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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108


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.


If this field is unlimited, then naturally it immerses any object fully within it, even going through objects. This would mean we are aware and conscious of everything from every angle, which is the antithesis to your argument that we cannot know the reality of objects.

This field of consciousness you speak about seems unintelligible to me. Consciousness possesses no momentum or energy. It does not have any qualities of a field. It cannot be represented as a function. Since you are weary of scientific descriptions of reality, is there a more intelligible description of consciousness without the need to hijack and attempt to use scientific jargon to push this idea?



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


Awareness is a quality of the object described. Qualities are unable to perform actions.


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.


This argument I can agree with. The false-dichotomy of subjective and objective is a myth. But I do not understand how this follows to your next point.


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.


It’s not an assumption that entire oceans separate one man from another. It’s not an assumption that there are vast expanses of space between one planet and another. In order to assert the statement “The body-mind is not some independent discreet separate object”, you need to show how this is the case, and a “field of consciousness” or “field of relatedness” are unintelligible notions, given that the suffix “ness” is being used here to confusing effect. It is no different than saying we are in a “field of nervousness”. This sort of language makes things out of qualities, or in your case, fields out of no fields.


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.


If you plan to show this is the case by purely a priori means, rather than a more scientific a posteriori technique, the idea better be intuitive. However, the idea is neither intuitive nor empirical, neither a priori nor a posteriori.

In other words, I’m not sure how you’ve arrived at this conclusion, and perhaps you are not sure either. If you allow me to follow your logic, your reasons, or your evidence, I might be able to understand why I should accept your arguments. Until then, they could be incoherent ramblings for all I know, and so far that’s how I see them.


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.


“In” reality is misleading, and perhaps you’ve been misled, for that would also imply an “outside” reality. One would have to assume a boundary. Reality isn’t a container in which everything is contained. It is simply a category, a logical set containing all things. However, everything is not a part of that set like the orange isn’t a part of the bag that contains it.




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
If this field is unlimited, then naturally it immerses any object fully within it, even going through objects. This would mean we are aware and conscious of everything from every angle, which is the antithesis to your argument that we cannot know the reality of objects.


Very well said! No, this is not the antithesis of my argument - what I have been saying is that one cannot know what the reality of objects are from the point-of-view of the body-mind; that is, it cannot be known from the standpoint of attention, which generates the subject-object point-of-view.

The question of the thread's title is what all this was leading up to - that as consciousness, one can "know" what objects are because they are not different from consciousness itself. In other words, all arising are modifications of consciousness, which is conscious light-energy or being-awareness-love - many descriptors, and they all have their language limits obviously.

However, consciousness is not just a quality or even some other object - it is unconditional, self-evident, and therefore cannot be proven by scientific method.

That we are aware is self-evident. That is a priori, and does not have to be intuited, as you describe below - it is most fundamentally obvious. Of course, no one can be talked into this - one just has to determine this to be the case by relaxing and releasing one's grip on the inner illusory subjectivity animated by the mind moment-to-moment.


originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
This field of consciousness you speak about seems unintelligible to me. Consciousness possesses no momentum or energy. It does not have any qualities of a field. It cannot be represented as a function. Since you are weary of scientific descriptions of reality, is there a more intelligible description of consciousness without the need to hijack and attempt to use scientific jargon to push this idea?


As mentioned above, consciousness is not just some static sense of being aware. Consciousness is not only conscious but is light, energy, love, bliss. It is the very medium that all forms are a modification of. So consciousness is never separate from any arising, and thus can "know" all objects in and as reality, because conscious light-energy is the only reality.

Awareness is the same, but I use that term mainly with respect to consciousness being associated with the body-mind and the mechanism of attention, which generates the subjective illusion of self and other, and all the presumptions of separation - e.g., materialism.


originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
Awareness is a quality of the object described. Qualities are unable to perform actions.


No, that is the materialistic argument. It is self-evident that awareness is fundamental. We never directly experience anything apart from awareness. This self-evident or a priori means can certainly be intuited, because it is always the case, it does not have to become the case for anyone.


originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
This argument I can agree with. The false-dichotomy of subjective and objective is a myth. But I do not understand how this follows to your next point.


