The "One Wish" Game

[alpha]

Jan 21, 2010 14:27:27 GMT -5 karen said:

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.

Karen, are you sure you did'nt mean "a few years ago after I started smoking"

I use to do something similar after trying to buy a machine once, after examining the machine silently for about thirty minutes, I noticed everything about it became very clear and vivid, that night it occured to me that it would be a good idea to examine the world/life/self, as if I were going to "buy" it all, its amazing the different atitude between looking to see and looking to buy, even if its only a loaf of bread, eventually I looked at myself plus all the "baggage" and asked, would I really "buy"that, before I can answer, I have to "walk around it a few more times"...

[karen]

In my case, I already bought it. The cost was suffering. I've been looking for a way to return it for a few years now.

[lightmystic]

Hey Klaus,

I'm not sure what you think perception is, but I'm being as simple and as literal as possible here. There is something that "sees", although sees isn't the right word because it implies all the senses, but is limited to none. Even if you lost all your senses, you would still be "aware" of thoughts inside your head. I call that Awareness or Perception, but it can be called whatever you relate to. And if the thoughts ceased, then there would be awareness devoid of any object to be aware "of". That is what happens in dreamless sleep. Perception continues, it's just no longer "of" anything.

If you think about it, what you said is actually a contradiction in terms. If you could "realize" That Which Is without perception, then you are talking about some other idea of perception than I am. Perception is prerequisite to "realizing" anything. If anything happened without perception, we would never know, because we, by definition, would never perceive it, never realize it, never be aware of it. The only difference between realizing and perception is that perception is more fundamental than realizing. Realizing involves a thought process, it involves distinctions being made, it involves the assumption of an individual separate being to somehow "realize" X, Y, Z, making a duality that does not exist within the simplest form of awareness. Perception is the stage upon which literally anything else that could ever be experienced or not experienced on any level performs.

The key point, I think, is that That Which Is IS none other than your own perception process....the only catch is that your perception process is something even more fundamental and all encompassing and undivided than That Which Is....And I realize that it's pointing to something that cannot be talked about....so saying it that way kind of points to it....

Can you see the relationship between your own Awareness and That Which Is? If so, can you describe your experience with it? If not, what is it that you feel like doesn't relate?

Also, for an even more in depth description, check out this: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=misc&action=display&thread=384

Jan 21, 2010 18:02:27 GMT -5 klaus said:

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?

[zendancer]

Karen: I've often wondered about the value of various visualization exercises that some Tibetan Buddhists recommend. It seems to me that when one does that sort of thing, one is using the mind imaginatively in a similar way to how it is normally used. Shifting to what we can see or hear, by contrast, takes us out of the mind and seems to use a different neuronal circuit. As soon as I was able to leave breath-counting behind, I did so, because I didn't even want the mental counting to be present. I see practices like breath-counting only as a stop-gap measure that is necessary for establishing enough mental silence to progress to more direct practices.

The first time I fell into samadhi was when I used breath-following. I became so engrossed in that activity that "I" disappeared and became the breathing itself. It felt as if twoness literally became oneness, but there was no one outside of the experience to know what was happening. It was utterly mysterious. It was experienced, but it was experienced by no one.

Two days after my first kensho experience, it felt as if a brain circuit that had recently opened up, gradually closed down. I had to concentrate more and more strongly hour by hour in order to stay one-with what I saw and heard. At first, the intimacy and oneness had been effortless, but gradually there reappeared a "me" in that field of emptiness trying to keep the circuit open. On the third day, the circuit shut down completely, and the physical effect was so dramatic that I thought I was going to have a heart attack (some people have had heart attacks as a result of enlightenment experiences). My heart did all kinds of weird stuff--tachycardia, skipped beats, pounding, etc. It was as if the free-flowing chi that had been circulating through the body during those two days had somehow become short-circuited. After it shut down, I never felt the free-flowing chi again. During the time that it was present, however, it felt as if I were connected to some universal power supply that was infinite and alive.

I write all of this only to say that I am distrustful of any practice that involves imagination. It seems clear to me that the world of samsara (existence) is generated by acts of distinction, and freedom requires transcending that process. Today, I am much more in a state of "flow" than at any time other than during that initial breakthrough, but perhaps that is because I spend very little time reflecting or living in my head compared to what I did in the past.

Tonight at dinner my wife asked me whether I was concerned about the political winds now blowing through the economy and how they might affect the economy and various investments in the future. I told her that I rarely think about things like that anymore and never give them any "weight." She said, "Well, you had a strong opinion about who you wanted to see elected in the last election." I agreed, but explained that my interest in the election was simultaneously empty. World power that has been centered in the West during the last two hundred years appears to now be shifting to the East, but if it does, so what? That's just what is. I invest in companies based upon how undervalued I think they are, but if I'm wrong, so what? I'll simply do whatever seems to be the next logical thing to do considering the overall situation. There is action, but no real attachment to outcomes. The whole thing is simply a free-flowing isness. Do you see what I'm pointing to here?

