|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:36:19 GMT -5
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. The idea of 'ineffability' is no problem for me. Its all empty, even the idea of 'empty'. To say that all pointing is minding, is a pointer in itself. I speak with certainty here and say that you have taken the pointer and created something more out of it i.e. a fixed boundary between minding and 'truthing'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:39:02 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? Yes, its mind questioning mind. What is accomplished is a realization of course! Realizations change things. What are you suggesting is doing the questioning?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:40:49 GMT -5
A realization is a thought (or a concept) No. That is a conclusion. Concepts can only be conclusions. Its all a concept, its all imaginary, its all 'word of God', its all an idea. Same pointer. I see that you quite desperately want your realizations to be something substantial, but they are just as empty as everything else
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:43:06 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'. Zackly. Therefore what he calls his 'realizations' are only conclusions or as he likes to put it 'a play of ideas'. Hehehe. 'A play of ideas' by definition, points away from conclusions. A conclusion is not an idea at play!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:44:06 GMT -5
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. There is an obvious difference between a rational and non rational thought. Its your cop out to suggest that realizations are something more than a non rational thought.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:45:39 GMT -5
' 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? Examples are inspired thoughts or creative thoughts, could even be an more invisible subconscious thought.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:46:55 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. ::sigh:: Just because you want your precious realizations to be something more than they are.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:48:51 GMT -5
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. The difference is obvious. Are you saying there that you resonate with 'its all imaginary... except realizations' or 'its all dream stuff...except realizations'? Say you do. Go on.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:51:29 GMT -5
Non-conceptual is still conceptual?............ Okay, I think my work here is done. Hehe. Yes. I'm done, too. Hehe. I suggest Andy sends us a memo when he's finally dropped his cherished assumption and then we can have another try. To repeat myself, assumptions are held when tied to something more concrete than other assumptions i.e. conclusions or 'realizations'. A great irony here is that you guys accuse me of turning realizations into conclusions, when you have done that very thing by making them into something fixed, timeless, other than imaginary, other than conceptual.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:52:26 GMT -5
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 The realization is that the whole issue is misconceived. Your basis for the issue of free will being misconceived is?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:53:36 GMT -5
I have been clear that realizations are crucial. What I am also saying is that they can be attached to. Farmer said "something was there and it's gone". What doesn't exist can't be attached to. Yes, but a new experience, a new perception, a new belief can be attached to.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 2:56:40 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. No. Conclusions remove attachments and immediately create new ones. That's how identity poker works. Lots of options. A conclusion already IS an attachment. That's why realizations can, and do. create new ones. I'm not saying a realization is an attachment in itself, I am saying that attachments follow realizations. That's why there are so many spiritual personas, spiritual 'identities' attached to. Its absurd to say that all these spiritual people have never had realizations, that they have only ever 'concluded'. You have to say that though I guess.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 3:00:28 GMT -5
Moved to point out an irony here. I am suggesting that anything known, seen, experienced, observed, felt, sensed, realized, intuited (the list goes on)...is an idea. Doesn't matter if it is 'indirectly' or 'directly' experienced, its still an idea.This is total neutralization of ideas. I can't see how its possible to point away from ideas and mind any more than I am doing. I am not creating ANY notion of one idea being better than another, more preferable than another, more true than another. The irony is that some people here often claim to be pointing away from ideas/mind, and yet are actually pointing to one idea being better/more preferable than another. And there is nothing wrong with that, there are many times when I am happy to say that one idea is better than another, but its best to do it honestly. Pointing away from ideation by saying that something has to be realized, or known, or that one thing is true and another false, or that one idea is actual and another imaginary....is not pointing away from mind/ideation because it is saying one idea is preferable to another. I am saying all ideas are empty. Whether its something known, seen, experienced, witnessed, realized....its all empty. Why are ideas empty? Because they are subjective. Even when something seems self-evident. Even when something seems like it can't be questioned. Its all subjective (even this). I'd say it matters very much that you finally let go of that assumption. ::facepalm:: I have openly said that it is an assumption. That's the point!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 3:04:37 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. Hello. I thought I wasn't worth conversing with, I'm not sure I'm gonna bother with this. Quick scan.....okay, you're talking nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 3:08:55 GMT -5
This is also why Niz says that 'I am' is an idea. 'I am' can be seen through. It has no foundation as much as it can seem as if it does. And that's why you question your existence per se, because Niz said 'I am' is an idea? That's loco. Leave those books alone! Niz is loco. Hehe. Maybe. But also very sane. But my interest doesn't lie with Niz these days. What you don't get is that anything experienced/perceived/sensed/felt/intuited/realized is subjective i.e. questionable. That's what makes it empty. Existence is empty. Yikes, that must be a bit of a scary one for you.
|
|