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

originally posted by: bb23108
All that we experience is through the mechanism of the body/mind. We perceive objects, conceive thoughts, feel various sensations, have various internal experiences, etc.

All experiencing of any object is based on a necessarily limited point-of-view created by the focusing mechanism of attention.

Certainly objects exist, but can they be recognized for what they actually are in reality – that is, not just defined by our limited point-of-view-based experiencing of them?

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

What do you think my kitchen table is in reality?

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne
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.

That picture you used is the greatest mystery in neuroscience. The homunculus may be real … ;-)

originally posted by: bb23108
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.

Show me consciousness without a nervous system / brain and I might believe you.

originally posted by: bb23108

Who or what is perceiving the body-mind?

Nothing is perceiving/seeing - all sensation (body/mind) appear in the seeing as the seeing.

Were you able to find anything from Peter Brown about awakening to love?

I am not sure what you mean - I have never heard him use the words 'awakening to love'. However, when 'it' first happens (the two become one) - there can be immense feelings of bliss but bliss does not last, it is a state that comes and goes like all that arises, it subsides and changes. There would be a relaxation in the body as the thought system would no longer be confused or frustrated. And when it is felt/known/seen that there is nothing other then there can be complete rest so love will be found to be underlying the conflict, which has now left. Is this what you mean by 'awakening to love'?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
I am not sure what you mean - I have never heard him use the words 'awakening to love'. However, when 'it' first happens (the two become one) - there can be immense feelings of bliss but bliss does not last, it is a state that comes and goes like all that arises, it subsides and changes. There would be a relaxation in the body as the thought system would no longer be confused or frustrated. And when it is felt/known/seen that there is nothing other then there can be complete rest so love will be found to be underlying the conflict, which has now left. Is this what you mean by 'awakening to love'?

What I mean is the unqualified nature of the Divine as Love. Awakening to the Divine is associated with the transformation of the body-mind more and more in and as the characteristic of Love, of selflessness, of free energy and attention. Yogic conductivity throughout the body-mind is present and deepens. The heart begins to open up as most profound feeling (Love).

This is why I often think many of the modern non-dualists are stuck in a mental insight and constantly talk about simply being the perceiving, etc., but never speak of Love. Without love, all the insight is meaningless to me because it is just mentally based, a part of the brain-mind only - not whole bodily embrace of all that arises with real energy and attention in love-communion with the Divine. The Divine embraces all - it does not abstract from life.

To me, Truth must necessarily transform the very life that arises as Truth's modification, else it is just abstracted from life and love itself, and at best is only a "partial" truth.

originally posted by: AllIsOne
Show me consciousness without a nervous system / brain and I might believe you.

I certainly am not trying to get anyone to believe me. Just consider your fundamental being, deeply feel who you are, not all the content that goes on internally, nor your external world - just who you are. That is consciousness beyond the body-mind - this is self-evident when you fall more and more into it.

a reply to: AllIsOne

Show me consciousness without a nervous system / brain and I might believe you.

Show me your understanding of the cause of that which causes the nervous system / brain to function

originally posted by: AllIsOne
What do you think my kitchen table is in reality?

Would you mind sending it to me so I can really give you a very full answer?

Anyway, your question is the question I asked in the thread's title, so please, you go first.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: AllIsOne
Show me consciousness without a nervous system / brain and I might believe you.

I certainly am not trying to get anyone to believe me. Just consider your fundamental being, deeply feel who you are, not all the content that goes on internally, nor your external world - just who you are. That is consciousness beyond the body-mind - this is self-evident when you fall more and more into it.

Again, show me feeling without a nervous system/brain. Your thinking is highly circular. New Age mumbo jumbo doesn't add any substance to a discussion.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: AllIsOne
What do you think my kitchen table is in reality?

Would you mind sending it to me so I can really give you a very full answer?

Anyway, your question is the question I asked in the thread's title, so please, you go first.

I'm not playing semantics. My kitchen table is a kitchen table. Case closed! What else do you think it is? That is so self-evident … lol.

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: AllIsOne

Show me consciousness without a nervous system / brain and I might believe you.

Show me your understanding of the cause of that which causes the nervous system / brain to function

Answer a question with another question? Nice try, but that's not how it works … lol.

originally posted by: bb23108
All that we experience is through the mechanism of the body/mind.

It's the BRAIN. End of story.

We perceive objects, conceive thoughts, feel various sensations, have various internal experiences, etc.

All experiences are internal.

All experiencing of any object is based on a necessarily limited point-of-view created by the focusing mechanism of attention.

Certainly objects exist, but can they be recognized for what they actually are in reality – that is, not just defined by our limited point-of-view-based experiencing of them?

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

Let me ask you how many parameters do we need to define a point in a closed 2-D environment? Two! Would it be useful to use 10? No, it's not necessary.

Could it be possible that evolution has given us the right amount of senses to experience reality as it is?

