There is no present. It is either past or future, unless we decide that one hour of past and one hour of future constitutes present.
I think of the third eye as the spiritual heart of a person... which is definitely a means of perception in many ways more capable than any physical senses.
The fact that human/animal perception is limited, does not mean the universe is limited by what humans and, by extension their instruments, can perceive?
It's probable we can only perceive and conceive a small fraction of what the universe is really all about?
I have rarely heard such wisdom spouted here on these pages. I simplify by tossing the third eye and just calling it spirit instead. Spirit got it's own mind and I don't complain. I give it complete leeway to do it's work. If I need to know something, it will bring it to my consciousness. I have a simple mind.
Factor in that the mind filters, organises and manages the constant stream from its datafeeds, then we can question do we actually perceive anything as it is? I remember from my college days looking at 'experimental film' and one notable experiment where the film-maker simply strung together s stream of random images. Viewers created a narrative around the film and were discussing its meaning! The mind works by narrative above all else, I think. Now, take an audience of 'cinefiles', people who are seriously into movies, their meaning, etc., etc ... and the mind surely becomes tuned to interpreting the datastream a certain way ... so Joe Bloggs sees the avant-garde film and thinks, WTAF, this is a waste of my life? Whereas the cinefile begins to wriggle and squirm with delight, interpreting all manner of illusion, allusion, meaning and significance ... it's just a stream of random images, dude! Two people walk down a street ... recount their experience ... often it will seem like two different streets ...
Indeed. I think it boils down to perspective and experience. The concept of art is difficult to pin down with words. One simply has to feel it to know it. I tend to believe (and experience seems to confirm) that art acquiesces to the eye of the beholder. To the inexperienced (Joe Blow), art could be seen as just a stream of random images. However, to another (the art connoisseur) it can contain a world, only limited by the imagination (or lack thereof). Now Joe will tell the connoisseur that he is being fooled. The connoisseur will tell Joe that he has more sand, because he is not afraid of the wild wood of unlimited imagination.
I am there with you. When it comes to describing one's spirituality often times we use different words based on the particulars of our exposure or upbringing... sometimes I feel like we are all human beings living very much the same human experience and that much of our perceived 'religious' or 'spiritual' differences are actually only differences in the particular ways in which we might express / verbalize these things --sometimes barring ourselves from recognizing the oneness of humankind.
Thank you HeartandSoul. You are a light in the darkness, the sound of reason in a world of madness. Also simple minds think alike (or is it great). It is very tempting to depart from the peculiars of our upbringing and venture into things which are not our own, especially when faced with the absence of the Muse. Why? Is it nervous illness or a merely a defensive posture which causes us to resort to ego in the face of our own spiritual bankruptcy? Unknown, but in these fragile moments ego shows it's true colors in the form of projections: "It him/her, not me!" Let us rather return to the simplicity of our own roots and there we will find the profundity of our oneness. No need to resort to histrionics or ego fill-in. A little patience and spiritual maturity is all that is required.
