|
Post by enigma on Nov 12, 2013 20:57:01 GMT -5
There is sensory perception... the noticing of sights/sounds/smells/tastes and sensory feeling. There is also mental perception... from the interpretation to the inner meanings given to what would otherwise be a purely sensory experience. Illusion is an abstract noun that best describes the experience of noticing that something is not as it appears. In adults, mental perception tends to be the main point of focus.. but with no comparative it can go unrecognised for what it is. So as a practise, focussing on sensory perception can help a person develop awareness of mental perception. In situations when one isn't sure, or is confused or 'in a fog' as somebody called it... the simple way is to discern where one is, is to ask what is sensory (what have you actually seen/hear etc) and in doing so, what is mental perception becomes clearer. Sensory perception IS mental perception, only imagination separates the two. Even science knows that these days ;-) Yes, and so what, really, is the distinction we make between direct sensory perception, and what we think about what we perceive? Is the distinction arbitrary?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 1:13:53 GMT -5
Sensory perception IS mental perception, only imagination separates the two. Even science knows that these days ;-) Yes, and so what, really, is the distinction we make between direct sensory perception, and what we think about what we perceive? Is the distinction arbitrary? The distinction seems to be a vestige of what SDP calls the 'cultural self'. Humans are kinda programed to see an 'out there' and an 'in here' as separate things, and even worse, we are programmed to regard whats 'out there' as more tangible and 'real' that whats 'in here', i.e. Thoughts and stuff. Humans function from the belief that sensory perceptions are originated in a real or tangible 'out there', and based on this illusion, sensory perceptions are given more credibility they deserve so to speak. One of my biggest woo woo realizations several years back was a kind of kensho experience of seeing the whole phenomenal universe laid out in front of my awareness as an endless tapestry of thoughts, which included 'sensory thoughts'. There is a cultural, or engrained belief, that what is sensed 'out there' is somehow less ephemeral than whats 'in here'. So placing exclusive attention on sensory perceptions makes us feel like we are on more solid footing (so to speak). Despite there being no separation between 'in here' and 'out there', and despite sensory perceptions that 'seem' to originate from a tangible 'out there', but that are really just as ephemeral as thoughts 'in here'....putting attention on sensory perceptions is still a really good point of concentration to affix one's attention for the purpose of opening into a more conscious 'in the now' meditative state....but, as seems to be the case with Mamza, that meditative state of clear awareness will likely relieve one of the illusion of an 'out there' that is more 'real' than 'in here', and with that disillusionment, the false hiearchy of senses over other kinds of thoughts on the 'realness' scale goes with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 1:44:11 GMT -5
Yes. This is why it best describes the experience of noticing = if we never experienced that moment, then the word wouldn't have been created. One can be aware of perception and that doesn't change it. But illusion is the awareness of the change between not being concious of and being conscious of. Max is saying that illusions are still illusions whether they are ever recognized as such or not. As such, it is not the experience of noticing it, which is more like being disillusioned. Yes, I am looking at it from the perspective of linguistic origins. If human kind had never compared one moment to the next, and noticed their ability to discover anew. They would never have created the word 'illusion'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 2:22:47 GMT -5
Mamza I'm kinda interested in more details about how this realization came to you?
