|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 16, 2011 16:11:13 GMT -5
It's always good to be reminded to keep one's attention on what is. Sure save's time vs what is not...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2011 16:15:40 GMT -5
There seems no reason to bring up "millions of years". And I wouldn't call time a human invention. It seems more an error of perception of the senses - that they seem to only register one thing at a time - therefor there seems to be liner progression. Time is an interesting deal. Not really a human invention but conceptual nonetheless, and not really an error of perception. There's really no such thing as present moment experience, since without the fabricated continuity formed in memory, there's no experience as we usually define it as a sequence of events. The perception of movement that we call life couldn't happen without this sense of continuity. In the same way that the idea of space forms a framework in which separation can be perceived, the idea of time forms a framework in which movement of these separate things can be experienced. The registering of multiple things at a time cannot constitute an experience, which must be in the form of a "linear progression".
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2011 16:23:50 GMT -5
True enough (both of you). Going forward, keep in mind this little disclaimer to anything I'll ever write: If I write about 'human' things, I can usually be clear enough (though not always). But when I try to write about non-human (for lack of a better word) things, its quite likely my words will be muddled and poorly executed. I would be wise in not saying anything at all, but what's the fun in that? (kidding) Oddly, maybe, I can only be clear when jabbering about non-human things. When talking about human stuff, I usually find myself using words like 'seems' and 'I think' and 'maybe' and 'looks like'. The reason for this is that the entire human experience is free floating, subjective, and variable, and so the best that can be done is to take a perspective or look at how things 'seem' to be working. This is the reason for the inherent doubt of mind. Basically, we're making it all up, so how can we say how it actually is?
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 16, 2011 16:24:43 GMT -5
Sounds reasonable to me.
Have you noticed how the mind seems to be deductive: if this, therefor that. And the axioms for the initial givens points back to that which sees.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 16, 2011 16:34:11 GMT -5
Yup that's what Popee was saying also. But then again it's really a art to explain in real time what is..
As far as multiple things at the same time hehe. There is a thing we use to do when I was much longer. We would get those NO2 (Nitrogen dioxide) for whip cream. Take in as much as you can. then have 2 people one on each side of your head telling you 2 different stories at the same time and you understand both stories.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2011 16:36:21 GMT -5
If by "that which sees" you mean the sense of self, then yeah. Our entire internal world seems to be built around this sense of self.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2011 16:38:20 GMT -5
Yup that's what Popee was saying also. But then again it's really a art to explain in real time what is.. As far as multiple things at the same time hehe. There is a thing we use to do when I was much longer. We would get those NO2 (Nitrogen dioxide) for whip cream. Take in as much as you can. then have 2 people one on each side of your head telling you 2 different stories at the same time and you understand both stories. Michael Do you recall the exact moment when you got much shorter? Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by popee on Jan 16, 2011 17:23:13 GMT -5
Time is an interesting deal. It measures the predictable movement of matter, and in that respect, our clocks and calenders work perfectly well.
But then there are the philosophical questions of whether 'living in the past', or 'hoping for the future' will impede our existence in the Now.
Two separate fields of inquiry I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2011 18:42:14 GMT -5
Yup, a separate issue but an important one. The only 'place' suffering happens is in the projections into the past or future, necessarily in the mind.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 16, 2011 20:12:41 GMT -5
If by "that which sees" you mean the sense of self, then yeah. Our entire internal world seems to be built around this sense of self. Yeah, this "sense of self" doesn't really see anything, as even this, is being observed. It's not the true seer. But yes, it's definitely the cause of a lot of suffering, if that's what we believe ourselves to be. TRF
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 16, 2011 20:55:27 GMT -5
Yup that's what Popee was saying also. But then again it's really a art to explain in real time what is.. As far as multiple things at the same time hehe. There is a thing we use to do when I was much longer. We would get those NO2 (Nitrogen dioxide) for whip cream. Take in as much as you can. then have 2 people one on each side of your head telling you 2 different stories at the same time and you understand both stories. Michael Do you recall the exact moment when you got much shorter? Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jan 17, 2011 5:28:46 GMT -5
"Have you noticed how the mind seems to be deductive: if this, therefor that. And the axioms for the initial givens points back to that which sees." Yes it's desire for conclusions that make sense, is of it's nature. This is learning ~ reach a conclusion, rest on the plateau or in the valley of it and see how solid it is. How it stands up in front of intelligence itself, is all part of the digestion process. The desire for conclusions ends, when the mind's attachment to them is seen. This can be a bit bumpy, like a plane landing. The mind admitting deeply that the process of concluding and postulating is no longer needed or necessary is the next step, and then the killing of the attachment is where the fun begins Thank you
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 17, 2011 12:21:02 GMT -5
"Have you noticed how the mind seems to be deductive: if this, therefor that. And the axioms for the initial givens points back to that which sees." Yes it's desire for conclusions that make sense, is of it's nature. This is learning ~ reach a conclusion, rest on the plateau or in the valley of it and see how solid it is. How it stands up in front of intelligence itself, is all part of the digestion process. The desire for conclusions ends, when the mind's attachment to them is seen. This can be a bit bumpy, like a plane landing. The mind admitting deeply that the process of concluding and postulating is no longer needed or necessary is the next step, and then the killing of the attachment is where the fun begins Thank you Very true, but we can go even deeper and observe all aspects of the mind. A trancendance of the mind in its entirety. The mind seems to be time based and as stated previously functions linearly and not spatially. That means that what it percieves, is constant movement and change. But that which we are, that aware space, that is looking at the world of change, through our eyes, is changeless. As an example, you page through your photo album and see a picture of yourself when you were a baby. You had a baby body and baby emotions. But you also had awareness of the world. You flip a page and see a photo of yourself when you were say 5 years old. The cells of your body have completely been recycled. Things around you have also changed, but again that which is looking out, has not changed. You flip another page and you see yourself as an adult. So now your body has been recycled at least 3 times, and still you feel like you haven't changed at all. All because that which you are, the aware space looking out through your eyes, is changeless. That's what is meant by the presence, the now moment. Not what is taking place in a sequential time based progression, but that which is unmoving and completely still. Another example, would be to stand in front of a mirror. Imagine that for every minute that passes, a year of your life goes by. In thirty minutes your entire body has changed, in most cases for the worst...but that which is looking into the mirror has not changed and remains changeless. Time is in you, but you are not in time... TRF
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jan 17, 2011 19:29:13 GMT -5
I should retitle this a LOT of discussion. Thanks for sharing, everyone. I'm not sure if this is in my head or what, but it seems like when I'm driving, the body/mind is always moving in one direction and it's just the ground beneath it doing the directing. And there's also a weird, tingling, sinking feeling when I sit down for a second to relax.
It's kind of fun to 'watch' (in silence of being) myself 'watch' things. Kinda like a mirror looking at a mirror!
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 18, 2011 0:19:50 GMT -5
If by "that which sees" you mean the sense of self, then yeah. Our entire internal world seems to be built around this sense of self. Yeah, this "sense of self" doesn't really see anything, as even this, is being observed. It's not the true seer. But yes, it's definitely the cause of a lot of suffering, if that's what we believe ourselves to be. TRF If one keeps their attention there as much as posible, the suffering seems to end.
|
|