|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 3:10:46 GMT -5
Never been to a meeting, no. It's legit to talk about an awakening event, and also to say there is no awakening because awakening is the realization that there is nobody to awaken. It's the realization that the person is an illusion, and this realization is the awakening referred to. It's not actually true that somebody realizes this, though we can talk about it that way. The two statements are not really contradictory once the difficulty in talking about it is understood. Hi enigma, Understood. Thanks. Lets still use pronouns for ease of communication. Has it occurred for you. If so how would you describe "the realization that the person is an illusion" Is it a feeling/experience (whose?) or neither? What would you say about it? amit A realization is not a feeling or experience. Maybe we could say it's the recognition of the illusory boundaries of an idea (in this case).
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 29, 2013 7:55:51 GMT -5
Hi enigma, Understood. Thanks. Lets still use pronouns for ease of communication. Has it occurred for you. If so how would you describe "the realization that the person is an illusion" Is it a feeling/experience (whose?) or neither? What would you say about it? amit A realization is not a feeling or experience. Maybe we could say it's the recognition of the illusory boundaries of an idea (in this case). I think there are two major types of realizations. 1) realizations which fine tune mental models (images) in the mind. Before this realization there is an image or belief in the mind about how reality is. Reality then reveals itself to not be that way and the image (mental model) is updated to be more accurate to reality. This includes both additions and deletions to the image in mind. 2) realizations which inform the mind about what impact having a mental model at all has on how one relates to the objects. While the first is primarily realizations about the "external" world, this latter is realizations about the "internal" world, discerning the nature of perception, belief, mind, etc. It requires becoming aware enough to be able to sense shifts in mind-state and able to watch it happen. The two modes of realization answer the existential questions. What am I? Not the concept of myself, because the whole apparatus exists when the concept is absent. Neti-neti on any thought that arises. Any other classes of realization?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 11:39:29 GMT -5
Hi enigma, Understood. Thanks. Lets still use pronouns for ease of communication. Has it occurred for you. If so how would you describe "the realization that the person is an illusion" Is it a feeling/experience (whose?) or neither? What would you say about it? amit A realization is not a feeling or experience. Maybe we could say it's the recognition of the illusory boundaries of an idea (in this case). Recognition implies that which recognizes, or that which knows. I 'know' feelings, I 'know' sensations, I 'know' sounds, I 'know' sight, I 'know' taste, I 'know' thoughts.... ..."it's the recognition of the illusory boundaries of an idea" That is 'knowing' a thought... Realization is not 'known' until it takes a form and that form is 'thought'. Realizations don't exist outside of what can be 'known' or a 'knower'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 12:54:48 GMT -5
A realization is not a feeling or experience. Maybe we could say it's the recognition of the illusory boundaries of an idea (in this case). Recognition implies that which recognizes, or that which knows. I 'know' feelings, I 'know' sensations, I 'know' sounds, I 'know' sight, I 'know' taste, I 'know' thoughts.... ..."it's the recognition of the illusory boundaries of an idea" That is 'knowing' a thought... Realization is not 'known' until it takes a form and that form is 'thought'. Realizations don't exist outside of what can be 'known' or a 'knower'. Yes, mind is informed by a realization or it has no value. This seems to be where it goes horribly wrong for some.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 13:21:10 GMT -5
A realization is not a feeling or experience. Maybe we could say it's the recognition of the illusory boundaries of an idea (in this case). I think there are two major types of realizations. 1) realizations which fine tune mental models (images) in the mind. Before this realization there is an image or belief in the mind about how reality is. Reality then reveals itself to not be that way and the image (mental model) is updated to be more accurate to reality. This includes both additions and deletions to the image in mind. 2) realizations which inform the mind about what impact having a mental model at all has on how one relates to the objects. While the first is primarily realizations about the "external" world, this latter is realizations about the "internal" world, discerning the nature of perception, belief, mind, etc. It requires becoming aware enough to be able to sense shifts in mind-state and able to watch it happen. The two modes of realization answer the existential questions. What am I? Not the concept of myself, because the whole apparatus exists when the concept is absent. Neti-neti on any thought that arises. Any other classes of realization? Not all that concerned with the disambiguation of the term 'realization', right now, tops, but thanks.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 30, 2013 16:48:10 GMT -5
