Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 13:27:08 GMT -5
In mustering the whole body and mind and seeing forms,
in mustering the whole body and mind and hearing sounds,
they are intimately perceived; but it is not like the reflection
in a mirror, nor like the moon in water, When one side
is realized, the other side is dark. (pg 31) If you see a mouse scurry across your kitchen floor one night it's a mistake not to think that it took all of creation to contrive the harried and startled *squeak!* that you hear. That sound is inseparable from all of time all of space, and any and all of the objects, past present and future that appear to you. It sure seems like the squeak isn't Beethoven's 9th, and it sure seems like the next State of the Union speech has no relation to the squeak, and that the squeak can be ignored and neglected and dismissed in terms of what the President will have to say. The operative word here is "seems". There's seeing and then there is seeing. The one that see's a mouse is asleep, while the one that see's herself is awake. One seeing will net the mouse a swipe with a broom, while the other will net it some cheese. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 14:45:35 GMT -5
Enigma and I kinda expanded the definition of mind recently, if you missed it, then your question maybe makes sense. Yes I noticed that. You and Enigma like to expand thinking and conceptualization, while I like to collapse it. Haha...then you are just tricking us? lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 14:47:14 GMT -5
If you see a mouse scurry across your kitchen floor one night it's a mistake not to think that it took all of creation to contrive the harried and startled *squeak!* that you hear. That sound is inseparable from all of time all of space, and any and all of the objects, past present and future that appear to you. It sure seems like the squeak isn't Beethoven's 9th, and it sure seems like the next State of the Union speech has no relation to the squeak, and that the squeak can be ignored and neglected and dismissed in terms of what the President will have to say. The operative word here is "seems". There's seeing and then there is seeing. The one that see's a mouse is asleep, while the one that see's herself is awake. One seeing will net the mouse a swipe with a broom, while the other will net it some cheese. Is that an example of you liking to collapse conceptualization  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 14:50:12 GMT -5
Sensory perceptions being not significantly different types of appearances than any other kind of thought is not a supposition for me though. Very simply, sensory "perceptions" are distinguishable from "perceptions" that aren't sensory "perceptions". You are looking at a rope and seeing a snake there. Keep walking, and eventually you may figure out that there is no water on the horizon with that assumption ;-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 14:53:12 GMT -5
Haha...the fly in that soup, is that upon actual investigation, everything that you perceive as going on 'out there', is really only going on 'in here' so to speak...and yet, oddly, we can directly mutually experience the appearances that only appear in our mind with others...which means that whats happening 'in here' is also happening 'out there'...and ALL OF IT, all appearances, appear the same way in each of us, as what we call a 'thought'. So pick your poison if you will, but 'in here' and 'out there' both happen the same way...in your mind. That there is no distinction between "out there" and "in here" doesn't have an explanation. Replacing objectivity with subjectivity ("it's all mind"), is just a belief swap, and it doesn't get rid of the problem of objectivity, it just turns it inside out. True, but: A). I don't have a problem with objectivity to solve. and: B). Turning something inside out so you can see it better is a valid method of seeing through an illusion like 'the problem of objectivity'. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 21, 2014 14:55:04 GMT -5
The simplest explanation for coordinated experience between others is that there is an external world. It's simpler to assume there is a red light out there stopping traffic one way to allow the traffic moving the other way to pass without accident, than to assume there is some unified mind that it's all happening. It's easier to assume that laughter is really out there in the real world typing on a computer connected to the internet, and likewise, empty, enigma, rupa and everybody else. Our representations are quite accurate concerning what's out there. sdp Perhaps there's no need to take a position on it one way or another? Most of the teachers who suggest there's no justification for an "out there" still seem to function pretty well "as if" there was an "out there." Why is that? Are they just contradicting themselves? That's a koan for ya. Well put. sdp |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 15:05:20 GMT -5
