It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can there be recognition of what is - beyond any and all experiencing?

page: 11
5
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: preludefanguy
again, any being or intelligence that can be observed, inferred, understood, contemplated, is not ultimate in anyway, it is finite by way of its own mechanism of becoming, being measured, being understood, there is no total absolute being as it simply cannot exist, beings only exist within the framework of conditioned reality; and conditional reality is always changing


You description and praise of language made for a fine read.

When you make statements like the one quoted above, you are arguing that any being that can be observed cannot possibly be ultimate. I agree with you that any such observable being is necessarily conditional and therefore inherently limited.

However, does this preclude the possibility of unqualified, unlimited Being-Consciousness? Such Being is the "medium" or One in which all conditions arise. Such Being can never be observed, as there is no going outside of it to observe it - it is beyond all objectification as it is indivisible.

It is our actual condition, our awareness that is prior to all conditional states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping. This can be recognized to be the case, because unqualified being-awareness is who we are.

edit on 5/10/2015 by bb23108 because:




posted on May, 10 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet
Do you have a link to your picture you might share?



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

Sure

The Marriage of Psyche and Eros

30 x 40 inches
Acrylic on Canvas
2012


edit on 10-5-2015 by artistpoet because: add



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Better detail








posted on May, 10 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet
Quite spectacular - and very mystical and dreamlike.

Thanks!



edit on 5/10/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

yes

there is both separation and unification or non-separation

we are the branches sticking out and interweaving altogether, thick like a bundle of reeds

yet what we see after careful observation, is the evolution and transmutation of the elements, nothing inherently having lasting form, so we are the ones dancing upon its surface for a moment, and it is us who give it meaning

yet, we are not separate in anyway by other than our own ignorance which creates the objects of separation

our voices carry when we speak do they not? you get smacked on the head it hurts does it not? we perceive that pain, and in that way, know what there is to know about pain

when a matter is thoroughly investigated, upon understanding it, it is dropped as the object of the mind

we are all connected by such invisible lines, but when the self is investigated and it is dropped, and then we see the lines connecting all, the desires and aversions, pushing and pulling and creating

but it is not as fixed as we believe it to be, and in fact, we can use our minds for applied reasoning, creating less suffering for ourselves, making those lines less hot, less on fire and cooler

this is wisdom, seeing the emptiness in all particular things, yet seeing how the emptiness must have the experiencing to know the potential of what can exist, so we see the form as well and we find ourselves here, one reliant upon the other, because in ultimate reality, they both exist, and neither lay claim to existence, there is nothing to claim

one is not more important than the other, because they help define each other, there is no ultimate medium, but it is like a sacred dance of being and non-being



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108




Everything we experience occurs as a psychic event - it always involves a perception. The sensation of itching is another perception. The seeing of my hand scratching my body is another perception. The relief felt from scratching, is another perception. The sensation of the body and one's sense of the various parts comprising it and where they are located, are all perceptions.


What itches and what scratches is the body, not a perception.


How is this not obvious to you that all we ever experience are perceptions or psychic phenomena mediated by the nervous system and brain-mind, and that at best may approximate some sense of our actual reality?


Because it isn't obvious. I cannot make sense of it, literally and figuratively.


You are just not sensitive to the whole in terms of mind being beyond the physical - but if you would allow yourself to feel beyond your current fixation on mental knowledge, and consider what I am saying here, you might begin to see that just like the physical body is dependent on the environment, so too are the mental/conscious/psychic aspects of the body-mind connected to and dependent on the environment.


If mind is beyond the physical, why do you tell me to "see" and "feel" or be "sensitive" towards what you are saying? Nothing in regards to what you are speaking about can be seen, felt or sensed. You yourself are fixated on "mental knowledge", and not the actual. Since I cannot be sensitive towards your idea, cannot feel it nor see it, I can only go on your word. If you want me to think about it, or imagine it, I have; and I am unable to apply it to reality.


Why fixate on, and live on the basis of, some mental deductions that are inherently limited to the logic of the five senses, when your actual consciousness can grant you much deeper insight into your real situation here?

This requires real open exploration, not just some mental rationalism. At least consider allowing for the expansion of the very limited boundaries you are assuming about the body-mind - and find out what is really the truth, regarding your self-aware consciousness.


If I am to be honest, it is because your insight about our real situation offers me absolutely nothing to work with. I rather find that it is you limiting yourself, no expanding, but deflating, fixating on and living on the basis of some faint idea. If you would be so kind, provide me with something to explore other than "mental rationalism", and I will. The fact that I can only rely on and work with your words and definitions, and not actual occurrences in the real world, I am left with little else to be aware of, to be conscious of, and to be sensitive towards.