A realization is not a feeling or experience. Maybe we could say it's the recognition of the illusory boundaries of an idea (in this case). I think there are two major types of realizations. 1) realizations which fine tune mental models (images) in the mind. Before this realization there is an image or belief in the mind about how reality is. Reality then reveals itself to not be that way and the image (mental model) is updated to be more accurate to reality. This includes both additions and deletions to the image in mind. 2) realizations which inform the mind about what impact having a mental model at all has on how one relates to the objects. While the first is primarily realizations about the "external" world, this latter is realizations about the "internal" world, discerning the nature of perception, belief, mind, etc. It requires becoming aware enough to be able to sense shifts in mind-state and able to watch it happen. The two modes of realization answer the existential questions. What am I? Not the concept of myself, because the whole apparatus exists when the concept is absent. Neti-neti on any thought that arises. Any other classes of realization? Hi topology, There appears to be what I would call a resonance. It could be with an idea or a person. It seems like anything can trigger it really because there seems to be no rules. The details of each resonance seem to be as unique as the character feeling/experiencing it. If one questions characters who feel they have had such, it may be possible to build up a picture of what you call "classes". From those I have questioned about it, including some who give talks to large meetings, it is described as a profound event in which the separate character is no more, along with a feeling/experience that there had never been a separate person. It happened to a character feeling that they were separate one second, and no-one separate there the next. What is the nature of such a resonance? Most found it very difficult to describe but could say something about what it was not. Most said it had nothing to do with the mind, as in making sense of something, although for most the mind kicked in again to consider the event to try and somehow assimilate it. The latter may link with your consideration 1) and 2) above. For one interpretation of Advaita no realization is required. For that interpretation both the end of the feeling of disconnection and the dropping away or the separate self are irrelevant as it is already Oneness arising as both. amit amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 18:48:49 GMT -5
I think there are two major types of realizations. 1) realizations which fine tune mental models (images) in the mind. Before this realization there is an image or belief in the mind about how reality is. Reality then reveals itself to not be that way and the image (mental model) is updated to be more accurate to reality. This includes both additions and deletions to the image in mind. 2) realizations which inform the mind about what impact having a mental model at all has on how one relates to the objects. While the first is primarily realizations about the "external" world, this latter is realizations about the "internal" world, discerning the nature of perception, belief, mind, etc. It requires becoming aware enough to be able to sense shifts in mind-state and able to watch it happen. The two modes of realization answer the existential questions. What am I? Not the concept of myself, because the whole apparatus exists when the concept is absent. Neti-neti on any thought that arises. Any other classes of realization? Hi topology, There appears to be what I would call a resonance. It could be with an idea or a person. It seems like anything can trigger it really because there seems to be no rules. The details of each resonance seem to be as unique as the character feeling/experiencing it. If one questions characters who feel they have had such, it may be possible to build up a picture of what you call "classes". From those I have questioned about it, including some who give talks to large meetings, it is described as a profound event in which the separate character is no more, along with a feeling/experience that there had never been a separate person. It happened to a character feeling that they were separate one second, and no-one separate there the next. What is the nature of such a resonance? Most found it very difficult to describe but could say something about what it was not. Most said it had nothing to do with the mind, as in making sense of something, although for most the mind kicked in again to consider the event to try and somehow assimilate it. The latter may link with your consideration 1) and 2) above. For one interpretation of Advaita no realization is required. For that interpretation both the end of the feeling of disconnection and the dropping away or the separate self are irrelevant as it is already Oneness arising as both.I had the impression this was your 'interpretation' only. Are you suggesting there is a teacher who teaches this?
