The "One Wish" Game

[karen]

Kornjace, I've also found it helpful to look at the intersection of two or more objects in your view, or where an object ends and space begins, or any discrete shadows or textures in ceilings, walls, etc.. It's not so easy for the mind to label such forms (because they are compounded objects perhaps?), so I can gaze away without excessive labeling.

[klaus]

Jan 17, 2010 21:58:30 GMT -5 kornjace said:

I have been having some thoughts lately so...
ZD i think yours ideas and advices here are few steps ahed and I see that problem in lots of enlightened „beings“ trying to help. I think noone can comprehend what you mean by „what is“.
EnlighenMENs opften know to say: „just do it“ or „it just came to me“ or „dont read“, „dont meditate“... and when you read theris biographies they are contradictory, Tolle and Krishnamurti included. Tolle: oh, i woke up one night and thought to myself „i cant live with myself“ than askd myself „who is talking to who“, „who is me and who is myself“ and that was all. And biography shows he was „on the path“ long ago.
This post is critics to enlightened beings for not becoming a good teachers. Lots of them are more focused in explaineng how they feel once transformed insted of how to transform, what they did...
I can see by the whay they write, talk... that they are „higher“ beings, and you also are beautiful being but doesnt make you good teacher - in no bad way. I would just like much more if they work on their theaching skills, experiment with people, see how they react, learn... and become good teachers of enlightenment. After all, isnt that the most valuable thing than?
I think we should put magnifier glass your solution giving sentence (how? answering): „zd:...If we shift our attention more and more often to "what is," without imagining, naming, or cognizing“. – and that that should be the center of teachers teachings. And what comes of it: ego lose, sense of oneness... is secundary. And those sentences ofthen drown in the see of unimportant informations.
Now that being center I have some questions, i dont know how to look without imagining, naming... how to do it... can you awaken this perception in me somehow diferent – and so on, and so on
My concentration is falling, this writing and exhausted me so now i dont know what i wrote anymore. Ill go to sleep now and see what i wrote tomorow.
Regards from universe manifasted as thought distorted perception of itself and being aware of that.

Hi kornjace,

The reason that teachers can't tell you "what is". is that "what is" can only be defined in the negative, what it's not.
To know "what is", is to experience IT.
A good teacher can give you feedback about your experiences in your search, but not specific steps to take. They may tell you what worked for them, but that's no guarantee it will or won't work for you.

Each person came to his/her "enlightenment" experience through their personal quest. Their past is as much a factor in leading them to his/her "enlightment" experience.
So to ask a teacher for specific steps you can take is asking the teacher to become you in a sense, which is impossible because they have not lived your life.

In other words there are no rules in the "search."

Having said that, I practice by shifting consciousness from my head to the solar plexis, this brings the focus on "I"arising from Consciousness instead of Consciousness arising from "I" and expands to the "world" also arising from Consciousness or "what is."

[kornjace]

„Kornjace: First of all, anyone who has seen through the illusion of selfhood does not think of him/herself as a higher being.” – of course, that’s why I put quotation marks on word “higher” – not to take it literally but just as a pointer to people free from “illusion of selfhood”.
„. Just ........"riiiinnnng." Okay? No words or ideas.” – hahaha, ok, ok I understand and yes, I’ve been doing it, this can be called some sort of meditation. Those meditations, guided meditations... realy can quiet my mind and it is always great experience experiencing the world trough that quiet perspective but once “meditation” is stoped its all the same again – it sems like experience and nothing more – comes and goes. And some teachers say (osho for exemple) do it long anough and that should be the “recipe”.
Sry for bothering you , if you don’t want to talk say, ill stop. Infact I don’t have anything to say and ask anymore about that.
Yes karen, i sometimes did that too, but in my case it usualy becomes rape of the mind. Those „watchings“, „hearings“... sometimes it sems to me that direct „watching“, „hearing“... should come from „absence of thought“ not the other way round and that „absence“ from understanding „thought = ego...“ so that foundation of it all is understanding. And understanding should come from... - arrrrrgh
Interesting point Klaus.
I want to go to sleep now.
bye

[karen]

Jan 18, 2010 22:54:04 GMT -5 kornjace said:

Yes karen, i sometimes did that too, but in my case it usualy becomes rape of the mind. Those „watchings“, „hearings“... sometimes it sems to me that direct „watching“, „hearing“... should come from „absence of thought“ not the other way round and that „absence“ from understanding „thought = ego...“ so that foundation of it all is understanding. And understanding should come from... - arrrrrgh

I think I understand your point kornjace, and I'm not sure you are wrong. However, I have tried meditation both from letting go of thought, to focusing all my attention to something near me that I'm not attached to. The first is pleasant and peaceful, and has been my prefered method.

