DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
INVISIBLE GURU FORUM
HTML https://jedmckenna.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Truth Realization
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3343--------------------------------------------------
on techniques part 2
By: Jed McKenna Date: October 26, 2014, 2:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, you have done part 1 and not just sat on your backside
reading. Dabblers are wasting their time and mine. Don't be one.
So, looking back on the exercise, did you notice that in order
for there to be a 'you' that is, a perceiver perceiving the
perceived sense, you had to contract, to make your 'self'
smaller? When there was just perceiving, there was a much larger
'you'.
This can range from just a minor, oh yeh, to earth shattering.
Here 'you' are creating a 'you' and noticing a variation between
a no 'you' and a 'you'. Now, in my book, this is a pretty big
thing. What does this say about 'you'? Do you think there really
is a perceiver and a perceived, or is that a type of learned
response?
If you have a handle on this, try taking it to the extreme. Red
Bull it all the way out! Create a 'you' the size of a pea in
order to feel what the body is apparently telling it. Then,
gently, just let it go. Nothing complex or weird, just let it
go. No perceiver and nothing perceived, just perceiving
happening. Let that state expand. How far can you let it go? Can
you 'get' the amorphous and malleable nature of 'you'? Could
something that important be so easily manipulated? Right where
you are could there be a universe and not just a pea sized you
based on totally meaningless memories.
Here is the sequence. There is a 'you', created by memories
which are created from experiences which originate with sense
perceptions. These memories have been locked in place using a
scale of varying 'importance'.
Go to the beginning. When you where a child and skinned your
knee, didn't your Mom say, 'Oh, little Johnny/Jane hurt his/her
knee, how do you feel? I'll fix it'. or did she say, 'Oh,
Johnny/Jane, is some pain happening to you or is discomfort just
happening with no one there to perceive it? Maybe if your mom
was a love child of the '60's and stoned on LSD she said that
latter, but I doubt it.
I have the illusion that all members will give this a serious
go. If you are here and just friggin around, I invite you to
leave. My time is precious and so is yours. If you try this in
earnest and don't get anything, I want to know that as well.
Just read the instructions on rant #1 again and take fifteen or
twenty minutes, or an hour or two. There is an important
realization waiting for you, but you must reach out and grab it.
Reading and doing nothing... well, let's be honest about it, you
have done plenty of that, now TO WORK!
Love ya all. Jed.
#Post#: 3350--------------------------------------------------
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
By: lynnth Date: October 26, 2014, 4:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--
#Post#: 3352--------------------------------------------------
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
By: Jed McKenna Date: October 26, 2014, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Lynnth:
Thank you for your feedback. I don't understand what you mean
by:
we don't usually go through it when we are walking, eating,
talking with someone, doing whatever
we just recreate it when asked 'who are you?', 'what do you
perceive right now?', 'tell me about yourself'
I want real precision here and I don't know who this 'we' is.
Please explain. What assumptions are you making? There is
nothing wrong with that, but I would like to know if you know.
Who specifically is 'we'.
There is a reason. We need to clean up our language in order to
move forward. It is difficult enough to discuss these matters a
is, so pushing for some precision is one of my meta-goals here.
Once again thank you for trying it. I assume you went through is
fully, but let me know.
Love ya, Jed.
#Post#: 3353--------------------------------------------------
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
By: lynnth Date: October 26, 2014, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--
#Post#: 3358--------------------------------------------------
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
By: John Lamont-Black Date: October 26, 2014, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jed,
Wow! To start with I could easily imagine the perceiver of sight
and sounds as a kind of golf ball sized sphere receiving the
visual images coming from out there and the audible sounds from
over to there (left) and there (right). The tactile sensations
messed with this a bit but just meant a bigger sphere of sensing
body. As part of this it is clear that with sight I can discern
a very subltle ‘line’ of distance and direction cast out towards
an object (and to be frank its almost as real as the object
itself). Similalry with sound. With sensation I can sense the
subtle construction of a 3D body image upon which I locate the
sensations (bit like one of those early 3D computer frame images
(think Weird Science”!)). All of these support a location, an
identification with that location and a perspective from that
location.
Letting these go was easier if I just let them expand – the
contraction (completely right word) was invited to relax and the
location expanded as a huge sphere. I realised that the apparent
locations of sights sounds and sensations were still there but
the apparent directions and distances seemed less apparent and
believable because the apparent centre was no longer a tight
contraction. It is profound but subtle. Nothing has fallen
apart. However , the re-assertion of a tight centre - Wow that
was a different matter! Having spent several minutes in
‘expanded mode’, closing down felt like wilful wanton
falsification. A fight and quite ugly – not at all what I
expected!
(I'm off for a walk in the hills!)
Best, J.
#Post#: 3359--------------------------------------------------
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
By: Jed McKenna Date: October 26, 2014, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Lynnth:
Yes, that was what I was thinking too, but didn't want to be any
ruder than usual.
How about a report of what you experienced. Let me give you a
little framework.
You're feeling the chair you're sitting in, NOT! You are
experiencing some sensations, perhaps. 'Chair' is a just a
concept that your mind made up. You are experiencing wind from a
fan, once again, NOT! You are experiencing some kinesthetic
sensory input, on your skin, NO NO NO, skin is a concept. This
is pretty weird for those that haven't delved into it.
