Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 7:13:36 GMT -5
Well I just realized that I should have taken the extra time to capitalize Realization to dress up a word that is used by normal duality bound dream monkeys so as not to invite snarky rejoinders from nonduality masters embodying silence. So you've never Realized anything? Not as I imagine Realization means, which I'm not really clear on. This is why I say I can not even approach using it in a genuine way. I understand it to mean that it's the loss of knowledge. Knowledge that has basically been a filter or distorting influence on clear perception of reality. Once I believed in Santa Claus. I thought presents that showed up on Christmas morning were delivered by some guy wearing a red suit. I looked out the window one Christmas eve and could see Rudolph's red nose gliding past stars and I could hear bells jingling. I lost that 'knowledge,' which was really just an unquestioned belief told to me by others. I gained knowledge too: how adults and others conspire to keep up a deception to have a good time. More evidence that they can't really be trusted. Is that a Realization or just understanding? "Do not mistake understanding for realization, and do not mistake realization for liberation."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 7:16:09 GMT -5
I don't really get why Oneness has to do all this masochistic game playing. Oneness isn't an entity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 8:11:56 GMT -5
Why the illusion of separation bothers to appear at all is also a challenging question. Not really. Even the mind can answer that one. Without perspective, there's nothing for there to have perspective on. Without the questioner, "to be or not to be?" cannot be asked and the asking is what the void itself demands. In nothing, the question of something emerges. To speak objectively, the subject-object split is the (likely inevitable) result of 10's of billions of years of a machine playing itself out. It's the destiny of chaotic order. The subject-object split, in all it's glorious deception, is what is, and without it there is no "Oneness". You're saying the discussion of Oneness, more accurately represented as "Oneness," can not happen without the subject/object split. I get that. But there is no inherent requirement for the subject/object illusion, is there? That's the question. I can chalk all this up to just an unanswerable Why? It's okay.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2013 8:53:29 GMT -5
Not really. Even the mind can answer that one. Without perspective, there's nothing for there to have perspective on. Without the questioner, "to be or not to be?" cannot be asked and the asking is what the void itself demands. In nothing, the question of something emerges. To speak objectively, the subject-object split is the (likely inevitable) result of 10's of billions of years of a machine playing itself out. It's the destiny of chaotic order. The subject-object split, in all it's glorious deception, is what is, and without it there is no "Oneness". You're saying the discussion of Oneness, more accurately represented as "Oneness," can not happen without the subject/object split. I get that. But there is no inherent requirement for the subject/object illusion, is there? That's the question. I can chalk all this up to just an unanswerable Why? It's okay. Not just that "Oneness" needs twoness, but that the question isn't unanswerable. The answer is a representation and a reflection of the tangled hierarchy that sourced it -- If the mind resorts to logic, objectivity and 2nd-hand knowledge of collective empirical effort integrated over time the explanation for the subject-object split is that it is woven into the fabric of experience. There is nothing but a point of infinitely concentrated energy that explodes outward and then organizes according to natural laws leading inevitably and eventually to brains that source the split. The answer to: Why the illusion of separation bothers to appear at all is also a challenging question. Is "because that's what is". Of course this is a cure that's brewed and concocted in the asylum kitchen by the inmates, but similar to noticing the collapse of the material assumption, it might quiet the mind asking the question long enough for the question to be seen for what it is. Both the question and the answer about the split are ironically a reflection of the tangled unity of form/formlessness limitation/infinity mind/matter embodied by our ultimately false sense of individuality.
