Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Wangmo

Perception "beyond ordinary"

Recommended Posts

Tashi Delek!

 

If we say that we see the objects around us with the physical eye, what about cases of people who can see things others can't see - for example if someone sees spirits? Is this then a sort of "extended" function of the physical eyes, or is it another kind of perception which is just somehow "added" to the picture perceived by the eye?

 

Thank you. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek, Wangmo.

 

Regarding the yesterday`s teaching, there are two kinds of objects from the conventional point of view, that one could perceive:

 

1. the realistic, which exist,

2. the non-realistic, which do not exist.

 

Which kind of the objects this “perception beyond the ordinary” is refering to?

 

Cause I understand that ven. Lama Shenphen Rinpoche explained yesterday also that the perception (as a function of the sense) – and the objects - and the mind (i. e. the consciousness) are in the close connection. So, maybe it would be good to look at that "perception beyond the ordinary" in the context of this connection. The perception could be affected by the type of an object and also by the state of the someone`s mind.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Simona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tashi Delek!If we say that we see the objects around us with the physical eye, what about cases of people who can see things others can't see - for example if someone sees spirits? Is this then a sort of "extended" function of the physical eyes, or is it another kind of perception which is just somehow "added" to the picture perceived by the eye?Thank you. :)

 

Tashi Delek everybody,

 

it is a question with several answers, as often! :wink:

 

the objects can be classified from different ways.

for example physical phenomena perceived by physical senses are linked to one of the 5 gross consciousnesses. A mental object (image, dream) is perceived by the mental consciousness (6 th sense more subtle).

In both case, the object can be existant or non-existant.

Existant means recognized by the majority of people, like white snow mountain (or the horns of a bull)

Somebody who says he saw a blue snow mountain (or a hare with 2 horns) has some problems; maybe he needs spectacles (the organ sense is deficient) or maybe he has hallucination (he is tired, drug addicted or dreaming...) because this object is not existant at all!

 

In the case where somebody "sees" spirits, it does not means they are not existing.Tthere are very subtle objects from ordinary mind cannot be aware. Anyway they have an existence only perceived by some sentient beings ( Buddhas, Aryas, yogis or somebody who can be clairvoyant specially by developping calm abiding in past or present lifes).

 

Nevertheless we must not forget that any impermanent phenomena has non- intrinsic existence. They are temporary, arising with the meeting of causes and conditions.

 

Best regards

 

Ani Chönyi :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello hello !!

 

So what do you think about the vision of Auras ??

some people say that this capacity is a result of a mental deficience as an illness !

So I'm mentaly ill because I can see them since 14 years, maybe before but I'm conscious about it since i'm 8? It's the first time I speak about it here and it's more rare I speak about "auras" even my parents don't know that !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön
some people say that this capacity is a result of a mental deficience as an illness!

 

Do they think that also the Kyrlian's camera, which can to some extent perceive and film an aura, has mental deficiences and illness? :maybe: :wink:

 

All the very best,

chödrön

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aha !! you're right !! but many of them don't know this method !!

 

All the best !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek.

 

Each sense organ is connected to different type of the consciousness (the eye – the eye consciousness, i. e. seeing ... but the most interesting, the brain – the mental consciousness), which (by the “help” of the consciousness) further establish the conntact accordingly to different type of the phenomena. So, the link between the phenomena and the sense organ is the consciousness. And we know that there are more levels of the consciousness and we could maybe consider there are different types of the links between the one and the same phenomena and one and the same sense organ. Example: with one`s physical eyes one can sees the river, which exists from the conventional point of the view. Then, regarding that one for example spent whole day near that river, one might has dreams about it. When one will abide in the dream body at night, one could “see” that river one spent the time near. And the next day one would tell one`s friend about the river and when trying to recall it from the memory, one would “see” it just as it would be in front of the eyes. So, the phenomena is the same, the sense organ is the same, yet different types of the links between. What it is that changes, then? The level of the consciousness, in upper case the level of the eye consciousness regarding to the different states of the mind (the racional state of the mind, state of dreaming, state of the memory). How interesting would be to find out all the levels of the mental consciousness, though!

 

But, this is only my thinking, so do not rely upon.

 

Best regards,

 

Simona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

 

1. the realistic, which exist,

2. the non-realistic, which do not exist.

Which kind of the objects this “perception beyond the ordinary” is refering to?  

 

In fact, I was meaning the perception of something existing, so not a hallucination.

 

But then Ani Chönyi wrote: "Existant means recognized by the majority of people, like white snow mountain (or the horns of a bull)" - so now I am not sure anymore. One can't really say that spirits are recognised by the majority of people, so can we say they are (conventionally) existent or not? 8O

 

All the best. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi delek,

In fact, I was meaning the perception of something existing, so not a hallucination.

The difficulty is to ascert what is existant and what is not, on the basis of one person's perception, without knowing if the mind of this person is 'sane' or under any negative influences (mental unbalance, drugs,...).

If you see some smoke or fog, and you are not very aware, or don't see well, you might think it is a ghost. But this is a "non-existant ghost". If you see the snow on a peak early morning, you might see it blue; while the snow is not blue. Etc. These are non-existing phenomena.

 

Now, since we know that beings can take rebirth into spirits and ghosts realm, these beings are existant (conventionally at least). So, we can think very well that they could be seen.

In this cases (like for the aura) it is indeed a kind of extended faculty of the eye consciousness. The organ not changing, it's it's consciousness which 'gains' an extra-sensibility.

