|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 8, 2023 7:13:56 GMT -5
Look at the following image with a still mind (the mind of a baby who doesn't know a single word yet. And what do you see? You see one big whole image. No distinctions. Now, only after learning words does the baby begin to see distinctions and name "things" in the room. ZD is always pointing to the same thing that a wise man once said when he said "except ye become as little children" you can not see the kingdom of heaven. That you can not see the forest for the trees.  This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! Agreed. The word distinction here is pointing to an acquired habit of mentally labeling "things" to the effect of not seeing the forest for the trees. But yes, in my first conscious moment in existence at 14 months looking outside my crib, when the "light" suddenly came on, existence was one big whole, new, wonderous puzzle of colors and textures and sounds. It was one big whole that only started to divide with the learning of words and the naming of things seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled, which obviously had the effect of making me forget it was all one big whole to begin with. By Grace I would relearn that again later in life. "Except ye become as little children..." |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 8, 2023 7:18:48 GMT -5
Look at the following image with a still mind (the mind of a baby who doesn't know a single word yet. And what do you see? You see one big whole image. No distinctions. Now, only after learning words does the baby begin to see distinctions and name "things" in the room. ZD is always pointing to the same thing that a wise man once said when he said "except ye become as little children" you can not see the kingdom of heaven. That you can not see the forest for the trees. This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! You are good at explaining stuff. I think most folks here are flexible with words, and I agree that if the word 'distinction' isn't going to work as a way of talking about discernment of variation and contrast, then we need a word that does.....i.e that distinguishes between that discernment, and mental conceptual naming. Maybe the word you used there.... 'discernment'.... is a good one. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 8, 2023 7:57:42 GMT -5
This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! You are good at explaining stuff. I think most folks here are flexible with words, and I agree that if the word 'distinction' isn't going to work as a way of talking about discernment of variation and contrast, then we need a word that does.....i.e that distinguishes between that discernment, and mental conceptual naming. Maybe the word you used there.... 'discernment'.... is a good one. Yes, I think you're right. We need words to make these distinctions. There is never separation, end of story. The brain-connections-between-neurons make distinctions. Discernment already exist in the world (ouroboros continually makes this point with his tree-thwacking, a good point). But the word discernment doesn't work for me, sounds too much like brain-doing. We need a word for non-abstracting-stuff already existing in the world (distinction doesn't make the thingy we call a tree, just appear out of nowhere). Einstein once asked one of his QM friends, Do you think the moon disappears when I'm not looking at it?! Maybe we need to make up a word, like glurch. Maybe we can call it a zlitchd. A zlitchd is anything in the world, that is, previous to (ZD's) distinction. A blind man can walk into a zlitched and get knocked down. We can call that getting zlitchded. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 8, 2023 7:58:47 GMT -5
Look at the following image with a still mind (the mind of a baby who doesn't know a single word yet. And what do you see? You see one big whole image. No distinctions. Now, only after learning words does the baby begin to see distinctions and name "things" in the room. ZD is always pointing to the same thing that a wise man once said when he said "except ye become as little children" you can not see the kingdom of heaven. That you can not see the forest for the trees. This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! To be clear, even with a relatively still mind, such as in ATA-T, the experience is not of a grey-blob, and I'm pretty confident the other side aren't implying that. However, I think it's problematic to infer that the 'distinctive' colours and shapes which are perceived, (and I say even in ATA-T) are merely imagined into apparency. In terms of 'separate [inherently existing and abiding] thingness', it's certainly easier to talk about that in terms of imagination and delusion, and I think there is some agreement there. It's useful in order to point away from the CT perspective. But perceived variation and contrast, as you put it, is surely happening prior to imagination and labelling. It's that which I am calling a process of distinction, and saying that is akin to the process that is perception itself. A creative process. Which happens largely sub-consciously. At this stage I'm still not quite sure to what extent we may be merely arguing about the definition of distinction. Which I'm confident all parties would agree would be pretty futile. I suspect it's more about the application of the phrase, and the implications of a given application. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 8, 2023 8:05:27 GMT -5
