Post by Figgles on Jan 19, 2020 19:33:41 GMT
Zendancer: TRF: You wrote to E: "What then is the mechanism for seeing/realizing, other than the mind?"
Most of us use the word "mind" synonymously with "intellect," and the intellect is not necessary for seeing or body-realizing (which is different from mind-realizing).
All living things are connected to the universe directly through their senses. In the deepest sense they are not even connected because they are one and the same. The universe is alive, Igor! An amoeba, for example, directly perceives and interacts with its environment, but it does not have an intellect. We are unified with reality in exactly the same way. The intellect is like a personal computer that allows us to mentally model what we see through the power of abstraction, but it is not necessary for everyday life. People who practice mental silence can function quite effectively without any thoughts whatsoever.
You also wrote, "If you didn't have a mind, would you see/realize anything?"
Sure. You would see "what is," beyond name and form. This is what we call "the actual."
spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/12821
Most of us use the word "mind" synonymously with "intellect," and the intellect is not necessary for seeing or body-realizing (which is different from mind-realizing).
All living things are connected to the universe directly through their senses. In the deepest sense they are not even connected because they are one and the same. The universe is alive, Igor! An amoeba, for example, directly perceives and interacts with its environment, but it does not have an intellect. We are unified with reality in exactly the same way. The intellect is like a personal computer that allows us to mentally model what we see through the power of abstraction, but it is not necessary for everyday life. People who practice mental silence can function quite effectively without any thoughts whatsoever.
You also wrote, "If you didn't have a mind, would you see/realize anything?"
Sure. You would see "what is," beyond name and form. This is what we call "the actual."
spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/12821
Here ZD, you are very clearly denoting a middle layer between that which abides and that which arises/appears. No such layer 'actually' exists. Ultimately, Absolutely, Actually speaking, all perceivables are appearance only, thus, it's a nonsense to term anything that is a perceivable to be 'actual.'
Beyond name and form, a perceived, unified field of aliveness, still constitutes an appearance. And like all other appearances, because it is appearance only, it is not Truth.
Just because a particular perception is beyond the supposed "ordinary" does not make it actually transcendent of the realm of appearance.