The latter method of attention is difficult and uncomfortable. And yet, it seems like rocket fuel and the former like sterno. I've been thinking that Nisargadatta's answer to the questioner about why do some many yogi's get nowhere, and he replied (to the effect of) that they were "addicted to rapturous states of samadhi with their consciousness in abeyance. Without full consciousness, what progress can there be?" I think I know what he's talking about.

Let's see if it survives my two week observation period.

Lastly I think it might be more like the absence of thought with honed attention is key rather than no thought alone. As it is, you probably have buckets full of amazing stuff happen, but without the focused attention on the subtle, you might not ever see past the obvious.

What do you guys think? Am I in the right direction?

[zendancer]

Karen: Yes, you're pointed straight at the truth. Formal meditation is very helpful at first because most of us have "monkey minds." Our thoughts are jumping all over the place, and are almost continuous, leaving no gaps for the truth to shine through. This is why Zen starts most students off with breath-counting; it is one of the few things upon which a beginner can hold his/her attention. There are some people whose minds are so frenetic that only a mantra or chanting can be used. For people who can't even focus on a mantra or chanting the only way out of the funhouse is some form of physical activity, like bowing, digging a ditch (a Gurdgieff assignment), or walking across America two or three times. LOL

Breath counting is usually followed by breath-following--just watching the breathing process, or feeling the breathing process, or being the breathing process. These beginning practices focus our attention upon some aspect of "what is," and help break our habit of incessant thought. Later, we can try "shikan-taza," (total attentiveness with no focus), or shifting attention to "what is" (looking, listening, tasting, smelling, feeling). With sufficient mental space we begin to see what is happening as awareness shifts back and forth between ideas (meta-realities) and "what is" (reality).

Our ultimate goal is not to stop thinking completely, but to see through thoughts so that we are able to perceive the forest rather than the trees. It is to unify body and mind and, figuratively speaking, allow the body to regain control over a mind run amok.

When we shift our attention to "what is," we are using our brain in a different way than when we are incessantly thinking. As we spend more time looking and listening, we begin to reconnect the body/mind with reality or activate what we might conceive as a "downlink" to God.

Ordinary meditation can often feel boring and dry because no "progress" is sensed. The Zen path takes a somewhat stoic attitude toward this and says, in effect, "too bad, just tough it out." On the Zen path one often meets "hardcore" meditation fanatics, and in some cases, meditation is just another thing that strengthens a sense of selfhood, albeit a more subtle sense. I have met Zen practitioners who loudly and proudly proclaim their meditation "accomplishments." When a meditation session ends, they will often remain on their cushions to show others how committed they are. One fellow I knew was extremely proud that he had spent an entire week meditating in a cave. Today, he would probably be sitting in his cave twittering, "I am meditating now" just to keep everyone informed about how special he is. Other people do the same thing with fasting, and the fasting is often less important than telling people about the fasting. LOL. These are all typical kinds of nonsense that occur on the path. There are also trance-states, things like "blank mind," and countless other dead-ends and pitfalls.

One of my complaints about the Zen path is that sitting in meditation should not be viewed as some sort of end goal. IMO the goal is to experience life fully beyond the narrow confines of personal selfhood. It is to laugh and play and celebrate and have fun as no one. It is to so totally live life that we, as personal entities, disappear into the action.

Athletes often talk about getting into "the zone," a state in which "they" disappear and the game plays itself. Mountain climbers refer to the same thing as "flow." They become so focused upon what they are doing that "they" disappear. In fact, there are some incredible stories written about these kinds of experiences. One guy was in a desperate situation, but then his eyes "became like microscopes scouring the rock for the tiniest grains that could be gripped" and something else took over. Afterwards he told people that "he" did not climb the mountain; "something else" did. He was correct, but he didn't follow up and find out what "something else" is. For people in the zone, or in a state of flow, time disappears. The same thing happens to anyone who becomes totally engrossed in an activity.