What was going on, what were you doing just before during and after the realization?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2013 11:56:43 GMT -5
Yes, and so what, really, is the distinction we make between direct sensory perception, and what we think about what we perceive? Is the distinction arbitrary? The distinction seems to be a vestige of what SDP calls the 'cultural self'. Humans are kinda programed to see an 'out there' and an 'in here' as separate things, and even worse, we are programmed to regard whats 'out there' as more tangible and 'real' that whats 'in here', i.e. Thoughts and stuff. Humans function from the belief that sensory perceptions are originated in a real or tangible 'out there', and based on this illusion, sensory perceptions are given more credibility they deserve so to speak. One of my biggest woo woo realizations several years back was a kind of kensho experience of seeing the whole phenomenal universe laid out in front of my awareness as an endless tapestry of thoughts, which included 'sensory thoughts'. There is a cultural, or engrained belief, that what is sensed 'out there' is somehow less ephemeral than whats 'in here'. So placing exclusive attention on sensory perceptions makes us feel like we are on more solid footing (so to speak). Despite there being no separation between 'in here' and 'out there', and despite sensory perceptions that 'seem' to originate from a tangible 'out there', but that are really just as ephemeral as thoughts 'in here'....putting attention on sensory perceptions is still a really good point of concentration to affix one's attention for the purpose of opening into a more conscious 'in the now' meditative state....but, as seems to be the case with Mamza, that meditative state of clear awareness will likely relieve one of the illusion of an 'out there' that is more 'real' than 'in here', and with that disillusionment, the false hiearchy of senses over other kinds of thoughts on the 'realness' scale goes with it. Yes. 'Out there/in here' is also a thought about sensory perception, as is 'Realness'. The distinction you're making is between "sensory thoughts" and thoughts about 'sensory thoughts'. I'm not comfy with 'sensory thoughts'. Sense perception is different from thought just as feeling is. I wouldn't say 'feeling thought'. I think the problem I'm having with it is that thought is one mode of perceiving, and maybe we think highly of it and so we're trying to reduce everything to some kind of thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 13:02:28 GMT -5
The distinction seems to be a vestige of what SDP calls the 'cultural self'. Humans are kinda programed to see an 'out there' and an 'in here' as separate things, and even worse, we are programmed to regard whats 'out there' as more tangible and 'real' that whats 'in here', i.e. Thoughts and stuff. Humans function from the belief that sensory perceptions are originated in a real or tangible 'out there', and based on this illusion, sensory perceptions are given more credibility they deserve so to speak. One of my biggest woo woo realizations several years back was a kind of kensho experience of seeing the whole phenomenal universe laid out in front of my awareness as an endless tapestry of thoughts, which included 'sensory thoughts'. There is a cultural, or engrained belief, that what is sensed 'out there' is somehow less ephemeral than whats 'in here'. So placing exclusive attention on sensory perceptions makes us feel like we are on more solid footing (so to speak). Despite there being no separation between 'in here' and 'out there', and despite sensory perceptions that 'seem' to originate from a tangible 'out there', but that are really just as ephemeral as thoughts 'in here'....putting attention on sensory perceptions is still a really good point of concentration to affix one's attention for the purpose of opening into a more conscious 'in the now' meditative state....but, as seems to be the case with Mamza, that meditative state of clear awareness will likely relieve one of the illusion of an 'out there' that is more 'real' than 'in here', and with that disillusionment, the false hiearchy of senses over other kinds of thoughts on the 'realness' scale goes with it. Yes. 'Out there/in here' is also a thought about sensory perception, as is 'Realness'. The distinction you're making is between "sensory thoughts" and thoughts about 'sensory thoughts'. I'm not comfy with 'sensory thoughts'. Sense perception is different from thought just as feeling is. I wouldn't say 'feeling thought'. I think the problem I'm having with it is that thought is one mode of perceiving, and maybe we think highly of it and so we're trying to reduce everything to some kind of thought. It seems like thoughts are a high level of minding. There's a low level of minding too -- where sensations transmogrify into perception. The fact is all we have are perceptions, qualia. Sensations are just an idea really. Thoughts are a type of perception and add dimension to sensory perception. I look out at the world and it is a wash of color. Low level of minding sharpens contrast. And the labeling is when minding gets more sophisticated. All of a sudden I'm looking at a photo of a child and memories create a multidimensional experience of something that was just a glob of visual sense data. ATA is a focus on perception and low level minding eschewing the pull of interest in thoughts. There's nothing wrong with thoughts -- Farmer's moment of zen vid is testimony to that. I see ATA as a method to reset the default mode of attention. Whereas it might be set to thoughts/thinking, it can be reset to what is (perception with low level minding). Rupert Spira makes no distinction between sensation and perception, effectively using them as the same "sensation-perception". He points to the usefulness of recognizing the knowingness that is the fabric of sensation-perception. "Where is the experience of that sensation-perception?" he asks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 14:12:55 GMT -5