The argument was simply that science relies on this false dichotomy, which works pretty damn well for most science, but not for actually determining what all this appearance actually is, nor our apparent plight here.

There is inherently no separation - we all arise as modifications of consciousness, and simply must become more and more aware of this by noticing our non-separation from anywhere we actually are right now.

Isn't it at least intuitively obvious that we never directly experience anything apart from awareness?


originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
It’s not an assumption that entire oceans separate one man from another. It’s not an assumption that there are vast expanses of space between one planet and another. In order to assert the statement “The body-mind is not some independent discreet separate object”, you need to show how this is the case, and a “field of consciousness” or “field of relatedness” are unintelligible notions, given that the suffix “ness” is being used here to confusing effect. It is no different than saying we are in a “field of nervousness”. This sort of language makes things out of qualities, or in your case, fields out of no fields.


Of course, there are apparent distances, but those distances are defined by the body-mind's point-of-view-making subjectivity, which unfortunately, especially given the high cost of air flights, the conditional body-mind is still stuck with!

However, from the reality "position" of consciousness, there are no distances - consciousness is unqualified, acausal, beyond time and space. The conditional appearances are all simply modifications of the one conscious iight that is all. This can certainly be intuited because - we are that one!


originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
If you plan to show this is the case by purely a priori means, rather than a more scientific a posteriori technique, the idea better be intuitive. However, the idea is neither intuitive nor empirical, neither a priori nor a posteriori.

In other words, I’m not sure how you’ve arrived at this conclusion, and perhaps you are not sure either. If you allow me to follow your logic, your reasons, or your evidence, I might be able to understand why I should accept your arguments. Until then, they could be incoherent ramblings for all I know, and so far that’s how I see them.


LOL! Yes, it would likely sound like incoherent ramblings if you do not intuit this. It is not a matter of mind. You cannot get your head around this. It is a feeling-intelligence that becomes obvious when we release the contraction we constantly animate in the head with this moment-to-moment point-of-view-making activity.

Release that illusory presumption of a separate self in any given moment, and this heart-intelligence becomes tacitly obvious as our true condition, as unqualified awareness or consciousness.


originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
“In” reality is misleading, and perhaps you’ve been misled, for that would also imply an “outside” reality. One would have to assume a boundary. Reality isn’t a container in which everything is contained. It is simply a category, a logical set containing all things. However, everything is not a part of that set like the orange isn’t a part of the bag that contains it.

When I say "in reality" I mean not just describing an object through the conventional subject-object means, but knowing it for real.

Yes, reality is not a container - it is unqualified conscious light-energy, beyond space and time, of which everything is a modification of.

edit on 4/7/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

it seems to me that the object is made up of constituent parts that can always be broken down into more pieces, or even picked up and turned around to describe it through a different lense

so, in a way, it is a totality of active constituents acting and reacting, and only our minds and different sensory gateways frame the object into reality, which has its uses in objective reality by allowing us to create tools, understand cause and effect

it also seems like because of that, we are not really actually looking at 'reality' but rather a shadow of it, not only through the sensory gateways being delayed stimuli but also by the way of our minds painting the picture for us

so then, in order to understand reality, it is not a case of studying the object closer, but rather, turning inwards and asking what it is that sees, how does it see, what does it see


edit on 30-4-2015 by preludefanguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: preludefanguy
it also seems like because of that, we are not really actually looking at 'reality' but rather a shadow of it, not only through the sensory gateways being delayed stimuli but also by the way of our minds painting the picture for us


Well said. Yes, it makes sense that no point-of-view, not even all points-of-view somehow combined, relative to any object, will ever actually reveal to us what that object IS in reality.


originally posted by: preludefanguy
so then, in order to understand reality, it is not a case of studying the object closer, but rather, turning inwards and asking what it is that sees, how does it see, what does it see

Why would we have to turn inwards to find out what is it that sees? Is such awareness inside? Or outside? Or prior to both, "where" we actually stand?


edit on 4/30/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

It seems to me that you must investigate the matter with what you have available to you. That means your experiences, sensory gateways, reasoning and knowledge gained from inquiry. So it isn't a matter of what is out there but rather what we can glean from the internal processing of the information.

