|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 13:46:46 GMT -5
It can be seen that the seer and the seen co-arise. It could also be seen that seer and seen are one. It can actually also be seen that there is only seeing. But what I assume you are talking about is a prior eternal unchanging seer, which is a useful realization but its also one to be seen through (as they all are). There's a difference in word usage. When you say "seen" here you don't literally mean sense-perception (the lights are on and an experience is occurring). You are talking about concepts of seeing and not seeing itself. You are talking about ways of thinking about seeing, conclusions about seeing. And then when you're saying that the realization is one to be "seen through" you don't mean experiential sight, you mean "seen through" non-attachment to a conclusion. At what point do you actually engage consciousness itself instead of your thinking about consciousness for your answers? If you close your eyes and open them again, the seeing (experience happening) persists despite the content falling away or coming back. Does that not put the seeing on a more persistent (more fundamental) level than what is seen? Can you ever answer the question truthfully (honestly) "Is there an experience happening right now?" with a no? I could truthfully answer with an 'I dont know'. I get what 'seeing' you are talking about, but its fundamental nature is a) a 'realization' and b) speculation. Seeing through realizations is the seeing that anything seen (and that includes both seeing itself and a 'seer', either temporary or prior) is empty/subjective, and may or may not be true (or false). Right now I will offer a pointer and say that what is left after this realization is a spaceless space of infinite potential. Or _____ But both of these pointers are misleading. There is an assumption there that I am basically engaged more in minding than no-minding or truthing, and I see why you would think so. But as I said to Beingist, I don't experience myself as prior to or apart from mind, and those that do, are likely to see me as 'minding'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 13:48:30 GMT -5
Greetings.. Then why would I Desire Clarity if I already had Clarity? Precisely.. you didn't really ponder the relationship, did you? If you desire clarity, then get clarity... what happens to the desire? Be well.. Ahh, for a minute there I thought you were going to tell me that I'm already Clarity and that I can't really get what I am...hehe So clarity for you is an achievement?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 3, 2013 13:50:44 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Precisely.. you didn't really ponder the relationship, did you? If you desire clarity, then get clarity... what happens to the desire? Be well.. Ahh, for a minute there I thought you were going to tell me that I'm already Clarity and that I can't really get what I am...hehe So clarity for you is an achievement? No, it's clarity.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 13:55:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. Ahh, for a minute there I thought you were going to tell me that I'm already Clarity and that I can't really get what I am...hehe So clarity for you is an achievement? No, it's clarity.. Be well.. Is that like a realization that Enigma was talking about? IOW It's not an idea, thing, or an experience?...
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 14:29:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. There's a difference in word usage. When you say "seen" here you don't literally mean sense-perception (the lights are on and an experience is occurring). You are talking about concepts of seeing and not seeing itself. You are talking about ways of thinking about seeing, conclusions about seeing. And then when you're saying that the realization is one to be "seen through" you don't mean experiential sight, you mean "seen through" non-attachment to a conclusion. At what point do you actually engage consciousness itself instead of your thinking about consciousness for your answers? If you close your eyes and open them again, the seeing (experience happening) persists despite the content falling away or coming back. Does that not put the seeing on a more persistent (more fundamental) level than what is seen? Can you ever answer the question truthfully (honestly) "Is there an experience happening right now?" with a no? You're way over-baking those cookies.. and, you've added too much 'thinking' to the recipe.. can you just 'look'? Be well.. The bolded is what I saw. Do you see something different when you "just look"?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 3, 2013 14:36:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. You're way over-baking those cookies.. and, you've added too much 'thinking' to the recipe.. can you just 'look'? Be well.. The bolded is what I saw. Do you see something different when you "just look"? I'm seeing.. either the inside of my eyelids/mental-imagery or whatever is revealed when the eyelids aren't covering the eyes.. why do you want to complicate simplicity? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 3, 2013 14:37:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. No, it's clarity.. Be well.. Is that like a realization that Enigma was talking about? IOW It's not an idea, thing, or an experience?... It's just clarity.. unobstructed sensing.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 14:58:19 GMT -5
