Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@SpinyNorman said:
Although things don't have to be substantial to be different or separate - look at clouds for example.
Yea, clouds are the same, but different at the same time! They are all just water vapor but take very different shapes, etc. But the difference or separateness, seems to me anyway, to still be on the level of conventional truth. I think the teaching of non-duality is most, if not completely, referring to the ultimate truth, rather than the conventional truths that are readily observable.
There are some good sutras about non-duality. I'll have to look them up when I get a chance.
@SpinyNorman said:
Is there any basis in reality for the experience of non-duality, or is it just a subjective state?
Non-duality is the basis. To be able to perceive duality, you need to make artificial divisions. Of course, it can be useful to extract and name patters, but they are always changing which causes suffering. Non-duality is that aspect of reality which does not change.
As I understand it, non-duality is not returning to the baby state. The unborn baby obviously believes that it is one with the mother both physically and spiritually. It needs to learn independence (a process that can take a very long time, sometimes beyond puberty). The next step is to learn interdependence. Although form is separate, that doesn't interfere with spiritual unity.
So "Presence" is that aspect of reality which does not change? Sorry, this is all too cryptic for me, I still have no idea what you actually mean by "Presence".
Is there a Buddhist word or concept which describes what you are talking about?
@SpinyNorman said:
Is there a Buddhist word or concept which describes what you are talking about?
In Advaita they call that "I amness"
That intuition, you exist. It's the awareness in which everything is perceived. But it itself can not be perceived.
Not to be mistaken for conscious attention.
It might be Buddha mind? In buddhist terms. Idk.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@SpinyNorman said:
Is there a Buddhist word or concept which describes what you are talking about?
Doubtful. Otherwise would he keep using the 'covers all the bases, and cures all' term...?
@Earthninja said:In Advaita they call that "I amness" That intuition, you exist.
Though that sounds rather like self-view? The use of Buddhist jargon is challenging enough on a pan-Buddhist forum like this, introducing additional jargon from here, there and everywhere can get very confusing. The semantics are important, it's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion if people won't clearly explain the language they are using.
@SpinyNorman said:
Is there a Buddhist word or concept which describes what you are talking about?
Weird that I have to explain the meaning of a word that we all know and use, with a Buddhist word.
"All experiences and life forms cannot be proven to exist independently of their being a presence before your mind" - this is Dzogchen explanation that may give you a clue what I am talking about.
Does this help?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited November 2015
It depends on context. It's not necessarily that we want to know what the word means; we'd like to know what context you're using, and how YOU interpret the word.
Like "Ball" or "Post".
Out of context, you have no precise idea of what my intention is in presenting those words.
If you use a more commonly-used word in Buddhist parlance, or maybe the Pali/Sanskrit text, we'd be clearer.
Many words are 'lost' or diluted in translation....
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Presence is the quality of Rigpa.
You can drill down from here if you are interested in technical stuff, but I doubt you will understand it, if you cannot understand what presence is.
Present is the basis out of which all phenomena arise. It is not hidden, quite opposite, it's all we experience. If you look at what you are experiencing now, this is what is present. If you are listening to music, music is present. If you are watching your breath, it is present. So, presence is the nature of everything. Unless you divide it through conceptualization it is non-dual. This is why there is a big emphasize on "no thought" in Mahayana, because thoughts are dividing presence into objects.
When you see, that everything shares the same nature, you will stop chasing after or running from particular objects distinguished from the whole.
Although this is simple, it's just the theoretical part. The goal is to see that sameness firsthand, realize it, so when thoughts arise, they do not trigger an emotional response.
@ourself said:
The only problem with what you're saying is that we need duality in order to experience non-duality.
No, we don't. We need duality, to talk and conceptualize about non-duality.
Experiencing it, is finding no differences. If you look at a rock and a feather you will focus on hardness and softness, dividing their presence into two. But if you look at the aspect of presence, it is the same in both. In other words, one should look at the presence, not on what is present. This way there is no duality.
@ourself said:
We all know what non-duality implies but not even one of us would if there was no duality to see through and play with.