You speak of the senses as if they lead you astray, but they have had millions of years to evolve. If you wouldn't limit yourself to the least evolved part of you, you might get closer to that truth you speak of.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: preludefanguy
You are indicating more the nature of conditionality/duality - opposites, e.g., being and no being, emptiness and form, etc. So what is the totality? Is it not indivisible, without anything truly separate arising?



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
What itches and what scratches is the body, not a perception.

You deduce this - I understand. But your body is just what you "know" through perception - you always must perceive the body - and this holds the answer, that you are NOT the body because you can objectify it, perceive it. What you are, you cannot perceive nor objectify - similar to how you cannot look at your own eyes.

Only that which defies objectification, that which is not an object, i.e., self-aware consciousness, is who we are and this is self-evident, a priori knowledge.

We are never anything we can objectify. Just so, we cannot look at ourselves - we can only be ourselves - Awareness itself.

I asked you:

How is this not obvious to you that all we ever experience are perceptions or psychic phenomena mediated by the nervous system and brain-mind, and that at best may approximate some sense of our actual reality?



originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Because it isn't obvious. I cannot make sense of it, literally and figuratively.

Do you agree that you can experience the perception of say your hand?


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If mind is beyond the physical, why do you tell me to "see" and "feel" or be "sensitive" towards what you are saying? Nothing in regards to what you are speaking about can be seen, felt or sensed. You yourself are fixated on "mental knowledge", and not the actual. Since I cannot be sensitive towards your idea, cannot feel it nor see it, I can only go on your word. If you want me to think about it, or imagine it, I have; and I am unable to apply it to reality.

Because who you are is ultimately unlimited feeling-consciousness, but this awareness is currently limited via the mechanism of attention creating point-of-view moment to moment. This feeling is NOT the same as a bodily sensation that one may perceive when they touch something. You will only "know" this when you let yourself simply be who you are, self-aware consciousness, rather than staying constantly distracted by thought, objects, others, etc.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If I am to be honest, it is because your insight about our real situation offers me absolutely nothing to work with. I rather find that it is you limiting yourself, no expanding, but deflating, fixating on and living on the basis of some faint idea. If you would be so kind, provide me with something to explore other than "mental rationalism", and I will. The fact that I can only rely on and work with your words and definitions, and not actual occurrences in the real world, I am left with little else to be aware of, to be conscious of, and to be sensitive towards.


Find a quiet natural place outdoors if you can. Simply be aware and feel the whole event that your whole body-mind appears in. Let go of all thinking and abstracting from the environment in which you appear. Do this moment-to-moment, and keep turning your feeling-attentive awareness outward again if you get distracted by thought.

One can be aware of and feel without limit even as the whole body-mind, one's whole environment in which one is appearing and participating in. It is a totality, in which its inherent unity can be felt prior to the forms themselves, including the form of your body.

This unchanging feeling-being-awareness is our very condition and it is not separate from anything we are also perceiving with the body-mind. On this basis we feel connected with everything, including our five senses - because we actually are in unity with all appearance, just as our body-minds are completely dependent on the environment.

Again, I go into more practical details of this kind of reasoning and exercise, in the thread in my sig. In fact, I responded to a few of your posts there, but never heard back from you, so I am not sure you got back to that thread. Check it out again if you care to.

edit on 5/11/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108


You deduce this - I understand. But your body is just what you "know" through perception - you always must perceive the body - and this holds the answer, that you are NOT the body because you can objectify it, perceive it. What you are, you cannot perceive nor objectify - similar to how you cannot look at your own eyes.

Only that which defies objectification, that which is not an object, i.e., self-aware consciousness, is who we are and this is self-evident, a priori knowledge.

We are never anything we can objectify. Just so, we cannot look at ourselves - we can only be ourselves - Awareness itself.


Why can you not see your eyes if you are not the body? We can look at our hand, our arm, our legs, our feet. The reason you cannot see your eyes is because your eyes cannot face themselves, proving once again that it is your body that is conscious and aware, and not some awareness that likes to imagine that eyes are invisible. But, look in a mirror, and there they are. You can also touch them. We can look at the eyes of others, and they can look at ours. So yes you can perceive yourself and objectify yourself just like we do with others. This is because we are objects. It's self evident. So it's not that one can't objectify oneself—we do it all the time—it's just that you don't want to. That says more about you than reality.


