If I am religious, and I question the existence of god, my beliefs may rise to answer the question. But that is not an answer. That is not even seeing. I am only perceiving with knowledge that has been handed to me by someone else. I am seeing as a second-hand human being.
When belief rises to answer the question, question the belief that rises. As long as one sees the world through their beliefs, they only see their own mind, and not the world in front of them.
20 Comments
Second-hand seeing, yes. Or third-hand.
Curiously, when one steps past their beliefs to see the world as it is, we are still seeing the mind. As one teacher put it, all perception arises in the mind. Only now its not individual mind, it is universal mind, the shared experience.
It’s deeper still to go past mind altogether and see the world as Self alone, moving within Itself.
Davidya,
I do understand what you mean. I have heard the same sort of things over the years. I wouldn’t use those words, but I think we are in the same neighborhood.
Let’s use that word, “perception.” There is a kind of perception of the self, and there is a perception of the organism. I don’t like using the phrase, “all things arise in the mind,” because there is generally too much attachment involved. In other words, it is MY mind that perceives, or it is MY perception. Usually, when one considers the mind, it is a personal mind they consider.
That is not to say “all perception arises in the mind” is wrong. I understand, and it is easy to go there. But it is not necessarily MY mind. There may very well be a mind that perceives, but it is not mine at all.
I have heard “pure” perception as well, or a seeing devoid of individual interference. I like to use the word “interloper” in place of “individual.” It seems so right.
Second-hand, third-hand…there are so many hands in the pot, one wonders if anything at all can truly be called our own?
Yes. Yet, after the loss of “me”, there can be a return of the sense of “I” again later on. Only now it is the cosmic “I”, the one I of all things. As in I am That, etc. In that context there is a “cosmic” mind in which all perception occurs. Cosmic though is a word I avoid as it has several possible meanings.
Beyond “pure” perception, there is the collapsing of perception itself, where subject and object are seen to be the same and fall together. There is no other. One awakes from the cosmic dream.
Words of course fail at all this. And I’ve found few who can describe it well.
“Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows”
–”Major Bowes Original Amateur Hour” radio show 1934-1948
Words such as “I”, “my”, and “mine” may arise in the moment as expressions of communication.
Judgement only comes in as the mind questions whether the correct words were used, in this case, as belief or as expressions of the world in front of one….or perception of whose mind of which perceiver/Perceiver, self/Self.
Note that hopefully this is not the third time you received this post, as my computer quit the comment page twice before actually being directed to “post comment”! (Mind of its own?)
Davidya,
Collapse is actually a good word for that. I don’t think I have used it in that way.
For awhile, I could not say “objects are the same,” because I could not separate one object from one another. So it was not necessarily different objects, but rather one continuous object.
Thankfully, now I am able to hold conversations.
That is certainly true, lmno. Sometimes Takuin refers to itself as Takuin, or itself, or creature, or organism, or I, or me, or whatever seems to suit. We can use it simply to indicate the person, or to make things a bit more clear.
The language used, especially within this subject, can be misleading, confusing, or simply nebulous. I find it necessary to ask the meaning of the speaker if I cannot understand what is said.
All of this, “Timeless being of the now of the oneness that is all the one the one will ever need” nonsense gets tiresome.
Less is more. Haha.
I concur.
And,
In all of this mindspeak,
I’d like to know.
How do you feel?
Where do you feel it?
Does “the empath” dance in you?
Imno
In what way is a feeling more than a less focused thought?
How is the heart different from the mind?
Certainly, when there is a construct of individual, heart and mind and everything else seem separate. But as that separateness falls away, all is found to arise in the same place, in the same way.
“How do you feel?” – what do you mean by you? Is there someone to feel or are the feelings just there, passing like the breeze on your face?
“Where do you feel it?” – where does one not feel it? The flow is everywhere.
Does the Empath dance through you?
I tease. Yes, the heart sings and dances and joy overflows. It is only the habit of expression that seems too mind.
lmno,
That is very nice, but I do not understand the questions. What do you mean by the word feel? What is the empath, and how does it dance?
