|
Post by zendancer on Jul 11, 2010 12:35:14 GMT -5
If we both look at a chair from the exact same point in a room, do you then see something entirely different from what I see? Maybe you'll say that you see something unimaginable, well what I see is also unimaginable. I can't "imagine" a chair, no matter how hard I try, I can only think of a chair, but this thought is nothing like a chair seen, touched or sat on. The style of the chair may not appeal to you. You may prefer contemporary over early American. When you sit in it, you may find it too hard, or soft, or just right. You may not like leather because you associate it with the smell, and you've developed an aversion to it from past experience. Can you prevent all these mental associations from arising and coloring your experience of the chair? Do you even know it's happening? Multiply those internal, mental, perceptual distortions by 132,546 and you start to get an idea what a typical day of experience really consists of, and it's not the experience of what is actually present. Almost everyone lives almost entirely in their thoughts and feelings ABOUT what is present, which is never present. This is how we create our own worlds, and it's complete fantasy. Enigma: That was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. Most people think they perceive what is present, but they don't. The actual is far more elusive than anyone imagines. Gurdjieff concluded that humans, due to their ability to think, become robots--automatons, and he was right. When we first learn to tie our shoes, we carefully attend the activity, but as soon as the body has learned the task, we never attend to it again. We never again look at the process or what is happening. The knowledge has become internalized and stored in our memory. When washing the dishes or driving a car, we are rarely present. Our bodies are performing a task while our minds are far away. The classic experience of driving a car for twenty miles without ever noticing the road is typical of how we spend every day. There is no one home, only ghosts in the machine. We drive in our cars on autopilot, work on autopilot, do the dishes on autopilot, walk in the woods on autopilot, and the actual is almost never glimpsed. After the habit becomes dominant, we move through the world like zombies. De Mello makes the same point in many of his writings. He has written "People live in a dream; they marry in a dream, they have children in a dream, and they die in a dream. They never see what is real." To see the world free of the mind is not easy, and the mind can't offer any assistance. The matrix analogy is not far off target. We are plugged into a simulation of reality, but who is going to yank out the plug in the back of our heads and free us? Each of us sees a unique meta-reality created by his/her own mind that acts as an overlay of the truth. Can we look at clouds without imagining what they look like? Can we look at a tree or a rock without imaging that they are things? Can we spend five minutes without imagining a "me" behind every observation? Chilton Pierce called our personal meta-reality our "cosmic egg." It is the imaginary shell, the prison, that our mind constructs that keeps us insulated and isolated from the actual. What mind can imagine a world that cannot be imagined? LOL
|
|
|
Post by question on Jul 11, 2010 13:16:18 GMT -5
If we both look at a chair from the exact same point in a room, do you then see something entirely different from what I see? Maybe you'll say that you see something unimaginable, well what I see is also unimaginable. I can't "imagine" a chair, no matter how hard I try, I can only think of a chair, but this thought is nothing like a chair seen, touched or sat on. The style of the chair may not appeal to you. You may prefer contemporary over early American. When you sit in it, you may find it too hard, or soft, or just right. You may not like leather because you associate it with the smell, and you've developed an aversion to it from past experience. Can you prevent all these mental associations from arising and coloring your experience of the chair? Do you even know it's happening? Multiply those internal, mental, perceptual distortions by 132,546 and you start to get an idea what a typical day of experience really consists of, and it's not the experience of what is actually present. Almost everyone lives almost entirely in their thoughts and feelings ABOUT what is present, which is never present. This is how we create our own worlds, and it's complete fantasy. You haven't answered my question. All these mental associations do appear, I can't prevent them. Can you? They do arise but they don't change my experience of the chair (shape, colour, texture, smell) in any significant way. Thoughts and opinions are what they are, they don't touch reality by their mere presence. You and ZD make it sound like you were and most people are subject to some kind of serious psychosis, as if their thoughts actually altered their perceived reality. From my own experience it's obvious that you give "mind" much more credit than it deserves. As far as I can see the only thing that can be affected by mind is itself only a mind-entity anyways. Isn't it a contradiction when you're trying to help an illusory mind-entity? Who exactly are you trying to help?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2010 13:20:46 GMT -5
Really good stuff, Zen. It occurs to me that the sort of focus we're talking about is what peeps are asking for; little or no nondual jargon and just what we can actually see going on in our own experience. It's not philosophy or metaphysics or nonduality or even particularly spiritual, it's just what we actually do and can actually notice right now if we care to notice. It doesn't require meditation or some woo woo mind state because what mind is doing isn't hidden from mind, it's just not of particular interest. Sometimes it makes sense to make it as simple and immediate and real as possible.
