FW: Who Is The Perceiver? Interesting

[Guest guest]

WHO IS THE PERCEIVER

WHO PERCEIVES?

Is there a single factor that can be isolated as the one

that

prevents the apperceiving of our true nature?

Yes there is. In fact, Nisargadatta Maharaj gave the answer at one

of his talks. The single factor that comes in the way of

apperception is the incorrigible habit of viewing everything every

event from the point of view of a who as the pseudo-subject and the

what as the object, with a succession of who, when,where, and why.

But then, this habit unfortunately gets strengthened by the fact that

the message of the Masters is generally conveyed through nouns while

the deepest meaning can only be

suggested by verbs and adverbial forms. In other words, the Teaching

is really concerned far more with functioning and its process than

with the who that functions or with the what that results from

functioning. Both

the who and the what are incidental, inferential and almost irrelevant.

Thus for instance,living I in the world is a dream and the human

beings are dreamed characters who, for all purposes are only

incidental as they have no independence or volition.

You mean while the message of the Masters is that what is

objectivized, being an appearance, is not true, the language used is

itself objective?

Right. It is necessary to keep this in mind when the Teaching is

being conveyed in whatever form. At least to that extent the

understanding will be more accurate. It is an interesting point, in

the context of the use of parts-of-speech being a significant

hindrance to understanding, that the Teaching of India Mahayana

(which moved out of India a long time ago) is best studied in the

written language of China in which parts-of-speech practically do not

exist. There is no gainsaying the fact that Reality or Truth cannot

be expressed at all, except to the extent that it can be suggested or

pointed at. But to the extent that language must be used, care has to

be exercised by both the speaker and the listener to remember that

nouns point in the opposite direction and thereby create considerable

misunderstanding.

"From Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche: "There was a teacher called Khenpo

Ngawang Palzang. He was the master of my guru. He said, "If you want

to show a star to someone and you point your finger at it, the person

will never get beyond your finger. They will keep looking at your

finger. I must show the stars to the people of the world. How am I

going to do this? If I look at the sky, they will not see. If I point

to something they look at my finger. And if I point the other way,

they look at my other finger. Oh, what a mess."

Take the terms time and space. They at once suggest objects whereas

they are relative to the functioning, which uses them as mere

concepts.

Also, the senses have relevance only to the extent that they are

conceptualized to serve the functioning. The use of nouns for the

senses to an extent the use of nouns is, of course, inevitable

throws the essential functioning in the background, and brings the

who to the front

although he has no nature of his own. Thus, when perceiving is

considered, the function of perceiving is ignored and importance is

given to the perceiver and the perceived object.

What is answer to the situation?

The answer is to remember constantly the circumstances,

which have brought about the situation. Focus attention on the

essential functioning and relegate the dreamed characters, the

puppets, and the

sentient beings to the background. It is for this reason, to show the

utter illusoriness of the who, that Nisargadatta Maharaj often used to

interrupt the questioner and ask him who wants to know. Maharaj would

thus bring the questioner’s mind back from the me-entity, who, to the

essential functioning which should receive the total attention. In

deep sleep, there is no manifestation, no universe, no functioning,

no who through whom the functioning takes place. All these arise

into existence only when consciousness arises in the form of the

waking state. Let us see what happens during the process of waking

up in sort of slow motion. In the early moments after waking up,

consciousness retains its impersonal nature, particularly if the

waking process is natural and you are not awakened into a sense of

urgency by the alarm clock or by a person. This is particularly

noticeable if you are out in the country and the process of waking up

is allowed its normal full time. When the consciousness during this

brief period retains its impersonal nature, the perceiving of the

outer world is

not tainted by dualism of subject/object, by the sense of me/not me.

But very soon the pseudo-subject 'me' takes over and all perceiving

is done by the me. Even so, if we analyzed what is perceived, we

would find that we

can perceive our own hands and feet as being within the volume that is

perceived, together with other parts of our bodies that would

constitute objects to what is perceiving. But we cannot perceive

that which is perceiving. This is because what is doing the actual

perceiving, the perceiver, does not lie within that volume or space.

Are you sure that the perceiver 'what is perceiving' is

something outside the volume within which our psychosomatic apparatus, our

body, can be perceived?

That would be the inescapable conclusion, wouldn't it?

Since the perceiving subject perceives the volume of the perceived

object, what is perceiving must necessarily be outside the objective

dimensions constituting volume. The question then is: who or what is

doing the perceiving and where is it? As we have seen, this that is

perceiving must be beyond the three objective dimensions of volume.

In other words, just as volume includes area, so the center of

perceiving must include volume. Also, this center must be everywhere

and it also must be able to perceive all the time because the

perceiving is done by some sentient being somewhere all the time.

Therefore, this subjective perceiving center can be nothing other

than infinity and intemporality operating here and now.

But what about the perceiver to which each human being

refers

whenever he says "I perceive"?

With the analysis done so far, surely it should be

possible to locate this personal perceiving center of each human

being. If the subjective functional center "the infinity and

intemporality" is the I-I, surely the objective operational center

must be the tri-dimensional psychosomatic mechanism with which each

human being is identified as me. In other words, that subjective

extra-dimensional center, nameless and formless, is what we ARE as I,

while this objective tri-dimensional center the nama-rupa (name and

form) is what we appear to be as me in space-time.

You mean what is phenomenally present is the

psychosomatic apparatus representing me as the objective operating

center, while what is phenomenally absent, because it is formless,

is the subjective functional center that is eternal PRESENCE as the

infinite and intemporal I-I.

That is neatly expressed. Now all that is needed is the

instantaneous apperception of it, without the need to express it.

http:/ANetofJewels/message/5376