Have you ever really seen a cat?

[mojomojo]

It is said, that when we operate from the mind, we never see life as it truly is.
The mind will always interrupt, or not allow the present moment.
It may even tell us a little story, there is a cat, one might think it may be male, if a mouse was around it would probably chase it.
We only see the minds impression of a cat.

Not so long ago, one saw a cat for the first time, it emerged from its front garden out onto the path, it was ginger in colour, the mind didn't question whether it was male or female, mind wasn't engaged at all?
The luminous ginger ball of light that surrounded this creature, had one spell bound, to the extent, one attempted to follow it.
Those passing by, must have thought him quite insane, obsessed, as he was, with this cat.
But they didn't see what one saw.
Have you ever really seen a cat?

And would such an experience be pleasing, would one see it as progress of sorts.
Could it come from the mind?
If one see's something or has an experience, and is aware that he see's it, or experiences it.
There is a separateness, there is the one who see's, and the object that is seen.
Is it fair then to say that, it is the work of the mind?
Or can the mind work in tandem with source, if so, why do we need to transcend it?



As regards the present moment, is it not said that which we do in our past creates our present,
and unless we do something dramatic, we will be the same tomorrow as we are now.
So it seems the present moment, is where all time meets and becomes one,
past, present and future, it is a portal to transcend time and duality.





mojo.

[donq]

Hi Robert,

Just having time to reply this thread of yours.

If one saw a cat for the first time. There were luminous ginger balls of light surrounding this creature, had one spell bound, to the extent. Was that a cat? And how did one know it?
One might have to use some reasoning. There are two kinds of them: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific.
For example, "All cats cry meow. I saw a ginger creature cried meow. Therefore, the creature I saw was a cat."

Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories.
For example,"'My older brother's cat cries meow. My friend's older brother's cat cries meow. My neighbor's big brother's cat cries meow. Therefore, all older brothers' cats cry meow."
(Frankly speaking, I feel that an inductive reasoning is too complicated to real life situation. lol)

And, whether it's a deductive reasoning or an inductive reasoning, it should go like this:
Cats die;
Ginger one is a cat;                 
Therefore, Ginger one will die.     

But if goes like this:   
Cats die;
Men die;
Therefore, Men are cats.

The second reasoning is not deductive reasoning, nor inductive reasoning. It's even not a reasoning at all. It could be called a faulty reasoning (fallacy).

Have you ever really seen a cat?
My take is that we reason about what we've seen to determine if it's a cat or not. This means we used to have some information (or logic; reasoning) about the cats before . If not, then there's no way we could determine whether what we've seen is a cat or not.
However, as for spirituality, we have taught to experience without naming (determine/giving value to) it. Hence, we could be able to get a pure or true experience.
This is because giving a name or value (having preconception) to something might prevent us from really experience it. If you ask a poet, a physicist, a mathematician, a botanist, a psychologist, a neurologist etc. about what a leaf is, we will get so many different answers. This is because they name the same thing with very different definitions.     
More than that, human (personal) experience has more thing to do with subjective, not objective definition. Art not science. A man saw that his lover's eyes were so beautiful (subjective) while the other might saw that those were just normal eyes like other women (objective).

So, our minds trick us about this? Yes.
There were some schools of spirituality believed that mind created everything. This might be true in some context. But not true in all contexts. Because, as you said, our mind work in tandem with source. Experience needs something to be experienced or it would never known about its experiencing. As there's a warning about mindless brain and brainless mind. Mind cannot work without its brain. And vice versa. Body cannot work without its mind. And vice versa etc. Hence, just for the sake of saying, the middle way.
As far as I remember, Buddhism deals a lot with duality's war. In truth, there's no real duality. But for the sake of spiritual reference, one might have to accept it first, so that he can transcend it later. If one never accepted its existing, how could he transcend it? (because he never tried to do that).
Therefore, one has to participate with it (experience) in order to go beyond it. How could one swim if he never really gone into the water?
P.S. I don't have enough time to recheck my post. Sorry in advance for any errors.
 

[mojomojo]

Hi Donq,

Yes, there is a lot of faulty reasoning in the world today, Lol.


The man who saw his lovers eyes were beautiful, while another might see, that they were just normal eyes.

Yes, but first man is looking with his heart, second man, only uses normal vision. ( and maybe, he needs eye test ).

I agree Donq, many spiritual teachers, say there is no path, there is nothing to do at all, you only have to realise, I AM, a subtle shift in consciousness is all that is needed.
But how many lifetimes did it take for them to reach that conclusion.

First you have to find your mind, and when you have found your mind, then you have to lose it. Ha Ha Ha............
See, I told you, there is a lot of faulty reasoning in the world today. HaHaHa................



Robert.