|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 9:36:30 GMT -5
I'm with you, but neti neti presupposes that there is something prior to this and that (prior to what the mind recognizes to be content). I am suggesting that this something is still a particular idea. Yes, neti neti itself is the idea for a process whose end culmination is no idea. Your proposal is a claim that exploring the process is not worthwhile or it's claimed end is not achievable. I can attest to there being a state of being that is outside/prior to the mind. Neti neti starts with a presupposition that there is something prior to ideas. So I am suggesting that 'no idea' certainly seems (and is experienced) like 'no idea', but is actually still an idea. Perhaps best described as a non-idea, or non-content. Still an idea though, still content. When 'Being' or 'Existence' of 'changelessness' is focussed upon, it is an idea being focussed upon. I would also attest to there being a state of being that seems outside of mind, but in this state, non-ideas and non-content are not actually focused on. Only qualia are perceived. There is no focus on abstract ideas. Its like the mountain thing...mountain, no mountain, mountain. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 9:45:26 GMT -5
Yes, neti neti itself is the idea for a process whose end culmination is no idea. Your proposal is a claim that exploring the process is not worthwhile or it's claimed end is not achievable. I can attest to there being a state of being that is outside/prior to the mind. Neti neti starts with a presupposition that there is something prior to ideas. So I am suggesting that 'no idea' certainly seems (and is experienced) like 'no idea', but is actually still an idea. Perhaps best described as a non-idea, or non-content. Still an idea though, still content. When 'Being' or 'Existence' of 'changelessness' is focussed upon, it is an idea being focussed upon. I disagree. Though there may certainly be ideas about Being (or Truth, or God, or whatever), Being itself is not an idea. It's reality. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 9:50:56 GMT -5
Neti neti starts with a presupposition that there is something prior to ideas. So I am suggesting that 'no idea' certainly seems (and is experienced) like 'no idea', but is actually still an idea. Perhaps best described as a non-idea, or non-content. Still an idea though, still content. When 'Being' or 'Existence' of 'changelessness' is focussed upon, it is an idea being focussed upon. I disagree. Though there may certainly be ideas about Being (or Truth, or God, or whatever), Being itself is not an idea. It's reality. Those are all abstract ideas that can be focused on and can produce a quality of experience, but they have no appearance. Redness is reality, coldness is reality, joyfulness is reality. At some point there has to be a letting go of the abstract. What I am saying here is what I felt Tzu was pointing to back there as well. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 16, 2013 9:51:18 GMT -5
Yes, neti neti itself is the idea for a process whose end culmination is no idea. Your proposal is a claim that exploring the process is not worthwhile or it's claimed end is not achievable. I can attest to there being a state of being that is outside/prior to the mind. Neti neti starts with a presupposition that there is something prior to ideas. So I am suggesting that 'no idea' certainly seems (and is experienced) like 'no idea', but is actually still an idea. Perhaps best described as a non-idea, or non-content. Still an idea though, still content. When 'Being' or 'Existence' of 'changelessness' is focussed upon, it is an idea being focussed upon. I would also attest to there being a state of being that seems outside of mind, but in this state, non-ideas and non-content are not actually focused on. Only qualia are perceived. There is no focus on abstract ideas. Its like the mountain thing...mountain, no mountain, mountain. You argue with what I say so that ultimately you can say something similar with different words? This has been pointed out to you before, that you will disarage what someone else says or the way they say it so that you can provide your expression of it instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 9:52:31 GMT -5
I disagree. Though there may certainly be ideas about Being (or Truth, or God, or whatever), Being itself is not an idea. It's reality. Those are all abstract ideas that can be focused on and can produce a quality of experience, but they have no appearance. Redness is reality, coldness is reality, joyfulness is reality. At some point there has to be a letting go of the abstract. What I am saying here is what I felt Tzu was pointing to back there as well. Nothing in the abstract (i.e., Reality) to 'hold on to', let alone let go of. You're talking about 'what is' as an idea. I'm talking about it as 'what is'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 9:53:36 GMT -5
Neti neti starts with a presupposition that there is something prior to ideas. So I am suggesting that 'no idea' certainly seems (and is experienced) like 'no idea', but is actually still an idea. Perhaps best described as a non-idea, or non-content. Still an idea though, still content. When 'Being' or 'Existence' of 'changelessness' is focussed upon, it is an idea being focussed upon. I would also attest to there being a state of being that seems outside of mind, but in this state, non-ideas and non-content are not actually focused on. Only qualia are perceived. There is no focus on abstract ideas. Its like the mountain thing...mountain, no mountain, mountain. You argue with what I say so that ultimately you can say something similar with different words? This has been pointed out to you before, that you will disarage what someone else says or the way they say it so that you can provide your expression of it instead. I am making a different point. I am saying that there are 3 basic groups 1) Focus on Becoming (or growth) 2) Focus on Being 3) Unification of Being/Becoming, in which there is no longer any reason to focus on 'Being' (which is an idea). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 9:55:02 GMT -5
