Near sighted/Far Sighted and survival

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, aurum said:

Ultimately you have to drop the distinction between the unchanging source (nothingness) and the changing manifest. 

It's a subtle distinction but for me absolutely essential. What we seek is , let's say "enlightenment" right? The final stage, when there is no more search, when you are one with yourself without doubt, absolutely clear. Then, if you focus in the becoming, the conciousness, and you equate it to what reality is, then your perception (at least mine) remains flat. Ok, you are this, it's happening, you are the happening. But something is missed, you are still progressing to more conciousness, more depth. But if you focus in the unchanging source , the bottomless abyss, the total openess, you realize that it's not nothing or emptiness, it's everything, it's exactly what you are, and what's happening is it's inevitable manifestation. It's deep, alive, perfect, but as a consequence of the depth. Just what works to me, that shift of focus is essential 

[aurum]

6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

But if you focus in the unchanging source , the bottomless abyss, the total openess, you realize that it's not nothing or emptiness, it's everything, it's exactly what you are, and what's happening is it's inevitable manifestation

That IS dropping the distinction.

To realize that the unchanging source (total openness) is actually everything (infinity) is to collapse the two. Which is exactly what is needed.

[UnbornTao]

12 hours ago, aurum said:

By perception, I just mean whatever is your field of consciousness.

I don't just specifically mean a mental interpretation. Although that is also part of your consciousness.

Use of the word "perception" here is mostly pragmatic. Strictly speaking, it's just Consciousness. No outside perceiver, no outside perception.

Interpretation isn't perception. 

[aurum]

5 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Interpretation isn't perception. 

Why do you say that?

[UnbornTao]

20 minutes ago, aurum said:

Why do you say that?

You said that by perception you didn't just specifically mean a mental interpretation. I was making a distinction between the two in case you were assuming they're the same thing.

If we were to define perception as the biological process of encountering data through the senses, where would you place it in 'the field of consciousness'? What do you mean by that? Is that what you're taking to be perception? 

[aurum]

2 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

You said that by perception you didn't just specifically mean a mental interpretation. I was making a distinction between the two in case you were assuming they're the same thing.

They are not the same thing.

But mental interpretations do occur within your field of consciousness. And so we could and should collapse the distinction between them.

It's a nuanced point.

2 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

If we were to define perception as the biological process of encountering data through the senses, where would you place it in 'the field of consciousness'? What do you mean by that? Is that what you're taking to be perception? 

I don't define perception that way. Metaphysically, perception is not a biological process.

By perception I just mean your entire field of consciousness. Anything you can experience, including all mental interpretations. 

[UnbornTao]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

They are not the same thing.

But mental interpretations do occur within your field of consciousness. And so we could and should collapse the distinction between them.

It's a nuanced point.

I don't define perception that way. Metaphysically, perception is not a biological process.

By perception I just mean your entire field of consciousness. Anything you can experience, including all mental interpretations. 

That is a peculiar use of 'perception.' 
Would you be able to perceive or experience something without your body? Could you see without eyes? 

What if you were told that you can perceive something prior to what you're calling interpretation and experience? We start to find different activities within what was previously - and vaguely - held as 'perception.' Would you say your dislike for a particular object is the same as perceiving the object - or the use it has to you as being the same as your sensory encounter with it? 

[aurum]

20 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Would you be able to perceive or experience something without your body? Could you see without eyes? 

I don't have a body or eyes.

I'm not a biological entity.

20 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

What if you were told that you can perceive something prior to what you're calling interpretation and experience?

There is nothing prior to experience. Experience is all you have.

Interpretation is part of experience.

20 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Would you say your dislike for a particular object is the same as perceiving the object - or the use it has to you as being the same as your sensory encounter with it? 

Both the object and any disliking of the object would appear in the field of consciousness.

Both are subsets of consciousness.

Edited July 9 by aurum

[UnbornTao]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

You don't have a body or eyes.

You're not a biological entity.

There is nothing prior to experience. Experience is all you have.

Interpretation is part of experience.

Both the object and any disliking of the object would appear in the field of consciousness.

Both are subsets of consciousness.

But what's your experience of the matter, though? Ah, this is the trick. I know we like and even cherish our spiritual beliefs - but they aren't true. When all is said and done, what do you have relative to these things? This is where I'm trying to push the conversation.

Don't assume that just because I'm saying 'perception occurs', there has to be a self doing the perceiving. The occurrence of perception is hard to deny, isn't it? And it couldn't occur without a body - just as a computer needs hardware to exist. This is a kind of 'law' of objective reality.

For some reason I thought you were the one who started the thread.

[aurum]

7 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

But what's your experience of the matter, though? Ah, this is the trick. I know we like and even cherish our spiritual beliefs - but they aren't true. When all is said and done, what do you have relative to these things? This is where I'm trying to push the conversation.

I've done various forms of spiritual work for over a decade.

7 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Don't assume that just because I'm saying 'perception occurs', there has to be a self doing the perceiving. The occurrence of perception is hard to deny, isn't it?

And it couldn't occur without a body - just as a computer needs hardware to exist. This is a kind of 'law' of objective reality.

No. You do not need a body at all.

I don't assume you're talking about a "self". You are talking about physical biology, which I am denying.

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

I've done various forms of spiritual work for over a decade.

That's great. It doesn't necessarily imbues one with insight into what a thing is, though. That depends on what the practice is based on and what its goals are.