When I say inside I mean from the perspective of your being. What actually is inside/outside is again only a limited perception of the sensory being. As it is our sensory gateways that give us the information as to where we currently are in reality. From the view of the radiant mind, there seems to be no outside or inside, again only the walls of our sensory organs at the gross mind level. The radiant mind works at the supreme subtle level and doesn't seem to be local, it works on a non local level, or so it seems.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Zen



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: preludefanguy
From the view of the radiant mind, there seems to be no outside or inside, again only the walls of our sensory organs at the gross mind level. The radiant mind works at the supreme subtle level and doesn't seem to be local, it works on a non local level, or so it seems.

Yes, that is definitely a higher level of it. But depending on your definition of "radiant mind", most references to a higher or subtle mind still involve the mechanism of attention, and therefore the point-of-view-making that attention always is and does.

Once there is point-of-view, there is necessarily a limitation on what can be recognized as the actual reality or totality of an object.

Is your definition of "radiant mind" beyond the mode of attention - that is, the activity of point-of-view making, that is the root of the sense of separate self?


edit on 5/1/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

in my investigations of the matter I have noticed that under the normal going ons of the mind there is a mind that is completely unaware, unaware of anything at all. there are no objects, no time, no reference, just awareness and unawareness.

it seems like this mind unaware works alongside the mind aware, or rather, is the piece upon which the mind aware rests on, but to me, they seem like they are just parts of the entirety of what is the 'mind'

the radiant mind seems to be the mind which is not pulled in any particular direction, but is clear, serene, cool, composed and attentive to what is happening, it is in a way the non-action of action, for there is no responding, cataloging, analyzing and so on, it relies on an intelligence already present... but for it to be undefiled by the gross mind, the gross mind must first be put to rest by the workings of a path leading to discernment and wisdom

the radiant mind, by way of being clear of defilement, also seems to have the ability to attend to the now without the objective perception that we usually use, and in this way, it seems to also have the ability to act non-locally, being able to pick up on things not directly in front of it, but through the connection which pervades all... this type of connection does not seem to rely on space-time but rather is much more fundamental and might point at the possibility that every point in our universe is interconnected, almost like a superposition of all particular things, in a way, there is no center, or everything is the center, and this draws back to consciousness, it is a tricky thing... but to me it seems that consciousness is at the center, and everything moves out from it
edit on 1-5-2015 by preludefanguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

as for the root of separate self, there does not seem to be a root quite literally, it seems to be an internal belief system held up by the constituent pieces that create the sense of self, you take one away, another grows in its place

to peer through the separate self, it seems to be a wiping of the board, a complete forgetting, and then the radiant mind comes forth, not in particulars, but in complete immersive attention of the now in its totality

it seems that there are certain volitions of the mind and heart which work to create the separate self, and these can be termed as greed, anger, desire, delusion, craving, attachment, clinging... as these things tend to create a psychological and emotional state which tricks us into believing in a permanent sense of self, or rather our beliefs about our current situation marred by these defilements



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
if all human life was eliminated from earth, there would still be a sun to heat the planet, there would still be other forms of life on earth....I think you have to separate realities into 2 forms, humans and everything else. it's pretty well been proven scientifically that this..."everything else"...happens without humans.
edit on 1-5-2015 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: preludefanguy
When the radiant mind is obvious, is that what you are? Are you describing an element of you as radiant mind also being self-aware?

Does this radiant mind feel separate from anything or more like an observer looking at objects, etc.?



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: preludefanguy
Is this peering through the separate self into radiant mind associated with any aspect of the physical, subtle, or causal bodies? Do you feel like energy has ascended to the top of the crown, or to the heart, or ?

Is this an experience that has traditional mystical reports associated with it?

