07-22-2010, 12:05 AM
lex icon wrote:Gonzo, That is closer! If you cease thinking you will cease to perceive objects as separate, individual, inherent, entities and the implied observer of these individual entities will vanish too! Then you will truly start to marvel at what it is you are really looking at.
I find nothing wrong with thinking...pondering is perhaps my most favorite activity. To me, if there is any "trick" at all, it is in suspending judgement and attachment. Nothing vanishes...it merely is what it is.
lex icon wrote:Its not so much that we are trying to get free from perception it is just that perception is merely one of the five aggregates Buddhism refers to. It is more that we wish to temper our flare for defining reality with a heavy emphases on perception.
When the perception of an object as inherent takes place what is aware of this? When objects can no longer be perceived this way, again what is aware of this?I am...the one who thinks, the one who perceives. If I observe without defining, whatever is, is. It does not go away.
lex icon wrote:Again I just wanted to remind that according to Carlos, DJ thought the first truth about awareness had to do with objects. I would like to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps, Toltecians and sorcerers and shamans can weigh in on this. What was DJ talking about, what did he mean?
I have relentlessly been saying what I think he meant and how Buddhist thought relates to this. So come on its time to step up.Seems to me rather obvious that in order to percieve, there must be something to percieve. I'm not interested in the chicken/egg controversy.
I find nothing wrong with thinking...pondering is perhaps my most favorite activity. To me, if there is any "trick" at all, it is in suspending judgement and attachment. Nothing vanishes...it merely is what it is.
lex icon wrote:Its not so much that we are trying to get free from perception it is just that perception is merely one of the five aggregates Buddhism refers to. It is more that we wish to temper our flare for defining reality with a heavy emphases on perception.
When the perception of an object as inherent takes place what is aware of this? When objects can no longer be perceived this way, again what is aware of this?I am...the one who thinks, the one who perceives. If I observe without defining, whatever is, is. It does not go away.
lex icon wrote:Again I just wanted to remind that according to Carlos, DJ thought the first truth about awareness had to do with objects. I would like to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps, Toltecians and sorcerers and shamans can weigh in on this. What was DJ talking about, what did he mean?
I have relentlessly been saying what I think he meant and how Buddhist thought relates to this. So come on its time to step up.Seems to me rather obvious that in order to percieve, there must be something to percieve. I'm not interested in the chicken/egg controversy.