Those are all abstract ideas that can be focused on and can produce a quality of experience, but they have no appearance. Redness is reality, coldness is reality, joyfulness is reality. At some point there has to be a letting go of the abstract. What I am saying here is what I felt Tzu was pointing to back there as well. Nothing in the abstract (i.e., Reality) to 'hold on to', let alone let go of. You're talking about 'what is' as an idea. I'm talking about it as 'what is'. If there is a focus on Being, Truth, Peace, and the assumption that these things are anything more than just ideas, then there is something to be let go of. 'What is' is redness, coldness, joyfulness. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 9:59:53 GMT -5
Nothing in the abstract (i.e., Reality) to 'hold on to', let alone let go of. You're talking about 'what is' as an idea. I'm talking about it as 'what is'. If there is a focus on Being, Truth, Peace, and the assumption that these things are anything more than just ideas, then there is something to be let go of. 'What is' is redness, coldness, joyfulness. What if there is no focus on Being, Truth, Peace? Why can't you just let those things (if you can call them such) just ... be? 'What is' is NOT redness, coldness, joyfulness. It's just 'what is'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 10:04:45 GMT -5
If there is a focus on Being, Truth, Peace, and the assumption that these things are anything more than just ideas, then there is something to be let go of. 'What is' is redness, coldness, joyfulness. What if there is no focus on Being, Truth, Peace? Why can't you just let those things (if you can call them such) just ... be? 'What is' is NOT redness, coldness, joyfulness. It's just 'what is'. No focussing on Being, Truth, Peace, Self would be either group 1 or group 3. The idea of 'what is' falls in with Being, Truth, Peace. I can let those things be', I'm just pointing out that they are abstract ideas, that when focused upon, do create a particular quality of experience. They are a crutch to be leant on for a while, and this crutch is eventually discarded. Focussing then still happens but it returns to form. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 10:07:43 GMT -5
What if there is no focus on Being, Truth, Peace? Why can't you just let those things (if you can call them such) just ... be? 'What is' is NOT redness, coldness, joyfulness. It's just 'what is'. No focussing on Being, Truth, Peace would be either group 1 or group 3. The idea of 'what is' falls in with Being, Truth, Peace. I can let those things be', I'm just pointing out that they are abstract ideas, that when focused upon, do create a particular quality of experience. They are a crutch to be leant on for a while, and this crutch is eventually discarded. Focussing still happens but the focussing returns to form. No, you cannot let those things be. You have to make an idea out of them, out of Reality, out of Being. If you could let those things be, you wouldn't be declaring them to be ideas, ideas that are crutches to be leaned on. Reality is not a crutch. It's Reality. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 10:12:40 GMT -5
No focussing on Being, Truth, Peace would be either group 1 or group 3. The idea of 'what is' falls in with Being, Truth, Peace. I can let those things be', I'm just pointing out that they are abstract ideas, that when focused upon, do create a particular quality of experience. They are a crutch to be leant on for a while, and this crutch is eventually discarded. Focussing still happens but the focussing returns to form. No, you cannot let those things be. You have to make an idea out of them, out of Reality, out of Being. If you could let those things be, you wouldn't be declaring them to be ideas, ideas that are crutches to be leaned on. Reality is not a crutch. It's Reality. The moment it is conceptualized, it is a crutch. Does a dog require 'Reality'? All those abstract ideas are conceptual crutches. They don't exist. They are unperceivable. They CAN be experienced but only in a slightly odd way, and really what is experienced is an abstract idea. Discarding the crutch can be frightening because it means being faced constantly and eternally with the perceivable (with form). There is fear at being stuck with the perceivable (with form). It is facing life head on, without our abstract mental crutches. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 10:15:18 GMT -5
Truth, Being, Self, Reality...are all illusions of the mind to be included and transcended. If it cannot be perceived, it is an illusion of the mind. They are abstract conceptual ideas, crutches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 10:16:51 GMT -5
No, you cannot let those things be. You have to make an idea out of them, out of Reality, out of Being. If you could let those things be, you wouldn't be declaring them to be ideas, ideas that are crutches to be leaned on. Reality is not a crutch. It's Reality. The moment it is conceptualized, it is a crutch. Does a dog require 'Reality'? Again, I'm not talking about Reality as a concept. You are. So, perhaps it is some kind of crutch for you. As for dogs, they do not require Reality. What they ARE is Reality. Just as 'what is' is Reality. They don't make ideas out them, either. Once again, you are referring to 'what is' as an abstract idea. Sounds like ... you're stuck.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 10:19:20 GMT -5
Truth, Being, Self, Reality...are all illusions of the mind to be included and transcended. If it cannot be perceived, it is an illusion of the mind. They are abstract conceptual ideas, crutches. Yes, you most certainly like to make 'what is' into an idea. You seem stuck on ideas, stuck in your mind, stuck on perception, stuck on experience, and the quality of experience. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 10:20:01 GMT -5
The moment it is conceptualized, it is a crutch. Does a dog require 'Reality'? Again, I'm not talking about Reality as a concept. You are. So, perhaps it is some kind of crutch for you. As for dogs, they do not require Reality. What they ARE is Reality. Just as 'what is' is Reality. They don't make ideas out them, either. Once again, you are referring to 'what is' as an abstract idea. Sounds like ... you're stuck. 'Reality' can ONLY be a concept. 'What is' can ONLY be a concept. They are unperceivable. If you can't perceive them, then they exist at the level of the intellect only, though they exist in an odd way, because the concept is defined so as to point away from the intellect. Its all still intellect though. That's why dogs don't need them to be connected to the whole. |
|
