You are hereForums / Non-Duality / Looking and Seeing / Listening and Hearing
Looking and Seeing / Listening and Hearing
“Until it is seen,” the reality underlying all illusion; that I am formless awareness temporarily manifesting as human being.
“Until it is seen,” an inferential emphasis on the visual field and the primacy of sight and its cognitive cousin – insight.
For some it really is about visualizing and visualization. The ability to “see” what is here.
“I see the light at the end of the tunnel. I see what you mean.”
Except I find I don’t see, not really. I say I do but I don’t. I mean I do look but see what I see. And much of what I say I see is really what I think I see. I look but don’t always see because I remain susceptible to mind’s distracting inner commentary.
What actually happens daily is that I “hear” the commentary in my head, I don’t see it. What I do see are the consequences of heeding that commentary. I see my actions and reactions, commissions and omissions; the resulting handiwork of that interpretive commentary.
So really, by and large, I’m constantly “listening” to an inner commentary explaining the world, my current circumstances, my state of health, my spiritual progress and my “whatever” to me.
And here I am surprised once again by how I re-discover the familiar and apparent ordinary.
In exploring the simultaneity of existence, of everything is everything and all is interconnected, I have found myself falling into spontaneous deep listening which has led to a different kind of hearing.
No listener per se, just listening. And what is heard distinctly is “commentary” against a backdrop of This - unfolding life living itself. At first I thought I was hearing Truth, and then thought I was hearing falsity, the illusion-making commentary. But what I was hearing was the ground of stillness of mind and silence (the “unsaid”). I didn’t know I could do this. That in a sense hearing stillness and silence was doable. That I was hearing simply This.
I hear heartbeat, breath moving in and out of nostrils and lungs, stomach gurgling, life and blood moving in this body. I listen for and hear the truth of what is in lieu of, or in conjunction with, looking for and seeing the truth of what is. Deep listening appears to stimulate an ability to hear not just what is here but also what is not here. I find it strange to say I hear the absence of commentary, that I hear the gaps of stillness and silence between thoughts. That in some way I hear presence. Is there perhaps a whiff of hyperbole here? It may sound that way because that’s a risk I run when I try to explain the ephemeral.
This deep listening leads to deeper listening which leads to intermittent, and initially disconcerting, episodes of inner muteness, a certain indifference to speech which isn’t always appreciated or understood by those I have relationships with.
I suspect, depending on proclivity, sensitivity, preference, and possibly genetic make-up, anyone can drop into any of the senses and not just see the truth of consciousness, awareness, being but hear it, smell it, taste it or feel it. In a sense, I am not locked into only one modality of discerning what is, of being what is.
But there is also the paradox of so . . . many . . . words . . . in here . . . and out there, distinctly heard yet making such a racket, a thunderous roar of white noise (not to be confused with tinnitus!) and meaning takes a hike. I’m sure this is temporary but until it settles down I’m left with this apparent quandary of how to integrate this into my daily life. After all, a self-deprecating smile and a shrug of the shoulders can only get me so far before someone says exasperatedly, “What the hell is that noise coming out of your mouth!”
Anyone care to comment on any similar experiences with any of the sense modalities?
(And I am not talking about synesthesia - a neurologically-based condition in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway, i.e., hearing colors. Which frankly is quite intriguing in its own right.)
Dana,
It’s apparent you’ve ruminated a bit during your sojourns in the consciousness-sphere where mirages continually assail the senses and routinely challenges ones reality testing abilities. I respectfully doff my hat to you.
I agree with your observation that “It is perhaps the ultimate paradox that the unmanifest remains an unqualifiable mystery beyond the ability of mind and its language to grasp it, and yet it would appear that mind and its language is the very means by which this unmanifest, intangible mystery becomes manifest, . . .” or as I’ve come to think about it “awakens to itself.” (When dealing with that one I tend to get very basic and remind self to simply keep breathing and not hold the breath in concentration.)
But dear fellow traveler, I m not yet prepared to agree with your bold proposal that “beyond the Tao, mind and its language alone exist . . .” That’s a poetic leap of faith or insight currently beyond my ken.
I’m still mired in the sequencing that This was before language; before we in form crept out of the oceans. But once on land in human form I do believe we did, and continue to, co-create the world we perceptually inhabit.