Yes, that is true. Duality gives us knowledge, that is why we hold onto it.
@ourself said:
Duality and non-duality are complimentary.
Duality is substructure of non-duality, because of their nature which is presence. Even if an object is distinguished through dualistic thinking, it's still present! The aspect of presence cannot be divided.
@robot said:
Another word for presence would be suchness?
Yes, we can look at it this way.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@ourself said:
The only problem with what you're saying is that we need duality in order to experience non-duality.
No, we don't. We need duality, to talk and conceptualize about non-duality.
Well, what I mean is that we have no proof of any experiential state of being prior to being born into the world of duality.
Also it's kind of a play on words. It makes more sense to me to talk of duality and unity as opposed to duality and non-duality if non-duality is the default state. "Non-duality" already implies there is duality to see through.
Duality and non-duality make it sound as if these states are opposed to one another when they are in harmony.
If you look at a rock and a feather you will focus on hardness and softness, dividing their presence into two. But if you look at the aspect of presence, it is the same in both. In other words, one should look at the presence, not on what is present. This way there is no duality.
Still, I see a problem here because non-duality does not cancel out duality and make it less true. That is why compassion is so important and logical instead of mere idealism.
Just different aspects of the same process with an infinite points of reference.
Duality is substructure of non-duality, because of their nature which is presence. Even if an object is distinguished through dualistic thinking, it's still present! The aspect of presence cannot be divided.
Have you ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?
Your "presence" sounds an awful lot like Pirsigs "quality" and I would argue that presence could indeed be divided and not only that but infinitely so.
The Victorious Ones have announced that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. Those who are possessed of the view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible
It is worth moving towards spaciousness in suchness.
"In Chan stories, tathātā is often best revealed in the seemingly mundane or meaningless, such as noticing the way the wind blows through a field of grass, or watching someone's face light up as they smile. According to Chan hagiography, Gautama Buddha transmitted the awareness of tathātā directly to Mahākāśyapa in what has come to be rendered in English as the Flower Sermon. In another story, the Buddha asked his disciples, "How long is a human life?" As none of them could offer the correct answer he told them "Life is but a breath".[3] Here we can see the Buddha expressing the impermanent nature of the world, where each individual moment is different from the last. Molloy states, "We know we are experiencing the 'thatness' of reality when we experience something and say to ourselves, 'Yes, that's it; that is the way things are.' In the moment, we recognize that reality is wondrously beautiful but also that its patterns are fragile and passing."[4]
@ourself said:
Your "presence" sounds an awful lot like Pirsigs "quality" and I would argue that presence could indeed be divided and not only that but infinitely so.
Exactly so.
To put it another way, the depth of understanding is experiential. Intellect/reasoning is only the most basic of Buddhist comprehensions.
The experiential is everything and it is here that the subtelties of expression, wisdom, realization and even cross-religious and religion-independent spirituality can be explored.
For example let us take the word presence. It has completely different meanings in theistic and non theistic understandings. The Buddhist usage, I would suggest is uncommon.
Presence of experience in Buddhism, equates initially with an increasing experiencing devoid of self interference. In its higher stages the clinging to being, mindfulnes and experiencing presence, increasingly falls away.
@robot said:
Suchness I get. I wouldn't even try to explain why I think I get it, except to say that I know it when I'm seeing it.
Yes, it's difficult to explain, even if it appears simple. Look at all those comments above, which are totally stuck in conceptualizations. Obviously they want to understand what I am talking about, by relating it to the doctrine, but the way they do it, takes them further away from it.
Relax and stare at the presence of the present moment. Just that. Everything turns out to be this, and attachments start to dissolve.
At the beginning, just seeing it as it is, is relieving, but remaining in it, constantly improves the sense of being, and I have no idea where it ends (hope it doesn't). What is characteristic for this state, is the fact that presence is the main theme, not the background. Conceptualization is what fades away, leaving this suchness clear and vivid.
This is why I talk about the presence, because that's what my awareness targets when I want to enter, and this is all that I see when I succeed.
