Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 20:56:49 GMT -5
Whatever it is I hope you have extra large air bags... Yeah, just in case you change your mind on the way dooowwwwwnnn! Well yeah, it's Desire who's doing the driving, so it's probably equipped the car with a parachute...hehehe
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:07:22 GMT -5
* contains absolute certainty *
Experiencing a sense of 'absolute certainty' can happen here. It's not just 'can'. It's highly predictable by now when and where you are going to experience absolute certainty. If one knows about the assumptions you can't let go of, one knows with absolute certainty where and when you are going to experience absolute certainty. It's one of those no-brainers again, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:12:02 GMT -5
And...what...is...the..basis...of...that...realization? i.e. what did you see in order for you to have that realization? What layers of assumptions is that realization founded upon? The realization isn't founded on any assumptions. No realization is founded on assumptions. That's Andrews wall-less wall that hinders him from passing thru the gateless gate.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:15:48 GMT -5
Remember, to English folks, a 'bonnet' is the hood of a car, and gas is 'petrol'. Good point. To English folks a conclusion is a 'realization' then.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:18:48 GMT -5
A non-conceptual realization. No, it isn't. Serially, Andrew, we can't talk about realization cuz you've never had one. A 'non-conceptual realization' is just a way of distinguishing 'rational thought' ideas from 'non-rational thought ideas'. Its STILL an idea. Its STILL mind. Its STILL a perception point. And they can be attached to. Its absurd to suggest that I've never had a realization. You are copping out massively here E. It seems that you are not ready to notice that your 'realizations' are just more 'ideas', that may or may not be true. If it's 'still an idea', then why can't it be talked about? Why can only be said what it not is instead of what it is? If it would just be an idea it could be described thoroughly and accurately. But it can't be described thoroughly and accurately. Because it's not 'just an idea'.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:20:49 GMT -5
I have no way of telling you. And the basis for having no way of telling me is what? Because it's not an idea.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:23:28 GMT -5
I am not saying 'its all made up', that's your pointer not mine, I wouldn't say 'its all made up'. What I am saying is that 'everything is a play of ideas', which is somewhat different to saying 'its all made up' because I am not implying a maker-upper. I'm not implying that either. They are the same. Your assumptions are just more made up ideas. Drrrrrrrrop em. Yes, Andrew's unawareness of his non-attached attachments to certain assumptions is quite amazing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:26:11 GMT -5
I'm not implying that either. They are the same. Your assumptions are just more made up ideas. Drrrrrrrrop em. 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. Maybe you wanna finally do the letting go with that assumption? Why are you clinging to that assumption? What would happen if you would just drop that?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:28:42 GMT -5
I dunno, e. I think A might have had a realization or two in his lifetime. Maybe he just doesn't call it a realization? And, maybe because he likes swimming in ideas so much, that he's just playing with you? Remember, to English folks, a 'bonnet' is the hood of a car, and gas is 'petrol'. I used to think he was just word lawyering it, but the way he talks about realization makes it clear he has no familiarity with it. i think he has clicked with ideas, and then he thinks he realized something. He found that his version of realization didn't change anything because he never actually realized. Realizations always change something. He's talking about logical conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:31:47 GMT -5
I used to think he was just word lawyering it, but the way he talks about realization makes it clear he has no familiarity with it. i think he has clicked with ideas, and then he thinks he realized something. He found that his version of realization didn't change anything because he never actually realized. Realizations always change something. I agree realizations change something, I was clear about that in my 'lecture'. The point I am stating very clearly is that they CAN be attached to because they are ideas. Its because they are ideas, that they change something. Conclusions (what you call 'realizations') change your concepts, sure. But that's about it. Basically you just get a different hand in the identity poker game. But you're still sitting at the poker table smoking your concept ciggies. So in the big picture, nothing changes at all except in appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:33:51 GMT -5
My point remains that a realization is an idea and can be attached to, and it hasn't been realized that no idea is necessarily true or false, then realizations are likely to be attached to. You mean, your attachment to your assumption remains, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:38:02 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. It can only be concluded that there is no free will. 'Non-conceptual' is a pointer. It's not that it's realized that there is no free will. The question of free will just won't arise anymore which means that is the end of free will discussions and free will conclusions. edit: which means 'neither free will nor no free will' is also a conclusion
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:39:15 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. That's the assumption he can't let go of since years.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:40:10 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. 'all is just a play of ideas' = 'all is just entertainment'
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 21:56:11 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. You are getting hung up about this pointer stuff again, aren't you? Look where the pointer is pointing to and then forgetaboutit instead of trying to put it somewhere.
|
|