|
Post by Beingist on Feb 24, 2012 22:27:08 GMT -5
It's called understanding, not realization. I looked into the closet and under my bed and found no monster and so I figured that there is no monster. The understanding is based on evidence and evidence alone. I evidentially proved a negative (something that E claimed is logically impossible). Ahhh, so your not the realization deprived person you thought you were... It's simply a matter of terms, E says realiazation and you say understanding. Whatever the term the affect is the same, an illusion is seen through. And that's the important part. Good point.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2012 22:45:46 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. Realization is looking at the world without thinking and seeing IT. Yes, it doesn't enter the realm of looking under the bed to find supporting evidence.
|
|
|
Post by angela on Feb 24, 2012 22:57:21 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. you're so fluid with words. thank you.
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Feb 24, 2012 23:47:55 GMT -5
Can't believe I missed reading this. Well actually I read page 4 ( I sometimes tend to just read last couple of pages) saw it was about Tath and couldn't be bothered. Was interested before but now no interest there at all, the constant distractions and interruptions are annoying and boring. I can see what Question means, when I first read E's post, I thought oh no, I actuslly haven't had any realizations. However, when I reread it I saw exactly what E is pointing too. Well thought out and brilliantly put. Also, thank you for taking time to post.
|
|
|
Post by atagahtat on Feb 25, 2012 0:58:17 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. what F*ckin ret*rd watch this: i see that every thought and every perception I ever had including the thought of a me is not true BOOM!!!! I'M ENLIGHTENED!!!! come one everybody... believe the same thing, its easy, and you will be a Buddha by just believing this knowing something is not true is minding just as much as knowing something is true is minding pal... very eliquent fiction though will liberate MILLIONS hehehe i will give you credit though... you just very accurately described the path to the bondage of intellectual enlightenment that every great spiritual tradition in history has warned against buddy ;-) you should be gagged and put in a dark room until you get your head outa your arse ;-) Essential Nature, neither knowing nor not knowing
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 25, 2012 1:08:47 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. what F*ckin ret*rd watch this: i see that every thought and every perception I ever had including the thought of a me is not true BOOM!!!! I'M ENLIGHTENED!!!! come one everybody... believe the same thing, its easy, and you will be a Buddha by just believing this knowing something is not true is minding just as much as knowing something is true is minding pal... very eliquent fiction though will liberate MILLIONS hehehe i will give you credit though... you just very accurately described the path to the bondage of intellectual enlightenment that every great spiritual tradition in history has warned against buddy ;-) you should be gagged and put in a dark room until you get your head outa your arse ;-) Essential Nature, neither knowing nor not knowing I'd say I was surprised but it's like watching a snake pop out of a can a dozen times. After a while it just gets really old....
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2012 1:11:02 GMT -5
neither knowing nor not knowing Yeah, that's what I said. It's akchooly what the word "irrelevant" points to.
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 25, 2012 5:21:30 GMT -5
It's called understanding, not realization. I looked into the closet and under my bed and found no monster and so I figured that there is no monster. The understanding is based on evidence and evidence alone. I evidentially proved a negative (something that E claimed is logically impossible). Ahhh, so your not the realization deprived person you thought you were... It's simply a matter of terms, E says realiazation and you say understanding. Whatever the term the affect is the same, an illusion is seen through. And that's the important part. Well, the same way I evidentially disproved 'monsters under my bed' I evidentially disproved selfhood/separation/volition, but by your standards you obviously wouldn't say that I am 'realized'. You wouldn't say that I'm as enlightened as Nisargadatta for example. It most certainly is not a matter of terms. What I described as understanding does clearly not qualify as realization if you use E's definition.
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 25, 2012 5:23:45 GMT -5
It's called understanding, not realization. I looked into the closet and under my bed and found no monster and so I figured that there is no monster. The understanding is based on evidence and evidence alone. I evidentially proved a negative (something that E claimed is logically impossible). You're moholing that 'rule', which I put in scare quotes for a reason. Can you prove that there are no monsters? Yes, I can. I look into the closet and under my bed and find that there are no monsters. What more proof do you expect? You're the one moholing if this proof isn't enough for you.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 25, 2012 9:25:32 GMT -5
Realizations are usually very funny; at least they are to me. Most of my realizations have been extremely powerful and memorable. This may be because I was so strongly attached to various ideas that when they collapsed, the effect was stunning.
