is simply nonsense, is so widely shared, and so habitual, that we have forgotten that it is only a story, only a version of events, and we take it for fact.

BTW, you do not see with your eyes, nor hear with your ears. Find out what really sees and hears, and you will understand.

And, your body is not "yours" at all. It is not anybody's possession. It just is and lives on its own until it wears out and dies, regardless of what "you" (the ego you) think about it.

Be well.

 

Jennifer:

Is it only the design of that fantasy that creates problems for the individual?

 

dr-robert:

 No.

What you are calling "fantasy," can also be called denial, which means refusing to see things as they are. When you fail to see things as they are, you suffer, and this suffering is not the ordinary, unavoidable physical suffering of a living being (headache, etc.), but entirely self-inflicted, emotional suffering.

For example, the imagined "you" constantly seeks approval and tries to avoid disapproval. All of that is unnecessary. The real "you" is simply awareness, which cannot be insulted, judged, evaluated, or otherwise categorized. In other words, Jennifer, so far you are spending your life trying to defend, justify, and gratify an imagined "myself" which is only a dream, while the real "myself," which needs no defending, and requires no justification, goes unnoticed.

To the extent that you live identified with personality, you imagine yourself as an object which is in relationship—for better or worse—with other objects. When the identification with personality is seen through, the dream of a separate self—an object, a body with a name and autobiography dissolves, leaving only this moment by moment totality in which there are no relationships, but only being. Nothing to cling to, nothing to become, nothing to defend, nothing to seek.

 

Jennifer:

That's not easy to read but maybe there is some truth to it. Anyway, anything I say in response to it will sound like justification or defensiveness. Thanks, Doc.

 

dr-robert:

You are welcome, Jen.

Yes, there is some truth to it. I am happy for you that you can see that.

Of course it is not easy. That's what Joko Beck said in the interview I quoted earlier. Here's that part again (for you and all the submarine race watchers out there):

Did you have any realization through meditation?

No. Of course we have realizations, but that's not really what drives practice.

>

Will you say more about that?

I meet all sorts of people who've had all sorts of experiences and they're still confused and not doing very well in their life. Experiences are not enough. My students learn that if they have so-called experiences, I really don't care much about hearing about them. I just tell them, "Yeah, that's O.K. Don't hold onto it. And how are you getting along with your mother?" Otherwise, they get stuck there. It's not the important thing in practice.

And may I ask you what is?

Learning how to deal with one's personal, egotistic self. That's the work. Very, very difficult.

There seems to be a payoff, though, because you feel alive instead of dead.

I wouldn't say a payoff. You're returning to the source, you might say - what you always were, but which was severely covered by your core belief and all its systems. And when those get weaker, you do feel joy. I mean, then it's no big deal to do the dishes and clean up the house and go to work and things like that.





L4LockedAway:

Dr Robert, are you talking about the inner voice? "it was present at birth—before birth, actually—and is here right now, whether you notice it or not"... I've noticed this thing with creativity, that I can't force myself to 'make' something. It only happens when I quieten myself and stop 'thinking'. Then stuff seem to flow out from somewhere. Also I think our personalities are just a mask, a very elaborate one that we created over the years, I mean every other person I meet seem to view me differently... there seems to be so many combos that I dunno which one I really am :)

 

dr-robert:

Words are difficult. I do not really know what you mean when you say "inner voice."

The idea here is that when real seeing (or hearing, feeling, etc.) takes place, no one is doing it. We say, "I saw a sunset, and it was beautiful." But this statement distorts the situation terribly, leaving us in confusion about who or what "I" am. Because this kind of statement is built into the very language in which we speak and think (subject>verb>object}, most of us end up bewildered and suffering unnecessarily from a false identification of "myself" as a do-er of actions. In other words, we imagine a world filled with objects, including "myself" (meaning body, and its autobiography), which act upon one another. In my example, the tree is one object, and "myself," another object, acts upon the tree by "seeing" it.

