|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 18, 2020 16:49:38 GMT -5
Mind must be silent for a realization to occur. Is that some kind of spiritual law?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2020 17:05:42 GMT -5
Yes, it is. I’m not dismissing realisation at all. I’m pointing out that it has an experiential quality to it - precisely in the sense that it’s more than conceptual. If you feel that it doesn’t then tell me what the difference is between your ‘sense’ of realisation and an intellectual understanding? Realization is not a sense, nor does it have anything to do with mind. Mind must be silent for a realization to occur. Experience, OTOH, includes mind by definition. There is no such thing as a mindless experience. What mind comes away with from that experience is anybody's guess. Ramana Maharshi "The experience of Self is only love, which is seeing only love, hearing only love, feeling only love, tasting only love and smelling only love, which is bliss." I will grant you that this is stretching the term "experience" because there is no object. There is just Being. But Shadowplay is right in that it is beyond concepts and therefore beyond words.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 18, 2020 17:41:07 GMT -5
there is a difference between "a realization" and the result of a realization. Wouldn't knowing the difference require a Self reference? Well, in the deepest sense there is only SELF reference; self reference is the illusion, but in this case I'm only making a distinction in response to your post to Shadowplay. I'm distinguishing between an event and a way of life that changes as a result of such an event. Some people have lots of realizations, and each realization increases clarity and understanding, and each realization can change how one responds to life on a daily basis. As far as knowing is concerned, there's intellectual knowing and direct knowing, and Shadowplay is pointing to direct non-conceptual knowing, or gnosis. Ultimately, there is only oneness, and this is how it manifests--typing words on a computer keyboard, cleaning up poop, and mudding sheetrock.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 18, 2020 18:05:27 GMT -5
Wouldn't knowing the difference require a Self reference? Well, in the deepest sense there is only SELF reference; self reference is the illusion, but in this case I'm only making a distinction in response to your post to Shadowplay. I'm distinguishing between an event and a way of life that changes as a result of such an event. Some people have lots of realizations, and each realization increases clarity and understanding, and each realization can change how one responds to life on a daily basis. As far as knowing is concerned, there's intellectual knowing and direct knowing, and Shadowplay is pointing to direct non-conceptual knowing, or gnosis. Ultimately, there is only oneness, and this is how it manifests--typing words on a computer keyboard, cleaning up poop, and mudding sheetrock. What I meant was that in order to understand/relate to what another points to when speaking about things "post" realization, one would have had to experience the realization themselves first in order to understand what the words are pointing to. :-)
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 18, 2020 19:06:30 GMT -5
Well, in the deepest sense there is only SELF reference; self reference is the illusion, but in this case I'm only making a distinction in response to your post to Shadowplay. I'm distinguishing between an event and a way of life that changes as a result of such an event. Some people have lots of realizations, and each realization increases clarity and understanding, and each realization can change how one responds to life on a daily basis. As far as knowing is concerned, there's intellectual knowing and direct knowing, and Shadowplay is pointing to direct non-conceptual knowing, or gnosis. Ultimately, there is only oneness, and this is how it manifests--typing words on a computer keyboard, cleaning up poop, and mudding sheetrock. What I meant was that in order to understand/relate to what another points to when speaking about things "post" realization, one would have had to experience the realization themselves first in order to understand what the words are pointing to. :-) No, realizations are not experienced. (As I'm sure zd and E will point out). Actually, they've already spoken to this. (I've just heard it many times).