There's a difference in word usage. When you say "seen" here you don't literally mean sense-perception (the lights are on and an experience is occurring). You are talking about concepts of seeing and not seeing itself. You are talking about ways of thinking about seeing, conclusions about seeing. And then when you're saying that the realization is one to be "seen through" you don't mean experiential sight, you mean "seen through" non-attachment to a conclusion. At what point do you actually engage consciousness itself instead of your thinking about consciousness for your answers? If you close your eyes and open them again, the seeing (experience happening) persists despite the content falling away or coming back. Does that not put the seeing on a more persistent (more fundamental) level than what is seen? Can you ever answer the question truthfully (honestly) "Is there an experience happening right now?" with a no? I could truthfully answer with an 'I dont know'. I get what 'seeing' you are talking about, but its fundamental nature is a) a 'realization' and b) speculation. Seeing through realizations is the seeing that anything seen (and that includes both seeing itself and a 'seer', either temporary or prior) is empty/subjective, and may or may not be true (or false). Right now I will offer a pointer and say that what is left after this realization is a spaceless space of infinite potential. Or _____ But both of these pointers are misleading. There is an assumption there that I am basically engaged more in minding than no-minding or truthing, and I see why you would think so. But as I said to Beingist, I don't experience myself as prior to or apart from mind, and those that do, are likely to see me as 'minding'. The fundamental difference that I see is in what is it that is aware of mind? Mind ebbs and flows, reasons, builds concepts, deletes concepts, fills with content, becomes empty, collapses, implodes, dissolves... What is aware of all that? In your ontology you have mind as what is aware of mind, which calls to question of how mind can be aware of itself when it becomes empty of content or dissolves. What is aware of the absence of mind? The answer is not conceptual. The question is supposed to silence the mind so that you go look directly and see what persists. ... I experience the mind from the reference frame of the observer. I am what is aware and and the mind is an object within awareness. If you can't relate to that description, I can accept that. You're coming from a different ontology and we're having to translate between them. You seem to be saying you understand that ontology I'm putting forward. You are saying it is all mind and it is mind that is aware of mind. I'm saying mind is an object of awareness and there is that which is aware which transcends the mind. Given that we're presenting two competing ontologies, let's take the position of the undecided person. How does an undecided person decide which ontology is the right ontology? How do they decide what is true for them?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 14:59:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. The bolded is what I saw. Do you see something different when you "just look"? I'm seeing.. either the inside of my eyelids/mental-imagery or whatever is revealed when the eyelids aren't covering the eyes.. why do you want to complicate simplicity? Be well.. How am I complicating simplicity?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 3, 2013 15:34:57 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I'm seeing.. either the inside of my eyelids/mental-imagery or whatever is revealed when the eyelids aren't covering the eyes.. why do you want to complicate simplicity? Be well.. How am I complicating simplicity? Here: If someone turns out the lights, do the contents of the room fall away? You are imagining scenarios to support what you want to believe.. the content(s) are there, the conditions for 'seeing' change.. why dwell on it? What do you see with your eyes open? can you tell me what you see without inserting what you believe 'about' what you see?.. for instance, "i see an original 1968 Beatles Yellow Submarine Poster to my 'left", which is all accurately describing what i see, but.. if i say the edges are 'worn', or the colors are 'faded', those are are qualities 'about' what i see that others might disagree with, or.. "i see grey clouds" is accurate, "i see an angry grey sky", is belief 'about' what i see.. Now, with the same awareness, what do you see with your eyes closed? