|
Post by Beingist on Feb 24, 2012 16:18:18 GMT -5
Maybe if he sees what a trolling, moronic imbecile he's become, he might at least become a little more subdued. Not a chance. Yeah, well. I pay no attention to odds, anymore.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Feb 24, 2012 16:18:49 GMT -5
Good idea Question. Tath, I hope you find what you're looking for brother.
Peace
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 24, 2012 16:34:59 GMT -5
You know, I find it .. entertaining, anymore, how the mind/ego will go to any length in order to disprove the pointers to Truth. My post had nothing to do with disproving 'pointers to truth'. I was simply saying that I still have no friggin clue what 'realization' is. According to Enigma's definition I have never had a realization in my entire life.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 24, 2012 16:37:13 GMT -5
Well, I finally ran out of patience and had to ban Tath and his ISP from the forum. His posts were disrupting the threads. Those people who wish to dialogue with him can use his regular email address. Here's hoping that he finds some peace of mind.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 24, 2012 16:45:29 GMT -5
You know, I find it .. entertaining, anymore, how the mind/ego will go to any length in order to disprove the pointers to Truth. My post had nothing to do with disproving 'pointers to truth'. I was simply saying that I still have no friggin clue what 'realization' is. According to Enigma's definition I have never had a realization in my entire life. I didn't think E. was defining 'realization', so much as expounding on the idea that realization isn't a mental thing. From my own practical experience, even trying to 'realize' anything, only serves to prevent one from realizing anything.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 24, 2012 16:53:59 GMT -5
My post had nothing to do with disproving 'pointers to truth'. I was simply saying that I still have no friggin clue what 'realization' is. According to Enigma's definition I have never had a realization in my entire life. To me, E's 'definition' is showing that a realization is a subtraction of a thought, rather than the addition of an idea or concept or belief. It's a seeing that some thought was really a constructed house of cards and in that bam moment, the house collapses. A lot of times, thoughts rush back in - it can be a nanosecond later - so it can be hard to see that the moment of realization was actually a subtraction.
|
|
|
Post by jasonl on Feb 24, 2012 17:05:59 GMT -5
What does it mean to say Truth is self evident? Knowledge requires evidence to support it, and so no knowledge is self evident, but Truth does not refer to knowledge. This self evident, non-conceptual nature applies to all genuine realizations, no matter how small, because the nature of a realization is the seeing of what is NOT so; the collapse of a belief. This realization is not an idea or a thought or conclusion, and so it is not seen as part of the temporal flow of experience as events occurring in time. As such, realization is timeless, and occurs as a flash of insight. We've all had them so it's not something woo woo. Since it is not thought, it is not the knowing of some knowledge that can be stored in memory and recalled later. As such, a realization can only be realized NOW. No matter how many times you notice it, it will never become a part of your knowledge base as something that you know. You cannot know anything. All knowledge is subject to doubt. Since a realization is not knowledge, it is not seen as something that can be true or false. For the same reason it's also not subject to the need to be supported by evidence. There a 'rule' in logic that says you can't prove a negative. We all intuitive know that it would be impossible to search every corner of the universe to prove that unicorns don't exist, but the dilemma is more obvious than that. It's not so much that a negative can't be proven, but that it doesn't require proof. As they say, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. No knowledge or evidence is required to realize that something is NOT so, assuming that this is the case. The realization that there is no volition is not the knowing of some knowledge that you acquire and then believe to be true. It is not something that you need evidence to support. It is not a thought or a conclusion any more than 'no unicorns' is true knowledge that you can support with evidence. It's the realization that volition was an idea, an assumption, conclusion that never had any more foundation than unicorns. You are not left with a belief in nonvolition, or a true concept about volition, you are left with nothing. Volition is irrelevant. The realization of oneness is not knowledge about oneness or the visceral experience of everything mushed together into a oneness glob, it's the seeing that the idea of separation was assumption, conclusion, imagination, and never had a leg to stand on. The issue of separation is irrelevant. The realization that you are not a mind/body is the noticing that the idea that you are a thing or a label is absurd. The issue of identification is irrelevant. As realizations are not in the domain of thoughts and proof and doubt, you cannot turn your realization over to mind for it to think about. If you do, mind WILL find evidence to support it's preferred conclusions. This is why I talk about your realizations being sovereign. You see what you see, timelessly with absolute self evident clarity. Mind is the servant of that seeing, not it's master. Not bad stuff.