Do you agree that you can experience the perception of say your hand?


I do not agree. I can experience my hand, not a perception of it.


Because who you are is ultimately unlimited feeling-consciousness, but this awareness is currently limited via the mechanism of attention creating point-of-view moment to moment. This feeling is NOT the same as a bodily sensation that one may perceive when they touch something. You will only "know" this when you let yourself simply be who you are, self-aware consciousness, rather than staying constantly distracted by thought, objects, others, etc.


Awareness is limited by limiting the capacities of the body. Limiting the capacity for thought, language, sensuality and reason is not "being who one is", it is going against who one is. Try it. Close your eyes and ears and walk down a sidewalk. Turn off your thoughts, don't think about objects, and try building something. We see, think, and interact with the environment because that's what we do, not because that's what we do not do. If you are distracted by your own thinking, learn how to use it, or otherwise you are only limiting yourself.



Find a quiet natural place outdoors if you can. Simply be aware and feel the whole event that your whole body-mind appears in. Let go of all thinking and abstracting from the environment in which you appear. Do this moment-to-moment, and keep turning your feeling-attentive awareness outward again if you get distracted by thought.

One can be aware of and feel without limit even as the whole body-mind, one's whole environment in which one is appearing and participating in. It is a totality, in which its inherent unity can be felt prior to the forms themselves, including the form of your body.

This unchanging feeling-being-awareness is our very condition and it is not separate from anything we are also perceiving with the body-mind. On this basis we feel connected with everything, including our five senses - because we actually are in unity with all appearance, just as our body-minds are completely dependent on the environment.


What kind of environments do you exist in that allow you to not think? What you are preaching here is not only impractical, but dangerous. Sure, sitting lotus in nature on a nice day is comforting and peaceful, but is a luxury, not anything fundamental.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

edit on 11-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Have to realize first of all-

There are a whole lot more senses than just 5 or 6

The Way is a limitless vessel;
Used by the self, it is not filled by the world;
It cannot be cut, knotted, dimmed or stilled;
Its depths are hidden, ubiquitous and eternal;
I don't know where it comes from;
It comes before nature.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Take away words and gestures and what is left pure experience/feeling ... much like how a new child experiences the world around it
We make sounds at the child pointing to objects or use the way of facial expression and gestures to convey or attribute meaning

Words are sounds ... when we read words we hear them not with our ears ... We imagine the sound in our mind of the writers voice ... or perhaps our own voice

Imagination is an aspect of thought

Thought fore runs all the senses ...

Even if we were to gaze ... seemingly empty minded ... it is only thought that gives us awareness of what our senses inform of us

Thought is our link with Reality
Not our brain ... not our eyes nor ears no hands

Without thought you are aware of nothing

Yet ... No one can locate the origin of thought within the body ... we can only view it's effect

Like the wind blowing through branches sprinkling blossom along upon the ground the cause is hidden from our senses

Before you type a response ... be sure to know that without thought it would be impossible
The idea/thought to have purchased a computer ... the thought to join ATS ... All is thought

Thought is what makes all possible ... without thought there is nothing ... you are aware of nothing
Dreams are thoughts presented by way of slumber
There is no such thing as oblivion anywhere

Yet we are not our thoughts ... ideas are presented to the the being by way of thought

So what is that Being ... it is not the brain nor body nor thought
We are all users of thought
But for sure there are many ways of thought ... but thought can be divided into two ways simply
They are either of value or non value ... They are either to be used for the benefit of the whole or self

All have a choice ...






edit on 11-5-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Why can you not see your eyes if you are not the body? We can look at our hand, our arm, our legs, our feet. The reason you cannot see your eyes is because your eyes cannot face themselves, proving once again that it is your body that is conscious and aware, and not some awareness that likes to imagine that eyes are invisible. But, look in a mirror, and there they are. You can also touch them. We can look at the eyes of others, and they can look at ours. So yes you can perceive yourself and objectify yourself just like we do with others. This is because we are objects. It's self evident. So it's not that one can't objectify oneself—we do it all the time—it's just that you don't want to. That says more about you than reality.

You cannot see your eyes because it takes the eyes to create the image, and it cannot do that of itself directly. Clearly you know this, but you want to persist in some kind of semantics, it seems. That was just a simple example to show you why you cannot look at who you are as an object.

Self-aware consciousness is the Witness of all appearance and is not separate from any of it. But it does not "see" as some kind of subject over against the object - that's what the eyes do!

