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

a reply to: blujay

So that having been said if one is able to alter their belief ABOVE reality then wouldn't such perception be possible?
I think the Buddist Monks have done so the most effectively through meditation and reinforcement.
Also perhaps it is "hacked" (I think ) by exterior entities in conjuration( Summoning) or a brain chemistry that allows psychic capability, unless my theories are mistaken of course.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: blujay

So that having been said if one is able to alter their belief ABOVE reality then wouldn't such perception be possible?

Reality is what is real. Beliefs are overlaid on top of reality. Remove all belief and reality is found to be hiding in plain sight.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
I'm not sure I understand.

How do we gain a memory of an object if all we perceive are memories of objects? When I hold a coffee mug, I am directly interacting with a coffee mug, and nothing shows that this mug is a memory.

I am curious as to what kind of perspective you are comparing the human perspective to, that you find the human perspective limited?

You never directly experience any object - you are simply perceiving an image of the object, feeling (perceiving) a sensation from the object, etc.

All those events take time to happen, and the image of the coffee cup we see is just brain activity, a facsimile of the object itself, in essence a very short-term memory. We are not actually experiencing the object directly.

Plus, we only see the coffee cup from a particular point-of-view. That coffee cup looks different from different points-of-view - so no single point-of-view actually is a complete representation of what that object actually looks like in reality, not to mention what it actually is in reality.

So point-of-view is inherently limiting in terms of actually recognizing what any thing actually is in reality.

a reply to: bb23108

You never directly experience any object - you are simply perceiving an image of the object, feeling a sensation from the object, etc.

All those events take time to happen, and the image of the coffee cup we see is just brain activity, a facsimile of the object itself, a memory. We are not actually experiencing the object directly.

Plus, we only see it from a particular point-of-view. That coffee cup looks different from different points-of-view - so no single point-of-view actually is a complete representation of what that object actually looks like in reality.

More questions arise.

What image are you speaking about?

What is viewing this image?

"What an object actually looks like in reality" according to what perspective?

There's a circular argument here – begging the question. I think you've assumed that an object still looks like something without anything to look at it.

a reply to: bb23108
It is impossible to experience any thing.
Sensations are happening. They happen as sight and hearing etc. The image of light completely fills awareness - drawing lines around a bit within the whole light image and calling it 'chair' (or coffee cup) does not make it any thing other than sensations appearing in consciousness.
The sensations are just waving energy.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Then how does one abbrogate belief entirely?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Then how does one abbrogate belief entirely?

Just see with the eyes and hear with the ears.
See what is here and not what was then or will be when. When speech mind speaks it is usually a belief.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
More questions arise.

What image are you speaking about?

The image in the example was an image of the coffee cup. The image is what we perceive (experience) as the coffee cup.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
What is viewing this image?

The one who is experiencing the image of the object.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
"What an object actually looks like in reality" according to what perspective?

Exactly! What does the coffee cup actually look like? We can only describe it from various perspectives. All perspectives, or points-of-view, are inherently limited.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
There's a circular argument here – begging the question. I think you've assumed that an object still looks like something without anything to look at it.

I am not assuming that it appears like something apart from a limited point-of-view being employed.

And any particular point-of-view does not actually fully represent the object itself. In fact, it may appear very differently to other creatures.

I am simply asking, can we know what an object actually IS in reality, because clearly the object exists even apart from all of our possible points-of-view of it.

a reply to: bb23108

The image in the example was an image of the coffee cup. The image is what we perceive as the coffee cup.

The one who is experiencing the image of the object.

Is this an accurate depiction of the observer and image you are speaking about?

Exactly! What does the coffee cup actually look like? We can only describe it from various perspectives. All perspectives, or points-of-view, are inherently limited.

It doesn't actually look like anything unless there is someone looking at it. If we want to know how something looks, we look at it.

I am simply asking, can we know what an object actually is in reality, because clearly the object exists even apart from all of our possible points-of-view of it.

Once again this is circular. I think you are assuming something can be known without something to know it.

Furthermore, to say assert that an object can't be known is an assumption about that object. If it cannot be known, then it entails you also cannot know that it cannot be known.

a reply to: bb23108

Your signature says that "Things are the way they are not the way you perceive them." So that seems to contradict your statement that we can recognize the actual reality of an object through our senses.

We "see" only reflected light in the visible spectrum. Thats one small tiny bit of the known electromagnetic spectrum.

And that doesn't include other dimensions or whatchuma-callit.

