|
Post by Portto on Jul 13, 2010 22:54:41 GMT -5
That's a scrumptious collection of quotes from Helen's book. Thanks, ZD!
We can only consider everyday experiences as ordinary when we believe we know what they are.
|
|
|
Post by mansuit on Jul 13, 2010 23:08:37 GMT -5
[[/quote] I would say the 'me' is a bundle of concepts in the same way and through the same process that perception of the world becomes a bundle of concepts, which is not to say that the world is made of concepts or that the world is in some way caused by the bundle of concepts called 'me'.
It's not particularly nondual, which may be a good thingy right about now, but we could perhaps view the world as being formed on two levels. One is the 'actual' world that presents itself to all perceivers, and the other is made up of what we individually think and feel ABOUT that world.
The latter is the one most folks live in. The former is the same world devoid of conceptualization. Among other things, this means the ideas of here/there, perceiver/perceived, inside/outside, are not a meaningful part of the perception of this world. These are conceptual structures derived from that perception. The image in your mind is also a derivative of that perception.
As with Truth realization, nothing is added in this 'true perception' that is not already there. Much is omitted. Mind's image of the chair is not alive to mind in the same way that a picture of your lover is not alive in the way your lover is alive. You wouldn't lie next to your lover while staring at the picture, and yet it seems acceptable to sit in a chair while 'staring' at one's concept of a chair.
[/quote]
Thanks for answering my question, Enigma!
It's that delination that I was hinting at, in reference to Question's original subject, or question...not that I even recall exactly what that is at this point! My point being to recognize the erroneous assumption that is the basis for our normal perception- your "latter" explanation as described above.
When I look at "myself" with this erroneous assumption as a foundation (That what "I am" consists of my name and the rest of the story on down to the core- from the physical to the subtle) then I project that erroneous assumption onto what "I" preceive -in this case, that implacable chair. In fact, everything that is perceived is based on this erroneous assumption.
I think I am just rewording what you said above, which is good- I am grasping it.
Bear with me please, I've not talked much about this stuff and I probably don't make a whole lotta sense. But, oh well...'tis kinda fun!
'night!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 14, 2010 8:08:39 GMT -5
Mansuit: Yes, we unconsciously make these erroneous assumptions at a very early age, but recognizing them, alone, does not change the way they affect our perception. Our understanding remains intellectual/conceptual and gets added to the structure of the artificial world we already live in. I walked around for ten years telling anyone who would listen that Zen Masters lived in a different world than the rest of us, but during that entire time I got no closer to their world. LOL. To escape the dreamworld in which the ordinary adult is trapped, habits of mind must change.
At a certain point in her search for truth Helen Courtois stopped thinking and imagining and started spending long periods of time looking at the world in silence. This is what eventually burned through her illusions and ushered her into the world of the absolute.
|
|
|
Post by question on Jul 14, 2010 18:18:42 GMT -5
Motivated by Enigma's claims, I've been doing research on the "mental visualisation". I'm shocked to be honest. Of course I was aware of the term and idea behind it, I've seen the idea depicted in movies such as "Fight Club" or "I Heart Huckabees", but I always thought it was just a metaphor. It indeed appears like most people do actually SEE mind-images and can produce them at will. The degree to which this can be done seems to vary highly. Some claim to see images just like in real life, for some the images are murky, some don't see any images at all. There seem to be at least three modes of mental representation: pictorial, propositional and relational, most often mixed with each other to varying degrees. I've come across some reports that almost exactly match my experience: Representation is not pictorial but mostly relational, sometimes aided by language (a "roar" if imagining a tiger) or even slight gestures (subtle eye movement in the recollection of a landscape, subtle muscle movement in the recollection of playing football). In my case and in the reports of other people whose experience matches mine, there is no direct correlation of a mental "representation" to what is seen, heard or felt. That is indeed interesting, Question. Makes me wonder a bit why that is, and what the implications might be. My Dad told me one time, when he was in his 60's, that he's never experienced a dream, or at least remembered one. It totally floored me. Never figured out why that was either. My guess is that each brain simply works differently. The weird thing is that despite of apparently different ways of cognition I, like ZD, have no problem in cognizing complex spacial structures. And although I can't mentally "visualize", I'm very good at painting and drawing. When I see any given colour, even before I touch the paintbrush I know 90% how to mix that colour. I can paint the exact hue that I see and not just a generic idea of it. If I were to paint your portrait (not your true self, lol, just the skin on your face, eyes, nose, mouth, hair etc, simple boring portrait) you would recognize the resemblance. How would such a thing be possible if I lived exclusively in a world of thoughts? And how would you be able to acknowledge the resemblance if my and your perception are entirely different?
