|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2012 22:12:07 GMT -5
The thing is, when you say that realisation is primarily NOT thinking, then what can it be other than present moment sensory experience? I propose that it only becomes realisation when re thought about, and only exists as realisation while thought about. I also propose that the change of perception that we refer to as enlightenment is due to the dropping away of conceptualisation, and not realisation, which is only thoughts about temporary experiences. Thinking has the rather visceral effect of constricting the focus of attention through a process of consecutive discrimination, meaning repeatedly bifurcating conceptually such that the focus of attention becomes progressively more constricted and single pointed. The effect is much like that of a zoom lens, obscuring the context of what is seen. Realization is the reversing of this constricted focus such that the boundaries that define that focus are clearly seen as illusory. I wouldn't characterize realization as a perception, which is what seems to lock it into the realm of thought or sense perception. Realization, at it's non-temporal onset, is not an experience, meaning it is not thought, feeling or sense perception, all of which occur in time and through mind. Hencely, it is also not knowledge. It's actually an expansion of a focus of attention that provides a 'bird's eye view' of that focus. The result is not a gain but rather a loss of some mental structure of boundaries. As such, the realization does not contain true knowledge about something and therefore does not require thought perception. It's just the realization that the oasis being stared at is, in fact, an illusion only happening in the mind. The ideas about riding a camel out to fill up your canteens then suddenly collapses and is not replaced with anything. There is no more interest in those thoughts or the actions that might follow.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 24, 2012 22:18:47 GMT -5
Thinking has the rather visceral effect of constricting the focus of attention through a process of consecutive discrimination, meaning repeatedly bifurcating conceptually such that the focus of attention becomes progressively more constricted and single pointed. The effect is much like that of a zoom lens, obscuring the context of what is seen. Realization is the reversing of this constricted focus such that the boundaries that define that focus are clearly seen as illusory. I can dig that analogy.
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 24, 2012 22:26:28 GMT -5
The thing is, when you say that realisation is primarily NOT thinking, then what can it be other than present moment sensory experience? I propose that it only becomes realisation when re thought about, and only exists as realisation while thought about. I also propose that the change of perception that we refer to as enlightenment is due to the dropping away of conceptualisation, and not realisation, which is only thoughts about temporary experiences. Thinking has the rather visceral effect of constricting the focus of attention through a process of consecutive discrimination, meaning repeatedly bifurcating conceptually such that the focus of attention becomes progressively more constricted and single pointed. The effect is much like that of a zoom lens, obscuring the context of what is seen. Realization is the reversing of this constricted focus such that the boundaries that define that focus are clearly seen as illusory. I wouldn't characterize realization as a perception, which is what seems to lock it into the realm of thought or sense perception. Realization, at it's non-temporal onset, is not an experience, meaning it is not thought, feeling or sense perception, all of which occur in time and through mind. Hencely, it is also not knowledge. It's actually an expansion of a focus of attention that provides a 'bird's eye view' of that focus. The result is not a gain but rather a loss of some mental structure of boundaries. As such, the realization does not contain true knowledge about something and therefore does not require thought perception. It's just the realization that the oasis being stared at is, in fact, an illusion only happening in the mind. The ideas about riding a camel out to fill up your canteens then suddenly collapses and is not replaced with anything. There is no more interest in those thoughts or the actions that might follow. This realization you tried beautifully describe has nothing to do with the real realization. It's just one more type of an illusion. Then why to call it a realization?
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 24, 2012 23:06:49 GMT -5
Thinking has the rather visceral effect of constricting the focus of attention through a process of consecutive discrimination, meaning repeatedly bifurcating conceptually such that the focus of attention becomes progressively more constricted and single pointed. The effect is much like that of a zoom lens, obscuring the context of what is seen. Realization is the reversing of this constricted focus such that the boundaries that define that focus are clearly seen as illusory. I wouldn't characterize realization as a perception, which is what seems to lock it into the realm of thought or sense perception. Realization, at it's non-temporal onset, is not an experience, meaning it is not thought, feeling or sense perception, all of which occur in time and through mind. Hencely, it is also not knowledge. It's actually an expansion of a focus of attention that provides a 'bird's eye view' of that focus. The result is not a gain but rather a loss of some mental structure of boundaries. As such, the realization does not contain true knowledge about something and therefore does not require thought perception. It's just the realization that the oasis being stared at is, in fact, an illusion only happening in the mind. The ideas about riding a camel out to fill up your canteens then suddenly collapses and is not replaced with anything. There is no more interest in those thoughts or the actions that might follow. This realization you tried beautifully describe has nothing to do with the real realization. It's just one more type of an illusion. Then why to call it a realization? What is "the real realization"?