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek dear Rinpoche,

 

thank you very much for your answer. :D

 

The difficulty is to ascert what is existant and what is not, on the basis of one person's perception, without knowing if the mind of this person is 'sane' or under any negative influences (mental unbalance, drugs,...).

Is it possible to assert the (conventional) existence of phenomena based on a person's perception? I understood that we assert the conventional existence of a phenomenon based on its function. This seems quite easy in the case of a cup - if a person puts tea in this cup, and the tea stays inside, we can think that the cup exists. But it is already more complicated if we take the existence of Earth as a spherical planet - or even more, if we wish to assert the existence of karma based on the perception of an (ordinary) person. And below I see that you wrote we base our knowledge that spirits and ghosts exist on the knowledge that beings can take rebirth in that realm ... So is it that for some phenomena we can assert their existence and for some we (at least for the time being) have to rely on the teachings?

 

In this cases (like for the aura) it is indeed a kind of extended faculty of the eye consciousness. The organ not changing, it's it's consciousness which 'gains' an extra-sensibility.

But as I understand, the eye consciousness is connected to the sense organ of the eye? So the eye in the normal state is already able to see spirits or auras and in such case then just the faculty of the eye-consciousness is expanded, or the eye consciousness in this case then processes the impulse received by another sense?

 

Thank you very much. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön

Tashi Delek,

 

So is it that for some phenomena we can assert their existence and for some we (at least for the time being) have to rely on the teachings?

 

The first. There are some phenomena which cannot be asserted just by logic. I don’t remember which examples were given, but I assume that all the non-conceptual experiences come in this category.

 

So the eye in the normal state is already able to see spirits or auras and in such case then just the faculty of the eye-consciousness is expanded, or the eye consciousness in this case then processes the impulse received by another sense?

 

The first, again. I would just remark that if the eye in its normal state is already able to see spirits or auras, the consciousness in our usual frame of mind does not allow it, we need some extra work in this life or previous ones to see them. l-)

Otherwise only Buddhas can use other senses to perceive any consciousness (They are not limited to an organ of eye to perceive a visual object and perform an act of seeing.)

 

All the very best,

chödrön

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tashi Delek,  

The first, again. I would just remark that if the eye in its normal state is already able to see spirits or auras, the consciousness in our usual frame of mind does not allow it, we need some extra work in this life or previous ones to see them.  l-)  

chödrön

 

Hi,

 

So if I have a good understanding, the fact that someone can see the auras is also due to exercices in other past lifes ?? is it the same for synestesy, empathy ? that's why not everybody are able to see them !!? But what is exactly the goal of those abilities ? someone has any exemples of stories of some Buddhas that speak about those capacities ?

 

All the best !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön

Hi,

 

I have to warn again, that my understanding is limited and memory not reliable, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

So if I have a good understanding, the fact that someone can see the auras is also due to exercices in other past lifes ?? is it the same for synestesy, empathy ?

 

Yes, nothing comes out of nothing, abilities cannot be developed without a previous effort, there are quite some conditions needed for each of them.

It also means that if one has created conditions for them in the past, it does not mean that they will last forever – they can be gone at any time - if one does not maintain the causes for their existence or if one is not a Bodhisattva.

The example that I remember is a clairvoyant woman losing her clairvoyance because she used it for too selfish reasons.

 

But what is exactly the goal of those abilities ?

 

Good point. They can be trained and developed for samsaric purposes or in order to help the others in a better and more effective way and to help oneself to reach Enlightenment quicker.

So it's a question of individual's ethics and personal choice, and the consequences which arise from it. If one has more ability to help, there is always danger of the opposite, of creating more negativity. Therefore it is realy important in which goal one harnesses these abilities, whom does one serve - to himself or to the others.

 

All the very best,

chödrön

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's always a tactful stuff to use it in the best way! I don't want that discussion turns into a personal thread but is there a means to learn more about this phenomena .. except with books , I already read .. I mean with a teacher or someone else ?

 

I know you wrote that you'r understanding is limited .. but what you gave me, was a little plus for me and I hope for others.. it's always interesting to have the oppinion about someone else .. because except my friends (3/4) and an other person, I can't talk about it like it like I could speak about the weather !! It seams to still like a taboo in here !

 

Best regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek.

 

I would like to correct my last writings and to add some more about the subject.

 

About existent and non-existent objects:

 

First, should be considered that sense consciousness of an object is exclusively nonconceptual, which means that it is not being or characterized by concepts (an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances). And refering the Sautrantika, the real object is one that has true existence, which means that can be perceived by nonconceptual cognition.

 

Second, mind consciousness on the other hand, it may be either conceptual or nonconceptual, yet conceptual cognition occurs only with mind consciousness.

 

In both, conceptual and nonconceptual cognition, however, the cognition assumes a transparent mental aspect that the real object casts on it, and which resembles that real object. In the case of forms of physical phenomena, the mental aspect may be the mental semblance of a sight, a sound, etc.

 

 

About changing between the levels of the eye consciousness:

Eye consciousness is temporarily blocked during deep sleep, i. e. it is absent. So, when one “sees” a river during dreaming, it means that one`s eye consciousness didn`t change its level, yet that one “sees” the mental aspect of that river, which is very similar to the real one.

 

 

From: http://www.berzinarchives.com/sutra/sutra_...ps_objects.html

 

 

Best regards,

 

Simona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...