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

a reply to: Serdgiam
Yes, all experiences are part of the apparent happening we call life. Can we "know" an object directly, beyond the limits of perception - as the mind that perceives always implies a separate knower over against an apparently separate object.

Plus all perceptions are just memories of an image we recall after the light of the apparent object hits our eyes and the brain processes the image into a form that we perceive. By the time we receive the image, it is already beyond the moment that the light hit the eyes, etc. So all perceptions are in the past - i.e., are memories.

So perception cannot work as a model to recognize what an object actually is in reality because it is always in the past.

Can we actually know what anything is?

a reply to: bb23108

there is only separation when the labeling mind begins to work, for separation is the workings of such a mind defining the parameters of one object to the next

when there is total attention, no labeling, no categorizing, no divisive thought of any kind, it is pure undefiled attention, this is what is happening all the time, everywhere, but it is our sensory gateways in conjunction with our body/mind that trick us by way of their perception of defining things into separate distinctive objects, it is not separate because it is it, absorbed in it, mindful of the constant flux and changes and transformations taking place, not caught up in how things should be according to the mind, but accepting things for how they are in reality

it seems to be an ocean, of constant change, and when we define something, it is too late, it is already changed, so we are always jumping from one thing to the next, grabbing onto the shadows of existence, when we just sit with total attentiveness, we soak it all in, as it is, as it is changing, and we see that all things are dependent upon each other, related to each other, cannot exist without the other

what is recognized is emptiness, in all things, there is no 'self' in anything, that is why it is so hard to define 'you' because it doesn't really exist, just as the objects you try to define, it is a machination of a mind clinging to a static image long washed away by the tides of existence, it is resistance against the tides of change

so, in essence, no thing is recognized, an infinite probability, with particulars brought about by conditional things related to each other, so it is like a wheel that turns, and keeps turning

but can we use this knowledge in objective reality? not really, we must return to the world of form, of usefulness in this life

so it is a wisdom that allows us to put 'things' into perspective

originally posted by: bb23108


So perception cannot work as a model to recognize what an object actually is in reality because it is always in the past.

Can we actually know what anything is?

It is thought which is old and dead - it speaks of what is not - so to see what is one must not buy into what thought whispers.
No thing can be known as there are no things - there is only ever what is happening.

a reply to: bb23108
Recognition is the identification of a thing or person from previous encounters or knowledge.
"she saw him pass by without a sign of recognition"

synonyms: identification, recollection, recall, remembrance
"he stared at her, but there was no sign of recognition on his face".

Prior to re cognizing there is simply cognizing.

a reply to: bb23108

What do you think? Can there be recognition of what any object or being actually is in reality?

Yes I think we can recognise what an object or being is in reality and also it's purpose
Our understanding of the object or being is only limited by our lack of a fuller understanding

We never come into contact with any other substance other than pure knowing and it is this pure knowing which knows itself. All awareness is ever aware of, is itself. Rupert Spira.

originally posted by: bb23108

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?

Depends on how you define cognition, and the consider the meaning of the root term 're' (as in; to do again). Cognition is awareness, the fact we are 'on', the fact sensual data is streamed to our minds. Recognition appears to be the ability of our minds to 'think' about what the data that is being shown it is, means, and relates. So if I see an apple on a path and I have never seen an apple before, and then I walk down the path and see another, I will 'recognize' it. The mind is extremely complex. Systems of memory, and imagination and different realms of visualization etc.

When you say 'beyond any and all experiencing'... your question appears to already be answerable 'no'.

Beyond experience? What you are asking is 'Can we experience something we do not experience?'.

Now assuming the exact absolute equivalency of those terms, that is to say; 'can we experience an exact real apple without experiencing an exact real apple'.

No, we cannot experience it exactly (now I see how and why your question is good), but can we know and experience qualities of the apple, without experiencing a real apple, yes.

We can imagine, a child, who is shown other fruits, who is taught the science behind environments, and trees, and how fruit is made, and sugars, and colors, and he can know a lot about an apple without experiencing a real apple. So there can be recognition. Just not absolutely true and perfect and real recognition, of the true and perfect and real apple, without experiencing it itself.