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 15:57:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. How am I complicating simplicity? Here: If someone turns out the lights, do the contents of the room fall away? You are imagining scenarios to support what you want to believe.. the content(s) are there, the conditions for 'seeing' change.. why dwell on it? What do you see with your eyes open? can you tell me what you see without inserting what you believe 'about' what you see?.. for instance, "i see an original 1968 Beatles Yellow Submarine Poster to my 'left", which is all accurately describing what i see, but.. if i say the edges are 'worn', or the colors are 'faded', those are are qualities 'about' what i see that others might disagree with, or.. "i see grey clouds" is accurate, "i see an angry grey sky", is belief 'about' what i see.. Now, with the same awareness, what do you see with your eyes closed? Be well.. I'm talking about phenomenal experience, not whether content falls away from the conceptual model I had of the room. I'm talking from the perspective of consciousness. Yes, the content falls away when the eyes close, so does the room, they are no longer present in the experience that is actually had. With my eyes open I see a computer, an extra monitor, a water bottle, keys, wallet, phone, mouse. With my eyes first closed I see the absence of everything, an exaggerated blackness in the visual field. As the contrast equalizes, the regions where the the monitors used to be turn slightly lighter and there is a lot of static in the visual perceptive field. All the forms that were present when my eyes were open are gone. In there place is a different set of forms. The mind connects the dots between the lighter grey/red zones and where the monitors used to be, preserving the mental model in mind of being in a room and the model of what the contents of that room are. You're either chastising my use of the term "fall away" or for focusing on the phenomenal experience as it is actually occurring instead of focusing on the mental model associated with the experience. If I were to sit with a still mind with my eyes closed long enough, the "knowledge" (thought ((mental content))) of where I was would eventually fall away and I would not know where I was because there are no visual markers to bring the thought back to mind. This has actually happened to me in deep mediation, losing the thought about where I was in the world.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 15:57:59 GMT -5
I could truthfully answer with an 'I dont know'. I get what 'seeing' you are talking about, but its fundamental nature is a) a 'realization' and b) speculation. Seeing through realizations is the seeing that anything seen (and that includes both seeing itself and a 'seer', either temporary or prior) is empty/subjective, and may or may not be true (or false). Right now I will offer a pointer and say that what is left after this realization is a spaceless space of infinite potential. Or _____ But both of these pointers are misleading. There is an assumption there that I am basically engaged more in minding than no-minding or truthing, and I see why you would think so. But as I said to Beingist, I don't experience myself as prior to or apart from mind, and those that do, are likely to see me as 'minding'. The fundamental difference that I see is in what is it that is aware of mind? Mind ebbs and flows, reasons, builds concepts, deletes concepts, fills with content, becomes empty, collapses, implodes, dissolves... What is aware of all that? In your ontology you have mind as what is aware of mind, which calls to question of how mind can be aware of itself when it becomes empty of content or dissolves. What is aware of the absence of mind? The answer is not conceptual. The question is supposed to silence the mind so that you go look directly and see what persists. ... I experience the mind from the reference frame of the observer. I am what is aware and and the mind is an object within awareness. If you can't relate to that description, I can accept that. You're coming from a different ontology and we're having to translate between them. You seem to be saying you understand that ontology I'm putting forward. You are saying it is all mind and it is mind that is aware of mind. I'm saying mind is an object of awareness and there is that which is aware which transcends the mind. Given that we're presenting two competing ontologies, let's take the position of the undecided person. How does an undecided person decide which ontology is the right ontology? How do they decide what is true for them? I do understand your ontology, and I am not saying that it necessarily is mind that is aware of mind, I am open to the possibility of 'something prior' that transcends. And I can honestly say that there was a 'realization' of something prior around the time I was exploring Tolle. But what has happened here over a period of years is that the possibility has superseded the realization itself. It has 'trumped' the realization. The realization of something prior DID facilitate a loss of attachment, but by no means all of it and there was definitely a level of identification with 'something prior' that followed the realization. It was when I began to see through 'realization' itself that another load of attachment was released, and the identification with 'something prior' that transcends was released. This was tough because whereas before 'my existence' was still experienced as grounded in 'something', now I really was experiencing my own disappearance. No more grounding of any kind. These days, I would say there are still attachments playing themselves out, but they are not abstract monkey business attachments, no identifications with awareness or whatever, the non-dual type abstractions have all been 'seen through'. So I'm not saying exactly that my ontology IS the right one, but neither is yours necessarily correct. I would say that my ontology is one that facilitates direct experience and openness. But then you would probably say the same about yours.