This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! To be clear, even with a relatively still mind, such as in ATA-T, the experience is not of a grey-blob, and I'm pretty confident the other side aren't implying that. However, I think it's problematic to infer that the 'distinctive' colours and shapes which are perceived, (and I say even in ATA-T) are merely imagined into apparency. In terms of 'separate [inherently existing and abiding] thingness', it's certainly easier to talk about that in terms of imagination and delusion, and I think there is some agreement there. It's useful in order to point away from the CT perspective. But perceived variation and contrast, as you put it, is surely happening prior to imagination and labelling. It's that which I am calling a process of distinction, and saying that is akin to the process that is perception itself. A creative process. Which happens largely sub-consciously. At this stage I'm still not quite sure to what extent we may be merely arguing about the definition of distinction. Which I'm confident all parties would agree would be pretty futile. I suspect it's more about the application of the phrase, and the implications of a given application. I have no problem with ZD's use of the word distinction. But I think you are absolutely correct here. So, see post above, done simultaneously with yourn (  . So, I made up a word for this, a "thingy" in the world previous to (mind-made distinctions), zlitchd. A zlitchd is generic, anything in the world previous to mind's distinction. A blind guy could walk into a zlitchd and get thwacked (or zlitchded). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 8, 2023 8:38:01 GMT -5
Look at the following image with a still mind (the mind of a baby who doesn't know a single word yet. And what do you see? You see one big whole image. No distinctions. Now, only after learning words does the baby begin to see distinctions and name "things" in the room. ZD is always pointing to the same thing that a wise man once said when he said "except ye become as little children" you can not see the kingdom of heaven. That you can not see the forest for the trees. This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! I'm totally on board with that distinction about distinctions. Yes, a baby sees colors and shapes and things (no gray blob) before the concept of things has arisen, but the baby hasn't yet imagined that what it sees is divided into separate things. There's not even a sense of object constancy until later. I prefer the term "discern" over distinction at that early age. |
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jun 8, 2023 10:18:15 GMT -5
This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! You are good at explaining stuff. I think most folks here are flexible with words, and I agree that if the word 'distinction' isn't going to work as a way of talking about discernment of variation and contrast, then we need a word that does.....i.e that distinguishes between that discernment, and mental conceptual naming. Maybe the word you used there.... 'discernment'.... is a good one. Thanks Andrew. Yes, I think many of the issues around here are simply to do with how we define (and as ouroboros points out, apply) words. |
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jun 8, 2023 10:20:30 GMT -5
This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! To be clear, even with a relatively still mind, such as in ATA-T, the experience is not of a grey-blob, and I'm pretty confident the other side aren't implying that. However, I think it's problematic to infer that the 'distinctive' colours and shapes which are perceived, (and I say even in ATA-T) are merely imagined into apparency. In terms of 'separate [inherently existing and abiding] thingness', it's certainly easier to talk about that in terms of imagination and delusion, and I think there is some agreement there. It's useful in order to point away from the CT perspective. But perceived variation and contrast, as you put it, is surely happening prior to imagination and labelling. It's that which I am calling a process of distinction, and saying that is akin to the process that is perception itself. A creative process. Which happens largely sub-consciously. At this stage I'm still not quite sure to what extent we may be merely arguing about the definition of distinction. Which I'm confident all parties would agree would be pretty futile. I suspect it's more about the application of the phrase, and the implications of a given application. Yes, separation/inherent-ness can be called imagination - it’s a delusion, a mis-perception. Anybody - right now - can glimpse this and separation will (at least, momentarily) dissolve. Distinction as I describe it above is not subject to the same consideration as it’s not a product of the thinking mind. To say otherwise would be to hold that when thought dissolves, the grey blob arises. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 9, 2023 13:44:05 GMT -5