Thank you for all of your participation so far. It is all very interesting.
Sensations arise in the body prior to the mind labeling or interpreting them. They can be labeled as feelings as emotional beingness. But when, for example, a jolt of pain courses through the body when watching a person fall down a flight of stairs, or when the heart aches when sitting with a person who is in the throws of his or her own grief, this is empathy or the heart of compassion informing kinesthetic awareness.
I have noticed that there is less and less interpretation or mind interference with the empathic understanding, but rather just allowing awareness to be.
Interesting. I tend to see emotions as the reactive, surface values closely associated with body mind. Feelings as arising in awareness, independent of body-mind but appreciated by same. Feelings tend to be strongest at the heart but not bound by anything. Happiness without reason, flowing love, and so forth.
For me, less and less of the first and more and more of the second.
Recently, a teacher commented that compassion can be a barrier to awakening if we hold them as other. This emphasizes the importance of unconditional and allowing, to be.
Imno
Your comment about How do you feel?, etc. illustrated another facet of something for me.
Recently a course I took included a full Myers Briggs test. It suggested I was highly intuitive but processed and expressed via mind. The challenge was to develop and integrate this dichotomy. Another aspect is that I’m often seen as intellectual although I don’t see myself that way. Its not how I experience the world, just how I express. (laughs)
It can be useful to understand the mechanics of this vehicle.
Davidya,
Yes, very interesting. How emotions are experienced in different individuals adds many facets to the question of ‘how do you feel’.
Feelings arise. They can be touched or not touched by the mind. They can be projected or not projected on to another.
I acknowledge the difference between being compassion and doing compassion. Why is what one person feels is compassionate necessarily compassionate to another?
Ah, now you add a different topic to the conversation–intuition. For me only part of intuition is via body awareness (ha ha, also known as mindfulness) or body psychometry.
And in all of this , I know that it is all me as mySelf and my self as one. My, my, my! Writing about expression of oneness causes separation.
Imno,
Thanks for your explanation. I now have a better understanding of what you meant.
I suppose this reflects the idea of ‘paths’ – the path of the intellect, the heart, the body, etc. Some people are more kinesthetic, some live through their feelings, some through their mind. And a variety of blends. Thus people describe similar things in various ways, depending on how they relate to the experience and to life itself.
If writing about it causes separation, write about it more. (laughs) Dive into it. Full Oneness is both silence and expression and it is only through both that you integrate them. There is nothing to loose.
What I feel here is vanity. Vanity all over the place.
“I know that I dont know.”: Sokrates
iamasimpelman,
This is superb. It is wonderful when one can truly see these things in oneself. If you can follow that vanity, not seeking to change or overcome, there is a real chance of truly seeing what is there.
There are no guarantees in life, of course. But seeing what we are, how we truly behave, and sitting with no condemnation, or no lust toward changing may be enough to thrust you beyond the veil, so to speak.
Please continue your pursuit, and let us all know how it progresses for you.
Call me mister vain. You only can see what is, if you have experienced it, experiencing is possible in many and sometimes unknown ways. Your vanity is mine. we are one, I mean it.
Thank you
takuin
iamasimpelman,
I think I understand what you are saying, although I would probably use different words to describe it.
Whether you are vain or not has nothing to do with me. It would be insane for me to say that you are vain, as that can only arise from what I believe to be true. And I have absolutely no reason to believe anything negative about you, or to believe anything about you at all.
I don’t think you are vain, but that doesn’t really matter anyway. I can sit here and exchange with you, but that says nothing to me. If I believe you are vain, that will only get in the way of sitting with you at the moment we are sitting here.
I would much rather sit with you, whole and complete, and let things arise as they will. Takuin does not need Takuin at all, in order to have a relationship with you.
but this side if you look up the comments has alot to do with vanity. this is what i wanted to say at first side with my comment saying “there is vanity all over the place”
we all have to live with our me and I all the time if we deny it we get schizophrenic.
greetings
iamasimpelman