Guest guest Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 There are not two things, the one the actual thing, and the other the perception of it. Including the object popularly referred to as a sentient human being. And yet in such a sentience... ....... this basic duality comes about and gets assumed to be so real, across time and culture, which has to do with the way that memory works, and therefore how language, culture, and the sense of a personal self.... works. There seem to be objects existing independently of the perception of them. Objects sensed by different people in different ways........thus creating this panoramic display of infinite hues, shapes and forms. This bias about a division between the object and the perception of it, is linked with the prevailing sense that there is a subject who walks around and sees different things, which is a personal subjectivity. This is the duality that is " cleared " by a single moment of pure perception. There has been so much written about this topic, in so many ways, and spoken about for centuries. All seemingly to no avail. And that seemingly no avail is also part of this panoramic display. Because words can only hint,can only be pointers to what could be coined as pure and immediate awareness. And it is IN and THROUGH the immediate awareness that the error is cleared. The error of countless centuries and lifetimes dissolved, here, now. Immediately, divisionlessly, irrevocably. Such an awareness does not in any way interfere in an apple remaining on the table, and that an apple is to be eaten and not a stapler, next to it on the desk. In the immediacy of perception, even while recognizing an apple as an apple, and a stapler as a stapler.. .......there is no division of awareness between a perceived object, and a perceiver of the perception. There is no object taken as existing outside of the perception, nor is there any need of one. Thus even the positing of a " pure and immediate awareness " ...... " Self(with a capital S) " .... ..... " Noumenon " ....... " Source " ......... " Consciousness " .... .....the very positing is ............IN and AS awareness.... ......and thus there being none separate to this " pure and immediate awareness " .... ......understanding..........is the understanding of the " rightness " of such positings to arise (if and when they do).... ......while understanding the utter absurdity of such arisings(indeed of all arisings)...if and when they do. One may ask how then does an apple remain an apple, a desk a desk, the knowledge that one can be eaten , the other sat upon, etc The true understanding of this comes from being-aware itself, such that the apple being the apple, the table being the table, knowledge of the distinctive intrinsic attributes of each, the apparent continuity of things in time having qualities that exist in duration...... .......is not in any way separate or other from this awareness itself, which has no duration, which is timeless. This non-durational, timeless, un-nameable awareness, which does not even have the space to allow the naming as " non-durational " , as " timeless " , as " un-nameable " .... .... necessary for everything to appear in time, have distinctive qualities and apparent locations. A " mystery " of endless depth and infinite possibility. The term " mystery " is in quotes, because the mind immediately latches on the term as something which can be solved, is to be solved. And in that latching and creating a subsequent goal to be reached ..... ....is the seemingly perpetuation of the sense of an existence of a mind... .... is the seemingly perpetuation of a personal self. There is nothing to be solved, simply because for something to be solved, there has to be an independent separative entity to that which is to be solved. And there is nothing mysterious about it, nothing hidden. It is out in the open, directly revealed. The endless mystery of what is direct, open, and immediately available.... .... and ...... ........seemingly obscured, hidden, unavailable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 This is the perception of person and the level of understanding . The Mystry can not be defined as one or two. If it is defined as one , it can be defined in to any numberas you please. Hence your theory does not stand . --- On Tue, 3/11/09, Gurubuster <fanatofida wrote: Gurubuster <fanatofida There are not two things, the one the actual thing, and the other the perception of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 , Abhijit Dasgupta <abhijitdasgupta92 wrote: > > This is the perception of person and the level of understanding . > > The Mystry can not be defined as one or two. It was not. But let it be. The dawn of understanding images ........acute vacancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 , " gurubusters " <fanatofida wrote: > > > , Abhijit Dasgupta > <abhijitdasgupta92@> wrote: > > > > This is the perception of person and the level of understanding . > > > > The Mystry can not be defined as one or two. > > It was not. > > But let it be. > > The dawn of understanding images ........acute vacancy. > Acute Vacancy ? ROFL...... 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.