FWIW My wife continued, "Well, when you were stuck in a hospital bed last year after emergency surgery, you were not a happy camper." I laughed and said, "Yes, but that had nothing to do with the past or future. I was a totally 100% unhappy camper in the NOW!" LOL.

[karen]

Hi ZD.

I thought that might raise a red flag. Have you tried the game yourself to see what I mean?

When I do this, my mind sorta gets paralyzed. It feels like a koan. It's not active imagination except at the very beginning.

It was more like another thing for someone to try to look at something without labeling. Maybe another gimmick to try, but it might be valueless - who knows.

I'm still mostly just looking. I'll pace back and forth around my house looking at cracks, spots, shadows - whatever - and going from one to another - looking only.

I often hear of breath meditation and I often try it; it doesn't last long. It might remind me too much of OCD-like habits that I once had. I wonder if I will ever find one practice that I can stick with.

[zendancer]

Karen: The imagination practice you described might have value; I don't really know. At this point I have virtually no interest in imagining. I do know that the looking practice you are doing has value and is very powerful. Helen Courtois, author of "An Experience of Enlightenment," got to a point in her search where she did the same thing, and it resulted in a big breakthrough. I wouldn't worry about not being attracted to breath awareness practices; some people find that helpful and some people do not. Some people become committed to one practice, like sitting in zazen, and they stick with that for years. Other people try dozens of different things. After thirteen years of practice, I became convinced that looking and listening was the most direct path. On rare occasions I would shift attention to smell, taste, and touch, but looking and listening are the two primary sources of sense perception for most of us. I probably used listening the most, but when hiking outdoors, I switched between the two, especially if there was running water nearby or wind blowing through the trees--things that generated interesting sounds. At night I oscillated between pure listening with my eyes closed and staring at my hands. I always advise people to go with what feels most effective to them. Trust yourself 100%. Cheers.

[Portto]

Inspiring posts, Zendancer!

Thank you again!

[klaus]

lightmystic,

You say that That Which Is is my perception process, but it is something more fundamental, all encompassing, undivided than That Which IS, that it's pointing to something that can't be talked about.

Isn't That Which Is the something that can't be talked about? If it is That Which Is, isn't that prior to perception?

My awareness is That Which Is, my attention is to That Which Is, That Which IS is all there Is, there is nothing else.

[lightmystic]

Hey klaus,

I think the only difference in what we are saying is that you are telling me that I am limiting What Is by suggesting that it's the same size as perception, where I am saying that you are limiting perception by not recognizing that it is just as big, all encompassing, expanded, infinite, and undivided as That Which IS. In other words, there is no such thing as individual perception. That is the illusion. Perception is infinite, has been infinite, and can only be infinite.....

Jan 23, 2010 19:06:54 GMT -5 klaus said:

lightmystic,

You say that That Which Is is my perception process, but it is something more fundamental, all encompassing, undivided than That Which IS, that it's pointing to something that can't be talked about.

Isn't That Which Is the something that can't be talked about? If it is That Which Is, isn't that prior to perception?

My awareness is That Which Is, my attention is to That Which Is, That Which IS is all there Is, there is nothing else.

[klaus]

lightmystic,

I think we have reached a impasse on this subject.
It may be only a matter of semantics.
That Which Is (noun), Perception (verb).

Limited in the context of body/mind (illusion), unlimited in Reality.

Wiithout distinction, What Is.

[lightmystic]

Fair enough. The only problem with nouns is they imply "things". They imply edges. And this has no edges. There is no "That Which Is" as opposed to That Which Is Not. There is one thing that contains both but is limited to neither. And it is not static. At least, that is my direct experience....

Jan 24, 2010 20:58:02 GMT -5 klaus said:

lightmystic,

I think we have reached a impasse on this subject.
It may be only a matter of semantics.
That Which Is (noun), Perception (verb).

Limited in the context of body/mind (illusion), unlimited in Reality.

Wiithout distinction, What Is.

[question]

Hey ZD and LM, sorry that I'm so late.

I have no problem with admitting that the mind classifies every experience and that then it's like a feedback loop, where such classifications to some degree alter actual experience. This has even been confirmed scientifically. But when I walk around what I, for the lack of better words, classify as an object, and then this object changes its appearance relative to my senses' position towards this object... how can this experience possibly be caused by the mind? When you guys walk around a chair, does this chair change its appearance or do you perceive some kind of a platonic idea of this chair? Don't get hung up on words please, I'm simply asking whether you're actually perceiving perspectivity or not. And if not, I mean, the mind can't grow me a third leg, how on earth is it supposed to be able to create something like subjectivity, perspectivity etc.?

You guys often say things like "without the mind there are no limitations, no you, no me, nothing". It sounds to me like when a child, playing hide and seek, covers his eyes in order to be invisible, as if he would dissapear if only the world disappears for him. I can't phrase it to my satisfaction, but something feels fishy about the way advaita teachers say it. I say I see an object, but you say that you see the absolute, but if we both are seeing the same shapes and colours, isn't it kinda awkward?



And I also liked Klaus' comment about perception. I too have a hard time believing that perception itself, or an absolute perceiver is the last stop, simply because perception itself is such a complex idea, way too complex and unnatural to be this fundamental.