About two years after we got married, Carol and I were talking about how we disliked peeps who pushed their views on everyone. In the course of the conversation we realized that we were periodically guilty of doing exactly the same thing. Consequently, we made a New Year's resolution to stop proslytizing. The term "proslytizing" is pejorative, and that's the way we thought about it. A missionary, for example, badgers people who are potential converts to exchange their belief system for whatever belief system the missionary thinks is the "correct" belief system. We equated the term "pejorative" with that kind of badgering over correctness.
A week or so after making our resolution, Carol and I went to a party, and every time a discussion arose about which I had an opinion, I forced myself to be silent. Although there was a strong internal impulse to voice various ideas, I stuffed them, all because of our New Year's resolution. This happened several times, and for about two weeks or so, I managed to keep my mouth shut every time I was tempted to voice an opinion. One day I was driving somewhere, and suddenly, right out of the blue, I had a huge realization; I realized that I was a proslytizer! The realization was so powerful that I laughed out loud. As soon as I got home, I ran to Carol and said, "Hey, you know that New Year's resolution we made? Well, it's total BS. I'm a proslytizer. I LOVE to tell people what I think. I LOVE to teach. I LOVE to talk about whatever interests me. The whole idea that I shouldn't do what I love to do is total crap." Today, I still get a laugh when I think about that realization and our artificial attempt to be other than what we were and to live up to some imaginary ideal.
Today, however, to illustrate how things have changed over the last thirty-three years, I would not call myself a proslytizer because I no longer shove ideas upon people; I simply present them in the context of my own experience and offer them as possibilities to consider. I share ideas that I think will interest people, but I am not invested in what happens as a consequence. If someone isn't interested in a particular issue, this becomes immediately obvious, and I simply drop it.
A second major realization occurred a few years into our marriage. One day I was thinking about how no one has any control over who they fall in love with; it's a total mystery. Well, as I was thinking about this, it dawned on me that whether one STAYS in love with someone is also a mystery. This thought led to the sickening realization that I had no control over whether I would remain in love with Carol in the future. This thought generated a huge surge of fear because I wanted to stay in love, but I realized that I had no control over what might happen in the future. This realization literally took the ground out from under me, and filled me with horror. I realized that I had absolutely no control over who I loved, and if this was the case, which was obvious, then it meant that I had no control over anything that might happen! I lived with this sense of horror for about three days, and then I had an even deeper realization. I realized that it didn't matter. I could either accept the obvious or resist it, and even this choice was not up to me. The only thing that mattered was the love I felt NOW, and if things changed in the future, that would be the case NOW. I relaxed, gave up the illusion of control, and realized that if two people stay in love, its a very lucky thing. After that, I didn't have to think about it anymore. I was in love, and the future would have to play out however it would play out.
The third big realization was actually a whole group of realizations that occurred simultaneously as a result of a woo woo experience, and that story would be too involved for inclusion here.
The fourth big realization I remember occurred during my first Zen retreat. Zen retreats are very intense affairs. Each day you get up at 4:30 AM and do 108 protration bows, then chant for almost an hour, and then, between silent meals, spend almost the entire day in silent meditation while sitting cross-legged in the lotus position. The day ends at 9:30 PM after chanting the Heart Sutra. After only one day, I was physically and mentally exhausted and wondered, "What kind of craziness have I gotten myself into?" I plowed through the second day getting angrier and angrier and more and more exhausted. As we started chanting the Heart Sutra at the end of the second day, a very powerful question arose to the surface of my mind, "Why are we chanting this stupid sutra in Korean? We're Americans and we speak English! This is nuts! Why are we doing this?" This question had me fuming with anger, but as we came to the last lines of the sutra (gate gate paragate, parasamgate, etc) tears began to fill my eyes and I became very emotional. I knew that the words meant, "Gone, gone, gone beyond to the other shore," and the meaning struck something deep within. Whatever was happening internally was not slowing down or stopping, so when the chant ended, I quickly rushed outside the house and into the street. I was beginning to sob with emotion as the bottom of my mind fell out, and I was plunged into deep emptiness. In that emptiness I suddenly realized why we had been chanting the sutra in Korean. It was so obvious that my tears instantly turned to laughter. We were chanting in Korean because a Korean Zen master had set up the retreat format and produced the literature we were using!!!! I found this to be hysterically funny, but after this experience, I realized--- and this was the big one Elizabeth--- that all ideational meaning is imaginary. I suddenly saw the difference between relative meaning that comes from the mind and absolute meaning that is eternally extant.