Even when we look at it philosophically, where can we find the answer if not in the present? That's what needs to be investigated. But because there are many aspects we can focus on (been there, did that), I talk about this one which actually works.
I was involved in a Dzogchen school years ago. People referred to Rigpa a lot but could never actually explain what it meant! Oh well. The meditation was good though, very spacious.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited November 2015
@Barah said:
Even when we look at it philosophically, where can we find the answer if not in the present? That's what needs to be investigated. But because there are many aspects we can focus on (been there, did that), I talk about this one which actually works.
Personally the reason I question you is the same reason I would question anybody that seems to think they know while at the same time seem to be missing something.
When one has platitudes instead of real answers it is easy to dismiss other views as "trying to understand" or "full of conceptualizations" while yours is not a simple truth that may only be realized.
How many times have we heard that kind of non-reasoning here?
I mean, often times it's true but it isn't a "get out of logically explaining your position" card.
See, because I question your Rigpa, you assume I don't understand what you're saying but I not only understand you, I agree with you up to a point. Even the part about the unicorn.
No two of us are going to see the big picture from the very same perspective. That would probably defeat any actual purpose.
Because I would interject or disagree with the way something is presented is not to belittle it's worth. We are all teachers and students here and my view isn't "better" than any other. It is also no worse though.
In this forum we all take a few ribs for our views every now and then. It's the nature of the non-sectarian beast. But there is no us and "them".
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@ourself said:
Personally the reason I question you is the same reason I would question anybody
I answered all questions so far. I have nothing against questioning. If your intentions are pure, you can ask whatever you want.
@ourself said:
When one has platitudes instead of real answers
Here I can see that your intentions are not that pure.
@ourself said:
I mean, often times it's true but it isn't a "get out of logically explaining your position" card.
How do you know that it isn't?
Bodhidharma said, 'The absence of both understanding and not understanding is true understanding'.
It is not just a safe card that I am playing, because I tell exactly what needs to be done to actualize it. I can understand that before accepting it, you prefer to check if it's logically consistent, because if it isn't, it's a waste of time. At least that's what I would do in such a situation. If you are able to refute it, do it right away, because just talking about it leads nowhere. If you are unable to do so, while remaining skeptical about it, simply continue you path. I am not forcing anything.
@ourself said: I thought rigpa meant intuitive knowledge.
The opposite of rigpa is "marigpa", which is ignorance, so presumably the basic meaning of rigpa is wisdom. It also seems to mean "pure awareness", whatever that is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigpa
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Maybe this will be insightful for you guys. I saw it some years ago, and although I found it interesting, I was not able to fully comprehend it. Today, when reading through this topic, it came to my mind and after listening to it again, I think it fits:
I was involved in a Dzogchen school years ago. People referred to Rigpa a lot but could never actually explain what it meant!
Rigpa as I understand it, refers to the space (internal) in which objects appear. Or you could say that potential to know.
But this knowing potential does not attach to objects. Attention lightly skims over objects but doesn't define them in any way.
There is the potential to know but itself inherently doesn't know anything. Knowing an object is to grasp at it.
Another term is immovable. Attention which has no resting or abiding place. Flowing like a waterfall never detained by any object.
An example would be like walking in a crowd in a big city. Sensing the environment in panorama but your attention never stopping on any particular person or thing. And no mental commentary, emotions or judgments about what's being sensed.
Attention flows freely and naturally without volition. It goes wherever is needed but doesn't attach to anything.
Consider your karma, karmic traces and karmic prana to be like a huge iceberg.
A very small point or peak extends upward and is visible above the water line, the massive remainder lies beneath the surface.
That "tip" or peak is our current single conscious thought. When that current thought appears it has the mass and weight of the entire karmic history supporting it. Engaging in ordinary thinking and conceptualizing sustains and feeds the karmic mass below the surface which in turn engenders and generates more karmic thoughts that arise dependently originated from the karmic mass beneath surface consciousness.
To break off this karmic connection with surface consciousness all the teachings recommend abandoning, ignoring or at least not engaging in the current thought appearing in mind. Be instead the "observing awareness" that observes the current thought but doesn't feed or engage it. By doing so the tip or peak sinks below the surface along with karmic mass beneath.
