|
Post by andrew on Feb 20, 2015 12:41:58 GMT -5
What (if anything) does this realization hinge on? Does something have to happen, or be seen, or realized, in order that 'nothing can be done' can be realized? Actually you can't do anything, there is an inner order for this to happen, that's an impersonal movement. But I tell you what has happen to me When I suffer I try to control the thoughts or divert the thoughts in some other direction which means I would try to think some happy thoughts, when I do this, it seems to be subsided, but later on time, again I would end up with new situation where I suffer, I would do the same practise of controlling those thoughts,In those days what I thought was one day in future this suffering would come to an end If I keep on controlling the thoughts, but this same situation kept on repeating in my life, then somewhere on the net, I have read that controlling never brings the end to suffering, but allowing would bring an end to this suffering, then I start allowing thoughts but then this allowing kept on repeating in my life, but later, I heard this seeing idea from Enigma, So I started to practise this 'seeing' technique, then I started to notice that this seeing too repeats, that's where the tremendous realization happens, whatever I do whether it's controlling,allowing,seeing would surely would be repeated by mind, because this all are creations of mind. So I realized that nothing can be done from my level, If do, I would end up with repeating those actions along with my suffering. Once I realized this great truth 'nothing can be done' that's where the suffering came to an end. This realization is called direct seeing. There is an another kind of realization is there, this kind of realization would suddenly hits you, once this happens, the recalling starts to happen, then everything would become clear to you. But I tell you, these realizations are something that happens from impersonal level though it includes all your mistake as a part it. It has it's own order to happen. Thanks for sharing, I have a couple of questions percolating but now's not a good time so I'll get back to you.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 12:47:23 GMT -5
And "not alone" does not especially mean something like 'hand in hand with people', probably it includes people, nature, whatever 'life force' works through me, etc. You DO have to do it alone. Probably depends on your definition of alone. I wouldn't rely on other people doing the job for you in this buiness, but zindarud seems to refer to some interconnectedness. I don't see a problem. As everyone is already intimately familiar and already knows what eventually appears to be realized, it's not as if a new piece of information is necessary. There's no gift for one person to give to another involved. Interconnectedness is an appearance and it can appear as a changing condition, leading to or following from the opposite extreme of isolation. Similar to love/hate, one polarity of the dichotomy is a sort of shadowy reflection of where not two points.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 12:49:22 GMT -5
If realization is seeing through an illusion from which point does the seeing happen? An illusion lives in mind. Therefore the collapse of an illusion is a change in mind. Why is it that mind needs to be informed? Is it the lack of self-referentiality? Realization is knowing the truth for certain, I am very sure, this seeing would not lead to the truth because this seeing is also another creation to the mind. Seeing would be re-created as any other creation. Not in any way that can be stated directly with an idea or described by a feeling, no.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 12:51:07 GMT -5
There are certain things I know more than 100%, For an example, Happy/unhappy is the roller coaster, Freewill is illusion, Seeing never lead you to realize the truth, Seeing would be an another creation like controlling,allowing. Seeing is not better than controlling,allowing or any type of mind creation. Seeing is in fact another mind creation, But I would say clear knowing would break the illusion, but this clear knowing can't be caused from your level. When the realization happens, it's a sudden movement and once it happen and subsequently it would be revealed in thoughts, I would say it's kind of recalling starts to happen. There's no cause applicable to what's already the case.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 12:58:52 GMT -5
I am not denying that, All I know for certain is I exist, I can't know whether outer world exist, I can't know whether other individual exist, i can't know whether I am the only individual real and everybody else are just figments in my awareness. But what I was talking about is realization, It happens as a spark and subsequently informed in the form of thoughts, In my case I would say it would end up with recalling. Hi gopal, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that you were denying anything, I was just making a comment. I'm starting to believe there is no separation between Knowing and Being. In that Being and the Knowing of Being are one in the same. And that perhaps realization, as in God realization, may be Being with the absence of individuality, but I'm not sure. The nature of the source of the doubt and uncertainty can be discerned upon investigation. Knowledge, as it's used in this instance, refers to a commonality that everyone already has.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 13:02:01 GMT -5
Yes, we're talking about the nature of realization itself. I'm saying it's not hidden. enigma, yeah it's not hidden, I'm probably just over thinking it. In terms of realization as the absence of illusion, it's that obfuscation that is the magic trick of the mind.
