reply to post by truthseeker1984
i feel it is rather difficult to do it "intentionally," because it is a result of an action, but the action itself has to be found. i kind of
described the concept a couple of posts ago, but i feel there are exercises too, as all things "here" are a process. I think the core issue with
learning this is actually the lesson of "learning how to learn," as it is simply something you will not be able to do with ones "current" perspective.
We are shown how to incorporate new intricacies simultaneously with the ones we are already familiar with.
I think the first important step is to realize that "you" are
already "seeing" things both ways. The only thing to do is to bring it into the
perspective, which is usually strongly founded on the mental thoughts themselves. The more we step out of how we have currently defined the world,
the more we can grow in the directions of our focus. The issue is that the mental thoughts do not know how to translate the communication, because it
isnt necessarily communicated through the same channels as typical eyesight. So frequently, when trying to "see" with the third eye, we are really
just trying harder to see with the sight we are used to, but it takes a different kind of "being" to be able to do it. I used to look in the mirror
and say "your current perspective isnt capable of integrating these things, major changes have to be made." I made myself aware that what i was
looking to do was simply not contained within my current perspective, i would need to learn how to move in a different direction. The biggest
distinction is that these things tend to be experiential concepts, as opposed to mental concepts.
I also have to note that over arcing themes have been quite the norm recently, thats fun
Either way, i illustrate this using ones own arm. which i have retold a couple times at this point
One can think about their arm moving, but the
arm itself does not move at all. We have to actually
move our arm, but it still uses the brain either way. This idea is supposed to
illustrate the two ways to approach things, the observer and the action. It must be noted the differentiation between the two is less like two
separate "things," and more like our heart and lungs working together to keep forward momentum. They are to be experienced simultaneously, but for
most of us, we mostly reside in the observer without fully "comprehending" the simultaneous action, or we reside in the action without fully
"comprehending" the observer (as in when one acts before they think). I see these as two balanced sides to our perspective itself, akin to "incoming"
and "outgoing," or based in the same balanced orbital duality as everything else in this material universe. The
combined balanced simultaneous
system is how i feel we interact with this world, but we tend to only approach it with one or the other, due to our dualistic based perspective of
either/or. It seems when we are not balanced between these things, "life" and general "experiences" can tend to feel unreal as well as lending itself
well to apathy and things like that. I feel this is caused, essentially, by only perceiving 50% of our core "being" (simultaneous observer/action) at
any one time.
Why is any of this relevant? because to perceive the observer and action simultaneously, one must make a similar experiential effort to incorporate a
"new" piece of the puzzle, just like learning how to "see" differently, equally, continuously, and simultaneously. There are as many exercises to
facilitate this as one can think of! This same experiential movement is also detailed in some religions focus on the controlling of breath, as many
of the population are not aware of these processes that occur in our body continuously and simultaneously with our "thoughts." I feel this specific
learning and growing process is the basis for being able to get beyond one residing completely in our thoughts and feelings as the totality of our
"body." So, if one can learn this process, then very few things (if any) are "out of our reach," unless we put them there ourselves.
One practice is to become aware of obviously cyclical systems on our own body. i think "within" is always the best place to start
The idea is to
take two systems (one usually being our mind/thoughts/observer) and experience them simultaneously and equally. So, we are not cycling our
consciousness back and forth between the two, but we are recognizing both movements at the same time. This can be done between the mind/thoughts and
ones lungs (most common), or ones heart, or the very blood pumping through our veins. Experientially, this feels like literally "doubling" ones
perspective.
A few more similar practices all use ones field of vision and their eyes, but that can be done in steps as a process. The first exercise is being
able to move the
observer around the action. this can be done by looking straight forward and keeping ones eyes still. then, we can use our
mind to move around the field of vision itself. Kind of like moving a mouse pointer (area of mental focus) around a computer screen (field of view
itself). This type of thing is actually taught in some motorcycle classes, i believe! The reason is that to look at something that is already within
our field of vision, it is generally "quicker" to move ones mind to what they want to look at than to move ones physical eyes. The second exercise is
to "look," with our mind as illustrated in the first exercise, at two "separate" objects contained within ones field of vision. The idea is to "look"
at them simultaneously. (When doing this, the experiential concept is easier if one "lets" the items be and merely observes them, instead of
"looking" directly at two objects. It is hard to describe such things, obviously, but experiment around, and make note of your personal process!)
The next step in this exercise is to slowly incorporate more and more items into the practice and eventually leads to the shift described in the third
exercise! In the third, one is attempting to take note of their entire field of vision as a single object itself. In this, the same as the others,
the eyes themselves should not move. the only movement should be "mentally." I am trying to be clear on something that is hard to make clear with
words here... so try to come at this from a conceptual level of your own unless what i am saying makes perfect sense. Do not so much take notice of
what is contained
within the field of view, for this exercise, but take notice of the field of vision itself. Do note that this exercise can
have some interesting "shifts" take place. So, mentally take note of the edges of ones field of vision and view the field of vision itself as a
single object. Much like a.. .. window or a television. during this exercise there is usually a relatively obvious "flip," where the
observer and the field of vision start to define themselves a little bit more clearly. Sometimes, it takes doing some things
just right to get
growth in a certain direction. Mess around with it, do "trial and error," and most of all, have fun with it. So, in all these exercises, we have to
actually move our "perspective," as opposed to just
thinking about it.
I truly hope this helps, and let me know if you have any questions. I am, quite literally, "here to help."
learning how to "bridge worlds" in
this way is a learning process though, so if something isnt clear, or doesnt make sense, i would appreciate being made aware of such things. As we
can only tell of our personal experiences, which seem so obvious in the implications to us, it is easy to miss what may be important parts of the
story to others. and everyone has the "amazing story of their life." I stopped apologizing for my posts length though, so youll just have to deal
with that or strengthen that scroll finger
edit on 10-3-2011 by sinohptik because: ooh shiny..