So now to dig deeper, considering the nature of the most fundamental substance/matter of reality, which is very difficult to dig down and know, we are still in the process of attempting to know everything about it, but can we ever 'know' it truly or close to fully? We experience it by proxy (as all is composed of the most fundamental), but what would it mean to experience the most fundamental particle as it is? When it is maybe millions of times smaller than an atom and there are billions of atoms in a small portion of your finger nail.

originally posted by: preludefanguy
what is recognized is emptiness, in all things, there is no 'self' in anything, that is why it is so hard to define 'you' because it doesn't really exist, just as the objects you try to define, it is a machination of a mind clinging to a static image long washed away by the tides of existence, it is resistance against the tides of change

Right, no self in anything, but then what is attention if not the separate self? Or are you equating "total attention" with "radiant mind"?

I enjoy your take on these matters.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So now to dig deeper, considering the nature of the most fundamental substance/matter of reality, which is very difficult to dig down and know, we are still in the process of attempting to know everything about it, but can we ever 'know' it truly or close to fully?

But I think your description of knowing an apple certainly indicates that no matter how much we know about something, even down to the atomic level - such descriptions do not tell us what it is in reality.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
We experience it by proxy (as all is composed of the most fundamental), but what would it mean to experience the most fundamental particle as it is? When it is maybe millions of times smaller than an atom and there are billions of atoms in a small portion of your finger nail.

Yes, isn't all experience by proxy (great word to describe it, by the way)? Does this not rule out the experiential approach to perfectly knowing what any object is?

originally posted by: artistpoet
Yes I think we can recognise what an object or being is in reality and also it's purpose
Our understanding of the object or being is only limited by our lack of a fuller understanding

"Care to elaborate?", asks your old rotter friend.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: bb23108
Recognition is the identification of a thing or person from previous encounters or knowledge.
"she saw him pass by without a sign of recognition"

synonyms: identification, recollection, recall, remembrance
"he stared at her, but there was no sign of recognition on his face".


Prior to re cognizing there is simply cognizing.

Let me restate the question then. Can we recognize the true nature of any object without cognition?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
No thing can be known as there are no things - there is only ever what is happening.

Is not what is happening an object given it is noticed?

a reply to: bb23108

"Care to elaborate?", asks your old rotter friend.

OK Lets play a game
Name an object and I will see if I can describe it

a reply to: bb23108

Total attention is a quality born of the radiant mind, in which it can attend totally without distractive thought to the now that is happening.

The radiant mind is itself before any defilement created in the volition of objective/subjective thoughts and emotions. It is in a way emptiness itself, open to all things and not discriminating. In this openness and disattachment to everything we find the capability for anything to exist within it. Thus the fertile ground for all experiences and objects and subjects to manifest.

originally posted by: artistpoet
OK Lets play a game
Name an object and I will see if I can describe it

But description alone does not tell us what an object actually is in reality - such as your favorite mandala painting. What IS it?

a reply to: preludefanguy
Okay, I understand something of your radiant mind description, but why is the mechanism of attention necessary then? Doesn't attention always create point-of-view and therefore is necessarily limited to the separative subject-object dischotomy of a knower knowing an object?

a reply to: bb23108

But description alone does not tell us what an object actually is in reality - such as your favorite mandala painting. What IS it?

Yes ... thinking about it you are right ... I could go into every detail of a painting ... what it is made of ... how it was made ... how the thoughts and ideas were arrived at in designing the images and colours etc
What it's meaning conveys for me ... others would glean their own meanings from it ...

Yet all I am actually doing is typing words on a keyboard to communicate the idea of the painting
Words can only describe and are not the actuality of what they describe ... you rotter

a reply to: bb23108

It is not necessary, but it is a skillful quality. When dealing with the world having that type of attention helps in responding with an open heart and mind. This attention is available when there are no defilements to get in the way.

a reply to: preludefanguy
Yes, it is necessary for the mechanism of attention to focus on various objects just for survival - I wouldn't try driving without attention!

But in the radiant mind that you describe, is that mind necessarily associated with a body-mind or are you describing cosmic mind, or perhaps pure consciousness or unqualified awareness?

a reply to: artistpoet
LOL! Well, I am trying to live up to my new name you gave me.

Okay, so when you look so fully at an object, beyond its conceptual description and all the rest of it, what is it? Can the mind ever know? Wouldn't you have to see it beyond any and every point-of-view? Would that even do it?