The big mystery in quantum physics is the nature of what the quantum realm is. There are lots of theories but nobody knows. The double-slit experiment is the epitome of the quantum question, it's still a mystery of what's occurring. If you are very familiar with quantum physics, you can skip to the last paragraph. I'll simplify as analogy. If you fire frozen ice particle-bullets at a screen you get haphazard pattern of bullet strikes, you've all seen a target after target practice. We can turn this into a quantum experiment. We load our gun, a revolver, with quantum bullets (the experiment has been done with various quantum thingys, including photons and electrons), spin the chamber. Now we set up a screen with one slot and a second slot you can either open or close, between the gun and the receiving-target. Shot through one slot you get a bullet pattern showing you had a particle-frozen bullet in the chamber. If you open the second slot and fire, you get a diffraction pattern on the receiving-target, no hits-lightness and heavy hits-darkness showing the bullet was a water-wave. Lightness shows wave troughs and peaks canceled each other out, darkness shows troughs and peaks overlapped doubling peaks and troughs. Now it gets complicated. Same setup. If we don't observe the two slots, we get a diffraction pattern at the receiving-target. If we put a camera-observing device at the slots, we get a bullet pattern showing a frozen particle-bullet was fired. Turn off the camera, we get a diffraction-pattern showing a water-wave bullet was fired. What does having either one or two slots open have to do with what kind of bullet was fired? It doesn't, because all the bullets are the same, there are no frozen ice bullets or water-wave bullets. The same bullets form either a bullet pattern or a diffraction light-dark pattern. Does this show our bullet can be either a wave or a particle? No. It shows our "bullet" isn't anything until we get a detection at our receiving-target. And, the pattern we get depends upon whether we observe the slots, or not. (Physicists have invented even more complicated experiments, able to "take pictures" after the "bullets" have gone through the slits. This is called delayed measurement, and it looks like we either have backwards causation or time travel. QM is truly mysterious). OK, where does ZD fit into all this? I saw it today, it took picking up a book I had set aside 2 years ago. The writer went into the many different interpretations of quantum physics. He emphasized Bohr (Copenhagen interpretation) doesn't say anything about what a quantum thingy is. We only know results from experiments. So a quantum thingy isn't anything we can describe in any way whatsoever. This not-knowing is called a superposition in quantum physics. But it hit me that ZD being adamant that there is no distinction until a mind makes a distinction is very-like this not-knowing what a quantum thingy is, until we see the results on a receiving-target, or otherwise make a measurement. I don't know what else to make of it (yet), but ZD's view is a very good analogy for QM. Yes, and it's not just an analogy; it's the actual case. If no distinctions are made, THIS remains in a state of infinite superposition, and thingness only comes into being (is brought forth into existence) when there's an observer who makes a distinction. We could say that the act of distinction is what collapses the wave function. A sage is comfortable living in a not-knowing state of mind, and this is what the phrases "non-abidance in mind" and "no-mind" are pointing to. The conventional statement that physicists make is, "the act of observation collapses the wave function," but this is NOT correct. It is NOT the act of observation that collapses the wave function; it is the act of distinction. Think about it. When a scientist looks into a cloud chamber through which "an ionized particle" has passed, what does she see? Until she makes a distinction, she sees THIS, or "what is" in what we could call "an undistinguished state" or a "stateless state." She can't even talk about what she sees until she distinguishes "tracks in the cloud chamber left by the path of an ionized particle." The same thing is true of a tree. What a tree IS remains in a state of superposition until a distinguisher (NOT an observer) separates that aspect of reality from all else via an act of mind. The problem for most physicists is that they buy into the idea that reality is composed of separate things being seen by a separate thing. Thinking that reality is composed of separate things, they began searching for the smallest thing that composes everything (every thing). Atoms were initially imagined to be the smallest things, and then atoms had to be imagined as things composed of smaller things (neutrons, protons, electrons), and then those smaller things had to be imagined as composed of yet smaller things (quarks, etc), and this process is still continuing. It's like a dog chasing it own tail. In a sense a sage goes in the opposite direction from a conventional scientist because a sage discovers that the intellect is what collapses the wave function. The sage reverses the trajectory of dividing reality into imaginary bits and pieces and puts it back together, psychologically, by refusing to imagine it divided into distinct states. Of course, the sage