GENIUS FORUMS

This thread is inspired by the debate in this forum about the relative reality of (and interaction between) the mind and the objective, physical world.
(I have previously defined the objective physical world as the factual world/cosmos which is the subject of study via the formal scientific method, including empirical gathering of data/info.)

Enter the subjective factor in perception. Before enlightenment everyone perceives the world through a screen of "What's in it for me?" or "How does this perception fit with my purposes (in this life in general or in this investigation/inquiry in particular?)

This question is directly linked to David Quinn's and divine focus' conversation in the "Boundaries" thread, as follows (Quoted from df's post, ergo not in actual Q&A sequence):
-------------
DQ: "The "things" we perceive in the empirical world are almost invariably a bundle of differentiations themselves. A tree is comprised of leaves, branches, trunk, bark, etc - all of them perceived differentiations. The differentiations within the tree are just as prevalent as those which occur outside it. And yet we decide to bunch together a set of these differentiations and call this collection a "tree", and reject all the other differentiations as being "not the tree". There are good practical reasons why we might do this, of course, but nevertheless this bunching and rejecting of differentiations into various categories, thereby forming "things", is an arbitrary process - owing to the fact that our purposes in life, practical or otherwise, are themselves arbitrary at root."

df: "What do you mean they are arbitrary? The purposes we have are exactly the purposes we have, how is that arbitrary? Arbitrary compared to what? Compared to some other imaginary purposes that we might have in some other imaginary situations in some other imaginary world?

DQ: "The important thing is to develop the flexibility of mind which can project and withdraw boundaries at will."

df: "Wouldn't this "important thing" be arbitrary at root too, if we were to follow on from what you said above? Kind of questionable to want to hang onto this one important arbitrary thing, while simultaneously attempting to undermine all these other "things" because they are arbitrary."
------------------

I agreed with DQ's opening comments above in my first post in "Boundaries," i.e., there are no "real boundaries between things." But there are, of course, practical distinctions between "entities" such as a tree a rock or, more subtly the photons in a leaf of this tree absorbed into the process of photosynthesis and photons absorbing into and warming the trunk. It can be argued that the former photons have become one with the tree in a more integral way than the latter.

Given this level of agreement, here is how enlightenment transforms perception. David said "...owing to the fact that our purposes in life, practical or otherwise, are themselves arbitrary at root." And he said, "The important thing is to develop the flexibility of mind which can project and withdraw boundaries at will."

In gnosis (enlightenment) there is no longer any real boundary between "my purpose in life" and the divine purpose playing out through "me" (this individual.")
Whose arbitration is it anyway? Whose "will?" (The One Identity, or the illusory many "me's?)

(I'll post then edit as a hedge against my computer's deficiencies... the disappearing post problem.)

"The doors of perception" are then cleansed of subjective filtering for "my purposes", tho selective focus is still free to investigate particulars as inspired. Awakening allows One (seeing through this one) to perceive *what is* (according to the focus/interest at hand) as distinct from just fullfilling the expectations one is looking for to confirm his/her bias or preconception... the ego-programed "search."

I'll leave it here for now, inviting comment, debate, even "dialogue!"
mikiel

mikiel wrote:This question is directly linked to David Quinn's and divine focus' conversation in the "Boundaries" thread, as follows (Quoted from df's post, ergo not in actual Q&A sequence):
-------------
DQ: "The "things" we perceive in the empirical world are almost invariably a bundle of differentiations themselves. A tree is comprised of leaves, branches, trunk, bark, etc - all of them perceived differentiations. The differentiations within the tree are just as prevalent as those which occur outside it. And yet we decide to bunch together a set of these differentiations and call this collection a "tree", and reject all the other differentiations as being "not the tree". There are good practical reasons why we might do this, of course, but nevertheless this bunching and rejecting of differentiations into various categories, thereby forming "things", is an arbitrary process - owing to the fact that our purposes in life, practical or otherwise, are themselves arbitrary at root."

df: "What do you mean they are arbitrary? The purposes we have are exactly the purposes we have, how is that arbitrary? Arbitrary compared to what? Compared to some other imaginary purposes that we might have in some other imaginary situations in some other imaginary world?

DQ: "The important thing is to develop the flexibility of mind which can project and withdraw boundaries at will."

df: "Wouldn't this "important thing" be arbitrary at root too, if we were to follow on from what you said above? Kind of questionable to want to hang onto this one important arbitrary thing, while simultaneously attempting to undermine all these other "things" because they are arbitrary."
------------------

This was not my post, maybe Carl's, but I would say that nothing is actually arbitrary. How can something be arbitrary if it was meant to be? I don't see anything that could be unintentional or a mistake, however surprising something might be from a particular point of view.

In gnosis (enlightenment) there is no longer any real boundary between "my purpose in life" and the divine purpose playing out through "me" (this individual.")
Whose arbitration is it anyway? Whose "will?" (The One Identity, or the illusory many "me's?)

(I'll post then edit as a hedge against my computer's deficiencies... the disappearing post problem.)