The Witness consciousness need not do that to perfectly know what the eyes are - for it is already not separate from anything. Everything is its modification. This is fundamental knowledge and freedom. It is what our Awareness truly is.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I can experience my hand, not a perception of it.

Your experience is obviously an activity of the nervous system and brain-mind, which is clearly NOT the hand itself. But at least you are beginning to admit that your experience of your hand is a psychic phenomenon of input to the eyes, brain-mind processes, etc. Okay, I can go with that.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
What kind of environments do you exist in that allow you to not think? What you are preaching here is not only impractical, but dangerous. Sure, sitting lotus in nature on a nice day is comforting and peaceful, but is a luxury, not anything fundamental.

So are all environments dangerous for you?

I never said to not think - I just said "let go of all thinking and abstracting from the environment in which you appear." In other words, if the brain-mind continues to think, so be it, but just let go of your identification with the train of endless thinking, and its resultant abstraction from the environment.

Tell me, what is so fundamental about constantly thinking, by the way, that you fear its cessation as dangerous? That is very telling about your sense of reality.
edit on 5/11/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108


You cannot see your eyes because it takes the eyes to create the image, and it cannot do that of itself directly. Clearly you know this, but you want to persist in some kind of semantics, it seems. That was just a simple example to show you why you cannot look at who you are as an object.


Except eyes do not create images. They are not cameras. I have trouble with your pseudo-biology here, and it helps myself to attempt to make clear what you are trying to say, which is very difficult.

You're correct, one cannot see his own eyes directly, nor the back of his ears. Eyes are delicate and complex, and having mammalian eyes all over our body would simply not work. But you are able to directly feel yourself as an object, since the skin, durable enough to withstand the elements, but sensitive enough to feel and sense, wraps around the entirety of it. One can submerge himself in water and know when the entirety of his object, the entire surface of it, is in direct contact with the water. Or simply jump; what you are feeling is the entirety of you as an object leaving the ground and coming back down again.



Self-aware consciousness is the Witness of all appearance and is not separate from any of it. But it does not "see" as some kind of subject over against the object - that's what the eyes do!

The Witness consciousness need not do that to perfectly know what the eyes are - for it is already not separate from anything. Everything is its modification. This is fundamental knowledge and freedom. It is what our Awareness truly is.


No it isn't. You're completely wrong, mistaken, and being dogmatic about it. Any single argument for your position would suffice, but there has yet to be one. It is not fundamental knowledge, it is not freedom, but dogma and presumption.



Your experience is obviously an activity of the nervous system and brain-mind, which is clearly NOT the hand itself. But at least you are beginning to admit that your experience of your hand is a psychic phenomenon of input to the eyes, brain-mind processes, etc. Okay, I can go with that.


The hand, the nervous system, the brain, the eyes, are not psychic phenomenon. They are concrete, physical phenomenon, and parts of bodies. Your "psychic phenomenon" are not psychic at all, and it is rather you who are beginning to admit this fact.


I never said to not think - I just said "let go of all thinking and abstracting from the environment in which you appear." In other words, if the brain-mind continues to think, so be it, but just let go of your identification with the train of endless thinking, and its resultant abstraction from the environment.


I explicitely stated I identify as a body, not a train of endless thinking. You're wrong here. It is obvious you identify with your own abstractions, for you cannot show me anything you identify with but your words.



Tell me, what is so fundamental about constantly thinking, by the way, that you fear its cessation as dangerous? That is very telling about your sense of reality.


I'm not sure what reality you live in, but try crossing a busy intersection without thinking. Try navigating a blizzard while not thinking.

One does not stengthen himself by not excercising, by not trying, or by giving up with himself.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
But you are able to directly feel yourself as an object, since the skin, durable enough to withstand the elements, but sensitive enough to feel and sense, wraps around the entirety of it. One can submerge himself in water and know when the entirety of his object, the entire surface of it, is in direct contact with the water. Or simply jump; what you are feeling is the entirety of you as an object leaving the ground and coming back down again.


And where does all that feeling register? In the psyche of course! Otherwise, you would not even be able to recall and relate it as you do in the above paragraph.

Awareness is not limited to some point in your head - it is everywhere, and encompasses your whole body. That is why you can feel the whole body's shape as feeling and also recall it as such.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It is not fundamental knowledge, it is not freedom, but dogma and presumption.