How this personal koan about why we were chanting in Korean arose to the surface of the mind, was a complete mystery, and how it was seen-through was an equal mystery. It is just what happened.
The following two days generated another huge realization, which was more interesting than funny, but that's a story for another time. Suffice it to say that life is one hell of a trip! Enjoy the ride!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 25, 2012 9:47:32 GMT -5
Today, however, to illustrate how things have changed over the last thirty-three years, I would not call myself a proslytizer because I no longer shove ideas upon people; I simply present them in the context of my own experience and offer them as possibilities to consider. I share ideas that I think will interest people, but I am not invested in what happens as a consequence. If someone isn't interested in a particular issue, this becomes immediately obvious, and I simply drop it. Yes, like the parable of the sower. He just sowed seeds, didn't worry about where they fell. Some fell on good soil, some on rocky soil, some on hard ground. We can't pick and choose what we think is the good soil. I once noticed a small tree about 5" tall growing up through a crack in the asphalt of my girlfriend's driveway, tender green leaves. That was cool. I brought my camera the next day to take a picture of it (this was about 1981). Somebody, probably the garbage man, had crushed the tree, it was broken and smashed flat ...... sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2012 11:35:56 GMT -5
You're moholing that 'rule', which I put in scare quotes for a reason. Can you prove that there are no monsters? Yes, I can. I look into the closet and under my bed and find that there are no monsters. What more proof do you expect? You're the one moholing if this proof isn't enough for you. How do you know there aren't monsters under somebody else's bed?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2012 11:49:32 GMT -5
Today, however, to illustrate how things have changed over the last thirty-three years, I would not call myself a proslytizer because I no longer shove ideas upon people; I simply present them in the context of my own experience and offer them as possibilities to consider. I share ideas that I think will interest people, but I am not invested in what happens as a consequence. If someone isn't interested in a particular issue, this becomes immediately obvious, and I simply drop it. Yes, like the parable of the sower. He just sowed seeds, didn't worry about where they fell. Some fell on good soil, some on rocky soil, some on hard ground. We can't pick and choose what we think is the good soil. I once noticed a small tree about 5" tall growing up through a crack in the asphalt of my girlfriend's driveway, tender green leaves. That was cool. I brought my camera the next day to take a picture of it (this was about 1981). Somebody, probably the garbage man, had crushed the tree, it was broken and smashed flat ...... sdp As they say in the real estate biz, the three most important things are location, location and location.
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 25, 2012 11:54:17 GMT -5
Yes, I can. I look into the closet and under my bed and find that there are no monsters. What more proof do you expect? You're the one moholing if this proof isn't enough for you. How do you know there aren't monsters under somebody else's bed? I don't unless I check it out. But what do I care about what's going under somebody else's bed? I get your point, but I'm saying that it's totally irrelevant and misplaced. You're the one moholing, just think it through.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Feb 25, 2012 12:34:41 GMT -5
Ahhh, so your not the realization deprived person you thought you were... It's simply a matter of terms, E says realization and you say understanding. Whatever the term the affect is the same, an illusion is seen through. And that's the important part. Well, the same way I evidentially disproved 'monsters under my bed' I evidentially disproved selfhood/separation/volition, but by your standards you obviously wouldn't say that I am 'realized'. You wouldn't say that I'm as enlightened as Nisargadatta for example. It most certainly is not a matter of terms. What I described as understanding does clearly not qualify as realization if you use E's definition. Like in mathematics, some problems may have only one solution, but there may be many ways to get the right answer. Finding the correct answer/no answer to the illusory nature of thoughts, ideas and beliefs, is a process of solving problems and then applying what you have learned to new problems. The only difference I see between E's realizations and your understanding, is that you believe you have gained something, an answer. While E hasn't gained an answer, he's lost something, or no answer. The results are the same but not the same...hehe But I might have to check under the bed again, just to make sure... ;D Of course E's nature of realizations is still new to my mind and I'm still trying to absorb it and probably haven't quite got it yet...
|
|