|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 30, 2013 10:07:16 GMT -5
Greetings..
This is all mind at work.. clarity and quality of mind's functioning is my focus.. clarity, is the still mind's result of its awareness informing you of what 'is'.. quality, is applying what 'is' to what 'is happening'.. you/me/we/us/Life is what's happening..
Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:11:50 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'. Okay, I think I can follow this to clackety-clack being an idea, but we have to settle on some definitions, first. I agree that anything perceived (i.e., experienced, sensed, etc.) is all existence. However, to me existence is illusory. Only Being is real. This contradicts what you say above, but the key point is that existence is illusory, just as an idea is illusory. Therefore, the keyboard on which I clackety-clack is illusory, just as an idea. Okay, so, clackety-clack is now an 'idea' in this discussion, and for the sake of understanding you, I'm willing to accept that experience, or perception, is an idea. Now, shat was your next point, again? Once we have expanded our definition of 'ideas' to encompass everything, it can be seen that 'everything' is subjective and therefore empty. Thoughts in our heads are as empty as 'clackety clack' are as empty as a realization...its all empty. What I am also suggesting is that 'Being' is conceived of within existence itself. There is nothing BUT existence. Anything conceived of happens within existence, and is still existence. If we say that anything perceived, experienced, conceived, realized, sensed etc is an 'illusion', then 'Being' IS an illusion. Hence why Niz says that even 'Brahman' has to be reduced to illusion.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:12:47 GMT -5
Its obvious that you have attached to assumptions by linking them to something more solid than an assumption. 'Its all imaginary. Except realizations'. Hehe. ' Everything is a play of ideas' points away from ideation but you can't see that. There's your assumption again you just can't let go of. Its self-referring. It cannot be concluded. It cannot be attached to as true or false.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:14:14 GMT -5
Of course its an assumption. Its all an assumption (even this). There ain't nothing there for me to hold onto, I am not linking assumptions to something more than an assumption. That assumption is one of your absolute certainties, conclusion you just can't let go of. Its so funny the way you acknowledge that I am assuming something and then also try and paint the assumption into a conclusion. Its a contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:15:57 GMT -5
The moment you point is the moment you create an idea. Its all a play of ideas hehe. Just look into the direction the pointer is pointing and see what happens instead of not looking and assuming what happens, hehe. But you would have to let go of your most cherished assumption there. Dunno if that's possible. you are still telling me to look at an idea.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 10:16:41 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! That's an interesting conclusion/play of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:22:48 GMT -5
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. The nature of all ideas is that they can be talked about. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:23:47 GMT -5
That is a basis in itself. That's what you asked for. Yes, and my point is that a realization comes with a set of assumptions. What that means is that it is an idea.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 10:25:42 GMT -5
The realization is that the whole issue is misconceived. Your basis for the issue of free will being misconceived is? The issue of free will can only arise for a separate person, and there isn't one.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:25:58 GMT -5
Hehehe. 'A play of ideas' by definition, points away from conclusions. A conclusion is not an idea at play! That's an interesting conclusion/play of ideas. Conclusions are seemingly objective in an absolutely subjective univese. Communicating this stuff requires engaging with a level of irony or paradox.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:30:00 GMT -5
Your basis for the issue of free will being misconceived is? The issue of free will can only arise for a separate person, and there isn't one. So. The realization that the issue of free will is misconceived is based on the assumption that there is no separate person. Or is 'no separate person' another realization? if so, what set of assumptions is that based on? Where do your realizations/assumptions begin? You see? Its all just layers and layers of ideas/assumptions, all defining each other. Its all imaginary (including realizations hehehe).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 10:32:31 GMT -5
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. That's only because, for you, realization is a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:34:25 GMT -5
That's why what you call 'realizations' are only conclusions. No, I am saying a realization is an idea. That's what I have said from the start. When it has been seen that everything is a play of ideas, there is no room for conclusions. When can you let go of that assumption and stop the conclusions based on that assumption?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:38:08 GMT -5
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. You are pointing to an idea. What did we say all pointing was again?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:40:43 GMT -5
So it's not ALL a play of ideas after all? Who knew!? A 'conclusion' is an idea that has been fixed objectively. That's why it is not possible for me to have 'concluded'. That's also why your realizations are conclusions. Well, guess what, your broken idea record sounds pretty much fixed, stuck and concluded. I'd say it's high time you question it like everything else. Or is that your holy cow?
|
|