|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:42:26 GMT -5
That's only your assumption. What would that be, 'more than non-rational thought'? Is that your latest stunt? Both Enigma and you have been clearly saying that realizations are not mind i.e. ''its all imaginary. Except realizations''. What a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:44:21 GMT -5
That's a false assumption. You are accused of not being able to tell a realization apart from a conclusion because you never had a realization but only conclusions, hehe. And the more you keep talking the more you prove our point. I have clearly stated the difference between a realization and a conclusion. A conclusion is an idea that has been fixed objectively. It happens in the rational thinking mind. A realization happens in the non-rational thinking mind. Its still time/space bound. Its still ideation/imagination. Its still Mind. No need to delineate between mental positions or divvying up mind. Isn't that verboten in your ontology anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:47:55 GMT -5
The point was that something ceased to exist. Without being immediately replaced by something else. Why is this so hard to grasp? Maybe that doesn't fit into your idea play ontology. I have no issue with the idea that realizations can dissolve particular attachments, but the reason that you and Enigma and many others on the spiritual path are still deeply attached, is because of what happens following a realization. At the core, the need to attach has not been released. But you clearly don't know what we are pointing to when we use the term 'realization', as this conversation shows. You treat realizations like conclusions. Which means what you are saying here is only based on false assumptions, unnecessary assumptions you have a hard time letting go of. We are already at page 40!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:49:20 GMT -5
That's why you are so attached, hehe. Your head is full of conclusions and assumptions. You still haven't realized that ''everything is a play of ideas'' i.e. that no idea is necessarily true or false. I don't see you realizing that anytime soon either. You mean I haven't concluded that. Yes, that's right, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:50:19 GMT -5
No. The point is that you can't let go of that assumption, that you are attached to certain assumptions. Hehehe. Assumptions are attached to when they are made into conclusions. I am quite directly pointing away from conclusions. Where did we say does all pointing point to again?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:51:49 GMT -5
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. No. Crikey. I am saying a realization is an idea.I am saying that you (and Reefs) have turned a realization into a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:52:05 GMT -5
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. You read that in a book. And since then you are attached to it and can't let go.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 30, 2013 10:54:44 GMT -5
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. Okay, clackety-clack still but an empty idea. I'm with you so far. (Bear in mind I don't necessarily agree. I'm just being flexible so as to understand what you're saying). This actually reminds me of a philosophical (I mean, like, with Philosophy majors and such) discussion I once had, where the subject was, 'does essence precede existence, or does existence precede essence?'. I am in the camp of the former. That said, if you switch the terms 'Being' and 'existence' around as I have done in your quote above, I can agree with you. Otherwise, it just makes no sense to me. Mind exists. Ideas happen within mind, and if you want to say that existence happens within mind, I'm okay with that. But, Being (I mean Being [or TWCBN], not the concept of being) is not mind. Nope. I don't buy that one for a second. 'I am' is a concept within mind, and so, yes, I agree that it is illusory, and that it, along with all other ideas must be transcended (or 'let go' if you will). What is beyond that, I simply cannot say. But, I am is not Being. And since I'm still fuzzy on the 'Brahman' thing, I can't respond to that.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:55:01 GMT -5
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. I'm telling you to let go of your most cherished holy cow assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:55:28 GMT -5
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? An idea can only be held onto if it is thought to be true or false. I am saying, its all an assumption (even this). That's is a direct pointer away from truth/falsity. There ain't nothing to hold onto as much as you would like there to be something there for me to hold onto.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:56:00 GMT -5
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. What that means is that what you call realization is not what we call realization but conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 10:58:11 GMT -5
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. Selling your mental confusion as clarity is the only thing that 'requires engaging with a level of irony or paradox' here.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:58:35 GMT -5
You are pointing to an idea. What did we say all pointing was again? I just said what it was. Its all just ideas pointing to other ideas.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 10:59:55 GMT -5
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? When it has been realized that no idea is necessarily true or false, there is nothing else to question. You have not realized that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 11:00:27 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 To mind, everything appears as an experience, including a realization, but you are not mind and so there is the possibility of noticing that the realization itself does not occur in time. (Which is a realization about realization) What occurs in time are the thoughts that follow the non-conceptual realization, and it's here that distortions occur. This is why A thinks realization is a thought. He doesn't notice the realization itself (which is to say he doesn't realize it)and notices only the distorting thoughts about it, leading him to conclude that realization is an idea. The 'AHA! moment' of the scientist is a better example of realization than the eyeglasses deally. It actually IS a moment in which what is seen is seen whole, in it's entirety, which is what brings about the exclamation. The scientist exclaims "AHA!" because on some non-conceptual level he knows he sees the complete answer. What follows is a period of (hopefully gentle) conceptualizing of that whole realization. The conceptualizing happens in time, the realization does not.
|
|