This seems to make sense, but when we look more deeply into it, it is simply wrong. "Objects" have no independent existence outside of consciousness. This is not speculation, but fact. Science tells us that supposed "objects" are not solid at all, but simply concentrations of energy. When, for example, this energy impinges upon a nervous system (photons hit the optic nerve), images arise, and we call that "seeing." But this seeing, this "perception," is an automatic process which involves no separate "myself" apart from what is seen. In any moment of real seeing, the seer is the seen.

Now after the fact of seeing—after bare perception has occurred—a human ego can create concepts or ideas about what was "seen" ("What a beautiful tree!" or "It would make good firewood."), but these conceptions are entirely a production of the egoic mind of the perceiver, and take place after the original perception. In fact, when the conception arises, this means that perception has stopped, since real perception takes place only immediately and in utter silence. To put this another way, when "I" (ego) am commenting, no seeing can take place. The very commentary stops any seeing.

This is a clue to your observation about creativity. Real creativity, which means perceiving fully without any interference from prior conceptions, happens only when "I" (ego) am absent. All real artists know this space whether they have a name for it or not.

Be well.

 

 

David:

What did a tree look like before we called it a tree? Memory fails. When a child asks: Why am I me and not you? What to say? This conceptual maze seems at the same time overwhelming and ridiculous. How can anyone take it seriously? But we have to just to get through the day. There is a pause between perception and conception, albeit a short one. When we call something beautiful, for 'me' it's an expression of a deeper acknowledgment or brief recognition of its essence—a 'wow' factor—yet a 'beautiful tree' still remains a 'tree', which is not what it truly is at all, and ideas about what it is are pointless.

 

 

Jennifer:

This is where it gets to weird for me. The seer is the seen. That would be me saying that you, Doc, don't exist. That I created the things you've written. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

dr-robert:

David, you wrote, "When we call something beautiful, for 'me' it's an expression of a deeper acknowledgment or brief recognition of its essence—a 'wow' factor"

 

Yes.

And that wow-inspiring essence belongs not to the imagined something "outside" of you somewhere, but to you. You are that which sees, and you also are what is seen. There is no duality there whatsoever, no matter how much we may imagine one. When the wow-ness kicks in, it means that the bare perception—the real "you"—stops and "myself"—ego "myself," I mean—(judgment, commentary, thought, opinion, etc.) starts up again.

To see this from another angle, the imagined "something" out there somewhere is whatever it is. What you find in it (beauty, ugliness, fear, attraction, etc.) is "you" (ego "you," I mean) in that moment.

When focused on opinions, fears, and the rest of "ego me," I may fail even to notice that space in which bare perceptions arise prior to esthetics, attraction, or whatever. But that space is always there. It was there when you were a child, and it is here now. This is what true artists know, whether they have a name for it or not.

Be well.

 

p.s. Here are some words from Adyashanti which point to this from another angle yet:

 

Truth Is

Truth is only discovered in the moment.

There is no truth that can be carried over

to the next moment, the next day, the next year.

Memory never contains truth, only what is past, dead, gone.

Truth comes into the non-seeking mind fresh and alive.

It is not something you can carry with you, accumulate, or hold onto.

Truth leaps into view when the mind is quiet, not asserting itself.

You cannot contain or domesticate truth, for if you do, it dies

instantly.

Truth prowls the unknown waiting for a gap in the mind's activity.

When that gap is there, the truth leaps out of the unknown into the

known.

Instantly you comprehend it and sense its sacredness.

The timeless has broken through like a flash of lightning

and illuminated the moment with its presence.

Truth comes to an innocent mind as a blessing and a sacrament.

Truth is a holy thing because it liberates thought from itself

and illumines the human heart from the inside out.

- Adyashanti

 

L4LockedAway:

True, the same words can have several different interpretations. I guess I should have explained it further, by 'inner voice' I'm talking about those intuitive stuff. Most of the time I make decisions based on facts and reasoning, but sometimes you get these hunches... stuff I can't rationalize... but are strangely pretty accurate. There are no 'voices' per se but it just feels right.