What's interesting is that when the karmic mass is disengaged in this way, the mass itself vanishes until invoked again by the mind grasping another concept of thought.
This is identical to quantum physics where the potential possibilities remain in an undefined and non-manifested "super-position" until invoked, defined and observed. The mind's belief and engagement in any concept or thought enlivens the entire supporting chain of karmic potentials that then manifest their attending emotional and conditioned contents. This is how samsara arises with every thought and ceases as every thought releases. Bondage and liberation both occur with every thought and concept.
The sense of self identity is just this karmic process in action. There is no self there except the one at this end of the ancient chain of karmic conditioning and karmic memory appearing as the current, apparent self-entity as the peak of the iceberg. It's always felt as "me". It too is just a single karmic thought pushing up from the depths of karmic conditioning.
When the mind sees the empty nature of thoughts then they abort upon the arising. When the mind doesn't see the empty nature of thoughts upon the arising; then samsara's veil casts shadows that seem independent and real. This is the cause of suffering by beings who themselves have never actually arisen except as shadow fantasies of karmic conditioning and belief.
Comments
Yea, clouds are the same, but different at the same time! They are all just water vapor but take very different shapes, etc. But the difference or separateness, seems to me anyway, to still be on the level of conventional truth. I think the teaching of non-duality is most, if not completely, referring to the ultimate truth, rather than the conventional truths that are readily observable.
There are some good sutras about non-duality. I'll have to look them up when I get a chance.
Good one!
Vimalakirti Sutra
Chapter 9: The Dharma-Door of Nonduality
Non-duality is the basis. To be able to perceive duality, you need to make artificial divisions. Of course, it can be useful to extract and name patters, but they are always changing which causes suffering. Non-duality is that aspect of reality which does not change.
@SpinyNorman
As I understand it, non-duality is not returning to the baby state. The unborn baby obviously believes that it is one with the mother both physically and spiritually. It needs to learn independence (a process that can take a very long time, sometimes beyond puberty). The next step is to learn interdependence. Although form is separate, that doesn't interfere with spiritual unity.
Which aspect is that?
non-duality....
I try to remember what it was like being a kid.
My little son (1 year old) is an awesome teacher.
Let me surprise you: Presence.
You're like a terrier with a bone.
Not everything the Buddha taught can be off-handedly explained by 'presence'.
So "Presence" is that aspect of reality which does not change? Sorry, this is all too cryptic for me, I still have no idea what you actually mean by "Presence".
Is there a Buddhist word or concept which describes what you are talking about?
In Advaita they call that "I amness"
That intuition, you exist. It's the awareness in which everything is perceived. But it itself can not be perceived.
Not to be mistaken for conscious attention.
It might be Buddha mind? In buddhist terms. Idk.
Doubtful. Otherwise would he keep using the 'covers all the bases, and cures all' term...?
Though that sounds rather like self-view? The use of Buddhist jargon is challenging enough on a pan-Buddhist forum like this, introducing additional jargon from here, there and everywhere can get very confusing. The semantics are important, it's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion if people won't clearly explain the language they are using.
Weird that I have to explain the meaning of a word that we all know and use, with a Buddhist word.
"All experiences and life forms cannot be proven to exist independently of their being a presence before your mind" - this is Dzogchen explanation that may give you a clue what I am talking about.
Does this help?
It depends on context. It's not necessarily that we want to know what the word means; we'd like to know what context you're using, and how YOU interpret the word.
Like "Ball" or "Post".
Out of context, you have no precise idea of what my intention is in presenting those words.
If you use a more commonly-used word in Buddhist parlance, or maybe the Pali/Sanskrit text, we'd be clearer.
Many words are 'lost' or diluted in translation....
The only problem with what you're saying is that we need duality in order to experience non-duality.
We all know what non-duality implies but not even one of us would if there was no duality to see through and play with.
One is not more real than the other.
Duality and non-duality are complimentary.