Regards
Perhaps 'language' wasn't the best choice of words to express what I was trying to convey (and ironically enough, such is the limitation of human language, as it is always open to our own unique interpretations). Maybe logos would be more apt, although that word too has it limitations and preconceptions. What I mean by 'language' is the act of exchanging information, in some kind of meaningful way, that informs and changes both the sender and the receiver of the information. So such a 'proto-language' would theoretically be inherent in all possible entities, at all stages of the continuum of existence, from microcosmic to macrocosmic, from material to spiritual, as any number of possible symbolic systems or processes, by which those entities communicate. In other words, not only is everything inter-connected, but inter-related and inter-dependent, and in constant communication at some fundamental level of existence -- which would perhaps explain how it all holds together as an ever-evolving system, without devolving into utter, random, entropic chaos. This is of course reminiscent of most aboriginal paradigms, with which I am very empathetic.
To be as brief as possible, I guess what I'm getting at is that all possible entities, as expressions of Source, essentially are first and foremost 'psychological,' and are expressed as 'ideas,' before they manifest in the world of physical appearances. So when I propose that 'mind and language' alone exist, I'm simply saying that no apparent physical expression, human or otherwise, can manifest without them. Needless to say, it does require a poetic leap of faith, to attribute qualities of 'mind/soul' and 'language' to all possible expressions of Source, no matter how primitive. But what can I say? As a Poet, as if in some Shaman's trance, everything 'speaks' to me.
Which I suppose speaks to your original comment about 'looking as opposed to seeing' and 'listening as opposed to hearing.' (Interestingly, the Yaqui Shaman Don Juan, of Carlos Casteneda fame, referred a lot to these opposing and inter-changing modalities). Another example would be: intuitive right-brained 'knowing', as opposed to intellectual left-brained 'rationalizing.' It occurs to me that so much of what I try to put into words is the latter's outward translation of the former's gut/heart-level insight. Like most translations from one 'language' to another, something always seems to be lost in the process, and is bound to be subject to interpretation. Sometimes I think I should just stick to the poet in me ... whoever that may be.
Admittedly, these ruminations are a work in progress ... and open to complete revision at any time ;-)
Dana,
There’s much to mull over in your response and its implications. I appreciate that embedded in language is the impulse to communicate. And putting aside for the moment complications that can and do arise in transmittal, reception, interpretation, translation, the bigger picture for me is that I am surrounded by and immersed in energy-information-exchanges every day. As such, the world, the environment, I inhabit, animate and inanimate, is communicating all the time.
I stumbled onto this open secret while exploring the idea of accessing or activating the sat guru within while at the same time delving into “recognize life and living as thy teacher.” A writer you may be familiar with, Dr. Daniel Siegel was exploring the “neurobiology of we” and his writings, among many others, contributed to the way I think about the brain, spine, nervous system, mind, and mind activity.
In this regard communication is not limited to words, ideas, concepts and language. Nevertheless, communicating and communication appears to me to be a fundamental fact of my participation in life as human being. But cosmic existence is not limited to human existence, and in a sense, “physical expression, human or otherwise, can manifest without” mind and language? And “I” not getting that is “my” issue.
Thus, I am confronted with the fundamental and integral aspect of story to “me”, insofar as everything and everyone is communicating his, her or its story all the time. Story and illusion-making appear to be fundamental and integral aspects of who and what we are as human beings and seeing that or through that is just one of those paradoxes that we learn, or not, to live with.
“As a Poet, as if in some Shaman's trance, everything 'speaks' to me.” I get that. Now all I have to do is allow the gibberish I currently hear through conditioned filters be heard as the music it is.
Perhaps when it comes to communication, all that really matters is does it resonate with the heart/mind. I don't really have much concern with judging whether or not it's good or bad, right or wrong, true or false, real or illusory, or as you say 'gibberish.' All I ask is does it deeply resonate? If it doesn't resonate, I let it go, also without any judgment about it whatsoever.
As naive as it sounds, the secret may be as simple as that ... letting go of the value judgment. But just keep in mind, that even the 'gibberish' ultimately comes from Source. After all, where else could it possibly come from? So maybe it's just a matter of dropping any expectations of what it's supposed to sound like.
