|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 9:54:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. I'd say this is pretty much where your agenda consumes the conversation. You haven't gotten him to admit the answer you've been holding and so now you tell him that's what he's supposed to be saying. In the same way that E redundantly repeats the "oneness is truth".. it like shouting "fire!!" in a crowded theater, and no one runs for the the door.. E expects people to accept his beliefs, A suspects that E can actually see what is actually happening, but E has invested too much of his 'identity' into the 'oneness' mantra, and is willing to continue the ruse.. i suspect so, too.. it would be more productive to explore Life happening that sorting-out the beliefs that become obstacles to that exploration.. Be well.. yeah.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 10:31:28 GMT -5
"Oneness" and "Realization" and "Truth" are all concepts that fill my tank. I sputter along, enjoying the sights for the most part, chatting with folks I meet. I don't know the chemical composition of that fuel, though I have some education and modeling to imagine I do.
The gas station attendants I talk to are funny though. I pay for the stuff if I want to -- some of it seems to be extra premium or something -- 'burns clean'. But there's no charge really. The attendants fill up my tank but keep chuckling that I ought to try running out of gas sometime.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 2, 2013 10:33:36 GMT -5
We are using the word in different ways. The realization I speak of is Self revealing Self to the Self which up until then had been obscured and entangled in mind identification. The effect of realization is instantaneous clarity, at least for that moment, of Ones True Nature as Silent Awareness, which is clearly seen to be other than mind. I agree that Self is not experienced, if that is what you mean. But the revelation of Self as Self seen through the medium of the mind is a mind blowing experience...literally. I don't know that we're talking about different things, except that you seem to be talking about how mind responds to the realization, which of course is an experience. But the realization itself was not a sequence of events, right? Did the realization unfold over a period of time, or was it mind that 'unfolded'? Wasn't the realization itself instantaneous? Did it come to you in pieces that you had to assemble? You want others to help you believe that your questions are meaningful, and they probly will because they want them to be meaningful too. The questions are all that keeps the seeking going.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 2, 2013 14:46:46 GMT -5
Right, well you assigned a date to a timeless non-event, but that doesn't turn it into an experience. Can you relate the sequence of events of that realization as they occurred? Not what mind did in response, but the realization itself. Roight. Now that rings true as a realization. Where experience may begin is with mind letting go. Before that...................A realization leaves no tracks in the mind. It isn't mind stuff. Mind DOES play a role, but it is responding to a self evident truth that it cannot deny. And yet this truth is not an idea. It's the darndest thing. It is the darndest thing. For a long time, I could relate the series of events, and actually considered writing them down, but the effort was quickly thwarted by the stark fact that not only would such a recording be only an interpretation (and a very poor one at that), but the events themselves were really trivial, if not meaningless, in comparison to the expansion of perspective that accompanied the realization, and there was no way on God's green earth to put that understanding on paper. So, I can see your points. I just can't say that it wasn't an experience. Welp, I'm making a distinction that prolly has no significance to most as they relate to their own realizations, but it becomes important when mind starts dismissing it as an idea or an experience or some sort of mind play that has no more significance than any thought. I've been 'looking' at the 'process' of realization for a long time as it really is essential, and yet it simply cannot be 'done' since it is not a task for mind. More and more I'm noticing that peeps really do have realizations and then turn them over to mind out of ignorance, so maybe it can be useful to challenge some of that ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 2, 2013 14:52:39 GMT -5
It is the darndest thing. For a long time, I could relate the series of events, and actually considered writing them down, but the effort was quickly thwarted by the stark fact that not only would such a recording be only an interpretation (and a very poor one at that), but the events themselves were really trivial, if not meaningless, in comparison to the expansion of perspective that accompanied the realization, and there was no way on God's green earth to put that understanding on paper. So, I can see your points. I just can't say that it wasn't an experience. Welp, I'm making a distinction that prolly has no significance to most as they relate to their own realizations, but it becomes important when mind starts dismissing it as an idea or an experience or some sort of mind play that has no more significance than any thought. I've been 'looking' at the 'process' of realization for a long time as it really is essential, and yet it simply cannot be 'done' since it is not a task for mind. More and more I'm noticing that peeps really do have realizations and then turn them over to mind out of ignorance, so maybe it can be useful to challenge some of that ignorance. I agree that it is important not to dismiss a realization as an idea. That was never my problem. Mine was always not to interpret too much into it, make it into something more significant than it is. In the end, it's just getting back to your true nature, which was there all along, so, really, it's no big deal.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 2, 2013 14:59:22 GMT -5
The reason for divvying it up is to talk about how it's already been divvied up, and to point to that. Two wrongs do not make a right. There's nothing wrong with using ideas to talk about ideas. This is the 'thorn to remove a thorn' metaphor. That which knows mind is obviously what you are, because you know of mind. (Some call it Self) To realize Self is called Self realization. The moment mind begins to move, that knowing becomes impossible as the knower cannot become an 'object' to mind. Self is radical subjectivity, and it's not the least bit hidden.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 2, 2013 15:04:24 GMT -5
How many well respected teachers have said 'oneness is the truth', and repeated that over and over? Course, I haven't read it all, but you're the only human being I've known who's said that, at least with such specificity. Really? I guess I should do more reading.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 15:07:04 GMT -5
It is the darndest thing. For a long time, I could relate the series of events, and actually considered writing them down, but the effort was quickly thwarted by the stark fact that not only would such a recording be only an interpretation (and a very poor one at that), but the events themselves were really trivial, if not meaningless, in comparison to the expansion of perspective that accompanied the realization, and there was no way on God's green earth to put that understanding on paper. So, I can see your points. I just can't say that it wasn't an experience. Welp, I'm making a distinction that prolly has no significance to most as they relate to their own realizations, but it becomes important when mind starts dismissing it as an idea or an experience or some sort of mind play that has no more significance than any thought. I've been 'looking' at the 'process' of realization for a long time as it really is essential, and yet it simply cannot be 'done' since it is not a task for mind. More and more I'm noticing that peeps really do have realizations and then turn them over to mind out of ignorance, so maybe it can be useful to challenge some of that ignorance. There is one crucial realization that you've missed, or that hasn't happened, that supersedes all the other non-dual realizations.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 2, 2013 16:56:14 GMT -5
Course, I haven't read it all, but you're the only human being I've known who's said that, at least with such specificity. Really? I guess I should do more reading. To be clear, I've read a bunch of authors who've hinted or implied at Oneness, or even used the term itself. Just no one I've read ever said, "oneness is true", or "oneness is the case".