Smile and wave, boys girls. Smile and wave.
Presence is the quality of Rigpa.
You can drill down from here if you are interested in technical stuff, but I doubt you will understand it, if you cannot understand what presence is.
Present is the basis out of which all phenomena arise. It is not hidden, quite opposite, it's all we experience. If you look at what you are experiencing now, this is what is present. If you are listening to music, music is present. If you are watching your breath, it is present. So, presence is the nature of everything. Unless you divide it through conceptualization it is non-dual. This is why there is a big emphasize on "no thought" in Mahayana, because thoughts are dividing presence into objects.
When you see, that everything shares the same nature, you will stop chasing after or running from particular objects distinguished from the whole.
Although this is simple, it's just the theoretical part. The goal is to see that sameness firsthand, realize it, so when thoughts arise, they do not trigger an emotional response.
No, we don't. We need duality, to talk and conceptualize about non-duality.
Experiencing it, is finding no differences. If you look at a rock and a feather you will focus on hardness and softness, dividing their presence into two. But if you look at the aspect of presence, it is the same in both. In other words, one should look at the presence, not on what is present. This way there is no duality.
Yes, that is true. Duality gives us knowledge, that is why we hold onto it.
Duality is substructure of non-duality, because of their nature which is presence. Even if an object is distinguished through dualistic thinking, it's still present! The aspect of presence cannot be divided.
Another word for presence would be suchness?
Yes, we can look at it this way.
Well, what I mean is that we have no proof of any experiential state of being prior to being born into the world of duality.
Also it's kind of a play on words. It makes more sense to me to talk of duality and unity as opposed to duality and non-duality if non-duality is the default state. "Non-duality" already implies there is duality to see through.
Duality and non-duality make it sound as if these states are opposed to one another when they are in harmony.
Still, I see a problem here because non-duality does not cancel out duality and make it less true. That is why compassion is so important and logical instead of mere idealism.
Just different aspects of the same process with an infinite points of reference.
Have you ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?
Your "presence" sounds an awful lot like Pirsigs "quality" and I would argue that presence could indeed be divided and not only that but infinitely so.
Just a different view.
The word I like to get hung up on is "potential".
Suchness I get. I wouldn't even try to explain why I think I get it, except to say that I know it when I'm seeing it.
Hooray
The Victorious Ones have announced that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. Those who are possessed of the view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible
It is worth moving towards spaciousness in suchness.
Perhaps in terms of sunyata/emptiness and not as being or dependent origination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā
Here's one.
"In Chan stories, tathātā is often best revealed in the seemingly mundane or meaningless, such as noticing the way the wind blows through a field of grass, or watching someone's face light up as they smile. According to Chan hagiography, Gautama Buddha transmitted the awareness of tathātā directly to Mahākāśyapa in what has come to be rendered in English as the Flower Sermon. In another story, the Buddha asked his disciples, "How long is a human life?" As none of them could offer the correct answer he told them "Life is but a breath".[3] Here we can see the Buddha expressing the impermanent nature of the world, where each individual moment is different from the last. Molloy states, "We know we are experiencing the 'thatness' of reality when we experience something and say to ourselves, 'Yes, that's it; that is the way things are.' In the moment, we recognize that reality is wondrously beautiful but also that its patterns are fragile and passing."[4]
From
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathātā
Exactly so.
To put it another way, the depth of understanding is experiential. Intellect/reasoning is only the most basic of Buddhist comprehensions.
The experiential is everything and it is here that the subtelties of expression, wisdom, realization and even cross-religious and religion-independent spirituality can be explored.
For example let us take the word presence. It has completely different meanings in theistic and non theistic understandings. The Buddhist usage, I would suggest is uncommon.
Presence of experience in Buddhism, equates initially with an increasing experiencing devoid of self interference. In its higher stages the clinging to being, mindfulnes and experiencing presence, increasingly falls away.
In esssence presence is empty.
Yes, it's difficult to explain, even if it appears simple. Look at all those comments above, which are totally stuck in conceptualizations. Obviously they want to understand what I am talking about, by relating it to the doctrine, but the way they do it, takes them further away from it.