Haha...the fly in that soup, is that upon actual investigation, everything that you perceive as going on 'out there', is really only going on 'in here' so to speak...and yet, oddly, we can directly mutually experience the appearances that only appear in our mind with others...which means that whats happening 'in here' is also happening 'out there'...and ALL OF IT, all appearances, appear the same way in each of us, as what we call a 'thought'. So pick your poison if you will, but 'in here' and 'out there' both happen the same way...in your mind. That there is no distinction between "out there" and "in here" doesn't have an explanation. Replacing objectivity with subjectivity ("it's all mind"), is just a belief swap, and it doesn't get rid of the problem of objectivity, it just turns it inside out. Sutra 100 of the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra: "The appreciation of objects and subjects is the same in an enlightened person as it is in an un-enlightened person, the former has one greatness, (s)he remains in the subjective mood...not lost in things." |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 21, 2014 15:11:22 GMT -5
I thought we were talking about awareness of the body. Why are you talking about millions of perceptions and unified experience? You are aware of your body. Arms, legs, head, that sort of thing. In this moment, are you aware of all your body parts at once? Of course not. If you are experiencing your head(sensation) then you are not experiencing your feet(sensation). You never actually experience a 'body', just sensations. That was the whole point of sdp's koan. 'What are you not experiencing the non-absence of'? You are not experiencing a body, even though you believe you are a body. Well.......no........that's not accurate. Partially, I wrote that it's not that you (anyone) never experience (the) ____ (body), but the shift from non-experiencing ____ (the body) to experiencing ____ (the body) is illusive. When you are not-experiencing the (non)absence of ____ (the body), you don't know that you are not experiencing it. I told mamza when he was working, there is another thread about absence, it is correct that one can never experience the absence of the self. But here is this which is always present that it's possible not to experience. sdp |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 15:29:38 GMT -5
Don't ask me pal. Those were your words about sensory perception as undifferentiated from thought in mind: Backpedal a bit faster perhaps. btw, the only straw man in this conversation so far was yours: Where, exactly, did I write anything of the sort?  Dude, this speaks for itself. It's tempting to replace the idea of a shared objective physical reality with this: ... but "unified mind" in which subjective physicality appears is just another theory, another framework, another story about your experience. And it's bullsh!t. There is no theory, no explanation, no model, that reconciles the commonality of our experience. Not one that doesn't resort to mysticism and speculation anyway. You're embarrassing yourself. You used that "lazy turn of phrase" at least 5 times in the dialog: === (** yaaaaawwwwwwnnnn **) Dude, collect your thoughts and get them straight. First admit that you're daydreaming about a flawed model. Within that context, the idea of mind as movement can be interesting and useful, but not if you take the model so seriously that you forget that it's just a play of ideas. When you don't differentiate between the senses and what's derived from them then it makes sense to start speaking in terms of information. In order to keep "It's all mind" (no capital 'M', mind you) from devolving into a speewitchual thumb-sucking fest it's important to keep things rational, and that means that what we're either saying "it's all information" or we're drawing pictures of angels, demons and unicorns and might even entertain the self-delusion that we're some sort of creator or savior. No, it's not a straw man, because I didn't put those words about "it's all one Mind" in your mouth, you wrote them. You want to model the commonality of experience. That's fine. I say it can't be done without resorting to mythology, or, at the very least, speculation. This debate perfectly illustrates my frustration with mystical, unitive ideas of some absolute singular mind. It's not all one I tell ya! Many folks cling to a conceptual Oneness that is not an actual realization for them...the former is 'mystical', the latter is just whats happening with their experience. As an aside, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, meaning, Oneness (the experience not the conceptualization) does not preclude differentiation. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 21, 2014 15:31:13 GMT -5
That there is no distinction between "out there" and "in here" doesn't have an explanation. Replacing objectivity with subjectivity ("it's all mind"), is just a belief swap, and it doesn't get rid of the problem of objectivity, it just turns it inside out. Sutra 100 of the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra: "The appreciation of objects and subjects is the same in an enlightened person as it is in an un-enlightened person, the former has one greatness, (s)he remains in the subjective mood...not lost in things." This contradicts everything you have written. It backs up the quotes from the Hakuun Yasutani book. It is saying that the enlightened person appreciates (considers real) both objects and subjects, (the subjective realm and the objective realm, genjo, the phenomenal world (form), koan, true Buddha-dharma, (emptiness). Your view would be, form is emptiness and emptiness is emptiness. sdp |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 15:59:57 GMT -5