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Feb 20, 2015 13:42:10 GMT -5
There are certain things I know more than 100%, For an example, Happy/unhappy is the roller coaster, Freewill is illusion, Seeing never lead you to realize the truth, Seeing would be an another creation like controlling,allowing. Seeing is not better than controlling,allowing or any type of mind creation. Seeing is in fact another mind creation, But I would say clear knowing would break the illusion, but this clear knowing can't be caused from your level. When the realization happens, it's a sudden movement and once it happen and subsequently it would be revealed in thoughts, I would say it's kind of recalling starts to happen. What people here sometimes say is that one can live accident prone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 14:55:38 GMT -5
Hi gopal, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that you were denying anything, I was just making a comment. I'm starting to believe there is no separation between Knowing and Being. In that Being and the Knowing of Being are one in the same. And that perhaps realization, as in God realization, may be Being with the absence of individuality, but I'm not sure. The nature of the source of the doubt and uncertainty can be discerned upon investigation. Knowledge, as it's used in this instance, refers to a commonality that everyone already has. laughter, yeah, I may doubt some knowledge, but I don't doubt the doubting of some knowledge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 15:01:36 GMT -5
enigma, yeah it's not hidden, I'm probably just over thinking it. In terms of realization as the absence of illusion, it's that obfuscation that is the magic trick of the mind. laughter, do you mean the split mind magic trick?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 15:38:42 GMT -5
In terms of realization as the absence of illusion, it's that obfuscation that is the magic trick of the mind. laughter, do you mean the split mind magic trick? "split mind", "other people", "objective reality", "all is mind (subjective reality)" ... all are different variations on the same act. Seems to me that the common human consensus is a combo subjective-other-objective three ring circus production.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 20, 2015 15:39:08 GMT -5
And "not alone" does not especially mean something like 'hand in hand with people', probably it includes people, nature, whatever 'life force' works through me, etc. You DO have to do it alone. Probably depends on your definition of alone. I wouldn't rely on other people doing the job for you in this buiness, but zindarud seems to refer to some interconnectedness. I don't see a problem. I don't see a problem, either; but the thing is, enigma does not see it as a 'realization'. Probably wouldn't say it was a realization if I had said the opposite, either. It may not be one, that's OK. Only, it is a new thing for me.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 15:45:04 GMT -5
The nature of the source of the doubt and uncertainty can be discerned upon investigation. Knowledge, as it's used in this instance, refers to a commonality that everyone already has. laughter, yeah, I may doubt some knowledge, but I don't doubt the doubting of some knowledge. Whatever patterns of thought and emotion that arise can be questioned, and if we follow Maharshi's advice, the question is always, is that what I am? Niz'z advice is to discern between what is an appearance ("I am not ____") and what isn't. There is no knowledge, in terms of an idea, that can describe what it is that this process of discernment between what you aren't is relative to. No statement is available as to what it is that you are, as it's not relative, but it is related to this fact that you obviously are, that there is being.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 20, 2015 15:54:53 GMT -5
Probably depends on your definition of alone. I wouldn't rely on other people doing the job for you in this buiness, but zindarud seems to refer to some interconnectedness. I don't see a problem. As everyone is already intimately familiar and already knows what eventually appears to be realized, it's not as if a new piece of information is necessary. There's no gift for one person to give to another involved. Interconnectedness is an appearance and it can appear as a changing condition, leading to or following from the opposite extreme of isolation. Similar to love/hate, one polarity of the dichotomy is a sort of shadowy reflection of where not two points. I don't live interconnectedness and isolation as opposites... 'Appearances' issue is a big thing for me, I don't even know if its definition changes from one belief system to another. And, all right, no realization
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 16:09:17 GMT -5
As everyone is already intimately familiar and already knows what eventually appears to be realized, it's not as if a new piece of information is necessary. There's no gift for one person to give to another involved. Interconnectedness is an appearance and it can appear as a changing condition, leading to or following from the opposite extreme of isolation. Similar to love/hate, one polarity of the dichotomy is a sort of shadowy reflection of where not two points. I don't live interconnectedness and isolation as opposites... 'Appearances' issue is a big thing for me, I don't even know if its definition changes from one belief system to another. And, all right, no realization Ahhh, I'm no judge of realization. I'm just a guest in that parlor anyway, as it's a word I don't tend to use first. The distinction between feeling connected and an absence of separation might sound like a linguistic subtlety but it's not, and it's directly related to the difference between a monism and not two. This isn't to say that feeling connected isn't a good thing or that isolation has to inevitably result from it. There do seem to be degrees of how in touch we are with our sense of being, and at the core of that is what is meant by the pointer of the absence of separation. Generally speaking, the more grounded we are, the less extreme our moods will be, and extremity of mood is relatable to dichotomies similar to isolation/connectedness. "Appearence" is a radical term, yes.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 20, 2015 16:26:21 GMT -5
I don't live interconnectedness and isolation as opposites... 'Appearances' issue is a big thing for me, I don't even know if its definition changes from one belief system to another. And, all right, no realization Ahhh, I'm no judge of realization. I'm just a guest in that parlor anyway, as it's a word I don't tend to use first. The distinction between feeling connected and an absence of separation might sound like a linguistic subtlety but it's not, and it's directly related to the difference between a monism and not two. Feeling connected---> monism? Yes, I understand.. I mean, the 'it is not a linguistic subtlety' part. But after here (above) I got lost Because, for me "pointer" is also a radical term. What can be a pointer of absence of separation?
|
|