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 24, 2012 23:30:59 GMT -5
This realization you tried beautifully describe has nothing to do with the real realization. It's just one more type of an illusion. Then why to call it a realization? What is "the real realization"? Real realization is the realization of Oneness which can happen only after you have become fully and completely the one with Oneness. When NOTHING else is left, - no illusion, no coming back to the illusion. When present, past and future collapse for ever, and there is no more, and will never be Time. It is unachievable while alive.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 24, 2012 23:33:54 GMT -5
What is "the real realization"? Real realization is the realization of Oneness which can happen only after you have become fully and completely the one with Oneness. When NOTHING else is left, - no illusion, no coming back to the illusion. When present, past and future collapse for ever, and there is no more, and will never be Time. It is unachievable while alive. If it is unachievable while alive and you don't have access to the post death low-down, how do you know this?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2012 23:58:18 GMT -5
Real realization is the realization of Oneness which can happen only after you have become fully and completely the one with Oneness. When NOTHING else is left, - no illusion, no coming back to the illusion. When present, past and future collapse for ever, and there is no more, and will never be Time. It is unachievable while alive. If it is unachievable while alive and you don't have access to the post death low-down, how do you know this? Obviously, she doesn't. It's just a concept, which she knows is false, about a realization that she knows can't be known or talked about, and grasping that imaginary concept allows her to say everybody is wrong and she's right, which puts her at a higher level of spearichal attainment, while she waits to " become fully and completely the one with Oneness", whatever that means.
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 24, 2012 23:59:16 GMT -5
Real realization is the realization of Oneness which can happen only after you have become fully and completely the one with Oneness. When NOTHING else is left, - no illusion, no coming back to the illusion. When present, past and future collapse for ever, and there is no more, and will never be Time. It is unachievable while alive. If it is unachievable while alive and you don't have access to the post death low-down, how do you know this? I never said I know what is after life, I always said that nobody can know. But everybody can conjecture, or surmise (if it's the right word) what realization of Oneness is via the meaning of the word Oneness. Only surmise, and this is what I did. All we have at our disposal is this word, the concept. I also don't say that the experiences are the experiences of Oneness. I say: we cannot know for sure what is it to know what realization of Oneness is. The word "realization" is also just a word. I think it is clear from the definition that Oneness, real realization of Oneness, is impossible to have. All these talks that Oneness is right now are the same kind of illusion as now is running away. 'Now' is not already now when you just thought about it. It is running away, escaping all the time and cannot be caught. It has been said many times about it here. Isn't it pretty boring to ask to say about it again and again? I don't see any contradiction in assuming what Oneness, and real realization of Oneness is. If you want to point out that I don't have the answer, but I say what real realization of Oneness is,- I always make a surmise as nothing else can be expected, only a surmise , in case one cannot know about something. I thought it's clear and obvious , and doesn't require any explanations.
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 25, 2012 0:06:59 GMT -5
If it is unachievable while alive and you don't have access to the post death low-down, how do you know this? Obviously, she doesn't. It's just a concept, which she knows is false, about a realization that she knows can't be known or talked about, and grasping that imaginary concept allows her to say everybody is wrong and she's right, which puts her at a higher level of spearichal attainment, while she waits to " become fully and completely the one with Oneness", whatever that means. I said many times about it, but you pretend I didn't. As for the higher level of spearichal attainment, - ha! -I am very far from imagining the nonsense like this. I don't care about levels. If I don't see your level as high enough it doesn't mean I care. And there is no contradiction. Just be more realistic about your spiritual achievements and abilities.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 25, 2012 1:47:22 GMT -5
If it is unachievable while alive and you don't have access to the post death low-down, how do you know this? I never said I know what is after life, I always said that nobody can know. But everybody can conjecture, or surmise (if it's the right word) what Oneness is via the meaning of the word Oneness. Only surmise, and this is what I did. All we have at our disposal is this word, the concept. I also don't say that the experiences are the experiences of Oneness. I say: we cannot know for sure what is it to know what Oneness is. The word "realization" is also just a word. I think it is clear from the definition that Oneness, real realization of Oneness, is impossible to have. What is it about the definition of oneness that makes you certain (not surmising) that it is impossible to realize? Where is now running away to? When I say oneness is the case now, I just mean that oneness never was or will be twoness. Oneness is always the case and it makes no difference if now is running away somewhere. Then just say you surmise that oneness can't be realized. You state it as though you know it to be absolutely true and flatly reject any claim by anyone to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 25, 2012 1:54:25 GMT -5
Obviously, she doesn't. It's just a concept, which she knows is false, about a realization that she knows can't be known or talked about, and grasping that imaginary concept allows her to say everybody is wrong and she's right, which puts her at a higher level of spearichal attainment, while she waits to " become fully and completely the one with Oneness", whatever that means. I said many times about it, but you pretend I didn't. Where did I pretend you didn't say it? I just said "which she knows is false" and "that she knows can't be known or talked about" because you've stated this. If you didn't care about the 'nonsense' of levels, you wouldn't keep talking about them or feel sad that I fell down from some level. You also wouldn't be talking about "spiritual achievements and abilities", which is the same as levels. I haven't achieved anything, so being realistic about it seems pretty simple. Perhaps you could make a short list of the spiritual achievements and abilities that I've claimed?