"The doors of perception" are then cleansed of subjective filtering for "my purposes", tho selective focus is still free to investigate particulars as inspired. Awakening allows One (seeing through this one) to perceive *what is* (according to the focus/interest at hand) as distinct from just fullfilling the expectations one is looking for to confirm his/her bias or preconception... the ego-programed "search."

I'll leave it here for now, inviting comment, debate, even "dialogue!"
mikiel

I agree with this. I'll say it's not so black-and-white and that there are steps to this cleansing of subjective filtering, but in a sense, that is what happens. It is a switch on different levels from seeing threats to seeing...love.

This was not my post, maybe Carl's,

Not mine, either. And I can't find the quotes attributed to "df" at all. I'm thinking mikiel made them up.

.


Dumb and Dumber (Ah)Muse One Another...


-out of focus-
This was not my post, maybe Carl's,

-tomas-
Yeah, blame the other monkey...




-carlos santana-
Not mine, either.

-tomas-
Hear no evil - see no evil - speak no...




-carlos santana-
And I can't find the quotes attributed to "df" at all.

-tomas-
That's because you didn't do (employ) a word search.




-carlos santana-
I'm thinking mikiel made them up.

-tomas-
No, mikiel didn't make them up.

He simply confused divine focus for ... Jason.

See page 6 of Boundaries. It's the second-to-last post, just above divine focus...

PS - Perhaps it is mikiel's 170+ IQ imaginary reality :-)

PPS - Jason, where art thou?




Tomas



.

Tomas wrote:PPS - Jason, where art thou?

Watching how this thread developed without my intervention.

OK, the opening post got divine focus cross-wired with Jason.

Handles get slippery and are the first things to go as one heads on into the "sunset years." (These are not actual identites, ergo "handles.)
Yet the substance of the post is practically ignored, but for d.f.'s agreement... while the sharks feed on trivial name-mixing.

Here's the reference post by Jason with DQ's quotes designated:
--------------
Sorry again for the delay David.

David Quinn wrote:"The simple act of perceiving differentiation doesn't require us to go that extra step and project boundaries onto this perceived differentiation"

So you reckon conceptual boundaries are projections. Do you reckon perceptual differentiations are projections too?

DQ: " , or even worse, to believe that the "things" we have created via this boundary-projection are real."

You say conceptually projected boundaries are not real, do you also characterize perceptual differentiations as not real?

DQ:" The "things" we perceive in the empirical world are almost invariably a bundle of differentiations themselves. A tree is comprised of leaves, branches, trunk, bark, etc - all of them perceived differentiations. The differentiations within the tree are just as prevalent as those which occur outside it. And yet we decide to bunch together a set of these differentiations and call this collection a "tree", and reject all the other differentiations as being "not the tree". There are good practical reasons why we might do this, of course, but nevertheless this bunching and rejecting of differentiations into various categories, thereby forming "things", is an arbitrary process - owing to the fact that our purposes in life, practical or otherwise, are themselves arbitrary at root. "

What do you mean they are arbitrary? The purposes we have are exactly the purposes we have, how is that arbitrary? Arbitrary compared to what? Compared to some other imaginary purposes that we might have in some other imaginary situations in some other imaginary world?

DQ: " The important thing is to develop the flexibility of mind which can project and withdraw boundaries at will."

Wouldn't this "important thing" be arbitrary at root too, if we were to follow on from what you said above? Kind of questionable to want to hang onto this one important arbitrary thing, while simultaneously attempting to undermine all these other "things" because they are arbitrary.
----------------

It was d.f. who had the final comment on DQ's paragraph quoted above, as follows:
"The creation of concepts is not arbitrary but very purposeful. The concepts actually have their own reality apart from their physical manifestation--that is, if they are derived from a physical thing. Concepts that have no actual physical manifestation are obviously real, and quite influential."

OK, pundits and shit slingers? Any besides d.f. care at all about how perception is transformed by enlightenment, or is the trivial food fight the main attraction in this forum... this thread?
mikiel
ps: As I reviewed the thread, I see that Tomas had alreaded cited the correction above. (I have, usually, quit reading Tomas' posts, as I did before my post above.)
Tomas: "PS - Perhaps it is mikiel's 170+ IQ imaginary reality :-)"
Perhaps this is Thomas' version of penis envy... classically just women who wanna be men, like on this forum, but men with little ones often want to whack off (in the sense of cutting!) at least a few inches from the men they envy in the locker room.

Quitcherbitchen, Thomas, and I'll continue to ignore you. Or give us your numbers and back it up by saying something intelligent for a change... or would that be a first?
m

So, to get it back on track (just in case anyone is interested but shy)....
In reply to my:
-------------
" In gnosis (enlightenment) there is no longer any real boundary between "my purpose in life" and the divine purpose playing out through "me" (this individual.")
Whose arbitration is it anyway? Whose "will?" (The One Identity, or the illusory many "me's?)....
"The doors of perception" are then cleansed of subjective filtering for "my purposes", tho selective focus is still free to investigate particulars as inspired. Awakening allows One (seeing through this one) to perceive *what is* (according to the focus/interest at hand) as distinct from just fullfilling the expectations one is looking for to confirm his/her bias or preconception... the ego-programed "search."
----------------
... divine focus wrote:
"I agree with this. I'll say it's not so black-and-white and that there are steps to this cleansing of subjective filtering, but in a sense, that is what happens. It is a switch on different levels from seeing threats to seeing...love."

