Message Boards Message Boards

Non-specific/Broad/Generic

What is clarity/unfiltered/direct perception?

Toggle
Hi i am doing direct mode stuff and there is a definite movement toward what it makes sense to call 'unfiltered' perception, but i don't really know what the difference is between unfiltered and filtered experience. the "filter" metaphor would seem to imply, and apparently accurately, that there is an unfiltered experience going on "underneath" the filter at all times. And in my experience i am beginning to see that all affect, all filters, are just bits of consciousness, rather than ways of being conscious of things.

In my practice i will place attention on an affective feeling in the body, and suddenly i am noticing all of consciousness (including the affective feeling) in a more continuous way without so many little 'wavers'. so, just what is "wavering" and what is "attention" if background consciousness is always there in toto without any wavering/vibrating?


edit:
One experiences a smoothly flowing moment of clear experiencing where one is interlocked with the rest of actuality, not separate from it. This moment of soft, ungathered sensuosity – apperceptiveness – contains a vast understanding, an utter cognisance, that is lost as soon as one adjusts one’s mind to accommodate the feeling-tone ... and subverts the crystal-clear objectivity into an ontological ‘being’ ... a connotative ‘thing-in-itself’. In the process of ordinary perception, the apperceptiveness step is so fleeting as to be usually unobservable. One has developed the habit of squandering one’s attention on all the remaining steps: feeling the percept, emotionally recognising the qualia, zealously adopting the perception and getting involved in a long string of representative feeling-notions about it.


what exactly is being squandered or, what is this action of squandering or what is this object called "squandering" (whichever question fits)

RE: What is clarity/unfiltered/direct perception?
Answer
5/25/12 7:52 AM as a reply to Adam . ..
Where is that quote from?

Is there a more concrete way to phrase your question?

What is being squandered is attention which could be directed to the present moment as it is. The action of squandering is the later stages of the five skandhas. But I feel like I must have missed the point of your question, as I am just paraphrasing the last sentence of that quote.

RE: What is clarity/unfiltered/direct perception?
Answer
5/25/12 8:47 AM as a reply to fivebells ..
oops forgot to site the quote, -10 points...

it's an actualism quote from here:

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/attentivenesssensuousnessapperceptiveness.htm

As for trying to rephrase my question I am having a really hard time, i've now written out 3 rephrasings and deleted them, hopefully the 4th time works.

It seems like there are two "awarenesses" there is the background awareness which constantly cognizes all of sensate experience, and there is the focused awareness which seems to look at parts of this in more detail. This intuitive interpretation is apparently false, because when is not using the focused awareness, everything is seen simultaneously in clear detail. So what is actually happening? The intuitive turning and focusing "mental camera" is apparently a misunderstanding.

What I have for a while thought was ACTUALLY happening was that the impression of focus is given by an affective "blanket" being fabricated on top of everything not being focused on, but if the background awareness takes in everything simultaneously in clear detail then why isn't the blanket simply cognized simultaneously along with the actual experience?

This experience of both things being simultaneously cognized happens for me when i attempt to "allow consciousness to arise" and simply be receptive to everything, but what exactly is "being receptive?"

If that doesn't work i am totally willing to give up trying to explain my question as it doesn't seem to have practical relevance anymore for some reason.

RE: What is clarity/unfiltered/direct perception?
Answer
5/25/12 11:39 AM as a reply to Adam . ..
Thanks, I understand now.

I don't have direct experience with this, but the theory is that it is cognized, but you ignore it because you see it as irrelevant to securing yourself.

Direct experience of the ignorance in operation is supposed to be an intermediate practice (in the sequence I first learned) but I don't have it.