|
|
|
Post by loverofall on Jul 14, 2010 18:57:38 GMT -5
If we all painted a portrait of a person they would all be different depending on the individual perspective even if we had the same painting skills. I can describe a mental image of an object and you would be able to figure out what object I was describing but neither my description or your understanding would be what the object was. They would still be symbols in our imagination for ______________.
|
|
|
Post by peanut on Jul 14, 2010 18:59:40 GMT -5
Thank you Zendancer for the Courtois post!
|
|
|
Post by question on Jul 14, 2010 19:29:07 GMT -5
If we all painted a portrait of a person they would all be different depending on the individual perspective even if we had the same painting skills. I can describe a mental image of an object and you would be able to figure out what object I was describing but neither my description or your understanding would be what the object was. They would still be symbols in our imagination for ______________. Is a photograph a symbol? In case the photograph to Enigma isn't a symbol, in case its colours and shapes are to to Enigma "_______". Let's say I paint the exact replica of that photograph, one that Enigma won't be able to distinguish from the original, doesn't it follow that I equally perceive "________" and not just my imagined symbolic thought of it?
|
|
|
Post by loverofall on Jul 14, 2010 20:01:17 GMT -5
The perception difference would be constant in the original and the exact duplicate. How do you know if what you label green is actually what I see as red but label green. Since I use the label green for everything you use the label green for, you would never know that I see a different color when looking at grass or the Grinch.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 14, 2010 22:55:26 GMT -5
If we all painted a portrait of a person they would all be different depending on the individual perspective even if we had the same painting skills. I can describe a mental image of an object and you would be able to figure out what object I was describing but neither my description or your understanding would be what the object was. They would still be symbols in our imagination for ______________. Is a photograph a symbol? In case the photograph to Enigma isn't a symbol, in case its colours and shapes are to to Enigma "_______". Let's say I paint the exact replica of that photograph, one that Enigma won't be able to distinguish from the original, doesn't it follow that I equally perceive "________" and not just my imagined symbolic thought of it? What we're calling "____" isn't about colors and shapes, so it also isn't about the accuracy of renderings. It's not about what is perceived so much as how it is perceived. The assumption is generally that there is an external object consisting of colors, shapes, textures, and other qualities that can be objectively determined, accurately or not, and yet the object is not objectively present but rather subjectively formed in/as perception itself. Hencely, the variables lie not in the subjective interpretation of objectivity, but in subjectivity itself. This is necessarily very nondual malarkyish. The perception of a chair is not happening 'out there' where the chair apparently is, its happening here. The nondual way would be to say it's happening in Consciousness. Perception and creation are the same, or if you like, there is just perceiving. The perceiving and the perceived are the same. Likewise, the perceiving/perceived is not other than the perceiver arising as the perception. So, we can say perceiver, perceiving and perceived are the same, or since they are the same and the distinctions are merely conceptual, we can say there is no perceiver, perceiving or perceived, but just This, or what we're calling "___". Because of this radically subjective nature of perception, the qualities are not described in terms of color, shape and texture, but in terms of aliveness and intimacy.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Jul 15, 2010 0:44:01 GMT -5
What we're calling "____" isn't about colors and shapes, so it also isn't about the accuracy of renderings. It's not about what is perceived so much as how it is perceived. The assumption is generally that there is an external object consisting of colors, shapes, textures, and other qualities that can be objectively determined, accurately or not, and yet the object is not objectively present but rather subjectively formed in/as perception itself. Hencely, the variables lie not in the subjective interpretation of objectivity, but in subjectivity itself. This is necessarily very nondual malarkyish.
The perception of a chair is not happening 'out there' where the chair apparently is, its happening here. The nondual way would be to say it's happening in Consciousness. Perception and creation are the same, or if you like, there is just perceiving. The perceiving and the perceived are the same. Likewise, the perceiving/perceived is not other than the perceiver arising as the perception. So, we can say perceiver, perceiving and perceived are the same, or since they are the same and the distinctions are merely conceptual, we can say there is no perceiver, perceiving or perceived, but just This, or what we're calling "___".
Because of this radically subjective nature of perception, the qualities are not described in terms of color, shape and texture, but in terms of aliveness and intimacy.
[/quote] enigma this was very helpful I grasped about 98%. I have a ? when you say 'radically subjective nature of perception' would two people looking at the same object oh lets say a chair lol and they are both enlightened what do they see and is it exactly the same for both of them.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 15, 2010 1:01:38 GMT -5
"To escape the dreamworld in which the ordinary adult is trapped, habits of mind must change."
I say habits of mind are actually very weak. Patterns of thought and physical activity are relegated to the domain of unconscious programming only when there is no longer any real interest in these processes, and so the lack of interest essentially makes them irrelevant. We unconsciously program ourselves to walk because paying attention to the walking process is of no interest, and so it becomes a utility program. Patterns/ideas/beliefs/activities to which one is attached are never allowed to happen unconsciously, as mind wants full control.
