|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2013 6:54:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 17, 2013 7:20:11 GMT -5
The questioning does not end with a conclusion. If it did, there could be more to be questioned. The questioning ends leaving mind without a peg to hang its hat on. Without a solid foundation (a belief) to ground itself in.
So the questioning does not end with seeing that there is no questioner, because it can be questioned that 'there is no questioner', though that is a good thing to see. It ends when there is nothing left to question. When any more questioning would be completely pointless because it does not reveal anything more that could be questioned.
Concluding that a question is misconceived can be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 17, 2013 7:55:49 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, Alfred Pulyan in his correspondence with Richard Rose said that questions fall away for the following reasons:
1) they get answered 2) it is realized that the question is malformed 3) the question becomes meaningless, or the obsession with the question falls away.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2013 9:13:12 GMT -5
The questioning does not end with a conclusion. If it did, there could be more to be questioned. The questioning ends leaving mind without a peg to hang its hat on. Without a solid foundation (a belief) to ground itself in. So the questioning does not end with seeing that there is no questioner, because it can be questioned that 'there is no questioner', though that is a good thing to see. It ends when there is nothing left to question. When any more questioning would be completely pointless because it does not reveal anything more that could be questioned. Concluding that a question is misconceived can be questioned. Hello?! What does your concluding/conclusions have to do with what was said in that U.G. quote?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2013 9:19:25 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, Alfred Pulyan in his correspondence with Richard Rose said that questions fall away for the following reasons: 1) they get answered 2) it is realized that the question is malformed 3) the question becomes meaningless, or the obsession with the question falls away. I think it's important to first delineate what kind of questions we are talking about here before we start divvying up the conceptual cake. I assume U.G. is talking about existential questions like "is there a hell?" or "if Andrew keeps beating his wife, will Christ love him anyway?" and not rather profane questions like "what time is it in Uganda now?" or "how to best swat a mosquito?"
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 17, 2013 10:43:46 GMT -5
The questioning does not end with a conclusion. If it did, there could be more to be questioned. The questioning ends leaving mind without a peg to hang its hat on. Without a solid foundation (a belief) to ground itself in. So the questioning does not end with seeing that there is no questioner, because it can be questioned that 'there is no questioner', though that is a good thing to see. It ends when there is nothing left to question. When any more questioning would be completely pointless because it does not reveal anything more that could be questioned. Concluding that a question is misconceived can be questioned. Right, the questioning ends with clarity that takes away the questions, rather than a conclusion. The questioning ends because the questions are seen to be a nonsense, not really because they don't reveal anything more to be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 17, 2013 10:49:07 GMT -5
The questioning does not end with a conclusion. If it did, there could be more to be questioned. The questioning ends leaving mind without a peg to hang its hat on. Without a solid foundation (a belief) to ground itself in. So the questioning does not end with seeing that there is no questioner, because it can be questioned that 'there is no questioner', though that is a good thing to see. It ends when there is nothing left to question. When any more questioning would be completely pointless because it does not reveal anything more that could be questioned. Concluding that a question is misconceived can be questioned. Right, the questioning ends with clarity that takes away the questions, rather than a conclusion. The questioning ends because the questions are seen to be a nonsense, not really because they don't reveal anything more to be questioned. Not quite. Seeing the questions to be a nonsense is a conclusion that can be questioned. What happens is that it is seen that no idea is necessarily (or provably) true or false (including this one). For example, there may be a questioner or there may not be. In the face of this, there is no point in any more questions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 17, 2013 10:49:58 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, Alfred Pulyan in his correspondence with Richard Rose said that questions fall away for the following reasons: 1) they get answered 2) it is realized that the question is malformed 3) the question becomes meaningless, or the obsession with the question falls away. Seems like malformed and meaningless questions are both the result of misconceiving the question. Once the question is seen for what it is, it goes away, assuming one doesn't settle on and answer, in which case it leads to a new question. (This ongoing questioning process is the goal of seeker, hencely the speerichual circus.)
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 17, 2013 10:51:09 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, Alfred Pulyan in his correspondence with Richard Rose said that questions fall away for the following reasons: 1) they get answered 2) it is realized that the question is malformed 3) the question becomes meaningless, or the obsession with the question falls away. Seems like malformed and meaningless questions are both the result of misconceiving the question. Once the question is seen for what it is, it goes away, assuming one doesn't settle on and answer, in which case it leads to a new question. (This ongoing questioning process is the goal of seeker, hencely the speerichual circus.) 'Seeing a question for what it is' comes with an answer in itself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 17, 2013 11:01:51 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, Alfred Pulyan in his correspondence with Richard Rose said that questions fall away for the following reasons: 1) they get answered 2) it is realized that the question is malformed 3) the question becomes meaningless, or the obsession with the question falls away. I think it's important to first delineate what kind of questions we are talking about here before we start divvying up the conceptual cake. I assume U.G. is talking about existential questions like "is there a hell?" or "if Andrew keeps beating his wife, will Christ love him anyway?" and not rather profane questions like "what time is it in Uganda now?" or "how to best swat a mosquito?" These things work great on skeeters, though flies require a tricky backhand technique.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 17, 2013 11:05:37 GMT -5
Right, the questioning ends with clarity that takes away the questions, rather than a conclusion. The questioning ends because the questions are seen to be a nonsense, not really because they don't reveal anything more to be questioned. Not quite. Seeing the questions to be a nonsense is a conclusion that can be questioned. What happens is that it is seen that no idea is necessarily (or provably) true or false (including this one). For example, there may be a questioner or there may not be. In the face of this, there is no point in any more questions. That's just mind locking itself up in ambiguous paradoxicality. You don't have a reference for realization, so you don't know it isn't a conclusion. That's what it means to say realization is self evident. It means no proof is required.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 17, 2013 11:07:03 GMT -5
Seems like malformed and meaningless questions are both the result of misconceiving the question. Once the question is seen for what it is, it goes away, assuming one doesn't settle on and answer, in which case it leads to a new question. (This ongoing questioning process is the goal of seeker, hencely the speerichual circus.) 'Seeing a question for what it is' comes with an answer in itself. Yes, the answer is that the question is misconceived, and it collapses into a little greasy spot.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2013 11:18:04 GMT -5
I think it's important to first delineate what kind of questions we are talking about here before we start divvying up the conceptual cake. I assume U.G. is talking about existential questions like "is there a hell?" or "if Andrew keeps beating his wife, will Christ love him anyway?" and not rather profane questions like "what time is it in Uganda now?" or "how to best swat a mosquito?" These things work great on skeeters, though flies require a tricky backhand technique. Yeah, flies are tricky. They refuse to get electrocuted.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 17, 2013 11:19:22 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, Alfred Pulyan in his correspondence with Richard Rose said that questions fall away for the following reasons: 1) they get answered 2) it is realized that the question is malformed 3) the question becomes meaningless, or the obsession with the question falls away. Seems like malformed and meaningless questions are both the result of misconceiving the question. Once the question is seen for what it is, it goes away, assuming one doesn't settle on and answer, in which case it leads to a new question. (This ongoing questioning process is the goal of seeker, hencely the speerichual circus.) Heaven forfend someone should ask a question around here, then. **rolleyes**. I swear, sometimes, I wonder why I bother.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 17, 2013 11:31:41 GMT -5
These things work great on skeeters, though flies require a tricky backhand technique. Yeah, flies are tricky. They refuse to get electrocuted. You could try this to finish 'em off:
|
|