I'm trying to make sense of what you said after that. I don't fully understand what you meant by "objects not existing independent of the consciousness". I accept the fact that everything is essentially energy at the sub atomic level, I've hear a lot of people in the spiritual circles say this, but I feel that it's an oversimplification. The 'collection of energy' has boundaries, and everything won't mix just like that. I can't say, put my hand through the wall for example... also there is a certain individuality to each of these 'energy collections'. It's sorta like looking at a machine and saying that it's just metal, while the statement itself is spot on, you won't say that your car engine is the same as big metal bar... nor would you be willing to pay the same price.

Then about perception, I agree that we only 'see what we want to see'. The mind makes interpretations of what we choose to see.... so we could in a way say that our 'subjective' version of the world only exist in our heads.... is that what you meant? Otherwise it doesn't make sense if everything exists inside... cos I could say, close my eyes and shut out the world, mind is blank but it still wouldn't prevent me from bumping into some random object which isn't supposed to be there.

Doc, it hit me when you said "when the conception arises, this means that perception has stopped".... I agree with you totally on this one. When we see familiar objects.... say a tree like you said. We just label it a 'tree' and it's thrown aside... we don't look at it objectively (large brown object with rough touch...) and overlook things unique to that particular 'tree'. I've experienced something similar when I silence my mind, everything feels different, the wind blowing in my face... it's not the usual one, the various sounds that I never hear otherwise, something new about the same people I've seen for a long time but never noticed before....

Talking about the ego... I've also noticed that I perform better when I don't take things personally.. ie let the ego (classical interpretation of it rather) have a free reign.

I read through some of the other posts in this thread and started to wonder some more about the 'ego'. You were comparing our personalities to the stuff that's filled in a cup, the cup remaining the same for everyone. This is something I hear often, but like Jennifer said, it seems incomplete. Say we compare ourselves to a chair, a white plastic chair. In the factory every single one is made from the same mould, they are exactly the same in the beginning (true self). They get placed at different spots, they would be used by different people... some break, some last, some maybe soiled/colored/painted/scratched, some may still be in pristine condition..... so you could say they've got a 'personality', an individuality.... it's what sets each of them apart.

So wouldn't "going back to your true self" be like killing that part of you off? sort of like becoming a vegetable

 

 

Jennifer:

L4, you have said everything I couldn't find the words for. Would those chairs that were in pristine condition have no personality? The conception and perception thing is something I've never thought of though. I've noticed myself fumble with it plenty of times when assuming one thing when something else was happening but I don't think I've ever broken it down like that. Cool. What you see and what you think you see are two different things. I guess this goes along with the "story we tell ourselves". But, how can a person NOT have a story they tell themselves? Unless you all have some sorta super mind discipline I don't have. I have absolutely no control over the thoughts that pour into my head. Maybe it's not the same thing cause one is looking in and one is looking out?

 

 

L4LockedAway:

Jennifer, I didn't think so deep when I created that analogy.. I guess you could have several interpretations to the 'perfect chairs'. hmm.. The only way they would remain completely flawless would be if they were never used, so I think they would be the people who never developed themselves, those who were always indulged/taken-care-of i.e. the fruit cakes, nice on the outside but empty/immature on the inside.

I didn't understand what you meant by the "story we tell ourselves". I've come across some people who I think are in denial, they have their own story of what happened... they are always 'right' no matter what, if you try to bring some sense back into them they accuse you of manipulating stuff... is this what you meant by it?

Well, I'm no expert but what I do is, I listen to the stray thoughts without feeding them... they eventually quiten down, it may take a while. I had the best results when I locked myself in the present (don't remember the past, don't create the future... just focus on what's at hand).. hmm, yeah, those are the main things that I do. Facing them is better than running away.

 

dr-robert:

L4LockedAway, you said that, "There is a certain individuality to each of these 'energy collections.'"

Yes, of course.