'
This is your standard line when you really don't know. You really don't know, but why can't you just say that? That is what you should look at for you own sake.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The hand, the nervous system, the brain, the eyes, are not psychic phenomenon. They are concrete, physical phenomenon, and parts of bodies. Your "psychic phenomenon" are not psychic at all, and it is rather you who are beginning to admit this fact.


All that phenomena occurs in the context of consciousness or the psyche - otherwise, how and who remembers it?


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I'm not sure what reality you live in, but try crossing a busy intersection without thinking.

Thinking would typically interfere with such a process - like riding a bicycle, once you learn it, any thinking about how to do it just interferes with the whole bodily intelligence of just doing it, avoiding pot holes, etc. You know, the Zen of Archery, etc.? Do you think baseball players think about their playing after a certain point? No, it is all about whole bodily participation in the perceptual event, not abstracted thinking in the head. The latter only interferes with what the body already knows to do based on one's perception.

What would you need to think about crossing the street? It is obvious once you learn it that it is simply perceptual in nature - see the green light, etc., look both ways, and walk. No thinking necessary. What do you do?

edit on 5/11/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

Your arguments are getting stronger, bb. If you like, I could point you to some light reading for your theory that are very difficult for any materialist to argue against.


And where does all that feeling register? In the psyche of course! Otherwise, you would not even be able to recall and relate it as you do in the above paragraph.

Awareness is not limited to some point in your head - it is everywhere, and encompasses your whole body. That is why you can feel the whole body's shape as feeling and also recall it as such.


You say it encompasses the whole body, as if it was water, yet are unable to produce a drop of it. I think you're getting closer to a keener understanding of awareness—that it is the body. The next step would be to repudiate the primitive outlook of your own dualism.



This is your standard line when you really don't know. You really don't know, but why can't you just say that? That is what you should look at for you own sake.


Your standard line is to assert "this is the way it is". I will always assert the opposite using the exact same format—that is, without argument or reason.


All that phenomena occurs in the context of consciousness or the psyche - otherwise, how and who remembers it?


The body rarely forgets itself.


Thinking would typically interfere with such a process - like riding a bicycle, once you learn it, any thinking about how to do it just interferes with the whole bodily intelligence of just doing it, avoiding pot holes, etc. You know, the Zen of Archery, etc.? Do you think baseball players think about their playing after a certain point? No, it is all about whole bodily participation in the event, not abstracted thinking in the head. The latter only interferes with what the body already knows.


I would agree. That which becomes habitual does not require as much thought. But it's not that you're not thinking about it any longer, it's just that you do not have to learn how to think about it like you did the first time you tried it. Now, if only life were like a game of baseball.

But this brings up a good problem—the outfielder problem. Is it because you are awareness that you can catch a fly ball, or because you are a body? Awareness, since it isn't a substance or body, and it pervades everything, needs not nor cannot move. Also, given that you do not think about where the ball might land, how is it you know where to be when the ball lands, and how will you get there to catch it?


What would you need to think about crossing the street? It is obvious once you learn it that it is simply perceptual in nature - see the green light, etc., look both ways, and walk. No thinking necessary. What do you do?


I prefer to gauge whether it is safe enough for me to walk. There are many moving objects at a busy intersection. I suppose this isn't an issue where you are? Try it in Bangkok or Mumbai or even Moscow.
edit on 11-5-2015 by LesMisanthrope because: spelling



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

I am indicating that it is both and it is none. Both being and non being arise from it. Yet nothing truly arises, it is the conceptual mind which views it this way. I am saying that in this life we must navigate both, we must be wise about both, and understand that our wisdom and our compassion encompasses both.

It is dangerous to walk around and say there is an ultimate reality, because then the other is viewed as unimportant, not ultimate. We must take care of what is. We must not attach ourselves to an idea, even if that idea seems holy, such as the nature of ultimate reality, or god, or cosmic mind; it does not exist in a fixed way. When found and investigated such things will always be conditional, arising because of this or that, and will always give way to impermanence; such is its nature. This is the realization of emptiness. It is not being or non-binding but both, yet both things are impermanent, this is why it's a dance. This emptiness is indivisible, it is not found, yet from it all things become.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Your arguments are getting stronger, bb. If you like, I could point you to some light reading for your theory that are very difficult for any materialist to argue against.

That would be cool. I would enjoy developing more of the logical deductive side of this argument.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You say it encompasses the whole body, as if it was water, yet are unable to produce a drop of it. I think you're getting closer to a keener understanding of awareness—that it is the body. The next step would be to repudiate the primitive outlook of your own dualism.

