|
Post by zendancer on Jul 15, 2010 17:45:43 GMT -5
E: You wrote, "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."
Yep, that's exactly how I would state the situation.
What I call habits can also be looked at as "duration of interest." After a child has learned to tie its shoes, for example, it no longer needs to attend to that activity. The activity has been learned and stored in memory, and other, more interesting things, move to occupy the child's attention. The same sort of thing happens in every aspect of learning, and very quickly attention is drawn by the power of imagination into the mind. Attending to the actual seems boring by comparison, and attention becomes fixated on the imaginary world(s) projected by mind.
In the case of most adults, the remainder of one's life after childhood is lived with attention focused almost solely upon what is imaginary. Only if intuition makes one wonder whether "something is rotten in Denmark," does one embark on a search to find out if there is anything beyond what is imaginary--beyond the mind. Looked at in this way, the child is focused upon the actual because it is new, unknown, and interesting. After the actual is imagined to be known, it seems to lose its newness, attention shifts elsewhere, and it usually does not return. It stays solely focused on what is imaginary.
People who live in non duality know that the actual is not boring, but it is rare for others to escape imagination long enough to verify this fact. Only by attending to the actual can it be verified that what is actual is more interesting and satisfying than what is imaginary.
The suggestion to return to nature when frustrated is good advice. By shifting attention to the actual--to clouds, trees, rivers, etc--there is an immediate sense of relaxation as worries, thoughts, hopes, expectations, and judgments instantly fall away. Here, sitting on the beach and listening to the surf, or walking in the woods, or lying in the grass and looking at clouds drift overhead, self and other disappear. There is only ___________, in all its resplendent glory. Once seen, we can only marvel at how so long ago we so innocently and unconsciously traded such richness for such poverty.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jul 15, 2010 18:23:40 GMT -5
Nice one, Zendancer.
Most of us know that we relax when we see new things - this is why we like vacations "far away." And if I may suggest, staying inside the house could be as rewarding as going outside in nature. It's just that nature seems more interesting and new to someone who usually lives in a house. For someone living in the forest, going to a crowded city can be interesting for a while.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Jul 15, 2010 23:43:36 GMT -5
enigma & zendancer thank you, very clear and helpful posts.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 16, 2010 1:34:07 GMT -5
"Once seen, we can only marvel at how so long ago we so innocently and unconsciously traded such richness for such poverty."
Yeah, and while it's pretty clear why it's difficult to reverse that deal once made, it's more mysterious how that deal is made to begin with. You say unconsciously, which is true, and yet there is a motivation for making such a poor trade. The idea that one is separate and vulnerable naturally leads to fear, and fear motivates us to organize everything, put it all in the appropriate boxes and label them with our magic marker so that we know where we stand in relationship to it all. Then we know how to protect ourselves, right? HA!
|
|
|
Post by charliegee on Jul 16, 2010 13:32:35 GMT -5
yeah, what he said ...
|
|
|
Post by question on Jul 17, 2010 18:13:40 GMT -5
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. Everything happening in consciousness. Agreed. Perceiver, perceived, perception all same same. Agreed. No objectivity/subjectivity distinction. Agreed. The thing is: my eyes don't make distinctions of objective or subjective. Even if they deceive in showing an illusion, they never lie, they do what they do, they are incapable of lying. What makes distinctions is not what actually sees. My mind can try and focus all it wants, it still won't change what the eyes see. That's why I refuse the theory that what is seen, heard and felt here might is insufficient. You said: "It's not about what is perceived so much as how it is perceived." If I ask you to paint me an exact copy of a photograph, would your painting look differently from how I would paint a photgraph (let's assume that we have exactly the same skill and the same tools)? That's all I want to know right now. I know that "oneness" can't be depicted and I'm not inquiring about oneness. You said that what I physically see is totally false and I question this. Zendancer always tells us to look what is seen, heard and felt. Why would I want to do that if it's all illusion anyways?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 17, 2010 19:46:39 GMT -5
Question: I don;t think E. is saying that what we see is true or false. He is saying, as I am, that how one interprets what the eyes see is a function of mind. When we look at _________, we see _________. ___________is what is.
The mind imagines that __________is a "chair" or something else. By imagining that ______________is something distinct and/or separate from the wholeness of "what is" the mind projects a kind of mental cartoon that is substituted for the truth and is usually mistaken for the truth.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2010 21:47:01 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 "___". Everything happening in consciousness. Agreed. Perceiver, perceived, perception all same same. Agreed. No objectivity/subjectivity distinction. Agreed. The thing is: my eyes don't make distinctions of objective or subjective. Even if they deceive in showing an illusion, they never lie, they do what they do, they are incapable of lying. What makes distinctions is not what actually sees. My mind can try and focus all it wants, it still won't change what the eyes see. That's why I refuse the theory that what is seen, heard and felt here might is insufficient. It IS sufficient. What is actually seen, without the distinctions, is what is being talked about. Nobody's suggesting that what is seen with the eyes is not what it there. The challenge is to not see what is not there. No, it would be the same. What you see is not false, only what you think you see.
|
|
|
Post by question on Jul 18, 2010 5:27:41 GMT -5
Thank you. That's what I wanted to know.
|
|