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 2, 2013 17:47:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. It is the darndest thing. For a long time, I could relate the series of events, and actually considered writing them down, but the effort was quickly thwarted by the stark fact that not only would such a recording be only an interpretation (and a very poor one at that), but the events themselves were really trivial, if not meaningless, in comparison to the expansion of perspective that accompanied the realization, and there was no way on God's green earth to put that understanding on paper. So, I can see your points. I just can't say that it wasn't an experience. Welp, I'm making a distinction that prolly has no significance to most as they relate to their own realizations, but it becomes important when mind starts dismissing it as an idea or an experience or some sort of mind play that has no more significance than any thought. I've been 'looking' at the 'process' of realization for a long time as it really is essential, and yet it simply cannot be 'done' since it is not a task for mind. More and more I'm noticing that peeps really do have realizations and then turn them over to mind out of ignorance, so maybe it can be useful to challenge some of that ignorance. There is ignorance of self that must be overcome before challenging ignorance in others.. assuming you have the clarity and authority to challenge others on the grounds of ignorance, reveals your own.. that is your weakness, carrying your battleground around, and throwing down a challenge, when you have no intention of open honest challenge, you come to conquer and convert.. unwilling to discuss your own beliefs rationally.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2013 18:44:38 GMT -5
Greetings.. Welp, I'm making a distinction that prolly has no significance to most as they relate to their own realizations, but it becomes important when mind starts dismissing it as an idea or an experience or some sort of mind play that has no more significance than any thought. I've been 'looking' at the 'process' of realization for a long time as it really is essential, and yet it simply cannot be 'done' since it is not a task for mind. More and more I'm noticing that peeps really do have realizations and then turn them over to mind out of ignorance, so maybe it can be useful to challenge some of that ignorance. There is ignorance of self that must be overcome before challenging ignorance in others.. assuming you have the clarity and authority to challenge others on the grounds of ignorance, reveals your own.. that is your weakness, carrying your battleground around, and throwing down a challenge, when you have no intention of open honest challenge, you come to conquer and convert.. unwilling to discuss your own beliefs rationally.. Be well.. Bob, answer honestly now ... of the logins that you've corresponded with over the past few years, what percentage of those interactions would you characterize as peaceful, non-confrontational, non-combative?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 2, 2013 19:28:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's true there's no basis for discussing them. Really, we can only talk about how mind is informed by them. You and i may have realizations that conflict with what is realized by the other.. What i find is that folks can have different depths of clarity regarding a realization, which is a function of how well mind translates, but realizations cannot conflict. One of us is most certainly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 2, 2013 19:34:26 GMT -5
Greetings.. 'Beyond mind' is a pointer, not to be taken literally as you have done. We could say, though not with word lawyering accuracy, that realization holds a unique position between thought and simple, empty awareness. As such, it can clarify conceptualization without, itself, being conceptual. I have no problem with referring to that as seeing beyond mind. The only reason such a thing is possible is because you are not mind. Mind appears to you. Mind doesn't appear to you.. it is inherent as an aspect of what you are, it is not separate from 'you'.. you E, use mind to try to defeat mind, and consequently defeat your beliefs about mind.. you are not 'looking', you are 'thinking' about how to create illusions about mind.. just look, and there is no need to concern yourself with 'mind'.. mind is an enemy 'you' have created.. Be well.. Mind is not an enemy. It is, however, an appearance that comes and goes and changes, and is therefore not the fundamental intelligence that you are in essence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 2, 2013 19:42:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Course, I haven't read it all, but you're the only human being I've known who's said that, at least with such specificity. No matter how many times a belief is repeated, nor by whom, it remains a belief.. 'oneness' is a concept, a meaning assigned to a word.. Be well.. Obviously, but what that word refers to is the truth.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 2, 2013 19:46:24 GMT -5
It makes no sense to say MOST self evident, so I took that to be a brain fart. Stuff is either self evident or it is not. No, it is only "more self evident" to you from the conviction that it exists outside of you rather than in your consciousness. What is most self evident to you is what you believe, but that has nothing to do with self evident or what may actually be the case. You're going to keep asking those questions for days until I answer, aren't you? What I experience is 'woof, woof'. Everything else is a thought ABOUT it. I experience the same thing watching Lassie reruns, but I conclude that one is on a TV screen, and it doesn't exist in any form other than light patterns, and the other wants to go for a walk and could be said to exist in that context. These are conclusions ABOUT my 'woof, woof' experience. To be clear, it's not more evident to me that something exists outside of me than it is that things are appearances to me. What is most evident is that appearances are appearing. That is also what is most evident to you. To say that you don't experience time and space is nonsense. We are experiencing physical reality and that means experiencing something in a different location, regardless of whether time and space is an illusion or not. When did I say that and what does it have to do with this discussion?
|
|