Because you assume you are only the physical body, you will say this. And it is true, awareness is not separate from the whole body, however it is also prior to the whole body because it is unconditional.

Because feeling-awareness is not separate from the body, it is simply the witness of all that the body is. Without this "medium" of awareness, no conscious events would ever take place, and thus there would be no sense of a "you" experiencing anything or recalling anything.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The body rarely forgets itself.

This is because the body-mind arises in a limitless field of awareness - the latter then identifies with the physical and subtle forms of the whole body-mind through the mechanism of attention. The body-mind then has a "medium" in which to become self-aware - i.e., so never forgets itself.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
But this brings up a good problem—the outfielder problem. Is it because you are awareness that you can catch a fly ball, or because you are a body? Awareness, since it isn't a substance or body, and it pervades everything, needs not nor cannot move. Also, given that you do not think about where the ball might land, how is it you know where to be when the ball lands, and how will you get there to catch it?

Without awareness, the body-mind would not even exist, much less move around in the outfield. But given we are assuming awareness is not separate from the whole body-mind, we can discuss this outfielder problem.

When the ball is hit the fielder almost immediately perceives its projected flight path and starts running at a speed to the place where it will be catchable. He does this via perception, and the body-mind, because of its training, acts in concert with the perceiving mind. It is one event that occurs in the "medium" of awareness.

The expert player is not thinking thoughts at this point - or at least is not paying any attention to them. He is quickly perceiving and his body is adjusting accordingly - all one dance, and the freer he is in this dance, the more likely he will gracefully catch the ball. The best fielders tend to make it look very easy as a result of their practice and their release of anything that distracts them from the task at hand.

All of life is like this - though obviously there is a time when the conceptual mind of thinking is necessary. But I find most of the time it is not in day to day bodily activities. Even writing this post, I do not have to think about it - I am just typing the concepts that arise in mind. I am not intentionally thinking for the most part - except perhaps initially when I formulate a base idea of what my response is.


originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I prefer to gauge whether it is safe enough for me to walk. There are many moving objects at a busy intersection.

Sure, but the core activity is perception as a mode of feeling-awareness. All the gauging is automatically done based on perception, and really is not even based in thinking - it is a natural movement based in the perception of the whole scene. And when the feeling-awareness is the conscious core of it, it becomes much more likely one will notice any dangers.

Since awareness is all pervading, if there is danger, one's attention is much more likely to hone in on that area automatically due to one's feeling into the whole psychic phenomenon of crossing the street. The random stream of thoughts have little to nothing positive to do with this process.

Driving in busy streets also requires a relaxed perceptual approach to all activities in the field of vision. The body-mind drives the car based on one's perceptions at any given moment.

The more this also consciously involves feeling-awareness as the "medium" of all perceptions, the more one is likely to avoid any dangers. It is truly a psychic phenomenon, always occurring in awareness, and fully participatory with and by the whole body-mind.

edit on 5/11/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: preludefanguy
It is dangerous to walk around and say there is an ultimate reality, because then the other is viewed as unimportant, not ultimate. We must take care of what is. We must not attach ourselves to an idea, even if that idea seems holy, such as the nature of ultimate reality, or god, or cosmic mind; it does not exist in a fixed way. When found and investigated such things will always be conditional, arising because of this or that, and will always give way to impermanence; such is its nature. This is the realization of emptiness. It is not being or non-binding but both, yet both things are impermanent, this is why it's a dance. This emptiness is indivisible, it is not found, yet from it all things become.

There is only indivisible Reality, so it is not really a matter of claiming there is some ultimate Reality over against other lesser realities.

All conditional realities are simply modifications of the one Reality. They are not separate from Reality, but from the conditional standpoint of body-mind, it appears that we are separated from Reality. When this is deeply inspected it is discovered that the sense of separation is a moment-to-moment activity of contracting the energy of the body-mind into a sense of separate self, associated with the point-of-view-making mechanism of attention.

Point-of-view is attention is the sense of separate self is the soul. It is all just an activity, not an actual entity.

Because we are actually doing this activity of contraction in each and every moment, we feel separate and independent as, and even within, the body-mind. This activity is the illusion of separate self - and once we see it is our own activity, we can stop doing this because this constriction of the life energy hurts.

So only declaring some limited Reality as the ultimate Reality would be dangerous. The all-inclusive indivisible Reality of which everything is simply a conditional modification of, is not separate from, or ever objective to, Reality Itself - so there is no threat to anything whatsoever.

edit on 5/12/2015 by bb23108 because:




top topics



 
5
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join