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 3, 2013 16:02:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Here: If someone turns out the lights, do the contents of the room fall away? You are imagining scenarios to support what you want to believe.. the content(s) are there, the conditions for 'seeing' change.. why dwell on it? What do you see with your eyes open? can you tell me what you see without inserting what you believe 'about' what you see?.. for instance, "i see an original 1968 Beatles Yellow Submarine Poster to my 'left", which is all accurately describing what i see, but.. if i say the edges are 'worn', or the colors are 'faded', those are are qualities 'about' what i see that others might disagree with, or.. "i see grey clouds" is accurate, "i see an angry grey sky", is belief 'about' what i see.. Now, with the same awareness, what do you see with your eyes closed? Be well.. I'm talking about phenomenal experience, not whether content falls away from the conceptual model I had of the room. I'm talking from the perspective of consciousness. Yes, the content falls away when the eyes close, so does the room, they are no longer present in the experience that is actually had.With my eyes open I see a computer, an extra monitor, a water bottle, keys, wallet, phone, mouse. With my eyes first closed I see the absence of everything, an exaggerated blackness in the visual field. As the contrast equalizes, the regions where the the monitors used to be turn slightly lighter and there is a lot of static in the visual perceptive field. All the forms that were present when my eyes were open are gone. In there place is a different set of forms. The mind connects the dots between the lighter grey/red zones and where the monitors used to be, preserving the mental model in mind of being in a room and the model of what the contents of that room are. You're either chastising my use of the term "fall away" or for focusing on the phenomenal experience as it is actually occurring instead of focusing on the mental model associated with the experience. If I were to sit with a still mind with my eyes closed long enough, the "knowledge" (thought ((mental content))) of where I was would eventually fall away and I would not know where I was because there are no visual markers to bring the thought back to mind. This has actually happened to me in deep mediation, losing the thought about where I was in the world. So, when you close your eyes, the protection that the room offers you from the wind, rain, elements, etc.. that ceases to be a part of your experience? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 16:14:21 GMT -5
Greetings.. I'm talking about phenomenal experience, not whether content falls away from the conceptual model I had of the room. I'm talking from the perspective of consciousness. Yes, the content falls away when the eyes close, so does the room, they are no longer present in the experience that is actually had.With my eyes open I see a computer, an extra monitor, a water bottle, keys, wallet, phone, mouse. With my eyes first closed I see the absence of everything, an exaggerated blackness in the visual field. As the contrast equalizes, the regions where the the monitors used to be turn slightly lighter and there is a lot of static in the visual perceptive field. All the forms that were present when my eyes were open are gone. In there place is a different set of forms. The mind connects the dots between the lighter grey/red zones and where the monitors used to be, preserving the mental model in mind of being in a room and the model of what the contents of that room are. You're either chastising my use of the term "fall away" or for focusing on the phenomenal experience as it is actually occurring instead of focusing on the mental model associated with the experience. If I were to sit with a still mind with my eyes closed long enough, the "knowledge" (thought ((mental content))) of where I was would eventually fall away and I would not know where I was because there are no visual markers to bring the thought back to mind. This has actually happened to me in deep mediation, losing the thought about where I was in the world. So, when you close your eyes, the protection that the room offers you from the wind, rain, elements, etc.. that ceases to be a part of your experience? Be well.. What wind, rain, elements, etc? Without the experience present, those are just thoughts in the mind, which for the most part are not thought about. Despite your advise to look with a still mind, your mind is filled with the model of the world that you've accumulated through experience. Maybe its time to start looking with an EMPTY mind...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 3, 2013 16:18:07 GMT -5
To add Top. My position is one of faith, not realization. But its not a faith in something, its not even a faith in God, though I do like the word 'God'. I can't even say its a faith in 'possibility' or 'the unknown' or 'nothing' because I'm not actively placing faith. The best I can say is that its a purely empty faith. A faith that has no grounds. A faith in faith itself.
|
|