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 24, 2012 17:10:21 GMT -5
My post had nothing to do with disproving 'pointers to truth'. I was simply saying that I still have no friggin clue what 'realization' is. According to Enigma's definition I have never had a realization in my entire life. To me, E's 'definition' is showing that a realization is a subtraction of a thought, rather than the addition of an idea or concept or belief. It's a seeing that some thought was really a constructed house of cards and in that bam moment, the house collapses. A lot of times, thoughts rush back in - it can be a nanosecond later - so it can be hard to see that the moment of realization was actually a subtraction. Let's say that someone is troubled by the prospect that squared circles might exist. He visits a smart man who explains why exactly squared circles can't possibly exist, the smart man explains that a squared circle is a contradiction in terms and could therefore never exist, not in any possible world. Our troubled man now understand this fully and lives happily thereafter, he never again has to waste a thought on squared circles. The process for him consisted of merely thinking the issue through, no realization magic involved, and yet the whole idea of 'squared circle' completely and utterly collapsed for him and it never troubled him again. Would you say that he experienced a realization? If yes, why wouldn't you agree that someone who by virtue of the same process agrees that selfhood, volition, seperation are unreal has NOT realized it?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Feb 24, 2012 17:15:55 GMT -5
You know, I find it .. entertaining, anymore, how the mind/ego will go to any length in order to disprove the pointers to Truth. My post had nothing to do with disproving 'pointers to truth'. I was simply saying that I still have no friggin clue what 'realization' is. According to Enigma's definition I have never had a realization in my entire life. What are you talking about? You mean you never realized that the monster in the dark closet or under your bed wasn't real, and was just your imagination. Sheeesh, what kind of kid were you? Just kidding... ;D
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 24, 2012 17:16:42 GMT -5
What does it mean to say Truth is self evident? Knowledge requires evidence to support it, and so no knowledge is self evident, but Truth does not refer to knowledge. This self evident, non-conceptual nature applies to all genuine realizations, no matter how small, because the nature of a realization is the seeing of what is NOT so; the collapse of a belief. This realization is not an idea or a thought or conclusion, and so it is not seen as part of the temporal flow of experience as events occurring in time. As such, realization is timeless, and occurs as a flash of insight. We've all had them so it's not something woo woo. Since it is not thought, it is not the knowing of some knowledge that can be stored in memory and recalled later. As such, a realization can only be realized NOW. No matter how many times you notice it, it will never become a part of your knowledge base as something that you know. You cannot know anything. All knowledge is subject to doubt. Since a realization is not knowledge, it is not seen as something that can be true or false. For the same reason it's also not subject to the need to be supported by evidence. There a 'rule' in logic that says you can't prove a negative. We all intuitive know that it would be impossible to search every corner of the universe to prove that unicorns don't exist, but the dilemma is more obvious than that. It's not so much that a negative can't be proven, but that it doesn't require proof. As they say, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. No knowledge or evidence is required to realize that something is NOT so, assuming that this is the case. The realization that there is no volition is not the knowing of some knowledge that you acquire and then believe to be true. It is not something that you need evidence to support. It is not a thought or a conclusion any more than 'no unicorns' is true knowledge that you can support with evidence. It's the realization that volition was an idea, an assumption, conclusion that never had any more foundation than unicorns. You are not left with a belief in nonvolition, or a true concept about volition, you are left with nothing. Volition is irrelevant. The realization of oneness is not knowledge about oneness or the visceral experience of everything mushed together into a oneness glob, it's the seeing that the idea of separation was assumption, conclusion, imagination, and never had a leg to stand on. The issue of separation is irrelevant. The realization that you are not a mind/body is the noticing that the idea that you are a thing or a label is absurd. The issue of identification is irrelevant. As realizations are not in the domain of thoughts and proof and doubt, you cannot turn your realization over to mind for it to think about. If you do, mind WILL find evidence to support it's preferred conclusions. This is why I talk about your realizations being sovereign. You see what you see, timelessly with absolute self evident clarity. Mind is the servant of that seeing, not it's master. I still have no idea what a realization is. According to your definition of 'realization' it appears like I've never had one. You're saying that realization isn't knowledge, it's not about true/false, it isn't subject to evidence and yet it self-evident. You employ the example of seeing through unicorns and volition. However, seeing through either IS a function of thinking. In the case of unicorns you are correct to say that one can never prove that there aren't unicorns, it's the Russell's teapot riddle. However, one can prove that there is no volition, the proof is perfectly logical and consists in showing and seeing the paradox within the notion of volition. We disprove volition the same way that we disprove squared circles. Contrary to your assertion there is no rule in logic that you can't prove a negative, negatives are easily provable. We can prove that volition and seperation are false excactly the same way that we prove that squared circles are nonexistent. According to you, however, all this would still be mind and you're looking for something entirely different. If you stop believing in unicorns you don't end up with a belief that there are no unicorns. You don't have to prove that there are no unicorns, you can just drop the idea. It's so simple. I've probably heard this a hundred times before since becoming a seeker in various ways but now I really have heard it.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 24, 2012 17:32:42 GMT -5