As you no doubt know, according to biographical lore, Mozart's musical scores came to him as already complete creations in some kind of mysterious symbolic language, not readily available to most mortals. His task, and not an easy one at that, was to use his hard-earned skills, and his impeccable ability to 'hear,' to translate it into our recognizable musical language. Much the same happened with Einstein and his self-desrcibed 'beautiful' theories, except he translated them into mathematical language. Some novelists have claimed to write entire novels in some kind of trance-like state, much like automatic or channeled writing. Not to even remotely put myself in that exalted company, sometimes, though not always, the same phenomenon happens with poetry -- I have no idea were it comes from, it just happens. Other times, I have to work for months at it. But there does seem to be some hidden language, prior to the actual words, from which it somehow originates. But paradoxically enough, it seems to be beyond the ability of words to explain it. Ultimately of course it must come from that which is prior to all language. That is the most bemusing and unfathomable mystery of all: how does something appear from nothing, and equally as amazing, how does it exist simultaneously, in some already completed form, just waiting for someone to 'discover' it?
In any case, my friend, for whatever reason (and I'm not sure it matters why?), what you say resonates with me. In other words, it 'speaks' to me. It's 'music' to my ears.
And I deeply appreciate that.
Resonance. Deep listening. Deep listening. Resonance.
There is a strong kinship and overlapping therein.
I find that deep listening is not limited to ears, external or inner, but to whole body listening (resonance).
And listening with the heart I very often hear a different tale than that told by mind.
So when it comes to communication I find that which deeply resonates does seem to make a difference in how I am, ultimately neither better nor worse, just in tune with what is.
Is this dialogue or monologue and does it make a difference?
A question that can only be asked by a walking, talking, breathing point of view!
Regards
Great post Tony ... I've been wondering (or perhaps wandering) along similar lines myself.
I suppose a case can be made that there is no tangible cosmos, or separate self, to speak of, except that cosmos, or separate self, which we co-create, with our thoughts, concepts, beliefs, words, symbols, etc -- i.e. mind and its language (and here I’m using ‘mind’ in the Greek sense of ‘psyche’ or spirit, or soul, and ‘language’ in the broad sense, as a symbolic system of communication, or information exchange). In other words, mind and its language, whether logical, chemical, mathematical, or emotional, musical, poetic, or visual, auditory, tactile, are the means by which the tangible world of self and not-self is created, and therefore, perhaps, all things are cosmic self-creators. (Not limiting ‘mind and language’ to being exclusively human attributes, for who knows that the most infinitesimal, elusive particle doesn’t have a ‘mind and language’ of its own? Indeed, it has been theorized in quantum physics, that subatomic particles, such as electrons, ‘communicate’ with one another, instantly, regardless of the time and space that apparently separate them. A similar phenomenon can be seen in heart cells, for when a single heart cell is separated from the main organ, it continues to pulse in synchronous time with its source. Needless to say, there are countless examples of this subliminal communication at a distance, in all of nature.)
It is perhaps the ultimate paradox that the unmanifest remains an unqualifiable mystery beyond the ability of mind and its language to grasp it, and yet it would appear that mind and its language is the very means by which this unmanifest, intangible mystery becomes manifest, and as such, the only ‘reality’ that can be qualifiable: this multi-dimensional world of identification, conceptualization, distinction and description.
“In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God” seems to sum it up quite nicely. One might ask, what is this mysterious ‘word’ of God, if not mind and language? Until mind and language make it so, nothing begins: there is only the absolute nothingness, or void, or vacuum, or density, or singularity, or mystery, or Tao (fill in the blank, depending on one’s paradigm) of infinite potential. As such, being and becoming, whatever form they may take, including the form of a separate self, only spring to life the instant that mind and language conceive and perceive it. Otherwise, without this separate ‘other’ to conceive, or perceive, or speak, this dialogue would be non-existent and impossible. Only the creative power of mind and language make it possible.
Or consider this from wikipedia: "In his 1987 book The Songlines, British novelist and travel writer, Bruce Chatwin describes the songlines as: "...the labyrinth of invisible pathways which meander all over Australia and are known to Europeans as 'Dreaming-tracks' or 'Songlines'; to the Aboriginals as the 'Footprints of the Ancestors' or the 'Way of the Law'. Aboriginal Creation myths tell of the legendary totemic being who wandered over the continent in the Dreamtime, singing out the name of everything that crossed their path - birds, animals, plants, rocks, waterholes - and so singing the world into existence."''
Indeed, may I be so bold as to propose that, beyond the Tao, mind and its language alone exist, and therefore rewrite those famous first words: In the beginning was mind and language, and mind and language were with God, and mind and language were God ... the end.
Poet at heart