Guest guest Posted October 24, 2001 Report Share Posted October 24, 2001 As the Self can't realize the Self, often the term apperception is used instead of Self-realization. The dictionary gives: Psychology.1. Conscious perception with full awareness.2. The process of understanding by which newly observed qualities of an object are related to past experience. This is suggesting that perception as it was, will remain that way, but with full awareness. A suggestion which doesn't take into account that boundaries can shift: What wasn't perceived "before" gets perceived "after". For instance modes of perception like empathy, telepathy etc. and becoming aware of life-energy as it flows through certain channels to mention a few... These are among the newly observed qualities which often are categorized under Shakti or Kundalini - qualities which can be observed to change... Perception could be called a property of mind-bodies. Hence apperception still pertains to mind-bodies. A process of continual change until whatever is perceived is but the undifferentiated Self - literally, not just verbally. Peace, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2001 Report Share Posted October 25, 2001 When "whatever is perceived is *This*", then there is no "whatever is perceived" to be perceived as *This* ... Sounds paradoxical in words, but in reality is simplicity itself ... A mind-body is differentiated from other mind-bodies. One-with-no-other is not differentiated or undifferentiated. A mind-body, comprehending objects and subjects, unable to comprehend "one-with-no-other" can only be a kind of filter or screen, a way to formulate a transition from *This* to "this and that", "now and then" ... This screen, this filter, is the dance of subject and object, of me and you. The pattern of the dance can shift, and new steps formerly unknown may now be danced. Apperception may be understood as a change in the pattern of the dance. Yet, what to say about *this* -- for it isn't enhanced perception, nor apperception affecting a mind-body (screen) ... Only *this* itself -- neither perception nor apperception, because not in a position to be considered as knowable, nor as "awareness" in process, nor any process. >From Merriam-Webster, apperception: 1 : introspective self-consciousness 2 : mental perception; especially : the process of understanding something perceived in terms of previous experience Clearly *this* is beyond the scope of perception or apperception. If we don't try to bring it to us, to bring it into the mind-body's sphere, into perception or apperception, it simply is as it is. Not known by or as a knower, nor as a known. So, what has happened to the mind-body? It is neither subject nor object. It is *subsumed* by/as totality. Dan --- jb <kvy9 wrote: > As the Self can't realize the Self, often the term > apperception is used > instead of Self-realization. > The dictionary gives: > > Psychology. > 1. Conscious perception with full awareness. > 2. The process of understanding by which newly > observed qualities of an object are related to past > experience. > > This is suggesting that perception as it was, will > remain that way, but with full awareness. > A suggestion which doesn't take into account that > boundaries can shift: > What wasn't perceived "before" gets perceived > "after". > For instance modes of perception like empathy, > telepathy etc. and > becoming aware of life-energy as it flows through > certain channels to mention a few... > These are among the newly observed qualities which > often are categorized under Shakti > or Kundalini - qualities which can be observed to > change... > > Perception could be called a property of > mind-bodies. > Hence apperception still pertains to mind-bodies. > A process of continual change until whatever is > perceived > is but the undifferentiated Self - literally, not > just verbally. > > Peace, > Jan > > Make a great connection at Personals. http://personals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2001 Report Share Posted October 25, 2001 Thanks for the laugh over the "too obvious"- what is perceived when there is no mentation? As an indication, take a look at the attached pic - too obvious what happened but the authorities will require a multi-page report nevertheless Does there have to be sound in order to explain silence? Jan On 10/25/01 at 10:23 AM d b wrote: ºWhen "whatever is perceived is º *This*", then there is no º "whatever is perceived" º to be perceived as *This* ... º ºSounds paradoxical in words, but º in reality is simplicity itself ... º ºA mind-body is differentiated º from other mind-bodies. º ºOne-with-no-other is not º differentiated º or undifferentiated. º ºA mind-body, comprehending objects and º subjects, unable to comprehend "one-with-no-other" º can only be a kind of filter or screen, º a way to formulate a transition from º *This* to "this and that", "now and then" ... º ºThis screen, this filter, is º the dance of subject and object, of me and you. ºThe pattern of the dance can shift, º and new steps formerly unknown º may now be danced. º ºApperception may be understood as º a change in the pattern of the dance. º ºYet, what to say about *this* -- for it isn't º enhanced perception, nor apperception º affecting a mind-body (screen) ... º ºOnly *this* itself -- º neither perception nor apperception, º because not in a position to be º considered as knowable, nor as º "awareness" in process, nor any process. º º>From Merriam-Webster, apperception: º 1 : introspective self-consciousness º 2 : mental perception; especially : the process of º understanding something perceived in terms of º previous experience º ºClearly *this* is beyond the scope of º perception or apperception. º ºIf we don't try to bring it to us, º to bring it into the mind-body's sphere, º into perception or apperception, º it simply is as it is. º ºNot known by or as a knower, nor as a known. º ºSo, what has happened to the mind-body? º ºIt is neither subject nor object. º ºIt is *subsumed* by/as totality. º ºDan º º º º º º º º--- jb <kvy9 wrote: º> As the Self can't realize the Self, often the term º> apperception is used º> instead of Self-realization. º> The dictionary gives: º> º> Psychology. º> 1. Conscious perception with full awareness. º> 2. The process of understanding by which newly º> observed qualities of an object are related to past º> experience. º> º> This is suggesting that perception as it was, will º> remain that way, but with full awareness. º> A suggestion which doesn't take into account that º> boundaries can shift: º> What wasn't perceived "before" gets perceived º> "after". º> For instance modes of perception like empathy, º> telepathy etc. and º> becoming aware of life-energy as it flows through º> certain channels to mention a few... º> These are among the newly observed qualities which º> often are categorized under Shakti º> or Kundalini - qualities which can be observed to º> change... º> º> Perception could be called a property of º> mind-bodies. º> Hence apperception still pertains to mind-bodies. º> A process of continual change until whatever is º> perceived º> is but the undifferentiated Self - literally, not º> just verbally. º> º> Peace, º> Jan º> º> º º º º ºMake a great connection at Personals. ºhttp://personals. º º º/join º º º º º ºAll paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, ºperceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and ºsubside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not ºdifferent than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the ºnature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. ºIt is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the ºFinality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of ºSelf-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome ºall to a. º º º ºYour use of is subject to Attachment: (image/jpeg) LW.jpg [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 > (snip) > Does there have to be sound in order to explain > silence? > > Jan All sounds are silence. No explanation. Silently sounding, Dan Make a great connection at Personals. http://personals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2001 Report Share Posted October 26, 2001 Jan: > (snip) > Does there have to be sound in order to explain > silence? > Jan db: All sounds are silence. No explanation. Silently sounding, Dan .... I didn't hear that ... ;-) Mira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.