Being in the zone is usually called "a peak experience," because most people return to their usual state of a "me in here" responding to "a world out there." The path of non-duality, however, is a path that leads us to the realization that we are always in the zone and that the world of separate things and events is an illusion.

Uh oh, I'm starting to write a book here, so I'd better bring this to a quick end. Bottom line? The more we focus upon "what is," the easier it becomes to stay focused upon "what is," and the more likely it is that (1) we will discover that "what is" is all there is, and (2) we will discover that "what is" who we really are. Discovering who we are makes us realize that our ordinary everyday life is a gift of priceless value. It is also a hoot! Cheers.

[skyblue]

"Athletes often talk about getting into "the zone," a state in which "they" disappear and the game plays itself. Mountain climbers refer to the same thing as "flow." They become so focused upon what they are doing that "they" disappear. In fact, there are some incredible stories written about these kinds of experiences. One guy was in a desperate situation, but then his eyes "became like microscopes scouring the rock for the tiniest grains that could be gripped" and something else took over. Afterwards he told people that "he" did not climb the mountain; "something else" did. He was correct, but he didn't follow up and find out what "something else" is. For people in the zone, or in a state of flow, time disappears. The same thing happens to anyone who becomes totally engrossed in an activity."


Thanks Zendancer. This is very helpful for me.
Great post!

[karen]

Thanks for the reply ZD. When meditating, I think I've mostly been doing blank mind in the 3+ years I've been seeking. Fortunately, my main method in those 3 years was feeling the "I AM".

In fact, speaking about people who can't focus at first, my mind felt like an out of control fire hose. After going though the personal development sites, I ran across an online version of "I AM THAT" which I converted to mp3 format and I ran that in a loop whilst I slept. Also, when exercising, I would listen to "I AM THAT" with the goal of not listening, but focusing on the "I AM" while feverishly hiking.

Whilst my parents were around the house as I grew up, the bulk of my guidance came from a 19" Zenith TV. And I watched it all the time. Even into seeking up to 10 hours a day, I couldn't help but still watch it. I felt like I was cheating - seeking whilst watching TV. After all, "why shouldn't I be able to just sit under a tree and "die-hard" my way to enlightenment?" But I believed Nisargadatta's answer to a questioner when he said if you try to stop all your activities of a sudden, you will crash and that it can't be done. So I thought I will let it go if it falls away, and not to recriminate myself in the mean time.

(in fact, the most obvious "gains" in those 3 years of what I call my shallow seeking was that I learned that I couldn't punish myself to get this; that the carrot that stick wasn't going to work here)

Then this summer after re-doubling my seeking after trying to quit, I started to notice an underlying dissatisfaction with viewing television. But I kept at it, and just watched the feeling of dissatisfaction. Then, finally in the middle of a rerun of "Law & Order" the burnout clicked. And that was that.

Now I only watch TV when someone else invites me to watch it with them. Otherwise, I have no more desire to watch any more.

One of these days I plan on writing a belated intro and life story. Let's see if that ever happens.

[lightmystic]

Hey question,

Sorry for the late response. Good stuff here! And you are quite welcome. It appears that you are zeroing in on something good.

You could say that a perception comes in, and then the mind "subjectifies" the perception. It tells you what is seen in relationship to "you" and also defines what that "you" is in relationship to the perceiver ("you" are a body/mind/person which the perceiver perceives out of). And so the categorization that the mind does, the one that let's you recognize "outside" ("objective") objects is part of that same subjectification process. Because to see there is a solid bench or something, the mind has to define it, and it can only be defined in relation to a "you" that is seeing it. Any objective confirmation of the bench (e.g. walking all the way around it, sitting on it, asking someone else if they see it, etc.) are all "confirmed" through deductive reasoning of information that comes from the very same subjectification process. So, in simpler words, without "you", there is no "other". And those things are defined by the mind. The idea that there are "objective things 'out there'" all come from assumptions (although perhaps logical ones) taken from subjective experience. There is no way for the mind to describe something in a way that is not subjective, so we can never verify objective experience with the mind, because we have only ever experienced subjectively and only can experience subjectively. So the idea of an objective reality has only ever been an idea, even though it's admittedly a logical idea. Everything in quotes in this paragraph is something that the subjective mind defines. So the very idea of "objective" is only terms of the idea of subjective in the first place.