When you talk about 'we', I know you are generalizing your
experiences to others when you have no idea what they are
experiencing. You have never had any idea, and neither have I.
It's all just concepts other that your sensory experience. Upon
further questioning, that too can be disassembled.
Please don't be discouraged by my mild attack. I may sound
arrogant but that's because I am arrogant. But, my purpose is to
slice this as close to the bone as possible. IMHO there is far
too much warm fuzzy, bliss ninney, feel good, soft and cuddly
b.s. being peddled by (fill in the blank). I wouldn't dream of
naming names.
If you do want some good material on this, try Gregg Goode. He
has it nailed beyond nails.
So, try again, share again and just be ready, I'll probably
attack again, it's what I do.
love ya, Jed.
#Post#: 3376--------------------------------------------------
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
By: John Lamont-Black Date: October 26, 2014, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jed,
Expanding was a gentle but somehow invigorating the nearest
physical correlative would be loosening your trouser belt or
removing a hat, and the abdomen/back of the head keeps on going!
In the expanded mode it is very very, peaceful and all is
welcome regardless of the content of the perceptions. I did
this exercise in the peace of my sitting room and also in a
stand of trees this afternoon, up in the hills during pretty
stormy weather (I have pretty bad tinnitus so the wind kind of
drowned that out for a change). With the expansion there was not
just an acceptance of all ‘things’ but a happy knowing that,
well, this is, whatever it is, just is! In terms of vision there
seems to be a panoramic quality (not picking out specific
objects) to it and this is sort of echoed isotropically in the
frame of audible perception.
Re-contraction, hot on the heels of expansion, feels wrong and
an effort but it can be done.
That the ‘self’ can be contracted showed it to be a fabrication
a fiction. I was aware of another fiction - the image of a
sphere contracting to a pea was hard to avoid. Never-the-less
the distinction, between the two states, whatever they actually
are, is clearly known.
Thank you.
Best J.
#Post#: 3377--------------------------------------------------
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
By: guest98 Date: October 26, 2014, 3:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I breathed for a bit just to relax the mind. Then I put
attention on the hand just to see if in fact a memory arose in
response to the sensation. What I noticed was that the mind got
busy as the noises in my house got louder. This suggests that
sense perception does in fact influence thought, or the sense of
there being a "me."
Mind was really busy, so I went back to part one... Noting all
of the sounds and sensations appearing and looking for a "me."
Mind got quite a bit quieter. Tried following the breath for a
while, focusing on subtler and subtler aspects of the breath.
The body disappeared. No sensations were really felt at all. If
they were, they were too subtle to really notice.
Mind got really busy because all of the damn cars rushing by (I
live on a busy street) so I got frustrated.
I did notice that I was really attached to an outcome (wanting
to know what you're pointing at), I think that's the reason for
the frustration.
Anyways, I did notice once subtle detail. When I was really
focused on the breath, I think I was able to watch the
"experiencer" arise out of the experience itself. It seemed to
flow out of the experience. This was quite subtle and happened
very quickly, and it was very similar to when I was observing
the experience of "hand" and "foot" sensation arise.
#Post#: 3381--------------------------------------------------
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
By: know1 Date: October 26, 2014, 5:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jed, this was amazing, i did something similar 23 years back and
I remember then not being able to relinquish the self at all,
couldn't "get out of my head" is the way it was put to me. This
time it was significantly different, similar to your skiing
example, I had learned a lot without realizing it. So coming
back to it I found it was very easy to relinquish self, to
expand into everything (nothing) quickly and consequently see
right through the mind's house of cards and within short order
too. I've been experimenting with it all day today in various
situations, it's like a new toy, called The Infinite, I don't
want to quit playing with it. There was a terror all those years
ago that would not let me release but that is long gone now and
falling in was so simple. I wrote a more concise explanation of
the experience on the Part 1 thread.
The real kicker is a deeper understanding of the lie that is
"Me". The importance I bestow empirical knowledge is part of the
lie, what I sensed was driving this need, to continue the
charade was fear. Not fear in the here and now but a remote
generational fear that created the construct I had been taught
and appropriated for just this purpose, to stave off elimination
of self, all the while cutting me off from what "Is" the
"Isness" of existence. It's excruciatingly difficult to find the
words...
#Post#: 3384--------------------------------------------------
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
By: SEE Date: October 26, 2014, 5:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jed,
I used to train the attention in a similar way and discovered,
as a by-product, that the sense of self very easily dissolves
this way.
Also it is very surprising to notice that there is a huge
difference between focused attention and unlocalizable
awareness. Like, the attention being an extension of perception,
a tool serving 'me' and awareness being, well, just being. Not
even 'there'. Even without discernible objects.
It seems that experimenting a lot like this stretches the sense
of 'me' to the extreme, like an old rubber band. At some point
it just looses the ability to contract back again and relaxes
into, eh, simple awareness. Which is sort of totally plain and
natural. ;D
Or... it stretches to the max and contains all. Nah, nice try,
but not true given that all known stuff dissolves into
not-knowing. Close and dilligent examination leaves no trace
behind. First concepts, then perceptions, all gone. Just a blank
screen of awareness, for the lack of better word.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page