[zendancer]

Question: Okay, let's take it one step at a time. Imagine that we decided to name every quadrant defined by grids of longitude and latitude. Imagine that we named the quadrant located halfway between America and England "quadrant 23." If we took a boat out to the middle of quandrant 23, what would we see? We would see ________(I hold out my hand and simulate the movement of waves). We wouldn't see "quadrant 23," or "the ocean," or "waves." We would see ____________(I point to the truth and repeat the above movement.). "Quadrant 23" is imaginary. So is "the ocean," and so are "waves." The truth is_________.

So, does quadrant 23 exist? Yes, but only as an idea. Does the ocean exist? Yes, but only as an idea. The truth is what we see from the deck of the boat we are on. We see _____________.

Does the state of Kansas exist? Yes, in the same way as "quadrant 23." It is an idea--an imaginary grid superimposed on reality. The truth is ____________(if I'm standing in Kansas, I stomp my foot on the ground to point out the truth). In reality there is no state of Kansas. It is part of an imaginary mental grid. We can see what Kansas IS by looking with our eyes, but we cannot see "Kansas" because "Kansas" is imaginary.

I hold up my hand and I ask three people to take an ink pen and draw the two lines that separate my hand from my wrist and my wrist from my arm. They will draw the lines in slightly different places because the boundaries are imaginary and each person imagines the location of those boundaries in a slightly different place. So, do hands, wrists, and arms exist? Yes, but only as ideas. The truth is_________(I shake my hand silently). We can see what IS, but what IS is neither a "hand" nor "not a hand." It is___________. In reality there is only oneness without division or separation. As humans, we choose to imagine reality as if it were divided into "things" like quadrants, states, hands, wrists, arms, human beings, computers, stars, etc, but there are no real boundaries anywhere other than in our heads. Whatever this is ________(I shake my hand) it is connected to this _________(I shake my arm), and this _______(I shake my shoulder), and this ________(I shake my whole body), and this ________(I stomp on the ground), and that ____________(I point to a tree), and that ___________(I point to a star).

Because there are no real boundaries (other than in our imagination) who we ARE is the totality of the entire universe. The whole blooming thing is alive and unified. Hold up your arm and look for yourself. Do you see three separate things in front of your eyes or one thing? Now hold up your other arm, stick out your legs, and look at your entire body. Do you see twenty separate things or one thing? Now look at the entire environment surrounding "your body." If you are sufficiently relaxed and open, you will not even see one thing. You will only see "what is," the entire field of your being.

The problem for all adults is that we become habituated to seeing the world as we imagine it to be rather than seeing it as it is. We spend 99% of our time naming, thinking, reflecting, fantasizing, and talking to ourselves in our heads, so we constantly reinforce the illusion of "thingness." To see the truth clearly requires practicing some silent observation. It requires us to interact with the world in a different way than usual. With practice we can learn to see the truth with our eyes, but we can never perceive the truth using the intellect. The intellect only functions by dividing what we see into imaginary states of differing value.

Most of us look out at the world as if we are little people inside our heads looking "out there" through our eye sockets. This, too, is an illusion created by the mental habit of incessant imagination. With sufficient clarity and silence we discover that who we are is the entire process of reality looking at something that cannot be imagined, and the something we see is not even a something. This cannot be understood with the mind. The mind cannot enter the world of the absolute because it only deals with products of imagination.

In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus is reported to have said, "The Kingdom of my Father is spread out upon the earth, but men do not see it." In another verse he says, "I am he who has come forth from the Undivided." In still another verse some guy comes to Jesus and asks him to make his brother divide up his dead father's belongings with him. Jesus says, "O man, do you think that I'm a divider?" He then turns to his disciples and says, "I am not a divider, am I?" It is easy to imagine the grin on his face when he asked this question of his disciples. LOL.

So, look around. Can you see what's here without imagining that its divided into ten thousand things? There is only oneness.........only _____________________! Cheers.

[klaus]

zendancer,

That Oness, That, Reality is manifesting as ten thousand things which should be acknowledged and not denied. That Oness, That, Reality gives them their existence in their manifest form and their existence is valid in themselves.

The ten thousand things manifesting and the One, That, Reality are one and the same as you say. As to why IT manifests in formlessness and form is a paradox and mystery.

[zendancer]

Jan 27, 2010 22:54:39 GMT -5 klaus said:

zendancer,

That Oness, That, Reality is manifesting as ten thousand things which should be acknowledged and not denied. That Oness, That, Reality gives them their existence in their manifest form and their existence is valid in themselves.

The ten thousand things manifesting and the One, That, Reality are one and the same as you say. As to why IT manifests in formlessness and form is a paradox and mystery.

Klaus: To someone who is attached to ten thousand things, I must take away those things. To someone who is attached to oneness, I must snatch away oneness. All is empty and self-illuminating. It is truly a mystery, but questions like "why" never seem to arise in the overwhelming presence of isness. Nevertheless, don't pay any attention to what I'm writing tonight. I've had a glass of wine and am feeling more mellow than usual. LOL. Just random thoughts floating by. Row row row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.......... Cheers.