I'm often talking to folks on forums about how they misperceive what is written in the posts. I call it giraffe spotting, and it's interesting how folks respond to that pointing. The first thought is that I'm being egoic, argumentative and belligerent and wasting time when we could be talking about important spiritual concepts and spreading love-n-light throughout the world by saying nice stuff.
This creates an adversarial relationship that closes mind down and defeats the purpose for all but the rare few who are willing to notice that what was said in a post is not the same as what was heard; that parts were not really seen and words were changed in the mind and the rest was so heavily biased that it no longer resembles what was actually said at all, much less the intent behind it. Mostly, folks don't even notice that the response to their own post had little to do with what they actually said. They just respond unconsciously as though it did, and do their own giraffe spotting in response. As you talked about, this leaves the impression of a group of somnambulistic zombies, not really hearing or seeing, but just living out their own conversation in their own heads, imagining that they're communicating with somebody. Sometimes it feels a little creepy, which is my own zombie nature surfacing.
This is such a simple and obvious and immediate way of revealing our illusions, and yet there is almost no interest in looking at it, even in a conversation about illusions. Mind's ability to not see the obvious is a continuing source of amazement.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2010 13:42:13 GMT -5
The style of the chair may not appeal to you. You may prefer contemporary over early American. When you sit in it, you may find it too hard, or soft, or just right. You may not like leather because you associate it with the smell, and you've developed an aversion to it from past experience. Can you prevent all these mental associations from arising and coloring your experience of the chair? Do you even know it's happening? Multiply those internal, mental, perceptual distortions by 132,546 and you start to get an idea what a typical day of experience really consists of, and it's not the experience of what is actually present. Almost everyone lives almost entirely in their thoughts and feelings ABOUT what is present, which is never present. This is how we create our own worlds, and it's complete fantasy. I see this..... ::::Walks up to chair, kicks it, and limps away::::: I'm not suggesting that you try to prevent these mental associations from happening, just that you notice them. How can they not change your experience of the chair? Thoughts and feelings don't change what is actually present, but they DO make up your entire experience of what is present. What does your experience of a chair consist of beyond your thoughts and feelings about it? When you walk away from the chair and recall your experience, is there something in that recollection besides thoughts and feelings? Is there actually a chair in that recalled experience? I'm suggesting that this process of recalling experiences happens for most even while the chair is being perceived, and so it is not really being perceived. Your idea that somehow the reality of the chair is being experienced in spite of the thoughts and feelings you have about the chair while observing it, is similarly a misperception. You're not actually noticing what your experience of the chair consists of.
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Jul 11, 2010 13:55:01 GMT -5
enigma, zendancer,
what does the chair consist of and if you say unimaginable then question's preception of chair is just as valid as yours' because i can't begin to imagine what question's perception of chair is.
And you're assuming his perception of chair is as you imagine it to be.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 11, 2010 14:07:41 GMT -5
Question: You wrote, "To me home is safe, more importantly it's where I belong and where I know who I am. Right now I don't know, I don't where I come from, what I'm doing here, what I am."
For someone who doesn't know where he comes from, what he's doing here, what he is, where his home is, and who also claims that he wants to know these things, you seem to be remarkably argumentative with anyone who tries to explain how all of the answers to these questions can be found. Just an idle observation. More to the point:
You wrote, "All these mental associations do appear, I can't prevent them. Can you?" Yes (although "prevent" is not the word I would use), but to do so requires that one spend some time noticing the actual rather than thoughts. There has to be a willingness to leave the mind in search of truth. If we refuse to leave the mind, then the truth will remain obscured by thoughts.
You wrote, "They do arise but they don't change my experience of the chair (shape, colour, texture, smell) in any significant way." This is not true. They prevent you from seeing what the chair is. A chair is not a chair.
You wrote, "Thoughts and opinions are what they are, they don't touch reality by their mere presence." This is true, but when our attention is upon thoughts and opinions, it is not upon the actual.
You wrote, "You and ZD make it sound like you were and most people are subject to some kind of serious psychosis, as if their thoughts actually altered their perceived reality." Yes, that is exactly what we are saying.
You wrote, "From my own experience it's obvious that you give "mind" much more credit than it deserves." I don't think that is possible, but to verify whether that is true or not, you would have to become free of the mind. Only then would you have a basis for evaluating how perniciously and insidiously the mind operates as a jailkeeper.