understands that THIS, in the form of humans, can make imaginary distinctions, so she understands the nature of distinctions without attributing the same importance to them as others. She doesn't confuse the distinctions with the underlying unity pointed to with the word "superposition." Again, not how it works. I knew the following once up a time, but, decoherence does not destroy entanglement for example. Once two paired quantum thingys are entangled, they are forever entangled. But decoherence muddies the waters so that we cannot distinguish entangled quantum properties. "What we understand to be decoherence is not actually a loss of superposition but a loss of our ability to detect it in the origional system". pg 208. The quotes below discuss decoherence. Ball says we had everything we needed to discover decoherence back to the '30's, but later it became obvious to physicists (by the '90's). Decoherence is what destroys the possibility if observing microscopic superpositions - including Schrodinger's live/dead cat. And this has nothing to do with observation in the normal sense: we don't need a conscious mind to 'look' in order to 'collapse the wave function'. All we need is for the environment to disperse the quantum coherence. This happens with extraordinary efficiency-it's probably the most efficient process known to science. And it is very clear why size matters here: there is simply more interaction with the environment, and therefore faster decoherence, for larger objects. IOW, what we previously called measurement can, at least in larger part (not completely, as we'll see), be instead called decoherence. We obtain classical uniqueness from quantum multiplicity when decoherence has taken its toll. pg 212 Decoherence is not only real but is accurately described by quantum theory. That theory, IOW, can tell us not just what happens in the quantum world but how quantum becomes classical. (IOW, through decoherence, note sdp). pg 216 From Beyond Weird by Philip Ball, 2018 |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2023 4:24:17 GMT -5
Yes, and it's not just an analogy; it's the actual case. If no distinctions are made, THIS remains in a state of infinite superposition, and thingness only comes into being (is brought forth into existence) when there's an observer who makes a distinction. We could say that the act of distinction is what collapses the wave function. A sage is comfortable living in a not-knowing state of mind, and this is what the phrases "non-abidance in mind" and "no-mind" are pointing to. The conventional statement that physicists make is, "the act of observation collapses the wave function," but this is NOT correct. It is NOT the act of observation that collapses the wave function; it is the act of distinction. Think about it. When a scientist looks into a cloud chamber through which "an ionized particle" has passed, what does she see? Until she makes a distinction, she sees THIS, or "what is" in what we could call "an undistinguished state" or a "stateless state." She can't even talk about what she sees until she distinguishes "tracks in the cloud chamber left by the path of an ionized particle." The same thing is true of a tree. What a tree IS remains in a state of superposition until a distinguisher (NOT an observer) separates that aspect of reality from all else via an act of mind. The problem for most physicists is that they buy into the idea that reality is composed of separate things being seen by a separate thing. Thinking that reality is composed of separate things, they began searching for the smallest thing that composes everything (every thing). Atoms were initially imagined to be the smallest things, and then atoms had to be imagined as things composed of smaller things (neutrons, protons, electrons), and then those smaller things had to be imagined as composed of yet smaller things (quarks, etc), and this process is still continuing. It's like a dog chasing it own tail. In a sense a sage goes in the opposite direction from a conventional scientist because a sage discovers that the intellect is what collapses the wave function. The sage reverses the trajectory of dividing reality into imaginary bits and pieces and puts it back together, psychologically, by refusing to imagine it divided into distinct states. Of course, the sage understands that THIS, in the form of humans, can make imaginary distinctions, so she understands the nature of distinctions without attributing the same importance to them as others. She doesn't confuse the distinctions with the underlying unity pointed to with the word "superposition." This isn't the way the quantum world-classical world works. That's why I said analogy. There are rocks and trees and planets and stars out there. The manifest world has been around 13.8 billion years. Mind or consciousness isn't needed to collapse the wave function. A very big problem in quantum computing is keeping the qubits in superposition until the answer is arrived at. It's a hamster wheel for the mind. They realized back in '27 that you can never prove the belief you've expressed here by physical means to a human being. Heisenberg wrote that the geiger counter would be (and I'm paraphrasing) .. THIS clicking, if noone was in the room.  All those folks, they're ghosts now, but, like .. wow. .. oh, and I almost forgot. You, are not a machine. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2023 4:33:16 GMT -5