So yah, we only perceive a tiny bit of whats out there, besides you have to be actually looking at that when it happens. Plenty goes on behind our backs.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne



Nice representation of our soul "looking out". The real person within the shell. Too few of us are ware of who we really are.
(if thats what you meant)

a reply to: intrptr

Nice representation of our soul "looking out". The real person within the shell. Too few of us are ware of who we really are.
(if thats what you meant)

The problem is, if this "real" person perceives perception, who or what perceives his perception?

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
It doesn't actually look like anything unless there is someone looking at it. If we want to know how something looks, we look at it.

Right, I agree. The point-of-view mechanism is useful for this purpose obviously, but also has real limitations in fully understanding the reality of everything we experience. We think we are subjects experiencing separate objects, but that is not what is actually occurring. We never experience anything outside of awareness itself. All perceptions occur in awareness.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
Once again this is circular. I think you are assuming something can be known without something to know it.

That is the question asked in the thread's title - Can there be recognition of what is - beyond any and all experiencing?

We conventionally assume that there must be a knower over against the known, but clearly this model has real limitations, as this discussion is hopefully pointing out.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
Furthermore, to say assert that an object can't be known is an assumption about that object. If it cannot be known, then it entails you also cannot know that it cannot be known.

This argument sounds like semantics to me.

Anyway, I am not saying an object cannot be known, but I think it is obvious that it cannot be known as it actually is in reality, via the point-of-view mechanism of attention. And so I asked the question posed in the thread's title: Can there be recognition of what is - beyond any and all experiencing? That is, beyond all points-of-view.

a reply to: bb23108

Right, I agree. The point-of-view mechanism is useful for this purpose obviously, but also has real limitations in fully understanding the reality of everything we experience. We think we are subjects experiencing separate objects, but that is not what is actually occurring. We never experience anything outside of awareness itself. All perceptions occur in awareness.

If your argument is that we are not omniscient, I would agree.

But I still find your question to be self-defeating, or at least a repetition of the initial question. Your conclusion boils down to “we cannot experience what we do not experience”, or “we are unaware of things we are unaware of”.

As per your question: “Can there be recognition of what is - beyond any and all experiencing?”, the answer is no, one cannot experience what one does not experience.

As for “all perceptions occur in awareness”, an analogy might be in order. Following your description, I imagine a bag of oranges. The oranges being the objects of our perception, and the bag being “awareness”, providing a barrier between inside and outside. This clearly makes an object out of awareness, being that it has an inside and an outside, a barrier between awareness and not awareness.

Have you perceived this bag, this object that contains other objects, in your awareness? This seems impossible, as a container cannot contain itself.

But if there is a boundary between perceived objects and not-perceived objects how are they able to leave and enter our awareness on their own accord?

Because there is no bag or container or boundary between perceived and not perceived. Perceptions do not occur “in” awareness. There is only a relationship between perceiver and perceived – two objects – and awareness occurs when both objects interact, not when an object falls into the container by divine happenstance.

The time it takes to perceive something indicates that the object we perceive is separate, having a proximity in relation to the one perceiving. If it wasn’t separate, we’d have no need to perceive anything, as it would have already been known.

My problem is the division of the world into "how things appear" vs "how things actually are" is a sort of unnecessary dualism, rectified only if we removed either the perceiver or the perceived from what it means to perceive. Like I mentioned earlier, the assertion that one can know that one cannot know an object is self-defeating, as knowledge about that object (that it cannot be known) is knowledge about that object.

Can there be recognition of what is - beyond any and all experiencing? That is, beyond all points-of-view.

The answer is no, as all recognition happens at the point of view, and not beyond it.

it is a good topic, however.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
As for “all perceptions occur in awareness”, an analogy might be in order. Following your description, I imagine a bag of oranges. The oranges being the objects of our perception, and the bag being “awareness”, providing a barrier between inside and outside. This clearly makes an object out of awareness, being that it has an inside and an outside, a barrier between awareness and not awareness.

Have you perceived this bag, this object that contains other objects, in your awareness? This seems impossible, as a container cannot contain itself.

But if there is a boundary between perceived objects and not-perceived objects how are they able to leave and enter our awareness on their own accord?

I am not sure how you can make an object of awareness. That is not my experience at all. Awareness is self-evident as most fundamental being. When all is said and done, there still is awareness. Awareness never changes, does not age. Awareness "feels" the same now as when I was 10 years old. It is the only constant. So I am having a hard time with your example.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
Because there is no bag or container or boundary between perceived and not perceived. Perceptions do not occur “in” awareness. There is only a relationship between perceiver and perceived – two objects – and awareness occurs when both objects interact, not when an object falls into the container by divine happenstance.

