|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 18, 2010 17:28:58 GMT -5
E...so the the realization that what looks through my eyes is what is looking through yours is what "it's" all about?  ...no pun intended! Peanut: E. can answer this, but my response would be "not exactly." That sounds a bit secondary to me. The primary realization is "Oh! I am THIS (rather than who or what I thought I was)." |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 18, 2010 20:48:27 GMT -5
Question said: I said "Yeah, it is." Mind doesn't like it when things slow down because mind is the movement itself. The next step beyond boredom is existential terror, which is why solitary confinement is a form of torture, but this is only because one is looking through the telescope of mind and the lens cap is on. (hehe) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 18, 2010 21:08:13 GMT -5
E...so the the realization that what looks through my eyes is what is looking through yours is what "it's" all about? ...no pun intended! Nice to see ya, Peanut. Well, yeah, though the approach can be problematic depending on what all that might imply to you. If the Prince is looking through the eyes of all the frogs and imagining it's a Prince, there's still a problem. Hehe. You aren't even the 'one' looking, but the looking itself, and some of the things seen are a bunch of frogs.  |
|
|
|
Post by question on Nov 19, 2010 8:29:54 GMT -5
Yeah, it is. The silence isn't just a godforsaken desert, of course, and so we can ask why it seems that way. It looks that way as you look through mind, so it seems like mind is looking at a desert. The Prince is imagining it's a frog and so it's looking for it's Lilly pad because that's what frogs do. The Stillness is looking for some movement in itself and it's not happening. You're not looking at or for yourself, you're looking FROM yourself. Stillness is what is looking. Ok, I think that's it for now. Thank you, it's been very helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by peanut on Nov 19, 2010 20:07:57 GMT -5
Thank you E and ZD...not surprising my use of language is not quite clear once again....yes yes the looking itself. i wish i could explain better...ok..it occurred this summer that there wasn't a Peanut looking/seeing but rather just seeing and this thing that sees is the same in all of us. Is that clearer?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 19, 2010 23:40:52 GMT -5
Thank you E and ZD...not surprising my use of language is not quite clear once again....yes yes the looking itself. i wish i could explain better...ok..it occurred this summer that there wasn't a Peanut looking/seeing but rather just seeing and this thing that sees is the same in all of us. Is that clearer? I'm guessing that Zen and I are having the same trouble with the wording, and I don't want to pick nits. It's correct, but what I hear is "this thing that sees" is seeing through me and you. If that's what it really looks like, then you've positioned yourself in the object of your own seeing. Do you see the trouble I'm having with it? |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Nov 20, 2010 15:03:18 GMT -5
e.- i must tell you that i like that last post. works for me.
robert
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 20, 2010 18:55:02 GMT -5
That's correct. If we say, "I am that which sees," or "I am that which sees out of everyone's eyes," or "I am oneness," or "There is only oneness," or "God is all there is," all of these statements are pointing to the truth, but all of them fall short because we're using words to evoke concepts about something that is beyond the reach of concepts. As long as we realize the limitations of language in this regard, then we can toss around these loose and slippery little words without getting attached to them.
If we look at the world in silence, for example, we see the truth, but it is impossible to imagine what we are seeing, much less capture what we are seeing in words. We can only imagine a simulation of the truth (a meta-reality) because everything that we imagine is imaginary. The truth is always dancing beyond the reach of mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Nov 20, 2010 21:20:19 GMT -5
Really nice!
|
|
|
|
Post by peanut on Nov 21, 2010 7:05:29 GMT -5
E and Z and Robert...yes...thank you see the trouble ..no i don't mean that there is a me or you ...that is an illusion. Truth is definitely dancing beyond any words "i" have! So perhaps this is better and keep after me.... this summer there was no Peanut seeing/looking, only looking..there is only That. Whatever That is.
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Nov 21, 2010 10:34:23 GMT -5
peanut's question: I like Paul Hedderman's distinction of "looking" and "seeing". Looking happens out of something, it is directed at something as in "I'm looking at ..." Seeing in that sense doesn't seem to have a content or context. Though I don't think that the looking/seeing distinction directly relates to the intersubjectivity problem you were initially inquiring about. I suspect nowadays that the intersubjectivity problem is redundant in this context anyways, an unverifiable/unfalsifiable esoteric claim if you will, one that brings up more problems than it solves. Well at least for me I don't see how it can be productive. In other words, the intersubjectivity question isn't asked because it's so important to have a tidy cosmology to operate with. Deep down I don't really care about the cosmology in the first place and secondly the cosmology is never ever going to be tidy, it is and probably always will remain messy. What matters more is what matters to me truly, and at that point I don't even care about its ontological status.
|
|
|
|
Post by peanut on Nov 21, 2010 18:39:48 GMT -5
Thank you Question. Yes i understand and there is a difference between seeing and looking ...good point but not related as you say. Being here on this forum "i" would like to communicate clearly and it is amazing to me how challenging it is...btw...really like that word ontological :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 21, 2010 20:11:45 GMT -5
peanut's question: I like Paul Hedderman's distinction of "looking" and "seeing". Looking happens out of something, it is directed at something as in "I'm looking at ..." Seeing in that sense doesn't seem to have a content or context. It's funny cause the 'seeing' isn't a seeing of something (as you suggest) but a falling away of something. The space' that one is, is seemingly constricted by the belief 'I am this or that'. The 'space' that is always present becomes boundaried, segmented and limited by ideas, and so it appears to be hidden but space is never hidden in any way, only compartmentalized. Of course, no looking from mind could ever expand that space that was never constricted in the first place but only seems so through mind's looking at (imagining) boundaries. So this is all of it. Oneness is the falling away of the idea of separateness. Peace is the falling away of imagined suffering. Freedom is the falling away of the imaginary walls of the prison. Such spaciousness, such Grace in this simplicity. This is why there are no words. It's too simple for words. It was here before the words came to cast their shadow. |
|
|
|
Post by peanut on Nov 22, 2010 7:26:33 GMT -5
peanut's question: I like Paul Hedderman's distinction of "looking" and "seeing". Looking happens out of something, it is directed at something as in "I'm looking at ..." Seeing in that sense doesn't seem to have a content or context. It's funny cause the 'seeing' isn't a seeing of something (as you suggest) but a falling away of something. The space' that one is, is seemingly constricted by the belief 'I am this or that'. The 'space' that is always present becomes boundaried, segmented and limited by ideas, and so it appears to be hidden but space is never hidden in any way, only compartmentalized. Of course, no looking from mind could ever expand that space that was never constricted in the first place but only seems so through mind's looking at (imagining) boundaries. So this is all of it. Oneness is the falling away of the idea of separateness. Peace is the falling away of imagined suffering. Freedom is the falling away of the imaginary walls of the prison. Such spaciousness, such Grace in this simplicity. This is why there are no words. It's too simple for words. It was here before the words came to cast their shadow. Thank you E...very clear. So yes very simple yet quite profound like i wrote to ZD this summer. There was a huge shift. Realizing Peanut is empty like everything else. i was trying so hard to say what can't be said in words. Not very proficient at pointing! There is this feeling when i look at someone else of oneness and i feel it through the eyes. |
|
...no pun intended!