Yes. 'Out there/in here' is also a thought about sensory perception, as is 'Realness'. The distinction you're making is between "sensory thoughts" and thoughts about 'sensory thoughts'. I'm not comfy with 'sensory thoughts'. Sense perception is different from thought just as feeling is. I wouldn't say 'feeling thought'. I think the problem I'm having with it is that thought is one mode of perceiving, and maybe we think highly of it and so we're trying to reduce everything to some kind of thought. It seems like thoughts are a high level of minding. There's a low level of minding too -- where sensations transmogrify into perception. The fact is all we have are perceptions, qualia. Sensations are just an idea really. Thoughts are a type of perception and add dimension to sensory perception. I look out at the world and it is a wash of color. Low level of minding sharpens contrast. And the labeling is when minding gets more sophisticated. All of a sudden I'm looking at a photo of a child and memories create a multidimensional experience of something that was just a glob of visual sense data. ATA is a focus on perception and low level minding eschewing the pull of interest in thoughts. There's nothing wrong with thoughts -- Farmer's moment of zen vid is testimony to that. I see ATA as a method to reset the default mode of attention. Whereas it might be set to thoughts/thinking, it can be reset to what is (perception with low level minding). Rupert Spira makes no distinction between sensation and perception, effectively using them as the same "sensation-perception". He points to the usefulness of recognizing the knowingness that is the fabric of sensation-perception. "Where is the experience of that sensation-perception?" he asks. Just like the way you have used quite individual phrases to explain your understanding here, or as Rupert Spira used the words to explain his - the way that words are used, simply assists the user in their understanding of a concept. It is the explanation of how a person is using that concept as a tool in life, that demonstrates whether it is useful or not. So, to those who have offered different perspectives of how they conceptualise perception, I would ask for clarification as to how that model is used practically.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2013 14:59:50 GMT -5
Yes. 'Out there/in here' is also a thought about sensory perception, as is 'Realness'. The distinction you're making is between "sensory thoughts" and thoughts about 'sensory thoughts'. I'm not comfy with 'sensory thoughts'. Sense perception is different from thought just as feeling is. I wouldn't say 'feeling thought'. I think the problem I'm having with it is that thought is one mode of perceiving, and maybe we think highly of it and so we're trying to reduce everything to some kind of thought. It seems like thoughts are a high level of minding. There's a low level of minding too -- where sensations transmogrify into perception. The fact is all we have are perceptions, qualia. Sensations are just an idea really. Thoughts are a type of perception and add dimension to sensory perception. I look out at the world and it is a wash of color. Low level of minding sharpens contrast. And the labeling is when minding gets more sophisticated. All of a sudden I'm looking at a photo of a child and memories create a multidimensional experience of something that was just a glob of visual sense data. ATA is a focus on perception and low level minding eschewing the pull of interest in thoughts. There's nothing wrong with thoughts -- Farmer's moment of zen vid is testimony to that. I see ATA as a method to reset the default mode of attention. Whereas it might be set to thoughts/thinking, it can be reset to what is (perception with low level minding). Yes, that's how I see it too. We can call it all mind if we want to define mind as including all types of perception, but thought is already a bifurcation of perception, as is the idea of sense perception and feeling. There is just a field of perception that is inclusive of all these forms of perceiving. In our nightly dreams, all those forms are active, and yet there are no sense organs sending data from some outside world. Sense organs are also part of this field of perception and are not the cause of perception. Same goes for 'brain' and 'body'. What becomes important is to see what forms of perceiving result in suffering, and how that happens, and if anything can be done about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 15:45:18 GMT -5
It seems like thoughts are a high level of minding. There's a low level of minding too -- where sensations transmogrify into perception. The fact is all we have are perceptions, qualia. Sensations are just an idea really. Thoughts are a type of perception and add dimension to sensory perception. I look out at the world and it is a wash of color. Low level of minding sharpens contrast. And the labeling is when minding gets more sophisticated. All of a sudden I'm looking at a photo of a child and memories create a multidimensional experience of something that was just a glob of visual sense data. ATA is a focus on perception and low level minding eschewing the pull of interest in thoughts. There's nothing wrong with thoughts -- Farmer's moment of zen vid is testimony to that. I see ATA as a method to reset the default mode of attention. Whereas it might be set to thoughts/thinking, it can be reset to what is (perception with low level minding). Rupert Spira makes no distinction between sensation and perception, effectively using them as the same "sensation-perception". He points to the usefulness of recognizing the knowingness that is the fabric of sensation-perception. "Where is the experience of that sensation-perception?" he asks. Just like the way you have used quite individual phrases to explain your understanding