|
|
|
Post by silence on May 23, 2013 9:19:01 GMT -5
You've never realized anything? Well I just realized that I should have taken the extra time to capitalize Realization to dress up a word that is used by normal duality bound dream monkeys so as not to invite snarky rejoinders from nonduality masters embodying silence. I don't know what to make of that reply. I think you're trying to make things too complicated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 9:33:15 GMT -5
Well I just realized that I should have taken the extra time to capitalize Realization to dress up a word that is used by normal duality bound dream monkeys so as not to invite snarky rejoinders from nonduality masters embodying silence. I don't know what to make of that reply. I think you're trying to make things too complicated. How do you understand Realization. What is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 9:58:36 GMT -5
You're saying the discussion of Oneness, more accurately represented as "Oneness," can not happen without the subject/object split. I get that. But there is no inherent requirement for the subject/object illusion, is there? That's the question. I can chalk all this up to just an unanswerable Why? It's okay. Not just that "Oneness" needs twoness, but that the question isn't unanswerable. The answer is a representation and a reflection of the tangled hierarchy that sourced it -- If the mind resorts to logic, objectivity and 2nd-hand knowledge of collective empirical effort integrated over time the explanation for the subject-object split is that it is woven into the fabric of experience. There is nothing but a point of infinitely concentrated energy that explodes outward and then organizes according to natural laws leading inevitably and eventually to brains that source the split. The answer to: Why the illusion of separation bothers to appear at all is also a challenging question. Is "because that's what is". Of course this is a cure that's brewed and concocted in the asylum kitchen by the inmates, but similar to noticing the collapse of the material assumption, it might quiet the mind asking the question long enough for the question to be seen for what it is. Both the question and the answer about the split are ironically a reflection of the tangled unity of form/formlessness limitation/infinity mind/matter embodied by our ultimately false sense of individuality. "Because that's what is" isn't really satisfying, but I can live with it, and the related questions. They're like warts. Growing and staying a while, then disappearing for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2013 10:12:45 GMT -5
Not just that "Oneness" needs twoness, but that the question isn't unanswerable. The answer is a representation and a reflection of the tangled hierarchy that sourced it -- If the mind resorts to logic, objectivity and 2nd-hand knowledge of collective empirical effort integrated over time the explanation for the subject-object split is that it is woven into the fabric of experience. There is nothing but a point of infinitely concentrated energy that explodes outward and then organizes according to natural laws leading inevitably and eventually to brains that source the split. The answer to: Is "because that's what is". Of course this is a cure that's brewed and concocted in the asylum kitchen by the inmates, but similar to noticing the collapse of the material assumption, it might quiet the mind asking the question long enough for the question to be seen for what it is. Both the question and the answer about the split are ironically a reflection of the tangled unity of form/formlessness limitation/infinity mind/matter embodied by our ultimately false sense of individuality. "Because that's what is" isn't really satisfying, but I can live with it, and the related questions. They're like warts. Growing and staying a while, then disappearing for some reason. Stay away from frogs. They cause warts. I'm not so sure about insects.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on May 23, 2013 10:22:35 GMT -5
"Because that's what is" isn't really satisfying, but I can live with it, and the related questions. They're like warts. Growing and staying a while, then disappearing for some reason. Stay away from frogs. They cause warts. I'm not so sure about insects.Yea but if you kiss one they will turn into a prince .......
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2013 12:17:22 GMT -5
Hi Enigma, The disconnection seekers feel cannot possible be overcome by realization because as we both know in the nonduality story disconnection is impossible. amit Sorry, I don't follow your logic.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2013 12:25:33 GMT -5
Why Oneness tortures, kills and rapes itself can be a very challenging question for seekers and often leads to rejection of nonduality. You've replaced 'God' with 'oneness' and face the same dilemmas. Oneness is a pointer to the actuality of oneness. That's all. Why not? There isn't 'a oneness' that can bother or not bother. There is no sentience until it appears as a unique individuation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2013 12:56:21 GMT -5
So you've never Realized anything? Not as I imagine Realization means, which I'm not really clear on. This is why I say I can not even approach using it in a genuine way. I understand it to mean that it's the loss of knowledge. Knowledge that has basically been a filter or distorting influence on clear perception of reality. Once I believed in Santa Claus. I thought presents that showed up on Christmas morning were delivered by some guy wearing a red suit. I looked out the window one Christmas eve and could see Rudolph's red nose gliding past stars and I could hear bells jingling. I lost that 'knowledge,' which was really just an unquestioned belief told to me by others. I gained knowledge too: how adults and others conspire to keep up a deception to have a good time. More evidence that they can't really be trusted. Is that a Realization or just understanding? "Do not mistake understanding for realization, and do not mistake realization for liberation." Yes, it's a good point and a valid distinction. Realizing there is no Santa