Thank you.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx
I am unclear what you are getting at. Why would we need to separate humans and others into two separate realities?



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

It does not feel separate. It does not discriminate. But rather it attends totally. When there are objects there is an observer and there is separation. This is using the components of the brain and body to recognize things as separate.

It is in a sense 'you' but that is a limitation of language. 'You' in any form whether physical or non physical is made up of parts. Anything that is as a separate agent is just that, separate and Co dependent on the phenomena used to define it. It seems to be the foundation to all experience, to all life, to all being. It is not separate from anything, but rather the fertile spring from which everything becomes.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

I've had experiences. The heart opening. The energy surge up the spine, the feeling of energy pushing through the crown and pushing up and out. These seem to be states, and everything is impermanent, even these states. What we can put to use though is the knowledge gained from these things happening, towards discernment and towards the continual dialog we have with life. How to be skillful in our acr ions to limit suffering in the world and help with good deeds.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
It's kind of a tricky question if one considers the "experiencing" to be a part of "what is," regardless of how limited it may be.

In that sense, there are certainly things beyond the collective human perception, or concepts like science wouldn't exist. But the individual experiences of each of us would be as much of a part of 'what is' as the sun and the moon.

So, if we cut out experience, it is no longer 'what is.' Not in the sense that humanities perception is responsible for the existence of the universe, but in the sense that it is a valid part of 'what is.' In that way, the only method for recognizing 'what is,' is directly through experiencing a part of it.

I am not convinced that the human experience is static though, and I have a suspicion that a human experiencing 'what is' is not solely relegated to what we perceive as "human."



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
"Can there be recognition of what is - beyond any and all experiencing?"

Recognition = experiencing

Therefore; No.



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: preludefanguy
Yes, all experiences obviously come and go, and though they can impact us in positive ways, in and of themselves they do not represent truth or the recognition of what IS.

So in this condition of radiant mind you are the witness of what is arising appears, and also not separate from what it notices. Is this what you are saying?

Do you consider that such a "position" actually recognizes what is, apart from all experience?

If so, can you describe what is recognized?



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
"Can there be recognition of what is - beyond any and all experiencing?"

Recognition = experiencing

Therefore; No.

I guess that depends on how we define recognition. If we define it as perception, then yes, that is experience. But is there a recognition possible outside of the confines of experience?

All experience is perceptual - it is a psychic event, always. But do we exist prior to experience and perception?



posted on May, 2 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

Certainly they exist, but what makes you think they exist outside of awareness? Is it not our will/spirits or "the forces" which we are interpreting, perceiving, or translating into the images of our awareness?

Are these words not the image of my awareness of my will, and my will the will to have you conceive my awareness of my will?

What are your words the image of? Of your concepts; what you have conceived? And what have you conceived if not your will?

Look:


The spider and the man are both translating their spirit (their will for a secured entryway) and the image (the image of their awareness of their spirit) is the same image: a trapdoor/hatch. Their awareness is the same, and their awareness is of their will, spirit, or the breath of life in them. (see: convergent evolution)

The images are of our awareness of our spirit/will/the "forces".

Can there be recognition? Yes, the recognition is of the patterns of the things in the spirit. The similitude of Truth. Can we see the truth of them? Yes, we do all the time, only we do not always conceive them/understand what we see. ("Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.")

Father|Soul|Awareness
Son|Body|Form (image of awareness)
Holy Ghost|Spirit (ability/potential/forces/will)

And they are one.

And I'm not trying to discourage you, because you are on the right track, but you're missing the understanding of the spirit, and how God images the spirit as sets (like set theory) or spectra (like the color wheel.)

The set of all sets is God and all are in him. That sort of thing.

You said: "or being-awareness-love"
Being: Son
Awareness: Father
Love: Spirit

Our will is what we love (what is "good/true" images). We see what we love as images / as our being. Our bodies are literally the images of our forefather's desires - their will has shaped us into what our parents conceived.

And it doesn't matter the order, like sets, just that you understand/see the set - that is what I was trying to show you while simultaneously answering the question in the OP.

Good luck.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join