here, or as Rupert Spira used the words to explain his - the way that words are used, simply assists the user in their understanding of a concept. It is the explanation of how a person is using that concept as a tool in life, that demonstrates whether it is useful or not. So, to those who have offered different perspectives of how they conceptualise perception, I would ask for clarification as to how that model is used practically. Well if you mean practical in the sense of a tool in life, I'm not really sure. As Enigma notes, the point is to take aim at suffering. I might say alienation. Some might not think that is a practical consideration but I do. If you mean practical in the sense of paying the bills or changing a flat tire, I'm pretty certain conceptual understandings of perception, etc are impractical unless you make a living as a philosopher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 15:58:48 GMT -5
The distinction seems to be a vestige of what SDP calls the 'cultural self'. Humans are kinda programed to see an 'out there' and an 'in here' as separate things, and even worse, we are programmed to regard whats 'out there' as more tangible and 'real' that whats 'in here', i.e. Thoughts and stuff. Humans function from the belief that sensory perceptions are originated in a real or tangible 'out there', and based on this illusion, sensory perceptions are given more credibility they deserve so to speak. One of my biggest woo woo realizations several years back was a kind of kensho experience of seeing the whole phenomenal universe laid out in front of my awareness as an endless tapestry of thoughts, which included 'sensory thoughts'. There is a cultural, or engrained belief, that what is sensed 'out there' is somehow less ephemeral than whats 'in here'. So placing exclusive attention on sensory perceptions makes us feel like we are on more solid footing (so to speak). Despite there being no separation between 'in here' and 'out there', and despite sensory perceptions that 'seem' to originate from a tangible 'out there', but that are really just as ephemeral as thoughts 'in here'....putting attention on sensory perceptions is still a really good point of concentration to affix one's attention for the purpose of opening into a more conscious 'in the now' meditative state....but, as seems to be the case with Mamza, that meditative state of clear awareness will likely relieve one of the illusion of an 'out there' that is more 'real' than 'in here', and with that disillusionment, the false hiearchy of senses over other kinds of thoughts on the 'realness' scale goes with it. Yes. 'Out there/in here' is also a thought about sensory perception, as is 'Realness'. The distinction you're making is between "sensory thoughts" and thoughts about 'sensory thoughts'. I'm not comfy with 'sensory thoughts'. Sense perception is different from thought just as feeling is. I wouldn't say 'feeling thought'. I think the problem I'm having with it is that thought is one mode of perceiving, and maybe we think highly of it and so we're trying to reduce everything to some kind of thought. I'm not married to the word "thought", I kinda use it as a generic term for the ephemerial nature of all 'minding', which includes Thoughts, Feelings, and Sensory perceptions. If you take the qualia model and turn it upside down, it seems that everything converges at one qualia, and that is awareness, but thoughts, feelings, and sensory perceptions seem to have a qualia 'merge' at the level of mind. i.e. They all meet at the dame intersection so to speak, and that intersection is ephemerial mind movement. If you closely look at sensory perceptions, they may have on one level a different qualia than feelings or thoughts, but if you look a little deeper, all three appear in mind the exact same way, all ephemerial appearances that appear in awareness the same way. And, all three are also VERY closly related from a qualia standpoint, in that emotions, if looked at closely, are really experienced as a kind of sensate experience...also, its impossible to have a 'thought' of any kind that is not directly linked to a sensory perception, i.e. Word thoughts only exists becuase we have hearing function, visual thoughts or imaginings are tied to visual sensory perceptions etc....every thought is directly linked to one or more imagined sensory input.....you cannot have a thought or feeling that is not an imagined sensory perception. Thoughts and feelings, are functions of sensory perception, without sensory perception, no thoughts or feelings can be experienced. In any case, all three are the movement of mind, ephemerial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 16:00:28 GMT -5
It seems like thoughts are a high level of minding. There's a low level of minding too -- where sensations transmogrify into perception. The fact is all we have are perceptions, qualia. Sensations are just an idea really. Thoughts are a type of perception and add dimension to sensory perception. I look out at the world and it is a wash of color. Low level of minding sharpens contrast. And the labeling is when minding gets more sophisticated. All of a sudden I'm looking at a photo of a child and memories create a multidimensional experience of something that was just a glob of visual sense data. ATA is a focus on perception and low level minding eschewing the pull of interest in thoughts. There's nothing wrong with thoughts -- Farmer's moment of zen vid is testimony to that. I see ATA as a method to reset the default mode of attention. Whereas it might be set to thoughts/thinking, it can be reset to what is (perception with low level minding). Yes, that's how I see it too. We can call it all mind if we want to define mind as including all types of perception, but thought is already a bifurcation of perception, as is the idea of sense perception and feeling. There is just a field of perception that is inclusive of all these forms of perceiving. In our