But please explain this, beliefs are borne of the mind, they are thoughts conditioned by memories (which are also thoughts) and everything we perceive is conceptualised by the mind. So when we “observe” we inevitably do this with mind thus perceiving something (in this case the belief being observed) through the same conditioned mind. How does this not create a Catch-22 of sorts?

And that’s without getting into the question of who is the observer? what is being observed? etc

Cheers.

Great observations!

I didn’t touch on the observer simply because I craft each post to examine a different aspect of our belief system, and for brevity’s sake I didn’t take this one any further. There are many other posts on the site which do examine the idea of an observer — I invite you to explore.

Your catch-22 is actually what people will hopefully discover as they begin exploring beliefs. For instance, if there is a person in my life who I think is a real jerk, I might suddenly come to realize that my idea about them (jerkiness) is coloring my perception of ‘who they really are’. I might think — “this idea of jerkiness is not ‘real’.” Then I begin wondering what IS real in my observation, and when I try to define ‘real’, I really get into a quandary. Is a thought (and hence a belief) not as ‘real’ as anything else I can define?

The confusion is actually our ally here, since the goal is to discover that there is, indeed, a method of observing which is free of conceptualization. This seems quite impossible to our everyday mind, which must frame everything in ideas, but nevertheless, this ‘concept-free’ observation is something we are all capable of. The trick? Well, it can’t be conceptualized, of course! And thus it’s something we must directly experience, in the way that we experience the feeling of sunshine on our face or the sting of a wasp or a feeling of excitement. Words may turn us toward the sensation, but they can never be the sensation itself.

So the idea above is to sense the catch-22, and then to explore it fully, not allowing ourselves to settle on any one idea. If there is truly no answer, then what are we left with? If we don’t settle on the ‘idea’ of confusion either, we can snap into a sudden clarity which delivers a sensation which we realize has been right in front of us all along, hidden only by our mind’s insistence upon constantly framing the world.

Thanks for such a thoughtful comment, Cedric!

Sweetwater,

Kenton

Anyway, that’s just what I’ve been noticing with my particular point of view.

KL

I’ve often tried to describe this sensation, and I think you did it more clearly than I have This is very real — this emergence which dissipates almost instantly if we pay attention to it, and which grows if we react to it (this reaction has always seemed to be a version of resistance to me — the reaction is born of some sort of desire to NOT be angry, since we have been taught that this emotion is negative). The paradox is that if we actually give full allowance to our anger, anger evaporates, because it can’t exist in a climate of full allowance. The problem with telling this to people, of course, is that most people will only give partial allowance, using it as an excuse to react even more strongly to their anger. As usual, it’s a subtle concept, challenging to explain. But when you feel it — it is as so clear that words only muddy it.

Thanks for sharing,

Kenton

Great article. I was wondering though, if every belief will crumble under examination, what about a seemingly obvious belief like, say I’m looking at table in front of me. Then the belief “there is a table in my field of perception” would seem hard to deny.

Would a better way to look at it be that the words I use to assert my belief are just thoughts and not reality? Whatever I believe is a table is just symbols. The table does not exist other than in my mind. When I take the symbols to be other than the thoughts and images that they are than I’m in illusion?

I used to kind of take the idea that the world is an illusion as, since the world takes place in my consciousness and I can’t prove anything outside of it, then the world is illusory. A better way to look at it might be that the world I create with my thoughts and concepts is illusory.

Certain teachers advise sitting down and trying to write what you know to be true. If I sit down to do that I don’t get too far because on an intellectual level I can sense that all words and concepts are not true (but I don’t live from it). So it’s like sitting down to write the truth and nothings comes of it because I’ve already reached the conclusion. If all beliefs are illusory because they all are based on thoughts then I don’t feel like I need to examine them and nothing comes of the process of trying to write whats true. Do you have any advise to better examine beliefs?

Best Regards,
Tim

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

I made such a sweeping statement for two reasons – first, it can act as a challenge to spur us to further examination, and second, it serves as a reminder that if we let our mind ‘stop’ at any assumption, we end up missing our view of ‘reality’.

For instance, if I assume that there is a table in my field of perception, I’m actually holding to a multitude of beliefs. Even if I don’t posit an actual table (but only a non-object based perception), I’m probably still harboring the belief/sensation that there is a ‘me’ having the perception.

Many of these assumptions seem painfully obvious (the sensation of movement, the passing of time, the presence of a me-observer), but if we take the time to really examine them, we find that even these ‘obvious’ beliefs are full of holes.

To take it even deeper, if I decide that the world is only perception, or label my ideas as symbolic (and perhaps imply some sort of ‘unreality’ by using that label), or posit that the world is illusory, or that my conceptual world is somehow unreal, then once again I’m falling prey to living under a system of unfounded belief.

Try as we might, our intellectual mind can’t wrap itself around the utter simplicity of reality. As soon as we try to ‘figure it out’, we start playing games with ourselves, chasing around in mental circles. What is real? What is the nature of perception, of reality? Any answer I give is found to be faulty if I examine it clearly enough.

The point here is to urge us to let down our intellectual mind for just one moment. When this happens, we experience a breakthrough, and come to understand exactly what it is our intellectual mind was trying ineffectively to piece together. We might label this breakthrough ‘simple’, as I said above, but already we’re starting to form an idea of it.

If we want to experience ‘spicy’, all we need do is douse our tongue with Tabasco sauce. No amount of trying to ‘figure out’ spicy will ever give us the clarity which is delivered when we stop thinking for a moment and just experience what is actually going on.

Thanks again, Tim — I greatly appreciate such thought-provoking inquiry! It helps to wrap our minds around these things until we finally figure out that thinking just isn’t going to get us what we’re looking for.

Sweetwater,

Kenton

Yvonne

KL sure does have a way of examining things with clarity, doesn’t she? I’m glad that this helped you in your movement toward enhanced peace.

Sweetwater,
Kenton

anyhow, my free will works just fine. hope you kept your receipt.

I’m glad it’s working well for you. It has a way of doing that!

Sweetwater,
Kenton