|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 14:38:46 GMT -5
The basis is that it's non-conceptual. Non-conceptual is still 'mind'. This is an example of where you lose me, Andrew, and the rest of your conversation with anyone turns out to be just entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 14:40:12 GMT -5
I agree that assumptions are just ideas, and a realization is just another idea, based on assumptions! In this sense, your realizations are not worth the paper they are printed on. They are a red herring. A giraffe. Delusion. A realization is an experience when it happens. It's an idea when its talked about. The effects of a realization, like a germinated seed, can grow in marvelous and wondrous ways. I basically agree wit dat.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 14:41:03 GMT -5
I agree that assumptions are just ideas, and a realization is just another idea, based on assumptions! In this sense, your realizations are not worth the paper they are printed on. They are a red herring. A giraffe. Delusion. It's not going to work, Andrew. I'm not attached to realizations as you think I am. Geez, is it even possible to become attached to realizations? I mean, even looking or hoping for one means you ain't gonna have one, so such a concept is completely foreign to me.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 14:42:42 GMT -5
A non-conceptual realization. What's the difference between a non-conceptual realization and a non-conceptual apple? Huh?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 14:42:59 GMT -5
What I am saying is actually very simple. I am saying that realizations happen in mind (though I am fine to say they are 'non-conceptual'), and for that reason, by definition, they can be questioned. E has said that they are not mind, and therefore cannot be questioned by definition. Because I say they can be questioned, E says I have never had one, or that any realization I might have had, I have turned into a conclusion to be questioned. Okay. Thanks for synopsis. I, myself, am probably more in E's camp--they're not mind, at least not the ones to which he refers. To me, they're more like the transition from mind to Being, from thought to allowance, from suffering to Peace. They're the bridge. You just can't put them in the 'mind' category. I wouldn't know if you've had one. Have you? But, that's just my take. Carry on. We can't put them in 'rational thought' category, but there is still no place to put them other than 'mind'. To put them at 'Being' makes no sense. Not all thought is 'rational thought'. If its 'mind', then its questionable by definition. I think it would be impossible to have a conversation on this forum if realizations had not happened. To seek out a spiritual forum is to have had a realization of some sort probably.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 14:44:11 GMT -5
I agree that assumptions are just ideas, and a realization is just another idea, based on assumptions! In this sense, your realizations are not worth the paper they are printed on. They are a red herring. A giraffe. Delusion. It's not going to work, Andrew. I'm not attached to realizations as you think I am. I can't see anyway that you are not, given your ontology. Clearly though you don't want to be realization-less.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 14:46:15 GMT -5
Non-conceptual is still 'mind'. This is an example of where you lose me, Andrew, and the rest of your conversation with anyone turns out to be just entertainment. The distinction between conceptual and non-conceptual is not the SAME distinction as mind and Being. Non-conceptual points beyond rational thought, that's all. A realization is a non-rational thought. Still a thought though.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 14:47:12 GMT -5
The basis is that it's non-conceptual. Non-conceptual is still 'mind'. It can be realized that there is no free will. It can be realized that there is no person. It can be realized that there is no separation. It can be realized that the issue of purpose is misconceived. All non-conceptual realizations, all conceptually stated. And notice this. You still have an assumed basis for the realization. Mind is a process of conceptualization.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 14:48:51 GMT -5
It's not going to work, Andrew. I'm not attached to realizations as you think I am. Geez, is it even possible to become attached to realizations? I mean, even looking or hoping for one means you ain't gonna have one, so such a concept is completely foreign to me. It is definitely possible to attach to a realization. In order to be stabilized in 'I am', there has to be an attachment. Transcending 'I am' requires releasing all realizations to the alleged void. This Niz quote is good: ''Finally when you realize that everything is useless, (that) everything is ‘Brahman’, it means you are at the ‘Parabrahman’ level, the absolute level. When at that level, you will envision everything as useless, including the ‘Brahman’ because the ‘Brahman’ is also reduced to illusion. Therefore all these talks, including my own will be reduced to illusion when you reach the highest.'' In your case B, swap the word 'Brahman' for 'Being'. '
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 14:50:31 GMT -5
Non-conceptual is still 'mind'. It can be realized that there is no free will. It can be realized that there is no person. It can be realized that there is no separation. It can be realized that the issue of purpose is misconceived. All non-conceptual realizations, all conceptually stated. And notice this. You still have an assumed basis for the realization. Mind is a process of conceptualization. I agree. A 'realization' is part of that process, but is not the same as rational thought. Minding is process. A realization is a happening, a process. If there is 'Being', then its not process.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 14:57:29 GMT -5
