|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:36:59 GMT -5
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.I see you presenting the assumption that 'all is just a play of ideas' with absolute certainty, as the truth. You haven't transcended anything here. And as long as you keep talking you are not going to transcend anything anytime soon anyway. I am presenting it with an energy of certainty, but the pointers themselves are self-referring is such a way that they transcend truth/falsity.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:37:24 GMT -5
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. So you still don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:37:51 GMT -5
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'. I can be extremely inflexible at times.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:39:30 GMT -5
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. You mean you cannot imagine a realization being anything but an idea.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:39:51 GMT -5
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. I felt you would struggle with what I said there. If you read again what I said, you will see that I am pointing away from all ideation. That includes 'Being'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2013 11:40:17 GMT -5
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. So after leaving the cliff edge, it's best to apply the parking brake? seems to me as about as useful as gunnin' the engine!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:40:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 30, 2013 11:41:06 GMT -5
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. Either I'm seeing this clearly for the 1st time, or.....? Everyone participating - even the 'audience' - has a need to choose the one side or the other - isn't all this ( ___________) talk just jockeying for position? The Black Hats v White Hats? Seeing who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'? I know I need ta git outta here, but the circus is just too entertaining and yet.......so compelling even with empty, truly meaningless arguments in some instances. It's almost an obsessive need to balance some score or what-not. We're all mind, no matter what shape that mind is in. The mind is not a ball and chain. Hey B, how are ya this morning.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:41:30 GMT -5
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. It includes conclusions but only in a paradoxical way, as an 'interaction of concepts' points away from 'conclusions'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2013 11:42:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:43:09 GMT -5
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. So you still don't understand. Oh but I do... 'its all imaginary. Except realizations'. Hehe
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:44:57 GMT -5
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.You just said yourself that you were the one who divvied up.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:45:41 GMT -5
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. You mean you cannot imagine a realization being anything but an idea. Its all imagined (including realizations).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:48:10 GMT -5
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. You just said yourself that you were the one who divvied up. No, E initially said they were non-conceptual, and I was happy to run with that distinction, but I don't have to. I am happy to just say realizations are Mind. Coz they are.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 11:50:58 GMT -5
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.
|
|