Also, how many senses do you think we have, and what is reality if there is no consciousness to experience it?

a reply to: AllIsOne

show me anything to be known and you'll see that there always is a mind there to observe it, for that is indeed how it can be known - do you like cats?

perhaps everything is much more intricately connected, perhaps your kitchen table is not so different than my heart

not by way of where and how it currently composes itself, but by way of their origins, where does it all come from? perhaps the universe has many more secrets up its sleeve, we've only scratched the surface...

maybe what one means by moving into the deathless, is that one is no longer giving rise to any states whatsoever that will come to pass by way of their own impermanent nature, states usually unwholesome, usually giving rise to unskillful qualities that bring the user dissatisfaction, pain, sadness, anger, even death...

but rather, a state which sees all things as co-dependent, interconnected, and understands that we're much bigger than ourselves, part of this force called life, prodding and exposing itself to the harshness of reality to experience reality itself in its many facets, so in such a way, one does indeed taste the deathless... it's a different kind of perspective, it requires investigation, earnest investigation of the self and the phenomena pertaining to the self and it's surroundings, and with this, you see this life force, this current streaming away endlessly, tirelessly and so we realize ourselves in that way and we become the river and the granules of dirt and rock at the bottom, but either way there is no static image, it is always in flux

but this takes framing and re-framing, it takes understanding that 'reality' or your 'kitchen table' is just a picture frame, it has use in form, as a tool, and also is as much a symbolical tool for the mind to understand and agree upon as it is a good tool to eat your food from, but what really is that kitchen table? when does it stop becoming a table and start becoming its composites? however small we may get, or however large, that table after all is actually part of what makes the entire earth

our understanding about our reality is always changing, and therefore we are always clearing up the ignorance of our reality bit by bit, wouldn't you agree that we're more ignorant than we are knowledgeable about all there is to know? I always like to look at things with curiosity, with possibility, with an air of openness because after all, we are all investigators

originally posted by: preludefanguy
a reply to: AllIsOne

show me anything to be known and you'll see that there always is a mind there to observe it, for that is indeed how it can be known - do you like cats?

I'm allergic to Schroedinger's cat, but I love animals.

perhaps everything is much more intricately connected, perhaps your kitchen table is not so different than my heart

not by way of where and how it currently composes itself, but by way of their origins, where does it all come from? perhaps the universe has many more secrets up its sleeve, we've only scratched the surface…

Everything is made from stardust. Even the computer I type on, and my heart.

maybe what one means by moving into the deathless, is that one is no longer giving rise to any states whatsoever that will come to pass by way of their own impermanent nature, states usually unwholesome, usually giving rise to unskillful qualities that bring the user dissatisfaction, pain, sadness, anger, even death…

Change is the only constant in life. Enlightenment is pure speculation. Death and taxes … lol.

but rather, a state which sees all things as co-dependent, interconnected, and understands that we're much bigger than ourselves, part of this force called life, prodding and exposing itself to the harshness of reality to experience reality itself in its many facets, so in such a way, one does indeed taste the deathless… it's a different kind of perspective, it requires investigation, earnest investigation of the self and the phenomena pertaining to the self and it's surroundings, and with this, you see this life force, this current streaming away endlessly, tirelessly and so we realize ourselves in that way and we become the river and the granules of dirt and rock at the bottom, but either way there is no static image, it is always in flux

Check out "God Is A Verb" by Rabbi David A. Cooper. You may enjoy it.

but this takes framing and re-framing, it takes understanding that 'reality' or your 'kitchen table' is just a picture frame, it has use in form, as a tool, and also is as much a symbolical tool for the mind to understand and agree upon as it is a good tool to eat your food from, but what really is that kitchen table?

My table is made of wood and iron. I'm sticking to that story for now … ;-)

when does it stop becoming a table and start becoming its composites? however small we may get, or however large, that table after all is actually part of what makes the entire earth

The function of a table is not related to its physical make up. Those are two discrete properties. The table is always a table. It's not schizophrenic, and I assume it's not worried too much about becoming its composites ;-) It is us that see the world in dualistic / schizophrenic terms. The table is part of what was and ever will be, not just earth.

our understanding about our reality is always changing, and therefore we are always clearing up the ignorance of our reality bit by bit, wouldn't you agree that we're more ignorant than we are knowledgeable about all there is to know?

We will eventually build Artificial Intels that will explore the limits of what can be known in the universe. AIs are not bound by the slow rate of neurological evolution. It remains to be seen what kind of AIs the AIs will create.

I always like to look at things with curiosity, with possibility, with an air of openness because after all, we are all investigators

No, we are not. Most of us are utterly ignorant and have chosen to remain that way. There are very few people on this planet that have one original thought at least once a day.

