Author Topic: Jed rant: on techniques part 2  (Read 2336 times)

Jed McKenna

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10565
    • View Profile
Jed rant: on techniques part 2
« on: October 26, 2014, 02:12:56 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.

 
« Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 02:09:06 am by Jed McKenna »

Social Buttons

Like Like x 2 View List

lynnth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2014, 04:52:27 am »
--
« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 11:24:44 am by lynnth »

Jed McKenna

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10565
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2014, 05:33:31 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.

lynnth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2014, 06:09:09 am »
--
« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 11:24:31 am by lynnth »

JohnLB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2014, 06:38:56 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.

Jed McKenna

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10565
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2014, 06:43:07 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.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2014, 04:04:21 am by Jed McKenna »

JohnLB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2014, 03:43:12 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.

ivory

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2014, 03:46:57 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.

know1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2014, 05:07:50 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...

SEE

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2014, 05:58:44 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.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2014, 06:09:53 pm by SEE »

Jed McKenna

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10565
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2014, 10:39:59 pm »
Dear Posters:

Well, I am delighted, either my directions were incredibly well laid out, or you did a wonderful job of execution (love that one) or, nothing really happened (preferable).

I'm wondering if you can grasp the value of specificity along with minds propensity to just go wherever the hell it wants to. You have all showed excellent discipline.

Now that you have sensed something different, some change in perception, you may want to practice this on a regular basis, but just for say.... three days to start with. Maybe try it when you wake up and before going to sleep.

What is supposed to happen is happening and you can't have enough of a good thing, i.e., no you.

Keep at it.

Love ya, Jed.


Smiling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2014, 02:50:03 am »
Hi Jed,

I tried twice, yesterday and today. Yesterday when I first tried it, for the first step, 'do it with a 'me'', I was OK. Yet, when I proceeded and tried to do it without a 'me', I was a bit agitated because how could I possibly do it without 'me'? The more I tried to 'get rid of me', the more I have 'me'.......However, I went all the way anyway and finished. Nevertheless, I did notice that in order to perceive as a perceiver, there must be some distance & space between me, the perceiver, and the perceived, that is sound or feeling or sights. Today I relaxed more and gave myself more time to do it. This time, when I tried to do it without 'me', I only focused on the perceiving (listening, feeling, looking) without thinking about getting rid of 'me'. This time, no distance/space was noticed that much. And also it seems the scope of awareness is enlarged without a 'me', or maybe it's just my thinking/imagination.

Unfortunately, neither time I could shrink myself to a pea or enlarge it to the universe. This step is beyond my current ability. I will keep playing with it later on.

However, I do get your idea of 'a perceiver and a perceived is a type of learned response'. So, what I need to do is to unlearn it, right?

By the way, I had a good nap today when I closed my eyes to work on feelings today. Sorry, I didn't mean to slack off. It just so happened, with the sun shining above me.

jacoba

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Location: the netherlands
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2014, 04:08:01 am »
I started doing this a few weeks ago, it's restful, but I can't keep it up for long.
 I start like you say, by breathing and then noticing whatever comes in by the senses, noise, pressures on the feet by the floor, knee holes, seat, clothes resting on my arms, me slowly disappearing, some fear here, but curiosity as well. It's helpful not to give any names to whatever comes in. I did it once while I was in a crowd, indistinguishable voices, so no voices or people whatever. The seeing is more clear then normally and the clouds seem very near, present, as if I know them intimately. Having this near certainty there should be a seeing of 360 around instead of the less than180.
I can keep it up for some half hour but in between the I gets back every minute or so, maybe oftener I don't know. Like there's something in the background, some little voice, awareness and then the thought I could treat this as any other sensation: no difference between the noise of a car and the sensation of this little I, whatever it is. That was rather amusing and felt right.
It's hard to put it into words, besides I've never been much of a meditator and I feel I need more practice with this.  Any attack is welcome.

Jed McKenna

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10565
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #13 on: October 27, 2014, 04:16:09 am »
Excellent work guys, one thought comes to me.

When you come to let go of me and just experience perceiving itself. no force is called for. You're not destroying it, just gentle invitation to leave for now. Don't worry, it can always come back. However, as you practice, you will notice it gets more challenging to bring it back than let it go. But see for yourself. You can have a good bit of fun playing with this and it will demonstrate a number of things along the way. Can you come up with anything else to do with it, or variation on it? But, get the basics down first before getting too fancy.

Keep at it when you can.

Love ya, Jed.

jacoba

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Location: the netherlands
    • View Profile
Re: Jed rant on techniques part 2
« Reply #14 on: October 27, 2014, 04:57:04 am »
Jed, I don't know what you mean by I'm wondering if you can grasp the value of specificity , I do get the minds propensity to go where it goes ( I notice I find it hard to let it do that, I'm a control-freak).

I probably do not get the value of specificity, otherwise I would've known want you meant by it.