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 30, 2013 23:52:57 GMT -5
Hi topology, There appears to be what I would call a resonance. It could be with an idea or a person. It seems like anything can trigger it really because there seems to be no rules. The details of each resonance seem to be as unique as the character feeling/experiencing it. If one questions characters who feel they have had such, it may be possible to build up a picture of what you call "classes". From those I have questioned about it, including some who give talks to large meetings, it is described as a profound event in which the separate character is no more, along with a feeling/experience that there had never been a separate person. It happened to a character feeling that they were separate one second, and no-one separate there the next. What is the nature of such a resonance? Most found it very difficult to describe but could say something about what it was not. Most said it had nothing to do with the mind, as in making sense of something, although for most the mind kicked in again to consider the event to try and somehow assimilate it. The latter may link with your consideration 1) and 2) above. For one interpretation of Advaita no realization is required. For that interpretation both the end of the feeling of disconnection and the dropping away or the separate self are irrelevant as it is already Oneness arising as both.I had the impression this was your 'interpretation' only. Are you suggesting there is a teacher who teaches this? Hi enigma, I have not found any who say this consistently which does not mean that there aren't any. Many refer to it and also contradict it in other statements. Niz for example urges seekers who cannot accept that nothing needs to be done to seek earnestly so they can become disillusioned with seeking as quickly as possible. amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 1:22:10 GMT -5
I had the impression this was your 'interpretation' only. Are you suggesting there is a teacher who teaches this? Hi enigma, I have not found any who say this consistently which does not mean that there aren't any. Many refer to it and also contradict it in other statements. Niz for example urges seekers who cannot accept that nothing needs to be done to seek earnestly so they can become disillusioned with seeking as quickly as possible.amit I doubt that Niz would suggest that realization is not necessary. I doubt that any good teacher would. I would, however, be interested in a quote from any teacher who does.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 1, 2013 2:46:59 GMT -5
Hi enigma, I have not found any who say this consistently which does not mean that there aren't any. Many refer to it and also contradict it in other statements. Niz for example urges seekers who cannot accept that nothing needs to be done to seek earnestly so they can become disillusioned with seeking as quickly as possible.amit I doubt that Niz would suggest that realization is not necessary. I doubt that any good teacher would. I would, however, be interested in a quote from any teacher who does. Hi enigma, A friend has "I am that" at the mo but will see. amit
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 1, 2013 9:08:30 GMT -5
I think there are two major types of realizations. 1) realizations which fine tune mental models (images) in the mind. Before this realization there is an image or belief in the mind about how reality is. Reality then reveals itself to not be that way and the image (mental model) is updated to be more accurate to reality. This includes both additions and deletions to the image in mind. 2) realizations which inform the mind about what impact having a mental model at all has on how one relates to the objects. While the first is primarily realizations about the "external" world, this latter is realizations about the "internal" world, discerning the nature of perception, belief, mind, etc. It requires becoming aware enough to be able to sense shifts in mind-state and able to watch it happen. The two modes of realization answer the existential questions. What am I? Not the concept of myself, because the whole apparatus exists when the concept is absent. Neti-neti on any thought that arises. Any other classes of realization? Hi topology, There appears to be what I would call a resonance. It could be with an idea or a person. It seems like anything can trigger it really because there seems to be no rules. The details of each resonance seem to be as unique as the character feeling/experiencing it. If one questions characters who feel they have had such, it may be possible to build up a picture of what you call "classes". From those I have questioned about it, including some who give talks to large meetings, it is described as a profound event in which the separate character is no more, along with a feeling/experience that there had never been a separate person. It happened to a character feeling that they were separate one second, and no-one separate there the next. What is the nature of such a resonance? Most found it very difficult to describe but could say something about what it was not. Most said it had nothing to do with the mind, as in making sense of something, although for most the mind kicked in again to consider the event to try and somehow assimilate it. The latter may link with your consideration 1) and 2) above. For one interpretation of Advaita no realization is required. For that interpretation both the end of the feeling of disconnection and the dropping away or the separate self are irrelevant as it is already Oneness arising as both. amit amit Realization is how mind is informed about the experience. In the recognition of experiencing the loss of a sense of separation it is realized that there never was a separate person to begin with. That realization then cascades as the mind reinterprets (or drops its interpretation of) everything it thought about the nature of existence and personal identity. If the mind is not informed with that initial realization, when the mind boots back up it picks up right where it left off and dismisses the experience as "I got lost in daydreaming, time to get focussed on the task at hand". Realizations is the force that pushes on the first domino (or house of cards), causing it to topple.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 9:30:35 GMT -5
Realization is how mind is informed about the experience. No. Realization is the negation of the thoughts and beliefs about some certain aspect of experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 9:42:09 GMT -5
Realization is how mind is informed about the experience. No. Realization is the negation of the thoughts and beliefs about some certain aspect of experience. No. Realization is a process of simplifying ingredients to more accurately represent the original.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 9:51:27 GMT -5
No. Realization is the negation of the thoughts and beliefs about some certain aspect of experience. No. Realization is a process of simplifying ingredients to more accurately represent the original. No. Realization is a series of propositions organized so that the final proposition is a conclusion which is intended to follow logically from the preceding propositions, which function as premises. Or no, wait. That's an argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 9:52:58 GMT -5
Realization is how mind is informed about the experience. No. Realization is the negation of the thoughts and beliefs about some certain aspect of experience. yeah that's my understanding as well. nothing new is added, nothing learned or "informed", just a previously unseen blockage falls away.
|
|