There may be "steps to this cleansing" (as in "steps to enlightenment"), but I'm not talking about relative degrees of seening more clearly "through the egoic filters" (as in "self-improvement," seeking a "new, improved self") but the complete vanishing of those filters upon "Awakening."

Then *all perception* is transformed from the results of the "ego-search" (seeing what "i" am looking for)... including but not limited to no fear clouding vision, and universal love as basic orientation to life.
Comments?
mikiel

mikiel,

There may be "steps to this cleansing" (as in "steps to enlightenment"), but I'm not talking about relative degrees of seening more clearly "through the egoic filters" (as in "self-improvement," seeking a "new, improved self") but the complete vanishing of those filters upon "Awakening."

Adya has talked about the awakening experience on numerous occasions. He said it is quite rare for someone to wake up without the ego reasserting itself at some point or other in the future. He has referred to such first-time awakeners as "baby Buddhas" in that the awakening experience is akin to birth. You may be fully human as soon as you are born but it doesn't mean further development isn't going to happen. So too with awakening where one may gain a glimpse of one's true nature but still requires growth and experience to fully realize how that nature operates on the physical plane. I take it that this isn't your experience. Am I correct? Do you see growth and experience within awakening as a means of creating a more refined expression of your true nature or is that expression already fully embodied?

Then *all perception* is transformed from the results of the "ego-search" (seeing what "i" am looking for)... including but not limited to no fear clouding vision, and universal love as basic orientation to life.

So do you consider your "self" fully realized without possibility of ego clouding over your experiences or shading your interactions with others? If yes, what of all the conditioning prior to your awakening? How are we to understand its disappearance without the need to be reshaped or relearned?

Hi samadhi,
Thanks for your interest and inquiry.
(I'll reply in bold for clarity.)

samadhi wrote:mikiel,

There may be "steps to this cleansing" (as in "steps to enlightenment"), but I'm not talking about relative degrees of seening more clearly "through the egoic filters" (as in "self-improvement," seeking a "new, improved self") but the complete vanishing of those filters upon "Awakening."

Adya has talked about the awakening experience on numerous occasions. He said it is quite rare for someone to wake up without the ego reasserting itself at some point or other in the future. He has referred to such first-time awakeners as "baby Buddhas" in that the awakening experience is akin to birth. You may be fully human as soon as you are born but it doesn't mean further development isn't going to happen. So too with awakening where one may gain a glimpse of one's true nature but still requires growth and experience to fully realize how that nature operates on the physical plane. I take it that this isn't your experience. Am I correct? Do you see growth and experience within awakening as a means of creating a more refined expression of your true nature or is that expression already fully embodied?

I wouldn't disagree with Adya as above, but I experienced many temporary states of awakening, which I have called multiple epiphanies, during my 25 yrs of meditation prior to full awakening into the permanent "estate" of enlightenment. The latter can be called spiritual rebirth, and the metaphore holds to the extreme that a newborn babe can not re-enter the "womb" of ego's dream.
To the next question... I distinguish between full realization of divine identity and the ongoing growth (always, never "ending") toward more complete (perfect) manifestation of this divine realization/Presence. As per the Bodhisatva vow, the growth toward perfect manifestation is not complete until all beings are enlightened.
Accordingly, I am teaching and growing community at the Center for Conscious Unity... toward harmony with Nature and everyone realizing unity in this One Presence/Consciousness.

So full realization in God-Consciosness is perfect and complete after full enlightenment, while manifesting it is an ever ongoing process of helping others awaken and live together in harmony. We are just "breaking ground" in this "building" department on the 80 acre land trust.

Then *all perception* is transformed from the results of the "ego-search" (seeing what "i" am looking for)... including but not limited to no fear clouding vision, and universal love as basic orientation to life.

So do you consider your "self" fully realized without possibility of ego clouding over your experiences or shading your interactions with others? If yes, what of all the conditioning prior to your awakening? How are we to understand its disappearance without the need to be reshaped or relearned?

Yes, as above. All former conditioning is transformed to become "tools" of teaching and community building. This includes radical honesty in confrontation of egoic challenges, especially nasty ones... the "rude boy" paradigm, ala Wilber. I never need this persona at my center, as mutual respect prevails.
So my tough-guy biker persona pre-awakening becomes the "rude boy teacher" familiar to everyone on on these boards. Likewise my experience as a builder is now a labor of love on the Trust, and my counseling folks in crisis has turned to transpersonal counseling... helping folks transcend ego rather than just coping with crises from egoic level.
Thanks for the questions. Did I cover them all clearly?

mikiel

mikiel,

I appreciate the explanation. It's helpful to know that you had glimpses prior to your full awakening. Also that the expression itself is evolving. Enlightenment as just the beginning is a much more vibrant and dynamic notion than enlightenment as a goal.