UnbornTao

Again, the fact that something is distinct doesn’t mean it is separate. That might be beside the point, though--distinction deserves its own thread. You seem to think that distinguishing something is bad or wrong; you want to believe that everything is one, but you don’t want to challenge what may be just a notion. Even then, both things might be true, paradoxically--everything being one and things being different from each other. But that's an interesting idea for us right now. Take your experience of eating a meal as an example: What is actually happening while you eat, and by contrast, what do you think is happening? What mental activities are you generating that are extraneous to a “raw” encounter? You might be eating soup and finding it rather bland and unappetizing. Or maybe you’re eagerly devouring a piece of cake. Can you begin to pick out different kinds of activities within your experience of eating a particular meal?

People make claims all the time; that doesn’t necessarily make them true. They might also be using terms like 'awakening' differently, so take that into account. We generally tend to confuse an unusual state or experience with an enlightenment, so it’s important to stay rigorous with oneself regarding that. That said, circumstances seem to be secondary to the desire to know. Bear in mind that "How does this benefit me?" is a completely different question from "What is true?"

I think I do understand where you're coming from. My issue with it is that it is most likely a notion, not an experience, from the way you're answering. How likely is it that you actually experience that there are "no things"--except as a belief adopted from an external source? Do you eat food or a picture of food? See, in your experience, you're already making these distinctions; you just have to be honest about it. You can look at a tree, and many ideas will likely emerge from that encounter--not just your raw experience of what's there, whatever that is. Maybe there's no tree there, or maybe it's of a different nature than what we think it is. Without experientially distinguishing what is what in a precise manner, though, we're stuck with our current knowledge, thinking that our "experience" is the same as what is so.

@Anton Rogachevski Nice, thank you for the response. It’s quite the mu. What would you call a direct experience of something? And what if, in this context, direct experience isn't really an experience at all, but something more like consciousness? Also, what would you say a concept is? Can you notice, in your own answer, what’s conceptual? Isn’t the presumed impossibility of direct access a notion you’ve concluded? We may know what is experienced--yet what is that knowing? As you suggest, it’s indirect, not the thing itself. We can know about things and have insights--which may be a more direct or grounded form of knowing. On top of that, we hear stories of direct consciousness--of personally getting to the heart of things. It does seem like experience is everything we have--that it's where “life” happens for us. We could use our responses to break apart many of the assumptions we may be sharing on this topic. For example: Is it true that, in order to investigate experience, one needs to be separate from it? How do you view your self? Is it considered to be part of experience, perhaps? Is it actually the case that perception implies a perceiver? And why do we generally assume that perception is primary, and experience secondary? Just some food for thought.

Hey, maybe 'the experiencer' is conceptual rather than experiential, so there might as well be something existing that is not experience, or experienced.

Are you giving up before even starting? . I'm just questioning what 'experience' is, and you can do that too. Why did you write "experience/concept"? Could it be that the distinction between the two isn't so clear? When we distinguish between things, that act doesn't imply that those things are separate in reality. So your point about isolation misses that nuance. A concept of something isn't the same as the thing itself, wouldn't you agree?

That sounds like a solid definition to start us with. An additional definition of balance, and its etymology, by GPT: --- Balance, Noun A state of equilibrium or parity, especially between opposing forces or influences. The distribution of weight that allows someone or something to remain upright and steady. A mental or emotional steadiness. A condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions. Balance, Verb To bring into or maintain in a state of equilibrium. To offset or counteract something with an equal force or amount. To assess or weigh different elements to reach harmony or fairness. Etymology of balance: From Middle English balaunce, From Old French balance meaning “balance, scales for weighing,” From Latin bilanx, bilancem (nominative: bilanx): bi- = “two” lanx = “plate” or “dish” (of a scale) Originally, the term referred to a pair of scale pans (two plates) used for weighing—hence the notion of weighing opposing things to achieve equilibrium. --- Can you provide examples of the interplay of polar opposites in life? How do you view multiplicity? What is the principle regardless of how it might affect us? It seems balance occurs as a relationship. For example, say you prepare a dish. What would a "balanced" meal be about? Obviously, adding a pound of salt to the dish is inconsistent with balance, unless the other ingredients call for it (maybe you're cooking a huge meal). How do the ingredients relate to each other such that "balance" shows up?

It seems to me that not everything that exists is, or can be, perceived. For example, you are aware, and this isn't a perception. What is that about? The act of perceiving is hard to deny; in that sense, it could be said to exist. Even though I view it as a process mediated by the body (and thus relative), what it is is up for grabs. It's not that the hardware is perceived, but rather that it is responsible for the perceiving in the first place. You can close your eyes and experience this personally. If you didn’t have eyes, you obviously wouldn’t enjoy the sense of sight--that’s what the claim refers to. I’d like to get clear on what you consider perception to be, so we can contemplate this better. As for me, I’m not conscious of what perception is--its nature--just making observations on the fly. For what it's worth, I’ll say that perception is a meaningless phenomenon. Encountering something through the senses, which is done indirectly, is useless sensory input until we relate what's encountered to ourselves by interpreting it, assigning meaning, etc.

Stop thinking all the time and just relax, calm down, exercise, meditate.

@Growly Feel the body, allow it to be there completely, practice deep and slow breaths from the belly, relax your body. Dedicate half an hour to this practice and it should help.

I'd say both

Vernon Howard

Hey, finally some position that may not be entirely fantasy-based.

The ultimate enlightenment:

Yep.

@Breakingthewall Okey doke

@Breakingthewall Just an observation.

Sorry, I just meant you could open up in general.

Yeah, that's a good example.

"Santa" is not in the same domain as the availability of a perceptive organ, hence the comparison between humans and earthworms. If your argument is that perception is infinite, it clearly is a relative, biological function, just like a computer needs some sort of hardware to exist. I don't see how distinction relates to this discussion. Perception seems to occur as an activity, that's the claim. How do you see perception?

@Breakingthewall You could do some contemplation.

I like that one.

What's the truth of our own dysfunctional patterns? Are we our behavior? Maybe there's also something more than that to be found.