Okay. Thanks for synopsis. I, myself, am probably more in E's camp--they're not mind, at least not the ones to which he refers. To me, they're more like the transition from mind to Being, from thought to allowance, from suffering to Peace. They're the bridge. You just can't put them in the 'mind' category. I wouldn't know if you've had one. Have you? But, that's just my take. Carry on. We can't put them in 'rational thought' category, but there is still no place to put them other than 'mind'. To put them at 'Being' makes no sense. Not all thought is 'rational thought'. If its 'mind', then its questionable by definition. I think it would be impossible to have a conversation on this forum if realizations had not happened. To seek out a spiritual forum is to have had a realization of some sort probably. Indeed, I can't imagine anyone being affiliated with this forum, if they didn't have a realization of some sort, but, well, hey, you never know. But, since you're saying, basically, that realizations are all in your head, I can understand why E would question whether you've really had one, or not. Just tell him his question is 'misconceived'. He'll have no choice but to agree with you, then.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 15:03:26 GMT -5
It's not going to work, Andrew. I'm not attached to realizations as you think I am. Geez, is it even possible to become attached to realizations? I mean, even looking or hoping for one means you ain't gonna have one, so such a concept is completely foreign to me. I assume he means attached to the idea that mind forms as an interpretation of the realization, rather than attached to the idea of realizing, but if this is happening, one has given authority to the mind to take over the realization and attach to the concept about the realization. A realization, as such, never becomes a concept or a memory. Mind may have the experience of trying to recall a realization. Marie sometimes does this immediately after the realization, and she used to get frustrated that she couldn't remember what she saw. The realization leaves no tracks in the mind. It is timeless and non-conceptual, and therefore not an idea or even an experience. One must 'look again' each time one wants to talk about a realization, and then it can be seen fresh without the ideas distorting it. The words are just a poor translation, and they never become the realization itself. Since the realization is not an idea, it doesn't become subject to mind's doubt, which is inherent in the process of conceptualizing since at some level mind knows it's making it all up. This is what is meant by self evident.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 15:03:37 GMT -5
We can't put them in 'rational thought' category, but there is still no place to put them other than 'mind'. To put them at 'Being' makes no sense. Not all thought is 'rational thought'. If its 'mind', then its questionable by definition. I think it would be impossible to have a conversation on this forum if realizations had not happened. To seek out a spiritual forum is to have had a realization of some sort probably. Indeed, I can't imagine anyone being affiliated with this forum, if they didn't have a realization of some sort, but, well, hey, you never know. But, since you're saying, basically, that realizations are all in your head, I can understand why E would question whether you've really had one, or not. Just tell him his question is 'misconceived'. He'll have no choice but to agree with you, then. It wouldn't be beyond possibility for me to say that realizations are all in our head, but here I am saying something a little different i.e. 'they are in Mind', and anything in Mind can be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 15:08:08 GMT -5
Geez, is it even possible to become attached to realizations? I mean, even looking or hoping for one means you ain't gonna have one, so such a concept is completely foreign to me. I assume he means attached to the idea that mind forms as an interpretation of the realization, rather than attached to the idea of realizing, but if this is happening, one has given authority to the mind to take over the realization and attach to the concept about the realization. A realization, as such, never becomes a concept or a memory. Mind may have the experience of trying to recall a realization. Marie sometimes does this immediately after the realization, and she used to get frustrated that she couldn't remember what she saw. The realization leaves no tracks in the mind. It is timeless and non-conceptual, and therefore not an idea or even an experience. One must 'look again' each time one wants to talk about a realization, and then it can be seen fresh without the ideas distorting it. The words are just a poor translation, and they never become the realization itself. Since the realization is not an idea, it doesn't become subject to mind's doubt, which is inherent in the process of conceptualizing since at some level mind knows it's making it all up. This is what is meant by self evident. A realization is a thought (or a concept) if you prefer. Everything is a play of ideas. Its all 'word of God'. Its all conceptual. A realization is an idea and is subject to questioning. A realization is not timeless, Being is timeless. You are trying to elevate 'realizations' to something they are not. You say 'its all imaginary' and that 'we are making it all up', and even though I wouldn't use those pointers, you belie them by saying that realizations are not imaginary and are timeless (i.e. not made up). To go with another of your pointers, realizations are 'dream stuff', they are not 'dreamer'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 15:18:02 GMT -5
Geez, is it even possible to become attached to realizations? I mean, even looking or hoping for one means you ain't gonna have one, so such a concept is completely foreign to me. It is definitely possible to attach to a realization. In order to be stabilized in 'I am', there has to be an attachment. Transcending 'I am' requires releasing all realizations to the alleged void. This Niz quote is good: ''Finally when you realize that everything is useless, (that) everything is ‘Brahman’, it means you are at the ‘Parabrahman’ level, the absolute level. When at that level, you will envision everything as useless, including the ‘Brahman’ because the ‘Brahman’ is also reduced to illusion. Therefore all these talks, including my own will be reduced to illusion when you reach the highest.'' In your case B, swap the word 'Brahman' for 'Being'. ' He's not talking about releasing realizations, rather ideas. There's nothing in a realization to become attached to or to release. A realization is 'empty'.
|
|