isn't the 'Realization' we're talking about, of course, and yet there isn't a clear conceptual dividing line between a Santa realization and a Realization. To me, there IS a clear distinction in the Realizing, but I don't know what other minds do with it or how it is experienced. I do see where some appear to have a Realization and then turn it over to mind and throw it back into doubt, but I can't be certain this is happening. It could all be a conceptual game. Oneness is a Realization. Non-volition is a Realization. The fact that one cannot be that which one is observing is a Realization. The true nature of duality is a Realization. Even the futility of permanent happiness is a Realization. All of these things and more must be 'seen' and cannot be worked out conceptually. The way I seem to know this is that in each case there was a moment of timeless, nonconceptual 'seeing'in which an idea collapsed instantly and completely. The concepts were already understood but they had no self evident nature until they were Realized, and then doubt and confusion was gone. In the actuality of this self evident seeing, the distinction between understanding and Realization is very clear.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2013 13:23:55 GMT -5
We could say that Intelligence forms individuated perspectives, and thinks and acts through the conditioning of each perspective; experiencing, creating, and experiencing that creation, forming and developing the conditioning spontaneously, and ultimately transcending the boundaries defined by that perspective. As such, we can't say the perspective is doing anything volitionally, but we also can't say Intelligence is doing anything volitionally. Mind/body cannot act without Intelligence, and Intelligence cannot act without mind/body. It is what it is and mind does what it does, but Intelligence that is the creative principal (God/you) is fully active and present always, and so creation is not in any way mechanical. Infinite potential is present in every moment. This is God being, from within his own dream of becoming. It is vibrantly alive and unbounded.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2013 13:46:37 GMT -5
Not just that "Oneness" needs twoness, but that the question isn't unanswerable. The answer is a representation and a reflection of the tangled hierarchy that sourced it -- If the mind resorts to logic, objectivity and 2nd-hand knowledge of collective empirical effort integrated over time the explanation for the subject-object split is that it is woven into the fabric of experience. There is nothing but a point of infinitely concentrated energy that explodes outward and then organizes according to natural laws leading inevitably and eventually to brains that source the split. The answer to: Is "because that's what is". Of course this is a cure that's brewed and concocted in the asylum kitchen by the inmates, but similar to noticing the collapse of the material assumption, it might quiet the mind asking the question long enough for the question to be seen for what it is. Both the question and the answer about the split are ironically a reflection of the tangled unity of form/formlessness limitation/infinity mind/matter embodied by our ultimately false sense of individuality. "Because that's what is" isn't really satisfying, but I can live with it, and the related questions. They're like warts. Growing and staying a while, then disappearing for some reason. 'Because that's what is', is not a meaningful answer, and there's no reason it should satisfy. 'Why' questions are based on the premise of purpose, which presupposes a present lack and future fulfillment and a path between, all of which is only formed in an individuated mind under the delusion of separation. For a force that has no personal mind and does not function within time and does not lack, it seems unlikely the question would apply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 13:54:24 GMT -5
Not as I imagine Realization means, which I'm not really clear on. This is why I say I can not even approach using it in a genuine way. I understand it to mean that it's the loss of knowledge. Knowledge that has basically been a filter or distorting influence on clear perception of reality. Once I believed in Santa Claus. I thought presents that showed up on Christmas morning were delivered by some guy wearing a red suit. I looked out the window one Christmas eve and could see Rudolph's red nose gliding past stars and I could hear bells jingling. I lost that 'knowledge,' which was really just an unquestioned belief told to me by others. I gained knowledge too: how adults and others conspire to keep up a deception to have a good time. More evidence that they can't really be trusted. Is that a Realization or just understanding? "Do not mistake understanding for realization, and do not mistake realization for liberation." Yes, it's a good point and a valid distinction. Realizing there is no Santa isn't the 'Realization' we're talking about, of course, and yet there isn't a clear conceptual dividing line between a Santa realization and a Realization. To me, there IS a clear distinction in the Realizing, but I don't know what other minds do with it or how it is experienced. I do see where some appear to have a Realization and then turn it over to mind and throw it back into doubt, but I can't be certain this is happening. It could all be a conceptual game. I have a thin memory of an experience that seemed like a Realization -- the one where you were stepping me through some questions regarding nonlocality and ZD punched me with a comment about how what is looking through these eyes is the same as what was looking through these eyes as a child. Time and space vaporized, it seemed, and my life flash before my eyes. Sounds pretty groovy describing it now. But I can't say now that this is a Realization, because I really don't see any difference in how I lived before that experience and after that experience. Maybe this is the conceptual game being played really well. Yes, no part of that list is anything I would utter as part of this 'bodymind experience.' The experience I related above had that feel, but impermanent, which is expected.
|
|