So you are saying awareness is a product of the perceiver and perceived interacting? Then what about when you sit very still and have no perceptions, no thoughts, only being-awareness, prior to but not separate from all conditions of mind and body? Are you not simply awareness beyond the perceiver and perceived?

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
The time it takes to perceive something indicates that the object we perceive is separate, having a proximity in relation to the one perceiving. If it wasn’t separate, we’d have no need to perceive anything, as it would have already been known.

Yes, good point. I agree that we would "know" it because we would not be separate from it. So the distance is created because the point-of-view subject is assumed and the object is perceived elsewhere based on our sense of where the point-of-view subject is in relation to the object.

But is that activity necessary to recognize what objects actually are in reality beyond point-of-view? This is worth discovering.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
My problem is the division of the world into "how things appear" vs "how things actually are" is a sort of unnecessary dualism, rectified only if we removed either the perceiver or the perceived from what it means to perceive. Like I mentioned earlier, the assertion that one can know that one cannot know an object is self-defeating, as knowledge about that object (that it cannot be known) is knowledge about that object.

One can certainly have knowledge about an object - we have endless scientific data about all kinds of objects. However, this model of a separate knower, that is apparently knowing an object, can never know what the object actually is - because the knower is the point-of-view-making machine of attention - and so is always limited to a single perspective in any given moment. Even the endless scientific data are just more descriptions of the object, not what it actually is.

This is the scientific-materialist's approach which has its uses in scientific studies, but this model does not hold up upon real inspection of our actual situation here.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
As per your question: “Can there be recognition of what is - beyond any and all experiencing?”, the answer is no, one cannot experience what one does not experience.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
The answer is no, as all recognition happens at the point of view, and not beyond it.

Yes, by various materialistic approaches based on the knower and the known, subject and separate objects, etc., your statement rings true. However, that model of a subject knowing an object just seems to be what is happening because of the mechanism of attention. Attention is what makes point-of-view, like a camera lens opening/closing to focus on its object.

That point-of-view mechanism is felt inside the body-mind as the subject - and moment to moment we create this sense of separate subjectivity. But it is just an activity, it is not an actual subjective entity. Release the mechanism and that subjective sense of "I" disappears in the actual "knowing" or perceiving, not separate from its apparent object of perception.

This is the beginning of a different "orientation" in which it becomes possible to recognize what things actually are, beyond the limited point-of-view-making machine of attention, its presumed separate subjectivity and apparently separate objects.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
it is a good topic, however.

Yes, thank you for your contributions!

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

The problem is, if this "real" person perceives perception, who or what perceives his perception?

To be determined. Imo, every one is on record their whole life. Every sight sound, thought, like a cctv…

Thanks intrptr for responding to that post - it is an important consideration that I forgot to respond to yesterday.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
a reply to: intrptr

The problem is, if this "real" person perceives perception, who or what perceives his perception?

Reality or consciousness itself (awareness) simply witnesses all that arises, but is NOT separate from what arises. Awareness is our self-evident being.

So as awareness, there is no one perceiving perception as some kind of abstracted observer over against objects. There is no separation, there is no subject-object dichotomy inherent in awareness (the witness consciousness).

Awareness is unconditional, beyond time and space, and only apparently localized because of its apparent identification with the body-mind through the mechanism of attention.

The mind, controlled by the point-of-view-making mechanism of attention, cannot be awareness only, because the mind is conditionally bound as the subject over against all objects. Awareness is prior to mind and mind's separative mode of being a subject observing objects when exercising its "observer" capacity.

Deeply notice that you are awareness - it is self-evident that awareness is constant and is our fundamental being. It appears to rise and fall with the body, but only from the mind's point-of-view.

One can tacitly notice that as awareness, one is prior to mind and also not separate from anything arising.This is our true condition, that which survives all changes including death, and which does recognize what everything ultimately is in reality.

In any moment we can tacitly recognize that we are simply the witness of what arises. However to actually realize that we are awareness most fundamentally and in every moment, requires a real undoing of the separative patterns of the body-mind including identification with the mechanism of attention - and this is a whole other topic.

originally posted by: blujay "I've created this, now how do I want to experience it, as the creator or as the victim?"

Is it possible to create a computer program that allows the programmer to fly through Google Earth. Then shortly after the developers' presence will shift/jump into a parallel world where their computer application will actually take form if they consistently think of the possibility ?

a reply to: bb23108

I am not sure how you can make an object of awareness. That is not my experience at all. Awareness is self-evident as most fundamental being. When all is said and done, there still is awareness. Awareness never changes, does not age. Awareness "feels" the same now as when I was 10 years old. It is the only constant. So I am having a hard time with your example.

