|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 3:10:52 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.. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 3:13:17 GMT -5
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. In order to settle 'clackety clack', you have to expand your definition of 'ideas' temporarily. If you are not willing to do that, that's fine, then the only other thing I could offer you is the 'its all imagined' pointer. I'm not saying we are 'supposed' to see through the seemingly concrete nature of things, but I am assuming that that is part of what this forum is all about.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 5:15:36 GMT -5
Yo B, I've come up with another way of trying to talk about this:
Anything experienced, perceived, sensed, intuited, realized, felt, conceived of....its all existence
Now the problem with saying that is the word 'existence' implies a foundation, objectiveness, concreteness, substance. And that's why we might talk about 'Being' or something prior to existence....its a way of pointing away from the substantial nature implied by the word 'existence'. But in this sense, 'Being' is just something conceived of within existence, and 'Beingness' is something sensed or felt within existence.
Its all existence.
However, this doesn't resolve the implication of a foundation in the idea of 'existence'. So we might say 'its all an idea', 'its all conceptual', 'its all imaginary', as a way of pointing to the emptyness of anything perceived, experienced, sensed, realized etc. Its a way of saying 'yes, things exist, but not quite in the way they might seem superficially'
The slight challenge you might face would be in noticing that Beingness is conceived within existence. This is why Niz has said that 'Brahman' is also an illusion. First we stabilize in 'I am' i.e. we see through the foundation implied by 'existence' but create another foundation to be stable in. Many non-dualists do this in their own way. Then this newly conceived foundation is also seen through/dissolved. I can only describe this as 'floating free'.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 30, 2013 7:10:10 GMT -5
The word 'realization' is borrowed from the eyeglass seeking community but it refers to something very different. That's pretty good word lawyering as you call it. But in reality the word "realization" in the story points to a sudden illumination that is experienced in time and space. As long as there is a body/mind such sudden illumination is always experienced in time and space, and often followed by a great outburst of laughter
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2013 7:48:22 GMT -5
'I am' can be seen through. yes. stop. there. Nothing said, thought, reasoned, synthesized, modified, codified or selectified beyond this is sensical, useful, nobel or either true or false. The sentence embodies a paradox and thinking beyond it is to gun the engine of your car after you've driven off of a cliff.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 8:48:36 GMT -5
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. No. The point of the phrase 'it can't be talked about' is throw a monkey wrench into your hyper-minding machine. It's not intended to describe anything.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 8:49:40 GMT -5
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. You are stuck in your 'all is a play of ideas' loop. Isn't that obvious?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 8:57:57 GMT -5
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. There's your assumption again, which has become a broken record by now, meaning you have trouble letting go of that.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 9:00:18 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 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. T he 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.Didn't you promise to let go of that assumption just a day ago? Hard to let go, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 9:02:10 GMT -5
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. Stop licking the pointer. Turn your head and look where the pointer is pointing. That's the whole point. Your saliva sample analysis after the pointer licking is a distraction.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 9:04:07 GMT -5
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'. It obviously is a problem for you since you can't keep your mouth shut.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 9:07:15 GMT -5
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. That's why what you call 'realizations' are only conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 9:08:55 GMT -5
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 It's a pointer. Stop licking the pointer as if it were something substantial and just turn your head into the direction it is pointing and then forgetaboutit. No one needs your saliva sample analysis of that pointer.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 9:09:45 GMT -5
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! So it's not ALL a play of ideas after all? Who knew!?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 9:11:39 GMT -5
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.That's only your assumption. What would that be, 'more than non-rational thought'? Is that your latest stunt?
|
|