|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 23:36:03 GMT -5
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. Haha, just got there, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 23:38:13 GMT -5
He's talking about logical conclusions. He calls them non-rational ideas, I think, which is one of his many irrational ideas. Bizarre, bizarre...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 23:40:05 GMT -5
And there would be a recipe with guaranteed results! Maybe that's what he's cooking up. That's the way the Andrew cookie crumbles.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2013 23:42:37 GMT -5
Realizations remove attachments and can create new ones. Its how spiritual identities and personas are formed. Its how people identify with abstract ideas of what they are. Certain states can be attached to following a realization. Lots of options. Spiritual identities don't form from realizations. They form from fitting on belief systems and trying to force realizations. It's like an endless version of "If I say it this way to myself, will do that the trick!?" How about this way? In the context of spirituality, all we're talking about is the cessation of looking to thought for confirmation about oneself, God, life in general. The cessation of looking to thought in smaller contexts is not necessary and absurd. What this basically means is that realization is just certain thought patterns ceasing to have any sort of existence beyond a memory that may or may not be accessible. Thought patterns about the nature of reality don't usually stop on their own and so it's just seeing the absurdity of the thought(s). There's nothing to attach to there anymore than you're feeling attached to thinking about elephants sky diving right now. The only part that I would agree with you on is that the experience that results from the cessation of certain thoughts may be intensely pleasurable and this can certainly become an object of desire to repeat. The futility of this though is incredibly difficult to not notice for any long length of time. In other words, it's next to impossible to remain in denial about whether you caused the experience and whether you can do it again whenever you want.Oh, you just hafta get very creative with words, grammar and syntax and make sure that you never stop thinking for even one second and it's a done deal.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 29, 2013 23:50:43 GMT -5
Greetings.. Realization is not experience and not concept. If experiences and concepts are being attached to, then that's what it is. Realization IS concept, a shared conceptual belief among believers, but which cannot be described except by circular self-reference.. Realization IS experience, the claim of realization regards mind becoming aware of something previously unknown or not understood.. trying to market realization as a mystical event reserved only for those that agree with a 'preferred belief', is just poor marketing.. which fails in same way as: 'if you don't agree with oneness and non-duality, it's because you haven't had that realization'.. so, the same is logically valid if it is claimed: 'if you don't agree with separation and duality, it's because you haven't had that realization'.. the realization claim equates with the 'i said so' claim, not valid.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 30, 2013 2:12:54 GMT -5
That's all good and well, A, but it still doesn't explain how clackety-clack on a keyboard is an idea. Get me to that point, and I make enough sense out of the rest of what you're saying to respond. Um. Okay, now I don't get your 'one kind of perception over another'. You mean, there are multiple perceptions? Multiple perspectives, I can see, but ... multiple perceptions? Sorry, A, but this conversation is starting to get comical to me, and I'm getting closer to going Don Rickles on you. Of course 'I am' is an idea, and even Niz says you gotta get past it. But, 'I am' isn't clackety-clack on the keyboard. You need to get me to the point of understanding that clackety-clack is an idea. If you can't, I'm gonna hafta hop into E's Mustang, which is about pull a Thelma and Louise off Highway 1. What I am suggesting, for the purpose of seeing through the seemingly concrete nature of things (and by that, I mean anything perceived, experienced, known, sensed, intuited, realized etc....'the inner and outer world' in other words), is to temporarily expand your definition of 'ideas' to the one I am proposing. Okay. Now, why are we supposed to 'see through the seemingly concrete nature of things', again? Hold on. You still haven't settled clackety-clack, yet. Not saying I DO have to expand any definitions. You need to clarify yours. And it starts with clackety-clack being an idea. If you can't do that, everything else you say is pointless.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:20:17 GMT -5
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'. Realizations happen, what that means is that they are ideas. When we say 'it can't be talked about', we are describing the nature of that idea.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:21:13 GMT -5
And the basis for having no way of telling me is what? Because it's not an idea. That is a basis in itself.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:22:24 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. 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? Assumptions aren't held onto here, because they have not been attached to anything more solid than other assumptions. You have attached to assumptions by linking them to something more solid.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:25:33 GMT -5
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. Um. Appearances are the only 'things' that do change. Back to s.k. Reefs.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:27:04 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. As I said, there could only be an attachment to assumptions if assumptions are tied to something more concrete than other assumptions. This is a play of ideas. Its all empty.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:29:48 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. 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 Hehehe. No, it can be realized that there is no free will, it can be realized that there is no separation, it can be realized that all is one, it can be realized that what we are is not just a bodymind....the list goes on and on. The question of free will apparently doesn't arise for you because you have tied your assumptions to something far more concrete and solid than other assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:30:19 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. 'all is just a play of ideas' = 'all is just entertainment' In a sense that's true.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:32:01 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. 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. The moment pointing happens, an idea is created. Simple as. Ironically, its you there that is creating something more solid here than just another idea.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:33:21 GMT -5
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? What on earth are you talking about here?!
|
|