Good morning everyone,
Here is today's quote:
What is perception, what is seeing? How do you see that tree? Look at it for the moment. With what sight do you see it? Is it solely an optical observation, just looking at the tree with the optical reaction, observing the form, the pattern, the light on the leaf? Or do you, when you observe a tree, name it, saying. “That is an oak” and walk by? By naming it you are no longer seeing the tree—the word denies the thing. Can you look at it without the word? So, are you aware how you approach, how you look at, the tree? Do you observe it partially, with only one sense, the optical sense; or do you see it, hear it, smell it, feel it, see the design of it, take the whole of it in? Or, do you look at it as though you are different from it—of course, when you look at it you are not the tree. But can you look at it without a word, with all your senses responding to the totality of its beauty?
The Flame of Attention, p 34.
Here is my reflection.
Without the name, reality is just what it is. Add the name and it becomes aomething. The reality of something can only be experienced. Take a river. You can only experience what a river is; you jump into it and feel the current and flow of the water. Stay on the back, which means you give it a name, and all you have is the appearance of it. K is all about the reality of things, not the appearance.
Best wishes
Robert
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have often tried to do this but find it very difficult to just look and not make an observation about it. Even just a name. But today I saw a bird in the woods which I didn't recognize and I found I could look at it for what it was and not try to define its characteristics. Of course, that only lasted a few minutes before the biologist in me took over and I had to take note of its coloring so as to identify it later!
ReplyDelete