The mind tells the story. So any "thing" that we can think about talk about, feel about, etc. is included in the mind's story. There is an experience of something, and then the mind subjectifies it into a story "oh, that's a body, and it behaves like...." Without the mind, there is no recognition of experience at all, but there is still experience. Without the mind, there are no edges, no boundaries, no limitations. The mind has to appear to create limitations in order to have a story at all (I mean, obviously, right?)

So, in a sense, there is just the perceiver, which is what perceives. All experience happens within it. And that experience has no edges, no boundaries, on limitation. And then the mind, which creates limitations for the sake of a story, says that perception fits within and individual "you" so "you" can experience individual "others" and "objects" etc. and the classifications continue. And to believe they are limited causes us to treat them like they are limited, which causes them to be experienced as limited, and so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy....

But those ideas were never true, and they are very hard to see around because of the fundamental perceptions involved. In a sense, you could just say that it's the putting stock in the story, the believing of the mind that gets in the way of seeing what's really going on, which is that we were never limited, that, whatever the mind says we are like, whatever situation the mind says we are in, however the experience is classified, it cannot hold who and what we are (the perceiver) it cannot contain that. And the perceiver itself is the one thing that, no matter how much experiences change, is always there, always constant, eternally unchanging. And there is a very clear sense that can be gotten of putting attention on the perceiver directly (without preconceptions), where the lack of limitation doesn't go away, where the Perceiver is recognized to not be some "object" (which is a classification/limitation of the mind) but the unlimited process of perception itself that extends in all directions. It only appears to be limited because the mind cannot tell the story of everything simultaneously. (although it FEELS to me like it can). So the mind creates the idea of limitations. But that is all it has ever been, and idea. And that doesn't mean that the mind itself can trascend the idea of limitations (after all, creating limitations IS what the mind does - why would it change it's function), but that doesn't mean YOU, the Perceiver cannot transcend it. It just needs to be recognized that one is not one's thoughts. That's easier said than done, but it really is that simple, and really does just come down to that.

What do you think?

Jan 17, 2010 17:24:57 GMT -5 question said:

Lightmystic: Thanks for your time and great reply. I've read it over and over and lived with it for a couple of days. After I've read what you said about meditation, I've decided to try again and see if it's true what you wrote, about fear and resistance and about the "duality" of mind and infinite impersonal awareness. The meditation went in another direction however. So two days ago I've meditated and what became very apparent is that whatever perception comes, it is automatically contextualized into some "subjective space", the center of which is a reference point behind my eyes, somewhere in my brain area. Objective space (in theory) has no center. But this subjective space (in my experience) has a center. Before a perception comes, I'm not sure if there is space, but when a perception comes, it automatically appears in relation to that center and so space appears. It's really awkward. Does the space (between the center and perception) always appear with a perception and then disapperars, or is it always there and I just don't recognize it? What is this reference point? Such then were my questions.

Yesterday I meditated again, and, contrary to the previous session, I found out that perceptions aren't contextualized into some subjective "space" because of a central reference point, but because perceptions bring with itself a natural innocent quality that the mind reads and uses, to put them into a context of space. A sound coming from the right sounds differently than a sound coming from the left, but both sounds appear neither left nor right, nor in the middle. It's only the mind's interpretation that creates the illusion of a sound coming from or being left or right. So now it's quite apparent that it's the mind that brings the structure of subjective space and time into experience and perception. As long as the mind doesn't relate perceptions to itself, such structure isn't actually there. I think I already understood this intellectually and it was felt in meditation, but somehow it became "more obvious" this time.

I can't yet experientally confirm awareness to be universally everpresent, independent of the brain. But I can confirm most of what you wrote about the mind telling stories. A specific problem that I still have is, that whatever is perceived, is always selective and dependent on the position of my body within "objective space". I see an object and then I move around it and now it appears differently. Is this phenomenon also part of the mind? If yes, wouldn't that mean that the actual physical body is part of the mind? That's actually one of the main reasons why I'm so fond of associating mind and awareness with the brain's functionning.

[lightmystic]

Nice, karen.