Relax and stare at the presence of the present moment. Just that. Everything turns out to be this, and attachments start to dissolve.
At the beginning, just seeing it as it is, is relieving, but remaining in it, constantly improves the sense of being, and I have no idea where it ends (hope it doesn't). What is characteristic for this state, is the fact that presence is the main theme, not the background. Conceptualization is what fades away, leaving this suchness clear and vivid.
This is why I talk about the presence, because that's what my awareness targets when I want to enter, and this is all that I see when I succeed.
Even when we look at it philosophically, where can we find the answer if not in the present? That's what needs to be investigated. But because there are many aspects we can focus on (been there, did that), I talk about this one which actually works.
Yes, just pay attention to the present and be fully in it. It's very simple really.
I just had a walk by the sea, pale sunlight sparkling on the waves and a cormorant flying close to the water. Perfect!
I was involved in a Dzogchen school years ago. People referred to Rigpa a lot but could never actually explain what it meant! Oh well. The meditation was good though, very spacious.
Personally the reason I question you is the same reason I would question anybody that seems to think they know while at the same time seem to be missing something.
When one has platitudes instead of real answers it is easy to dismiss other views as "trying to understand" or "full of conceptualizations" while yours is not a simple truth that may only be realized.
How many times have we heard that kind of non-reasoning here?
I mean, often times it's true but it isn't a "get out of logically explaining your position" card.
See, because I question your Rigpa, you assume I don't understand what you're saying but I not only understand you, I agree with you up to a point. Even the part about the unicorn.
No two of us are going to see the big picture from the very same perspective. That would probably defeat any actual purpose.
Because I would interject or disagree with the way something is presented is not to belittle it's worth. We are all teachers and students here and my view isn't "better" than any other. It is also no worse though.
In this forum we all take a few ribs for our views every now and then. It's the nature of the non-sectarian beast. But there is no us and "them".
@SpinyNorman;
I thought rigpa meant intuitive knowledge.
One persons Rigpa could completely contradict anothers. I could be mistaken.
I answered all questions so far. I have nothing against questioning. If your intentions are pure, you can ask whatever you want.
Here I can see that your intentions are not that pure.
How do you know that it isn't?
Bodhidharma said, 'The absence of both understanding and not understanding is true understanding'.
It is not just a safe card that I am playing, because I tell exactly what needs to be done to actualize it. I can understand that before accepting it, you prefer to check if it's logically consistent, because if it isn't, it's a waste of time. At least that's what I would do in such a situation. If you are able to refute it, do it right away, because just talking about it leads nowhere. If you are unable to do so, while remaining skeptical about it, simply continue you path. I am not forcing anything.
The opposite of rigpa is "marigpa", which is ignorance, so presumably the basic meaning of rigpa is wisdom. It also seems to mean "pure awareness", whatever that is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigpa
@Barah;
My intention is probably the same as yours.
Maybe this will be insightful for you guys. I saw it some years ago, and although I found it interesting, I was not able to fully comprehend it. Today, when reading through this topic, it came to my mind and after listening to it again, I think it fits:
It fits for sure.
Presence=suchness=be here now. Easy to say, not so easy to live.
I think I'll just carry on being mindful, and hopefully it will all come out in the wash.
Rigpa as I understand it, refers to the space (internal) in which objects appear. Or you could say that potential to know.
But this knowing potential does not attach to objects. Attention lightly skims over objects but doesn't define them in any way.
There is the potential to know but itself inherently doesn't know anything. Knowing an object is to grasp at it.
Another term is immovable. Attention which has no resting or abiding place. Flowing like a waterfall never detained by any object.
An example would be like walking in a crowd in a big city. Sensing the environment in panorama but your attention never stopping on any particular person or thing. And no mental commentary, emotions or judgments about what's being sensed.
Attention flows freely and naturally without volition. It goes wherever is needed but doesn't attach to anything.
In Korean Zen it is called the don't know mind.
~Jackson Peterson
https://www.facebook.com/jackson.peterson.73?fref=nf