Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Dan wrote: " How is an image formed? " : Consider the notion of figure-ground. In the moment (no " time " ) there is no figure-ground... beholding and beheld are not distinct. If there *is* figure-ground that would seem to require time, some movement *between*... Now, if there is figure-ground, that is the fundamental notion of " image " , is it not? And also, it is the fundamental notion of any subject, of any " you " or " I " for whom an image *appears*. So in relation to figure-ground there can be a dissolving to where beholding and beheld are not distinct and where there is no image. And in relation to the undifferentiated " isness* of What Is there can be differentiation into figure-ground. It seems clear there can be no " how " to the differentiation into figure-ground. And hence no " how " for the formation of image. So it would seem we must regard the emergence of figure-ground as fundamentally mysterious. And dissolving back into the formless flux of Now as return to the fundamental nature. It is a wonder that form should emerge from the formless. It is a wonder that form should dissolve back into the formless. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Dan wrote: > " How is an image formed? " : > > Consider the notion of figure-ground. > > In the moment (no " time " ) there is no figure-ground... > beholding and beheld are not distinct. > > If there *is* figure-ground that would seem to require > time, some movement *between*... > > Now, if there is figure-ground, that is the fundamental notion > of " image " , is it not? > > And also, it is the fundamental notion of any subject, of any > " you " or " I " for whom an image *appears*. > > So in relation to figure-ground there can be a dissolving > to where beholding and beheld are not distinct and where there > is no image. > > And in relation to the undifferentiated " isness* of What Is > there can be differentiation into figure-ground. > > It seems clear there can be no " how " to the differentiation > into figure-ground. And hence no " how " for the formation of > image. > > So it would seem we must regard the emergence of figure-ground > as fundamentally mysterious. > > And dissolving back into the formless flux of Now as return > to the fundamental nature. > > It is a wonder that form should emerge from the formless. > It is a wonder that form should dissolve back into the formless. > > > Bill > The chin rests on the eternal, wondering... Anna 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.