Yes. Say you have a blind guy wandering in a forest. He gets tree-thwacked if he walks into a tree accidentally. He gets dead if he walks off a 100 ft cliff, accidentally. This has nothing to do with what's being pointed to. As E' used to say .. "the biggie context Donald Trumps the littler context" .. or, as I like to say ... "heh heh" .. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2023 4:35:30 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with what's being pointed to. So distinctions are collective? They are not individual in the moment? If someone else has made a distinction, the that affects your world? You said my OP was not an analogy, but actual. If stuff exists in our classical world, apart from abstracting them, you get thwacked. Superpositions don't thwack. IOW, I don't see how your view translates to the quantum realm. Existentially speaking, there is no quantum realm. We're just making that shit up.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2023 4:35:55 GMT -5
. Interesting distinction. What would happen if you didn’t make it? You would still get thwacked .. "heh heh good one .. heh heh" ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2023 4:39:52 GMT -5
Two of the existential questions that I thought about for more than twenty years were: 1. What is a subatomic particle, really? I wondered, "If I could shrink myself to the size of a photon, what would I see?" I was a visualizer and wanted to somehow visually grasp what's being talked about regarding the subatomic realm. 2. How could there be any difference between what we call "the macroscopic realm" and the "subatomic realm?" IOW, where was a point of transition, a boundary, that separated the world that we observe from a world than can only be inferred? After about two years of meditation, I suddenly had a realization that resolved both questions. As Niz told a seeker, "To find the truth one must go beyond the mind." The intellect imagines 10,000 things (quantum realm, classical realm, subatomic particles, trees, observers, etc), but if imagination/cognition/distinction/ideation ceases, what remains? We can point to "the living truth" with words like "THIS," but the mind cannot grasp what it IS. Images, ideas, symbols, and imaginary simulations of reality are useful for many purposes (including communication), but the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. I couldn't say, no physicist knows what's going on at the quantum level. That's why there are so many theories. Bohr said, we can't know. Nobody understands how the many (superposition-probabilities) turns into one actual occurrence. Probability is the norm in the quantum world, determinism operates in the manifest world. The human mind will likely continue to refine and progress the consensus and collective understanding of the way the Universe works for the foreseeable future. Every answer creates another set of questions. Can you imagine an end to that process? There's no reason it couldn't go on until the Universe somehow ends. Marvelous, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2023 4:45:53 GMT -5
Look at the following image with a still mind (the mind of a baby who doesn't know a single word yet. And what do you see? You see one big whole image. No distinctions. Now, only after learning words does the baby begin to see distinctions and name "things" in the room. ZD is always pointing to the same thing that a wise man once said when he said "except ye become as little children" you can not see the kingdom of heaven. That you can not see the forest for the trees. This is a fun way to introduce a glimpse of nonduality - to see the whole without division. But still a baby would see distinction - different colours, shapes etc. It would not see the equivalent of a grey mass (or hear the equivalent of white noise.) Now I agree that there would be no naming and no sense of separation, border or division - that comes later - but distinct (yet innexplicable) shapes and sounds would be present in the perceptive field.
The dualistic mind sees a collection of forms that together make up the whole. The beginner’s mind sees the whole presenting as an innexplicable riot of variation. I think the issue here may be something to do with how we think of the word distinction. I’m talking about the innate ability to discern variation and contrast without the requirement of knowing and naming. Surely no one here is suggesting that the beginner’s mind encounters only the aforementioned grey blob?! No, not me, of course not. The term "prior-to" can interest the intermediate mind if it's not used as the basis of a theory. Even the question .. "prior to, what?". I think that can be useful, a great opportunity. But only if intellect is left behind, and for some of us so conditioned to live by and through intellect, it can be a challenge. Sometimes. |
|
. So, I made up a word for this, a "thingy" in the world previous to (mind-made distinctions), zlitchd. A zlitchd is generic, anything in the world previous to mind's distinction. A blind guy could walk into a zlitchd and get thwacked (or zlitchded). 
All those folks, they're ghosts now, but, like .. wow. 