This debate perfectly illustrates my frustration with mystical, unitive ideas of some absolute singular mind. It's not all one I tell ya! Many folks cling to a conceptual Oneness that is not an actual realization for them...the former is 'mystical', the latter is just whats happening with their experience. As an aside, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, meaning, Oneness (the experience not the conceptualization) does not preclude differentiation. I think thats where I have erred, trying to conceptualize oneness. I realized, firstly, that the concept of it did not match my experience of life, and secondly I realized that having a mere intellectualized oneness was just another imagining rather than a concrete experience. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2014 16:01:00 GMT -5
Very simply, sensory "perceptions" are distinguishable from "perceptions" that aren't sensory "perceptions". You are looking at a rope and seeing a snake there. Well Steve, I'm not the one that raised the distinction in the thread, you did that here, all I've done in what you're replying to is to make it as lightweight as possible. So if there's a mirage here, it's not mine, it's yours. Keep walking, and eventually you may figure out that there is no water on the horizon with that assumption ;-) Straight up: you've got nothing to teach me on this subject. More that that, from what I can tell, there aren't many reading this who don't have a solid reference for what you're writing about. In addition, the way that you've written about it suggests that you are both quite attached to a particular conceptual structure and also consider yourself quite special for what you think you understand based on it. The two are related in that your delusion that you've got something that you've got to illuminate for others on the matter seems to be feeding on itself here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 16:08:20 GMT -5
Many folks cling to a conceptual Oneness that is not an actual realization for them...the former is 'mystical', the latter is just whats happening with their experience. As an aside, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, meaning, Oneness (the experience not the conceptualization) does not preclude differentiation. I think thats where I have erred, trying to conceptualize oneness. I realized, firstly, that the concept of it did not match my experience of life, and secondly I realized that having a mere intellectualized oneness was just another imagining rather than a concrete experience. In this age of oh so available information, where folks writings and talks are so available, its become common for folks to 'read the guru's experience' and accept their truth as right and credible, and adopt it intellectually/conceptually...all the while still seeing the snake as the rope, so there is a 'riff' between what is accepted intellectually and what is experienced... This is why no amount of study will replace some type of frequent meditation practice...frequent meditation turns on the light of clarity, and reveals the snake to be a rope so to speak, in a way that the intellect alone can never do. You can sit in a dark room imagining what the painting on the wall looks like, and listening to vivid descriptions of it for years, but this will not replace turning on the light and having a good look. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 21, 2014 17:29:58 GMT -5
I'd be interested in hearing from those people. sdp Well, me for one.  You were hinting at it pretty hard there. My 2 cents are that it doesn't have much to do with ATA specifically, as it does with attention in general. You could be deep in thought and lose sense of the body, or focused on a conversation, or driving. "The body" itself is just an aggregation of sensations, along with ideas about it. Anyway, I didn't meant to sound hateful. I found this thread highly entertaining. "The body" didn't come to my mind because the body is an object within my field of perception. My response to "where are you?" Would be 'perceiving' as my "location" is more about what state exists than in what subregion of the perceptive field do I locate myself? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 21, 2014 17:38:52 GMT -5
Experience can be reduced in the abstract to a representation of information and perspective is inherently unique and limited.  get over it! I don't understand your comment. Everything you sense is a recreation in the brain, a representation. You don't experience the world directly. sdp Your statement here is material reductionism. |
|
You were hinting at it pretty hard there. My 2 cents are that it doesn't have much to do with ATA specifically, as it does with attention in general. You could be deep in thought and lose sense of the body, or focused on a conversation, or driving. "The body" itself is just an aggregation of sensations, along with ideas about it. 
get over it!