|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 22:01:52 GMT -5
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. The point of the pointer is to be a head turner. Trying to lick the pointer and analyze the taste is not turning your head and therefore missing the point. When you've looked into the direction the pointer is pointing to you don't need the pointer anymore. Why do you assume that Enigma is a pointer-licker? Because you are one?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 22:10:00 GMT -5
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. That's the problemo here. Pointing points to minding only. I say, you can only tell what it not is since all pointing is minding. You seem to assume by saying what it not is it is said what it is and therefore call it an idea/thought. That's your dilemma. You can't deal with the ineffable because you take 'all is a play of ideas' literally.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 22:13:59 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. Who is going to question realizations when it's all in the mind? Isn't that mind questioning mind? And what would that accomplish?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 22:16:02 GMT -5
A realization is a thought (or a concept) No. That is a conclusion. Concepts can only be conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 22:21:39 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'. Zackly. Therefore what he calls his 'realizations' are only conclusions or as he likes to put it 'a play of ideas'.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 22:24:22 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. He has this rational/non-rational thought cop-out, ye know.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 22:26:40 GMT -5
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. * contains broken record fundamentalism *
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 22:28:46 GMT -5
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. Aha, there we go, new-speak again. What is a non-rational, non-conceptual thought?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 22:45:11 GMT -5
I'd call it the wrong context for this discussion. How so? The word 'realization' is borrowed from the eyeglass seeking community but it refers to something very different.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 29, 2013 22:50:07 GMT -5
It's like a christian moment but with more long white beards and kung fu masters. Is it like a 'senor moment'?? Is that the mexican version of a senior moment?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 22:50:59 GMT -5
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. Wait till you get to the non-conceptual concept part. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 22:55:06 GMT -5
its entirely possible to realize that there is no separation and then attach to that. I dare to say that it's entire probably, not just possible, that you word-lawyered your way out of attachments without out letting go of any attachments at all by buying into your own kind of self-hypnosis.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 22:56:48 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. Yes, his non-attached attachment is showing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 22:58:05 GMT -5
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. You seem to confuse 'talks about realizations' with 'realizations', i.e. the pointer with what the pointer is pointing to. Trust me, it's worth delineating here.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 22:59:08 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. He's talking about logical conclusions. He calls them non-rational ideas, I think, which is one of his many irrational ideas.
|
|