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 25, 2012 1:58:06 GMT -5
If it is unachievable while alive and you don't have access to the post death low-down, how do you know this? I never said I know what is after life, I always said that nobody can know. But everybody can conjecture, or surmise (if it's the right word) what Oneness is via the meaning of the word Oneness. Only surmise, and this is what I did. All we have at our disposal is this word, the concept. I also don't say that the experiences are the experiences of Oneness. I say: we cannot know for sure what is it to know what Oneness is. The word "realization" is also just a word. I think it is clear from the definition that Oneness, real realization of Oneness, is impossible to have. All these talks that Oneness is right now are the same kind of illusion as now is running away. It was said many times about it here. Isn't it pretty boring to ask to say about it again and again? I don't see any contradiction in assuming what Oneness, and real realization of Oneness is. If you want to point out that I don't have the answer, but I say what real realization of Oneness is,- I always make a surmise as nothing else can be expected, only a surmise. I thought it's clear and obvious , and doesn't require any explanations. That's a lot of explanation to tell me you've been making it up as you go along.
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 25, 2012 3:20:10 GMT -5
I never said I know what is after life, I always said that nobody can know. But everybody can conjecture, or surmise (if it's the right word) what Oneness is via the meaning of the word Oneness. Only surmise, and this is what I did. All we have at our disposal is this word, the concept. I also don't say that the experiences are the experiences of Oneness. I say: we cannot know for sure what is it to know what Oneness is. The word "realization" is also just a word. I think it is clear from the definition that Oneness, real realization of Oneness, is impossible to have. What is it about the definition of oneness that makes you certain (not surmising) that it is impossible to realize? Where is now running away to? When I say oneness is the case now, I just mean that oneness never was or will be twoness. Oneness is always the case and it makes no difference if now is running away somewhere. Then just say you surmise that oneness can't be realized. You state it as though you know it to be absolutely true and flatly reject any claim by anyone to the contrary. It has already been discussed many times, and you have already said that the realization of Oneness is impossible, in this thread, and in many other threads. You said it yourself or via your fans who tried to help you. When you say ' Oneness is the case now' you know what you mean. I also know what you mean. Please, let me decide by myself, what to surmise, why, and when.
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 25, 2012 3:24:17 GMT -5
I said many times about it, but you pretend I didn't. Where did I pretend you didn't say it? I just said "which she knows is false" and "that she knows can't be known or talked about" because you've stated this. If you didn't care about the 'nonsense' of levels, you wouldn't keep talking about them or feel sad that I fell down from some level. You also wouldn't be talking about "spiritual achievements and abilities", which is the same as levels. I haven't achieved anything, so being realistic about it seems pretty simple. Perhaps you could make a short list of the spiritual achievements and abilities that I've claimed? To put it short it would be stupid to answer your questions which are asked I don't know what for. I am not going to, sorry, it has become ridiculous. I liked your clear cut definitions, and your use of the English language, your ability to speak beautifully in this language, but I realized that it is not worth wasting the time, senseless. You twist the meaning if it suits your purposes. Not fair, no more interest because of that. Invent what you like, then " mirror" it, then say it's somebody's reflection. It only shows the reflexion of yours.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 25, 2012 10:25:38 GMT -5
What is it about the definition of oneness that makes you certain (not surmising) that it is impossible to realize? Where is now running away to? When I say oneness is the case now, I just mean that oneness never was or will be twoness. Oneness is always the case and it makes no difference if now is running away somewhere. Then just say you surmise that oneness can't be realized. You state it as though you know it to be absolutely true and flatly reject any claim by anyone to the contrary. It has already been discussed many times, and you have already said that the realization of Oneness is impossible, in this thread, and in many other threads. You said it yourself or via your fans who tried to help you. When you say ' Oneness is the case now' you know what you mean. I also know what you mean. Please, let me decide by myself, what to surmise, why, and when. Contains confusion
|
|