I love animals too

what is stardust? what are we? I love stardust

Enlightenment is only speculation to those speculating about it, what has to be known is known

"showing us how to transform profound teachings into a meaningful personal experience—and appreciate fully this great mystical process we know as God." - I like this part of the book review. Maybe the god part left out. Not because it isn't, or because it is, but because as it is known to begin with, is nothing but a block in the path to your full responsibility, and in knowing the state of 'i', in turn, your full exoneration - I'll check it out thanks for the share

that is a good story to follow for the time being

they might be discrete properties in the sense of the definition or language use, but in term of the mind when it grasps the symbol of the table, upon experience immediately it is known what it is used for, such is conventional reality, and yes, it is US who see it that way, and then such our belief systems control our ways of thinking and we forget that a table is a form made by man, as much as nature as the flower budding nearby, but that flower and the table are nothing more than constructs based on a system that is always moving and changing, so the flower and the table are not their ultimate shape and form, but only transitory, who cares how long something lasts, in the scope of infinity it is nothing, or everything, but only when looked at from that portion of the pie

that's a bold statement, and if it is the case, even if things can be explored indefinitely, you forget the matter of creating, and thus by the nature of existence things will always change and flux, and new scenarios will evolve and take shape, thus knowledge is paired with evolution, as the whole universe has never been fixed, funny that you mention creation in there

we are investigators, some investigate the senses, the pleasures and exploit it, much like hitting that big red button that always gives you candy, its a fixation, thus the mind has become burden by way of it getting stuck on one idea, belief system, free the mind into investigating broadly, keenly, aware, and you will come to know an intelligence much vaster than your limited scope of view and come to understand that this intelligence is capable of being queried by ourselves. The idea is of letting go so you are open to at any moment feel the actual vastness and depth of whatever it is you are perceiving, then it seems depthless, limitless, beyond perception and non-perception, frames of reference points will always differ in perspectives by the nature of their separation, so it always matters how you cut the pie, or how you measure it, thus always affecting the picture by just the act of measuring it or framing it by the type of questions coming up, and aren't all stimuli from the 5 senses originally questions?

originally posted by: bb23108

What I mean is the unqualified nature of the Divine as Love. Awakening to the Divine is associated with the transformation of the body-mind more and more in and as the characteristic of Love, of selflessness, of free energy and attention. Yogic conductivity throughout the body-mind is present and deepens. The heart begins to open up as most profound feeling (Love).

This is why I often think many of the modern non-dualists are stuck in a mental insight and constantly talk about simply being the perceiving, etc., but never speak of Love. Without love, all the insight is meaningless to me because it is just mentally based, a part of the brain-mind only - not whole bodily embrace of all that arises with real energy and attention in love-communion with the Divine. The Divine embraces all - it does not abstract from life.

To me, Truth must necessarily transform the very life that arises as Truth's modification, else it is just abstracted from life and love itself, and at best is only a "partial" truth.

The ever present aware space that you are is what all arises in/as - so of course it embraces all. It allows all there is to be - it does not have to be achieved, just realized. When it has been realized then what else is there?
When it is found that there is nothing but life happening, that all is just arising unconditionally there will be no blame or guilt for what appears - with no other to fear - it is the assuming of other which causes the love to be lost.
At the moment of separation paradise is lost - when wholeness is realized paradise is found. Paradise never went anywhere but there are words and ideas about there being 'something else'.
When the seeking ends, the seeker is no more and then there is just love/life.

a reply to: intrptr

Our senses are passive, they don't 'create' anything.

We use our hands for that.

What a great thread. So a steak searing on a BBQ is smelled through your hands? Every morning that my eyes open after unconsciousness its the eyes that register the light. My hands are nowhere near my eyes.

a reply to: jimmyx

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.

So a non-human scientist proved this? What language did they speak with to convey this to you?
Why not separate into 3 forms of reality, TheConstruKctionofLight, me and the other?

a reply to: bb23108

And in the example of the room, he concludes that the room in Reality is Radiance

In both cases, what objects are, is fundamentally defined as the Radiance of Reality, Light itself. In that "knowing" all separate points-of-view are necessarily vanished. This makes the most sense to me.

So we've replaced god with a new god "Radiance"
Personally I like how in the Old Testament god spoke and there was light and form. There is power in the spoken word but I don't want to derail the thread.

a reply to: preludefanguy

on a side note, I once had a dream that we were all a field of fungi, that all shared a dream that span across all of them, and they were dreaming of being human in a universe much like our own, weird dream

hmmm..are we mushrooms dreaming we are human?

en.wikipedia.org...
The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross: A Study of the Nature and Origins of Christianity Within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near East is a 1970 book about the linguistics of early Christianity and fertility cults in the Ancient Near East. It was written by John Marco Allegro

"The book relates the development of language to the development of myths, religions, and cultic practices in world cultures. Allegro believed he could prove, through etymology, that the roots of Christianity, as of many other religions, lay in fertility cults, and that cult practices, such as ingesting visionary plants ("psychedelics" or "entheogens") to perceive the mind of God, persisted into the early Christian era, and to some unspecified extent into the 13th century with reoccurrences in the 18th century and mid-20th century, as he interprets the Plaincourault chapel's fresco to be an accurate depiction of the ritual ingestion of Amanita muscaria as the Eucharist. Allegro argued that Jesus never existed and was a mythological creation of early Christians under the influence of psychoactive mushroom extracts such as psilocybin.[1]"