Thanks for sharing.

Jan 19, 2010 16:37:02 GMT -5 karen said:

Thanks for the reply ZD. When meditating, I think I've mostly been doing blank mind in the 3+ years I've been seeking. Fortunately, my main method in those 3 years was feeling the "I AM".

In fact, speaking about people who can't focus at first, my mind felt like an out of control fire hose. After going though the personal development sites, I ran across an online version of "I AM THAT" which I converted to mp3 format and I ran that in a loop whilst I slept. Also, when exercising, I would listen to "I AM THAT" with the goal of not listening, but focusing on the "I AM" while feverishly hiking.

Whilst my parents were around the house as I grew up, the bulk of my guidance came from a 19" Zenith TV. And I watched it all the time. Even into seeking up to 10 hours a day, I couldn't help but still watch it. I felt like I was cheating - seeking whilst watching TV. After all, "why shouldn't I be able to just sit under a tree and "die-hard" my way to enlightenment?" But I believed Nisargadatta's answer to a questioner when he said if you try to stop all your activities of a sudden, you will crash and that it can't be done. So I thought I will let it go if it falls away, and not to recriminate myself in the mean time.

(in fact, the most obvious "gains" in those 3 years of what I call my shallow seeking was that I learned that I couldn't punish myself to get this; that the carrot that stick wasn't going to work here)

Then this summer after re-doubling my seeking after trying to quit, I started to notice an underlying dissatisfaction with viewing television. But I kept at it, and just watched the feeling of dissatisfaction. Then, finally in the middle of a rerun of "Law & Order" the burnout clicked. And that was that.

Now I only watch TV when someone else invites me to watch it with them. Otherwise, I have no more desire to watch any more.

One of these days I plan on writing a belated intro and life story. Let's see if that ever happens.

[klaus]

lightmystic,

Can perception, perceiver and perceived be a reaction (an attempt to "deal" with That which Is) by the body/mind in the only way the body/mind is capable.

May not there be a state prior to perception to which perception is a reaction, a blind spot so to speak to That which Is?

[lightmystic]

Hey klaus,

Are you defining perception as the recognition of distinct things? Because I am calling that mechanism that divides perception up "the mind." Infinite undivided perception + mind = relativity. And, of course, the mind is contained within undivided unlimited perception as well.
That Which Is cannot be separate from anything (kinda by definition), so it cannot properly be treated as some "other" thing, and because because perception/awareness is inherently unlimited, then there cannot be anything outside perception either. If there ever was, we would never know (by definition .

The idea of a "body/mind" "comprehending" "infinite" is all a process that takes place within mind. Within mind, all the distinctions are to be found, none of which is the whole thing (because none of which is infinite). Yet, the division appears to continue because that's what's needed for the sake of a story. It's just it's no longer identified with, so the infiniteness of everything is apparent, and the recognition that the separation isn't really happening is apparent. And this appears to sink in more and more over time.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Jan 20, 2010 19:16:33 GMT -5 klaus said:

lightmystic,

Can perception, perceiver and perceived be a reaction (an attempt to "deal" with That which Is) by the body/mind in the only way the body/mind is capable.

May not there be a state prior to perception to which perception is a reaction, a blind spot so to speak to That which Is?

[klaus]

lightmystic,

Perception before distinction.

[lightmystic]

Yes, perception is always there, whether there is distinctions made or not.

Jan 20, 2010 21:35:23 GMT -5 klaus said:

lightmystic,

Perception before distinction.

[karen]

BTW, I recalled a gamed I played a few years ago after I started seeking but I didn't use it as a meditation per-say.

But I'd look at any random object and then with my mind make it look like something else - my favorite was a fire engine. So I'd look at a ash tray and with my mind alone make it look like a fire engine. The goal is to make it look exactly like a fire engine to your own satisfaction - pretending won't work. Now depending on what you were smoking you might or might not see it change. But it seems to occupy the mind - I can really feel it ZINGGGG! - and afterward there's always a mad rush of creativity which I try to dismiss.

[klaus]

lightmystic,

There is perception prior to and after dictinction. Might perception be a product of the cognitive process. Do we think we perceive when there might be something entirely different going on?

For example, dreamless sleep, coma etc.

Might not perception be a hinderence to realizing That which Is?