Here is an analogy. If I know a particular stretch of river, I can tell you that just around the bend is a whirlpool, and I can describe the size and shape of it. Although a whirlpool is only just water, and has no independent existence, I still can predict that it will be there. The whirlpool is a persistent pattern which comes into being when a certain amount of water flows across a particular shape of river bed. If the amount of water changes, or if the rocks on the bottom shift position, the whirlpool disappears. There is no actual physical object called "whirlpool," but rather just an organization of energy into a particular temporary pattern. Yes, there is water in the whirlpool, but it is never the same water. The actual water is always changing, so. although I can predict that it will be there when you walk round the bend, the whirlpool cannot be said to exist in a material sense.

This is the same with a human being. The cells in the body are always changing. The relationships among the organs of the body are always changing. The thoughts in the mind are always changing. Emotions are always changing. So what makes you "you?" You want to focus on the physical body. Because you can bump into a wall, you say, that proves that "I," the body, really exist. That is true on some level, although not on others, but it misses the point of this entire conversation. If you simply decide to call the body, an imagined physical object, "I," there is no conversation. You can call a whirlpool an object, or a thing too, but that will be inaccurate at best, and it will end the conversation.

The original point was, if you remember, whether there is an "I" which exists prior to identification with body and ego. I say there is, and that you will never notice it if you keep putting your attention on what you believe are physical "facts," but which are not facts at all, but just one way of perceiving the world—one version. That version is what I call the story you tell yourself, and it always has "you"—ego you—at the center. When the center disappears, everything just is as it is, prior to any story or self-interest. This does not mean that nothing exists on the physical level.

 

Now Jennifer asks, "But, how can a person NOT have a story they tell themselves?"

A "person" cannot. That's what a person is, something quasi-physical, like a whirlpool, plus the autobiography of the whirlpool—the story you tell yourself. When the story stops, the person disappears, and all that is left is seeing (or hearing, etc.). This often happens momentarily (what David calls, "a pause between perception and conception") and then we "come back" to ourselves, which means that seeing stops, and the story resumes. So in that pause, no person existed, but only seeing. Yes, some kind of physical body was present—although what that body really is defies understanding, even scientifically—but the person, the story, was not present when seeing happened. When the person is there, real seeing is not, but only memory, description, and commentary, which are not seeing, and have nothing to do with it. As long as you keep imagining that my words refer to bodies, you will never grasp this.

 

 

David:

Dr. Robert, you said that, "When the wow-ness kicks in, it means that the bare perception—the real "you"—stops and "myself"—ego "myself," I mean—(judgment, commentary, thought, opinion, etc.) starts up again.

"To see this from another angle, the imagined "something" out there somewhere is whatever it is. What you find in it (beauty, ugliness, fear, attraction, etc.) is "you" (ego "you," I mean) in that moment."

Thank you, Dr-Robert, this is dead on. The real Self stops and the illusory "me" takes over, "stealing the show". It is laughable sometimes to see how fast the conditioned mind takes ownership of the experience and attaches a label on it—the mind says: "of course I know what that is". The greatness of some works of art is partly in creating a space for that "pause" and then allowing by the virtue of it being 'caught off guard' the contemplation of the experience (not really an experience because there was no one to experience it in that moment). For example, some abstract artwork really tickles the mind as it struggles between "wow-ness" and "what the heck is that?". And that is what a child"s mind is like—everything appears new and fresh (until the boogieman comes).

How much the "me" fears the unknown is very palpable. It could never accept the fact that it doesn"t really exist so any glimpses of that possibility are very threatening and negated immediately. You said it clearly that there is no way that it could "notice that space in which bare perceptions arise", the seeing prior to cognition. Also, it arises in awareness along with everything else so how could it possibly notice that out of which it arises.

BTW, the quote from Adyashanti is great: "Truth comes into the non-seeking mind fresh and alive." Of course, 'seeking' must stop for any of this to possibly happen. And then: "Truth prowls the unknown waiting for a gap in the mind's activity.", seems to point to oneness wanting to come through, expressed in the mind's seeking of it, which can never happen, hence the paradox.








To comment about anything relevant to this website, or to read the remarks of others,

visit the dr. robert forum.






Check out a full listing of "ask dr. robert" in the archives.




Share this page with friends: