I wondered what all the talk of ‘glow’ was about, until I realised that I had done the LOK ex.17 and not the TSK ex.17. Oh, well… I’m glad that I made the mistake because the process, and the discovery of LOK ex.17 itself, were well worth it. But now, about the exercise that we were asked to do…<\/p>\n
1.Visualize the phosphorescent blossom until you deeply experience the inseparability of the blossom from its glow.<\/p>\n
I haven’t seen such a cactus. I tried to imagine it, but I found it more helpful for me to visualise the moon and to experience the fact that ‘glow’ and ‘moon’ were experientially inseparable.<\/p>\n
2.Then see how this inseparability relates to your daily experiences of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcthe object and you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122. Concentrate on how the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcyou\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 component might be like the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcglow\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 of the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcobject\u00e2\u20ac\u2122.<\/p>\n
It was easy to contact the sense of ‘self’ (however vague) which was opposite an everyday object (a watch sitting on my desk). I could get a sense of my ‘self’ as a glow of the object. It was very pleasant. I could, however, ‘get it’ only if I didn’t imagine distance coming in. At first ‘distance’ asserted itself habitually.<\/p>\n
3.With a more broadly based knowing (which initially may simply mean being open-minded), consider what constitutes \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcintervening distance\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 between the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcobject\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 and \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcyou\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 and what such distance is like.<\/p>\n
Intervening distance? Maybe I’m not getting this part, but I couldn’t find any distance if I felt myself to be the glow of the object. And that’s weird: while in conventional terms, I could designate the object as the object (‘over there’ ‘on the desk’) and i could rationally designate a ‘me’ ‘over here,’ but in actual experience I couldn’t find an intervening distance. I tried experimentally to get ordinary distance (‘here-there-and-in-between) back, and it seems that distance is dependent on my doing something thought-like to ‘distance’ a ‘me’ from the object.<\/p>\n
Again, if I imagined a ‘between’ (a ‘measurable-style space’ between the object and me) then such a distancing move diminished my sense of ‘self-as-object’s-glow.’ Distance-making turned the self into a point of reference for the ‘there-ness’ of the object and the intimacy of the ‘glow’ was lost. It created a isolated point in space as the reference-point-self.<\/p>\n
4.Might there be a sense in which there is no such distance, even though the series of experiences which usually constitute evidence for moving through distance can still be experienced?<\/p>\n
This is what I meant by the weirdness: while conventional terminology could still be relevant, in experience, ‘distance’ was a very, very doubtful designation for the interaction ‘between’ my person and the object. (Which, again, says it as it isn’t, but I have to say something!!) Instead of distance there was the intimacy of a dynamic, empty unity.<\/p>\n
I really enjoyed this exercise, because it opens a profound sense of mystery, of which I felt the self-watch-interaction to be an expression.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I wondered what all the talk of ‘glow’ was about, until I realised that I had done the LOK ex.17 and not the TSK ex.17. Oh, well… I’m glad that I made the mistake because the process, and the discovery … Continue reading