We often assign habit status to some highly problematic patterns of thought and behavior that are of great interest and represent much internal conflict, and so they are not programmed habits so much as the playing out of internal conflicts, which may involve pretending that an activity is unconscious so that it can be engaged in. The example of the 'alien hand' reaching for the cheetos is a good one. Mind wants cheetos, pretends to not notice as it stuffs them in the mouth, then reacts with surprise at the 'uncontrolled' activity. Everything has gone perfectly to plan. The purpose being to satisfy a desire using the excuse of plausible deniability. Some might see it as an unconscious habit that needs to be broken, but it's really just a mind game. There are no unconscious habits that need to be broken, just internal conflict that needs to be reconciled.
So this brings us to why realizations don't lead to behavioral/perceptual changes. They do, but mind makes it more complex than it would seem. All beliefs are true/false within their own contexts, and every context has it's own content. To attempt to discern the truth of a given belief by remaining within the boundaries of that context is called thinking, and it's likely that no matter how much thought is devoted to manipulating this content, the same conclusion will be derived because no new content is introduced. Stories will be written and expanded, generally with the goal of reinforcing the original conclusion.
Realization is an expansion of awareness beyond the boundaries of that context, and as the context is transcended, the foundational assumptions used to derive the truth or falsity within that context are undermined. In the larger context resulting from the realization, the issue is not resolved but rather dissolved.
As a simple example, it may be believed that since God would not be cruel, human cruelty must be caused by humans, which implies humans are separate from what god is. This could be debated within the context of a personal God until the cows come home, and all sorts of fun stories could be written, but the truth of the matter can't be seen until the context is transcended and it can be seen that god is prior to all personal expressions and so is not personal. Then, the issue of god creating bad stuff goes away completely and becomes an irrelevant misconceptualization. If this transcending occurs, there are no habitual patterns of thought in which the idea of a personal god keeps happening until mind is trained to stop that. Rather, it is seen clearly there is no personal God and the whole issue becomes uninteresting and the thought simply doesn't arise.
However, mind is now left grasping beliefs about an impersonal god 'out there', and this context must also be transcended. (Just one example) On and on it goes until enough concepts are transcended that mind's grasping is reduced to playful story telling, and then there's the potential for attention to be turned away from mind all together and placed on that which is attending.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 15, 2010 1:17:28 GMT -5
What we're calling "____" isn't about colors and shapes, so it also isn't about the accuracy of renderings. It's not about what is perceived so much as how it is perceived. The assumption is generally that there is an external object consisting of colors, shapes, textures, and other qualities that can be objectively determined, accurately or not, and yet the object is not objectively present but rather subjectively formed in/as perception itself. Hencely, the variables lie not in the subjective interpretation of objectivity, but in subjectivity itself. This is necessarily very nondual malarkyish. The perception of a chair is not happening 'out there' where the chair apparently is, its happening here. The nondual way would be to say it's happening in Consciousness. Perception and creation are the same, or if you like, there is just perceiving. The perceiving and the perceived are the same. Likewise, the perceiving/perceived is not other than the perceiver arising as the perception. So, we can say perceiver, perceiving and perceived are the same, or since they are the same and the distinctions are merely conceptual, we can say there is no perceiver, perceiving or perceived, but just This, or what we're calling "___". Because of this radically subjective nature of perception, the qualities are not described in terms of color, shape and texture, but in terms of aliveness and intimacy. I would say that what is seen is precisely the same since that seeing itself is not a matter of conceptual interpretation. It's literally the same awareness aware of itself in that form. (Keep in mind that there are not really two people looking at an object) The conceptual descriptions filtered through the mind would, of course, differ.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jul 15, 2010 7:12:44 GMT -5
On and on it goes until enough concepts are transcended that mind's grasping is reduced to playful story telling, and then there's the potential for attention to be turned away from mind all together and placed on that which is attending. Nice insights, Enigma!
|
|
|
Post by loverofall on Jul 15, 2010 7:52:35 GMT -5
Enigma, thank you for those insights.
Seeing it as a process of losing interest explained it so well.
I had read once that a psychologist never liked to call anything subconscious because that implies it could never be conscious and his experience was eventually everything can become conscious. He liked calling those things unaware thoughts.
You have connected many dots for me on why we go into the mind and let go of watching many things we do. Little children still have that wonder.
|
|
|
Post by loverofall on Jul 15, 2010 8:04:00 GMT -5
Enigma, this explains what I have been realizing about procrastinating. Some of procrastination is fear of making a decision or not being good enough when doing your job or school work. The other side of procrastination is that the mind judges tasks as boring and a waste of time or as you say, it sees it as not interesting anymore. This explains why paying attention to the task with your senses at the subtle level brings interest back in and gets the mind out that judged the activity as boring or beneath you.
|
|