|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 15:20:05 GMT -5
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. You agree that mind is a process of conceptualization, and that realization is non-conceptual, but you still insist realization is mind.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 29, 2013 15:20:42 GMT -5
Haha, I think we found another word of the day.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 15:22:45 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'. ' Yeah, well, I already think that all these talks (including Niz's) are all illusion, and that most of the stuff is pretty useless, but still don't think I'm at the 'Prabrahman' level (or the 'Parabeing' level, or 'the highest' or whatever). I still have to go to work on Monday. But, then, I never could make out what Niz was talking about with all that Brahman stuff anyway. And I still don't see how it's possible to become attached to realization (unless, of course, you think it's of mind).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 15:22:51 GMT -5
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'. All ideas are 'empty', but its possible to attach to ideas because a realization is an idea. Niz is hardcore when it comes to this. He is willing to say that 'I am' is an idea, the first ignorance. There is nothing that Niz won't reduce to illusion, and that includes realizations.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 15:24:34 GMT -5
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. You agree that mind is a process of conceptualization, and that realization is non-conceptual, but you still insist realization is mind. 'non-conceptual' is still 'conceptual', its just a type of 'conceptual'. Its just not rational thought. Its still mind/Mind.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 29, 2013 15:26:19 GMT -5
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'.Oh. You mean a realization is just another zen moment?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 15:26:19 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. Yeah, I get the bolded part. Otherwise, the conceptual nature of all this talk is just ... over my head. I'd say it's all TMT, but if you can get anywhere with it, good luck. I think I know what a realization is, in this context, which is all that really matters to me.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 15:27:49 GMT -5
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'. ' Yeah, well, I already think that all these talks (including Niz's) are all illusion, and that most of the stuff is pretty useless, but still don't think I'm at the 'Prabrahman' level (or the 'Parabeing' level, or 'the highest' or whatever). I still have to go to work on Monday. But, then, I never could make out what Niz was talking about with all that Brahman stuff anyway. And I still don't see how it's possible to become attached to realization (unless, of course, you think it's of mind). The problem with Niz is a classic problem in that in pointing away from ideation, he has to use another idea to do so. So he is keen to point away from Brahman/Being, and so creates 'Parabrahman'. I guess if he had lived long enough he would have had to have pointed away from that too Yes, a realization is mind/Mind. For example, its entirely possible to realize that there is no separation and then attach to that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 15:27:51 GMT -5
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'. What I mean when I say realizations are timeless is that they are 'seeings' that don't take time. They happen instantly. what is seen is seen whole and complete all at once. This is because there is no thinking or ideas involved in the realizing. It is not a process. They are neither dream stuff nor dreamer. They're not imagination, which is conceptual.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 29, 2013 15:27:59 GMT -5
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'. Careful. If you say everything is a play of ideas 4000 times the ghost of Niz will come and flick ghost cigarettes at you for the rest of eternity. You're at 3998 at my count.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 29, 2013 15:32:52 GMT -5
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. I can agree that the concept of realizations are in mind, and that one might get attached to the concept. I can also see one getting attached to the experience of a realization (though in my experience, it would rather be like getting attached to appendectomies). In any event, not my discussion. Kinda over my head, anyway, right now. Have fun!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 15:33:07 GMT -5
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'. What I mean when I say realizations are timeless is that they are 'seeings' that don't take time. They happen instantly. what is seen is seen whole and complete all at once. This is because there is no thinking or ideas involved in the realizing. It is not a process. They are neither dream stuff nor dreamer. They're not imagination, which is conceptual. No 'seeing' takes time, every seeing happens instantly and what is seen is seen whole and complete all at once. So.... 'its all imaginary, except realizations'. Hehe....'its all made up, except realizations'. Hehe....'its all dream stuff except realizations'. Come on E, get over it. Realizations are imagination, all made up, and all dream stuff. If everything else is of course.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 15:33:54 GMT -5
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'. Careful. If you say everything is a play of ideas 4000 times the ghost of Niz will come and flick ghost cigarettes at you for the rest of eternity. You're at 3998 at my count. I can well believe you are counting
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 29, 2013 15:34:33 GMT -5
'non-conceptual' is still 'conceptual' There's really no way to have a conversation with you about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 15:34:59 GMT -5
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. I can agree that the concept of realizations are in mind, and that one might get attached to the concept. I can also see one getting attached to the experience of a realization (though in my experience, it would rather be like wanting an appendectomy). In any event, not my discussion. Kinda over my head, anyway, right now. Have fun! okey dokie..I'm sure we will!
|
|