You mentioned something was “in” awareness. If there is an in, there must necessarily be an out. This is why I imagined a bag or container in which resides all perception. It is not an object if there is no boundary, however. But there would be no in and out of awareness.

So you are saying awareness is a product of the perceiver and perceived interacting? Then what about when you sit very still and have no perceptions, no thoughts, only being-awareness, prior to but not separate from all conditions of mind and body? Are you not simply awareness beyond the perceiver and perceived?

I would still feel my weight as it sits on the floor. The sounds. The smells. 98% of thinking is unconscious. So no, I am not simply awareness beyond the perceiver and perceived, whatever that may mean.

One can certainly have knowledge about an object - we have endless scientific data about all kinds of objects. However, this model of a separate knower, that is apparently knowing an object, can never know what the object actually is - because the knower is the point-of-view-making machine of attention - and so is always limited to a single perspective in any given moment. Even the endless scientific data are just more descriptions of the object, not what it actually is.

This is the scientific-materialist's approach which has its uses in scientific studies, but this model does not hold up upon real inspection of our actual situation here.

I agree that science is a descriptive process with many downfalls. But because it contradicts perhaps your own notions, does not mean it is inherently useless at describing reality as it is. Science isn’t a model. If anything it's a principle. Perhaps you can give me your reasons of how it does not hold up upon real inspection of our actual situation.

Deeply notice that you are awareness - it is self-evident that awareness is constant and is our fundamental being. It appears to rise and fall with the body, but only from the mind's point-of-view.

One can tacitly notice that as awareness, one is prior to mind and also not separate from anything arising.This is our true condition, that which survives all changes including death, and which does recognize what everything ultimately is in reality.

I feel this point is made from the mind's point-of-veiw. The body is primary to the mind in every case. The body is there before, during and after every sleep. It comes before language, before reason, before attention, before anything to do with mind really. The body, and the environment it is situated, is wherefrom the mind learns to be a mind.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
You mentioned something was “in” awareness. If there is an in, there must necessarily be an out. This is why I imagined a bag or container in which resides all perception. It is not an object if there is no boundary, however. But there would be no in and out of awareness.

If awareness is ultimately without boundaries, objects can still appear in awareness, or perhaps better said, objects appear as modifications of awareness or conscious being-light-energy.

If something appears in an unlimited field of consciousness, it obviously cannot appear outside of it.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
I would still feel my weight as it sits on the floor. The sounds. The smells. 98% of thinking is unconscious. So no, I am not simply awareness beyond the perceiver and perceived, whatever that may mean.

Okay, one could still notice such occurrences, but the awareness that notices, just is - unchanging, not separate from the noticing and the noticed.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
I agree that science is a descriptive process with many downfalls. But because it contradicts perhaps your own notions, does not mean it is inherently useless at describing reality as it is. Science isn’t a model. If anything it's a principle. Perhaps you can give me your reasons of how it does not hold up upon real inspection of our actual situation.

Science is certainly not useless at describing objects, but given it is based on the presumption that objects should be studied with as little interference by the subject as possible, it is already assuming a materialistic stance relative to objects.

In other words, science is assuming objects are separate, discrete, material "things" through its materialistic method of objectification. This is obviously useful for scientific study, but in terms of an actual approach to living one's life, it is a false principle.

Are objects really discrete separate things? Science assumes yes, but no scientist has ever experienced anything outside of awareness. This is where science does not work - in terms of our understanding of what is actually the truth of this appearance.

The body-mind is not some independent discreet separate object. In reality, the body-mind arises as a totally dependent, connected being in a vast field of relatedness with all other dependent others and objects.

That is our reality - connectedness, not separation. But we tend to live based on the old materialistic notions that the body and everything else are discreet and separate. This is truly not the case.

In reality, we all arise in an apparently unlimited field of relatedness, awareness, light-energy. One's only experience of any and all objects, including our own body-mind, is as non-separate awareness of this whole event we call life.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
I feel this point is made from the mind's point-of-veiw. The body is primary to the mind in every case. The body is there before, during and after every sleep. It comes before language, before reason, before attention, before anything to do with mind really. The body, and the environment it is situated, is wherefrom the mind learns to be a mind.

Again, this is the materialistic presumption that says mind arises as a result of the body's processes. Body, mind, environment are a non-separate event in reality.

Of course, it seems the body-mind is a discreet separate object to the mind that makes itself into an illusory separate subject through the mechanism of attention. Identification with that point-of-view-making mechanism keeps one from seeing the self-evident truth that the body-mind arises in a field of unlimited non-separate awareness or consciousness-being-light-energy.

The mind in this mode is the "matrix" - our own personal dream-prison.