|
Post by Beingist on Jun 30, 2013 11:16:53 GMT -5
You read that in a book. And since then you are attached to it and can't let go. No I didn't. Being attached to an idea requires thinking of it as being true or false. The ideas I am presenting are self-referring in such way that they transcend truth/falsity. Agree with the bolded. That said, however, you seem to have a big attachment to the idea that 'it's ALL a play of ideas'. Several here have made that point to you, but you're not listening, and being just as rigid as anyone else has ever been around here. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:17:00 GMT -5
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. I would say, that to say that 'its all Being', first requires acknowledging existence in some way shape or form. As such the idea of 'Being' is really just a pointer away from a conditioned idea. I'm not saying there is no value in that, but nevertheless, existence is what is perceived and experienced, and there is no escaping that. Its in our face always. So 'Being' is conceived within existence itself. In this sense, 'Being' is an illusion. Its imagined. Its just another idea to be sent off to the proverbial void. What I am saying is what Niz is pointing to when he speaks of Brahman being an illusion. Its like I said, spiritual peeps often get rid of the first foundation but create a second. This second is no less of an illusion, a concept, an idea, than the first.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:17:50 GMT -5
you are still telling me to look at an idea. I'm telling you to let go of your most cherished holy cow assumptions. They cannot be held onto by virtue of their self-referring nature.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:19:50 GMT -5
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. Yes I understand that. However, your understanding of 'realization' is wrong (you think they are prior to mind/ideation/time) and so funnily enough, your realizations have become conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 11:20:40 GMT -5
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 andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:22:18 GMT -5
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. A realization cannot be anything but an idea. Its inspired, its creative, its intelligent, its spontaneous. But still an idea. Still a happening. Still time bound. Still Mind.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 30, 2013 11:23:01 GMT -5
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. I would say, that to say that 'its all Being', first requires acknowledging existence in some way shape or form. As such the idea of 'Being' is really just a pointer away from a conditioned idea. I'm not saying there is no value in that, but nevertheless, existence is what is perceived and experienced, and there is no escaping that. Its in our face always. So 'Being' is conceived within existence itself. In this sense, 'Being' is an illusion. Its imagined. Its just another idea to be sent off to the proverbial void. What I am saying is what Niz is pointing to when he speaks of Brahman being an illusion. Its like I said, spiritual peeps often get rid of the first foundation but create a second. This second is no less of an illusion, a concept, an idea, than the first. Hmm. I'm now beginning to see E's assertion that you have never had a realization. This is all just ... swimming in mind. Mental water polo. Need to get beyond mind, A.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:25:18 GMT -5
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). You are asking about a time frame? If you wouldn't feel the need to delineate between rational thought and non-rational thought you wouldn't feel the need to divvy up mind in levels and layers either. It's all your own inside job, Andy. I wasn't the one that divvied up, I am more than happy to say that a realization is Mind. The distinction between conceptual/rational and non-conceptual/non-rational is not necessary, I only engaged with it to show that not all thoughts are of the rational, logical type.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 11:25:22 GMT -5
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!? Maybe it should be mentioned that when Niz says 'It's all a play of ideas', he means it's all an interaction of concepts, which includes conclusions. A seems to think it needs to be playful somehow.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:26:12 GMT -5
No. Crikey. I am saying a realization is an idea.I am saying that you (and Reefs) have turned a realization into a conclusion. That's not what we call 'realization'. We are trying to tell you this for about 30+ pages. You don't seem to be able to accept that. Hencily, talking to you is a waste of bandwidth. I know what you call a realization.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:27:09 GMT -5
I just said what it was. Its all just ideas pointing to other ideas. In a way, I can see this as making some sense. 'Neti Neti', I think, is a way that ideas point to other ideas in order to ... cancel them out. Sorta. This would allow for the expansion of Being (not that Being can, or even needs to be, but I have no other way to put that, presently). I would say it creates space for possibility.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:29:21 GMT -5
When it has been realized that no idea is necessarily true or false, there is nothing else to question. You have not realized that. That can be questioned. The first bit can't and that's the crucial bit.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 11:33:30 GMT -5
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. Saying 'it can't be talked about' is saying something about it. Its an idea. You're licking pointers again.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:35:03 GMT -5
Oh, I do understand what you mean by the term 'realization', and its absurd. You think they are prior to ideation, and are timeless. 'Is all imaginary. Except realizations'. 'Its all being made up. Oh, except for realizations of course'. Its an example of spiritual arrogance at its finest. I treat realizations as ideas. I'd rather say that this entire thread puts your own spiritual arrogance on display. You can't let go of certain assumptions despite your claims to the contrary. If you really would understand what is meant with 'realization' you would be very silent by now. But you are still talking and talking and talking and talking as if that would accomplish anyting... Hehe that's very rich.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:35:49 GMT -5
I'm telling you to let go of your most cherished holy cow assumptions. They cannot be held onto by virtue of their self-referring nature. But you are the best example that they indeed CAN be attached to. Not to mention your attachment to your self-image of being non-attached.
|
|