Quote

No. You do not need a body at all.

I don't assume you're talking about a "self". You are talking about physical biology, which I am denying.

I'm sure your fantasies would be promptly set aside if a bus were coming your way and the only option was to step aside. Again, look beyond hearsay - at your experience as it is actually lived.

The mention of 'self' was in response to your introducing a perceiver. Then again, we're tackling what perception is.

Edited July 9 by UnbornTao

[aurum]

24 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

That's great. It doesn't necessarily imbues one with insight into what a thing is, though. That depends on what the practice is based on and what its goals are.

If you want to question the validity of my experience, then I'll just question yours. 

Why should I trust your insight is valid and not just a belief?

Two can play that game.

24 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I'm sure your fantasies would be promptly set aside if a bus were coming your way and the only option was to step aside. Again, look beyond hearsay - at your experience as it is actually lived.

My insights do not exclude survival.

And even if my insights were corrupted by survival, they would still be true.

Whether you move out of the way of the bus or not, that's just dream-content within the field of consciousness. You still don't have a body.

Edited July 9 by aurum

[Sugarcoat]

I’m so chill I have used my far sightedness so little that I’ve become nearsighted. #modernproblems 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

The answer is; surgically remove the self to reveal just the being behind it all 

Stuff the intellectualism !

 

[Hojo]

@Sugarcoat Thats good soon you will become an air head. nothing to think about if you cant see anything. Sadhguru say first you are a rock then you become air then you become gas then you become nothing.

Edited July 10 by Hojo

[Sugarcoat]

10 hours ago, Hojo said:

@Sugarcoat Thats good soon you will become an air head. nothing to think about if you cant see anything. Sadhguru say first you are a rock then you become air then you become gas then you become nothing.

My head is already quite empty 

[UnbornTao]

On 7/9/2025 at 8:56 PM, aurum said:

If you want to question the validity of my experience, then I'll just question yours. 

Why should I trust your insight is valid and not just a belief?

Two can play that game.

What insight?

Quote

My insights do not exclude survival.

And even if my insights were corrupted by survival, they would still be true.

Whether you move out of the way of the bus or not, that's just dream-content within the field of consciousness. You still don't have a body.

Get a lobotomy and see. Without a body, experience can't occur, can it? It's a matter of biological mechanics. We don't say that a dead person has the capacity to experience.

If, as you said, experience is all you have, what allows for that? Do you think you're just a mind floating around in empty space? Without a brain, obviously you wouldn't be able to be writing here. Granted, you seem to be holding perception more metaphorically when you qualify it as absolute. In any case, is it? Can perception occur without a body? If not, then, in the conventional sense, it can't be absolute - because it is a process (a biological one, it seems to me.)

We can claim and believe anything; our actual experience is another matter.

It's a bit like believing that "anger is illusory and we're all one" - and then cursing at other drivers in traffic the next moment. That's the discrepancy I'm pointing out. Whether it's true or not isn't realized by virtue of simply believing in assertions we've come across. Again - just trying to ground this consideration a bit. Makes the work harder but keeps it real.

disclaimer: do not get a lobotomy

Edited July 11 by UnbornTao

[Breakingthewall]

On 9/7/2025 at 1:59 AM, aurum said:

That IS dropping the distinction.

To realize that the unchanging source (total openness) is actually everything (infinity) is to collapse the two. Which is exactly what is needed.

Yes, agree with that.

Not being open to the unlimited locks you in by definition. All humans live like this, locked in. Some realize there's something unbearable in their reality, something that must be equalized. The process isn't easy.

[Breakingthewall]

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Can you perceive without a body? Then, in the conventional sense, perception can't be absolute - because it is a process (a biological one, it seems to me.)

Exactly, conciousness is relative. There is no conciousness without relationship between two. That of dream or illusion is meaningless, are still two, it's the same dream or real, a dream is composed by infinite relationship, same than anything else. Those two could be the same in essence, but operate as two, then are two

Edited July 10 by Breakingthewall

[aurum]

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Get a lobotomy and see. Without a body, experience can't occur, can it? It's a matter of biological mechanics. We don't say that a dead person has the capacity to experience.

Both lobotomies and dead people are imagined within the field of consciousness

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Do you think you're just a mind floating around in empty space?

YES  that's what awakening is.

You are God Mind, absolutely no where, imagining that you need a body, a brain, biology and physical space.

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Granted, you seem to be holding perception more metaphorically when you qualify it as absolute. In any case, is it? 

It's not metaphorical, it's metaphysical.

I mean exactly what I am saying.

There is nothing beyond what you call perception.

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Can perception occur without a body? If not, then, in the conventional sense, it can't be absolute - because it is a process (a biological one, it seems to me.

It's the other way around.

If perception was the result of biology, then your perception would not be absolute. Your perception would be merely a representation of deeper biological processes, happening somewhere in the brain. Which it is not.

It's precisely because perception does not require a body or biology that it is absolute.

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

It's a bit like believing that "anger is illusory and we're all one" - and then cursing at other drivers in traffic the next moment. That's the discrepancy I'm pointing out. Again - just trying to ground this consideration a bit. Makes the work harder but keeps it real.

Everything is One, whether you cuss out drivers or not.

Everything is One, whether you believe it or not.

Everything is One, whether you are completely unconscious of this or not.

Everything is One, whether you are asleep or awake.

 

But yes, to your point, embodiment work still matters.