To me, E's 'definition' is showing that a realization is a subtraction of a thought, rather than the addition of an idea or concept or belief. It's a seeing that some thought was really a constructed house of cards and in that bam moment, the house collapses. A lot of times, thoughts rush back in - it can be a nanosecond later - so it can be hard to see that the moment of realization was actually a subtraction. Let's say that someone is troubled by the prospect that squared circles might exist. He visits a smart man who explains why exactly squared circles can't possibly exist, the smart man explains that a squared circle is a contradiction in terms and could therefore never exist, not in any possible world. Our troubled man now understand this fully and lives happily thereafter, he never again has to waste a thought on squared circles. The process for him consisted of merely thinking the issue through, no realization magic involved, and yet the whole idea of 'squared circle' completely and utterly collapsed for him and it never troubled him again. Would you say that he experienced a realization? If yes, why wouldn't you agree that someone who by virtue of the same process agrees that selfhood, volition, seperation are unreal has NOT realized it? Yes, I would say he experienced a realization. Who's saying it's NOT a realization? I'm simple, Question. I had to read the last sentence 4 times to figure out the double negatives. Ok - I heard that selfhood was unreal. Read it, actually. And it was thoroughly explained in a way that made total sense. But at that point, it was an idea. And then I began looking, and discovered...damn - I can't pin down this self. Then there was a point - a moment of realization. The belief in a separate self dissolved. So, even with the squared circle - it's a realization. Doesn't matter that it was explained. If I was ABSOLUTELY convinced there were squared circles, it might take awhile, but at some point....the moment of realization....it collapses. No magic.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Feb 24, 2012 17:39:44 GMT -5
What does it mean to say Truth is self evident? Knowledge requires evidence to support it, and so no knowledge is self evident, but Truth does not refer to knowledge. Yup, good stuff, very insightful... And like someone mentioned about emptying their cups. I only had to do it nearly 1300 times in posts, before I was ready to hear this message. I had a few realizations just reading it...hehe I might have to bump myself up a notch on the Ox trail... ;D Thanks E
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Feb 24, 2012 17:42:30 GMT -5
To me, E's 'definition' is showing that a realization is a subtraction of a thought, rather than the addition of an idea or concept or belief. It's a seeing that some thought was really a constructed house of cards and in that bam moment, the house collapses. A lot of times, thoughts rush back in - it can be a nanosecond later - so it can be hard to see that the moment of realization was actually a subtraction. Let's say that someone is troubled by the prospect that squared circles might exist. He visits a smart man who explains why exactly squared circles can't possibly exist, the smart man explains that a squared circle is a contradiction in terms and could therefore never exist, not in any possible world. Our troubled man now understand this fully and lives happily thereafter, he never again has to waste a thought on squared circles. The process for him consisted of merely thinking the issue through, no realization magic involved, and yet the whole idea of 'squared circle' completely and utterly collapsed for him and it never troubled him again. Would you say that he experienced a realization? If yes, why wouldn't you agree that someone who by virtue of the same process agrees that selfhood, volition, seperation are unreal has NOT realized it? I think if there's anyone troubled about the existence of square circles, it would be Steve, but he's gone now, so the universe is at peace once again...
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 24, 2012 17:43:43 GMT -5
I might have to bump myself up a notch on the Ox trail... ;D Thanks E This is why I made it so that one may retract their vote in the Herding the Ox thread (at least until it locks after 1000 days )
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 24, 2012 17:45:34 GMT -5
If you stop believing in unicorns you don't end up with a belief that there are no unicorns. You don't have to prove that there are no unicorns, you can just drop the idea. It's so simple. I've probably heard this a hundred times before since becoming a seeker in various ways but now I really have heard it. If you stop believing in squared circles you don't end up with the belief that there are no squared circles. You don't have to prove that there are no squared circles, you can just drop the idea. Don't you see? The process of understanding that there are no squared circles and that there is no separation is exactly the same, but why is it that understanding isn't the same as realization? I'm not saying that there is no such thing called 'realization'. All I'm saying is that the way you're explaining it I see no difference, I just don't see what the hell this realization thingy is supposed to be.
|
|