Finally, you wrote, "Who exactly are you trying to help?" Myself. I am the only one I can help because I am the only one, and because I am hopelessly and helplessly in love with that One.
|
|
|
Post by peanut on Jul 11, 2010 14:34:56 GMT -5
Zendancer..a little aside ..you said a chair is not a chair...do you mean that chairs like everything else is empty? Because a chair is really only parts? We are seeing our thought of a chair?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2010 14:35:06 GMT -5
enigma, zendancer, what does the chair consist of and if you say unimaginable then question's preception of chair is just as valid as yours' because i can't begin to imagine what question's perception of chair is. And you're assuming his perception of chair is as you imagine it to be. I'm not imagining what he perceives. I don't know and it doesn't matter. What I DO know is that he's not aware of his ability to form images in his mind, because he said so. (Though this is so incredible that I suspect he means something different, but I have to take his word for it for now) And I know that he forms thoughts and opinions about what is present, and cannot stop them because he said so. He's not aware of the extent to which thoughts and feelings radically distort his experience of 'reality', because he said he doesn't believe they do. If he's not aware of how this process works, how can he be perceiving what is actually here behind that process?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 11, 2010 15:06:17 GMT -5
Zendancer..a little aside ..you said a chair is not a chair...do you mean that chairs like everything else is empty? Because a chair is really only parts? We are seeing our thought of a chair? Peanut: Yes, all is empty (or full, depending upon how we want to talk about it). I'm not sure what you meant by the second question about parts. There are no parts; they're empty also. Reality is not composed of things. Thingness is an idea. The actual is beyond ideation. Most people think-see "chair" rather than seeing "what is." To see the truth--the actual--we have to see what the chair IS like a baby sees it, before psychologically dividing the universe into imaginary states labelled "chair" and "not chair." A baby has distinguished neither the concept "chair" or the word "chair" that represents the concept, so what does it see? It does not even see "something" because that distinction, too, has not been made. It also doesn't see "nothing" for the same reason. What, then, does it see? Any adult can learn to see like a baby, but it requires some effort. Attention has to be shifted from thoughts to the actual until one can differentiate between the two. Helen Courtois, in her book "An Experience of Enlightenment," describes the moment when she woke up. Ironically, considering the topic of our conversation, she was looking at a chair. When I get back to the office, I'll look up the passage and post it because it is a classic case of someone who suddenly saw through the illusion of thingness.
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Jul 11, 2010 15:27:35 GMT -5
enigma, zendancer, what does the chair consist of and if you say unimaginable then question's preception of chair is just as valid as yours' because i can't begin to imagine what question's perception of chair is. And you're assuming his perception of chair is as you imagine it to be. I'm not imagining what he perceives. I don't know and it doesn't matter. What I DO know is that he's not aware of his ability to form images in his mind, because he said so. (Though this is so incredible that I suspect he means something different, but I have to take his word for it for now) And I know that he forms thoughts and opinions about what is present, and cannot stop them because he said so. He's not aware of the extent to which thoughts and feelings radically distort his experience of 'reality', because he said he doesn't believe they do. If he's not aware of how this process works, how can he be perceiving what is actually here behind that process? enigma, Until you know what Question perceives is a "chair" the rest of your argument is baseless.
|
|
|
Post by peanut on Jul 11, 2010 15:45:18 GMT -5
Zendancer..i wasn't clear and didn't develop the statement enough. What i meant was when we look for a chair can we find it in its parts? No. Please post the Courtis passage. Continuing with the non-conceptual practices. There is only now so it is silly to think that waking up tomorrow or the next day will happen. What is preventing waking up right now right here? And who is this 'i" that is thinking this? Isn't this 'i' like the chair?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2010 15:47:43 GMT -5
I'm not imagining what he perceives. I don't know and it doesn't matter. What I DO know is that he's not aware of his ability to form images in his mind, because he said so. (Though this is so incredible that I suspect he means something different, but I have to take his word for it for now) And I know that he forms thoughts and opinions about what is present, and cannot stop them because he said so. He's not aware of the extent to which thoughts and feelings radically distort his experience of 'reality', because he said he doesn't believe they do. If he's not aware of how this process works, how can he be perceiving what is actually here behind that process? enigma, Until you know what Question perceives is a "chair" the rest of your argument is baseless. What an interesting giraffe you spotted there. Hehe. Cabin wants to know how I perceive a chair, and you think I need to know how he perceives a chair. The point is not about what is perceived, but what is perceived that is NOT there. He's already told me he perceives what is not there. I'm talking about what is NOT there. I have nothing to say about what IS there.
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Jul 11, 2010 15:57:30 GMT -5
enigma,
The point is about what is being perceived by Question, which you can't imagine since you're not him.
The point is not what is not being perceived because you can't tell anybody what "that" is.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2010 16:54:00 GMT -5
I didn't say the point is about what is not being perceived. I said "what is perceived that is NOT there". There's a difference.
|
|
|
Post by cabinintheforest on Jul 11, 2010 17:37:07 GMT -5
According to George Berkeley It is impossible, therefore, that matter be something existing in itself, objective, inert, devoid of thought. When we say that a thing exists, we mean nothing more than that such a thing is perceived by us. The being of things consists in this act of perception: "Omne esse est percipi." (To BE is to be PERCEIVED.)
|
|