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 18, 2020 19:16:24 GMT -5
What I meant was that in order to understand/relate to what another points to when speaking about things "post" realization, one would have had to experience the realization themselves first in order to understand what the words are pointing to. :-) No, realizations are not experienced. (As I'm sure zd and E will point out). Actually, they've already spoken to this. (I've just heard it many times). Realization is the presence lung cancer three months earlier. Realization is the absence of lung cancer three months later.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 18, 2020 19:50:58 GMT -5
No, realizations are not experienced. When did you realize that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2020 20:47:11 GMT -5
Yes, it is. I’m not dismissing realisation at all. I’m pointing out that it has an experiential quality to it - precisely in the sense that it’s more than conceptual. If you feel that it doesn’t then tell me what the difference is between your ‘sense’ of realisation and an intellectual understanding? Realization is not a sense, nor does it have anything to do with mind. Mind must be silent for a realization to occur. Experience, OTOH, includes mind by definition. There is no such thing as a mindless experience. What mind comes away with from that experience is anybody's guess. Pure Awareness knows nothing.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 18, 2020 21:02:17 GMT -5
Well, in the deepest sense there is only SELF reference; self reference is the illusion, but in this case I'm only making a distinction in response to your post to Shadowplay. I'm distinguishing between an event and a way of life that changes as a result of such an event. Some people have lots of realizations, and each realization increases clarity and understanding, and each realization can change how one responds to life on a daily basis. As far as knowing is concerned, there's intellectual knowing and direct knowing, and Shadowplay is pointing to direct non-conceptual knowing, or gnosis. Ultimately, there is only oneness, and this is how it manifests--typing words on a computer keyboard, cleaning up poop, and mudding sheetrock. What I meant was that in order to understand/relate to what another points to when speaking about things "post" realization, one would have had to experience the realization themselves first in order to understand what the words are pointing to. :-) Yes. One would have had to have had the realization to understand what the words are pointing to. The realization would not be an experience; it would be a self evident seeing and non-conceptual knowing.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 18, 2020 21:11:09 GMT -5
What I meant was that in order to understand/relate to what another points to when speaking about things "post" realization, one would have had to experience the realization themselves first in order to understand what the words are pointing to. :-) Yes. One would have had to have had the realization to understand what the words are pointing to. The realization would not be an experience; it would be a self evident seeing and non-conceptual knowing. Yes, a seeing and a non-conceptual knowing.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 19, 2020 1:16:16 GMT -5
Non - Conceptual Knowing?
Arriving at the Experience of Nonconceptual Awareness Through Negation
One way to arrive at the experience of nonconceptual awareness is through negation. We first negate presence or being, and we experience absence, or metaphysical emptiness. This negation comes not from a denial or rejection or attempt to go beyond, but simply through one’s awareness expanding or deepening past being and presence. Then we negate absence, arriving at nonconceptual presence, which is pure awareness. This occurs experientially in the path of the Diamond Approach, where the student moves from pure presence to pure absence, recognizing the ontological emptiness of presence and all phenomena predicated on presence. The revelation of truth continues to pure awareness, beyond presence and absence. Traditionally, the most common route in this process is the transcendence of the discriminating mind, by going beyond any discriminating cognition and simply pointing to what is.
The Inner Journey Home, pg. 327
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2020 1:46:59 GMT -5
Non - Conceptual Knowing? Arriving at the Experience of Nonconceptual Awareness Through Negation One way to arrive at the experience of nonconceptual awareness is through negation. We first negate presence or being, and we experience absence, or metaphysical emptiness. This negation comes not from a denial or rejection or attempt to go beyond, but simply through one’s awareness expanding or deepening past being and presence. Then we negate absence, arriving at nonconceptual presence, which is pure awareness. This occurs experientially in the path of the Diamond Approach, where the student moves from pure presence to pure absence, recognizing the ontological emptiness of presence and all phenomena predicated on presence. The revelation of truth continues to pure awareness, beyond presence and absence. Traditionally, the most common route in this process is the transcendence of the discriminating mind, by going beyond any discriminating cognition and simply pointing to what is. The Inner Journey Home, pg. 327 Great bit of writing there by that guy. One of the Zen bull pictures is when the seeker see's the tracks. Ironically, there are some very heavy-duty conceptual constructs that hint at the limitations of mind. These are the products of mathematics and physics. The latter is also a process of negation, as this is what the scientific method embodies, but with attention directed outward, objectively, and with the implicit assumption of the reality of the ephemeral comings and goings that are observed.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2020 4:41:34 GMT -5
What I meant was that in order to understand/relate to what another points to when speaking about things "post" realization, one would have had to experience the realization themselves first in order to understand what the words are pointing to. :-) Yes. One would have had to have had the realization to understand what the words are pointing to. The realization would not be an experience; it would be a self evident seeing and non-conceptual knowing. I don't mean this facetiously, but if that person is blind, is it a self evident hearing or self evident feeling? I'm curious about why we so often use the word 'seeing'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2020 4:44:16 GMT -5
But, you was definitely there wasn't you? Maybe ya'll are talking about something else.. but my understanding is that a realization is not a "state" whatsoever, and though we can talk about the event after the fact, just like any other experience, to think of a realization as an event/experience/state is the wrong avenue to go down. Its more like a veil is lifted, and then you can see better. (to offer another example) or hear better and feel better? Or is 'seeing' the way we use it here... an analogy, or metaphor, or 'shorthand' for something else? Perhaps it means 'experiencing yourself' in a different way, e.g experiencing yourself as more present or 'in the Now'.....
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2020 4:49:32 GMT -5
Or if we 'see through' an illusion, can we hear through or smell through?
Or is it a way of talking about 'insight' or 'understanding'? Or......?
|
|