nightly dreams, all those forms are active, and yet there are no sense organs sending data from some outside world. Sense organs are also part of this field of perception and are not the cause of perception. Same goes for 'brain' and 'body'. What becomes important is to see what forms of perceiving result in suffering, and how that happens, and if anything can be done about it. Strictly speaking, the umbrella concept of 'body' is just a particular set of perceptions and thoughts. The set of visual perception and thoughts that see 'a bowl and fork' is not categorically different than the set of perception and thought that say 'body.' There is just the abstraction of categories separating all these things out. So sense organs are just another category based in thought as well. At night, in deep sleep, -- itself a concept, to me -- no perceptions are generated. I take it as a given that this is because of the absence of a key perception ingredient: consciousness. The perplexing thing to me is the a not insignificant number of claimants who I take at their word testify to the fact of being aware of deep sleep. It suggests either that what they call deep sleep is not the same as what I'm talking about -- perhaps they retain some consciousness, for example. Or maybe there is something else that veils the perception of deep sleep in my experience. Or perhaps consciousness is not necessary to be aware. Awareness itself, absent consciousness, can inform memory that can be drawn on to report being aware of deep sleep. I don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 16:04:29 GMT -5
Its almost like, as children, we are a lobe of awareness dipped in a sensory field, and in relation to that sensory field a collective of movements that forms a mind emerges, and every movement of that mind is inherently a relative to that sensory field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 16:55:15 GMT -5
Just like the way you have used quite individual phrases to explain your understanding here, or as Rupert Spira used the words to explain his - the way that words are used, simply assists the user in their understanding of a concept. It is the explanation of how a person is using that concept as a tool in life, that demonstrates whether it is useful or not. So, to those who have offered different perspectives of how they conceptualise perception, I would ask for clarification as to how that model is used practically. Well if you mean practical in the sense of a tool in life, I'm not really sure. As Enigma notes, the point is to take aim at suffering. I might say alienation. Some might not think that is a practical consideration but I do. If you mean practical in the sense of paying the bills or changing a flat tire, I'm pretty certain conceptual understandings of perception, etc are impractical unless you make a living as a philosopher. I mean practical as in the bold type. I tend to use generic terms such as issues or obstacles, whether that's suffering, alienation or something else that a person relates to. It is only ever how the conception of the mind serves you. And if it serves you, then that is what makes the conception 'right' in that moment in time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 17:06:51 GMT -5
Well if you mean practical in the sense of a tool in life, I'm not really sure. As Enigma notes, the point is to take aim at suffering. I might say alienation. Some might not think that is a practical consideration but I do. If you mean practical in the sense of paying the bills or changing a flat tire, I'm pretty certain conceptual understandings of perception, etc are impractical unless you make a living as a philosopher. I mean practical as in the bold type. I tend to use generic terms such as issues or obstacles, whether that's suffering, alienation or something else that a person relates to. It is only ever how the conception of the mind serves you. And if it serves you, then that is what makes the conception 'right' in that moment in time. Well I don't have much to offer on how these conceptions help or hinder suffering, alienation, or obstacles. At this point I'm sort of taking on faith that methods like ATA and mindfulness help reset the attention default to what is, and not just thinking as usual. When bound by a text based medium such as this forum, understanding and articulating concepts seems to be what's happening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2013 11:22:10 GMT -5
I mean practical as in the bold type. I tend to use generic terms such as issues or obstacles, whether that's suffering, alienation or something else that a person relates to. It is only ever how the conception of the mind serves you. And if it serves you, then that is what makes the conception 'right' in that moment in time. Well I don't have much to offer on how these conceptions help or hinder suffering, alienation, or obstacles. At this point I'm sort of taking on faith that methods like ATA and mindfulness help reset the attention default to what is, and not just thinking as usual. When bound by a text based medium such as this forum, understanding and articulating concepts seems to be what's happening. I hope that more is happening for people here than conceptual discussion, but you may be right. Finding your own way sometimes requires you to have faith and try out the different methods being talked about... but it's the questioning of whether those methods are useful, or remain useful after the initial introduction, that prevents them sticking after their usefulness is surpassed. We have a funny guy in the UK called Jeremy Clarkson - he is a presenter on 'Top Gear'...and his answer to everything is to hit it hard. Sometimes people bash away with an idea that worked well in the past, but is the wrong tool for the present situation. What I call wisdom, is choosing the right tool for the job... one day that may be ATA, the next it may be exploring the memories of yesteryear.
|
|