|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 11:52:26 GMT -5
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. Yes. That's what I am saying (without the will of God bit). Hence why I have said that I couldn't be pointing away from ideation anymore than I am. Even 'I am' is an idea.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2013 12:08:52 GMT -5
Yes. That's what I am saying (without the will of God bit). Hence why I have said that I couldn't be pointing away from ideation anymore than I am. Even 'I am' is an idea. But somehow you have concluded that you should deny your own existence in order to get rid of this 'root idea' that 'shatters the state of pure consciousness'. That's where it all got loco.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 30, 2013 12:10:14 GMT -5
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'. Yes, but you're assuming that Being is an idea to point away from. It is from Being any real pointing is being done.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 30, 2013 12:12:40 GMT -5
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. Hi, Ag Interesting, but that might be, like the demarcation point for everyone on the board--whether you think all is mind, or all is Being. Might be worth a poll, if only to satisfy my curiosity.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 12:19:19 GMT -5
Yes. That's what I am saying (without the will of God bit). Hence why I have said that I couldn't be pointing away from ideation anymore than I am. Even 'I am' is an idea. But somehow you have concluded that you should deny your own existence in order to get rid of this 'root idea' that 'shatters the state of pure consciousness'. That's where it all got loco. No, its simply the case that every idea is questionable.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 12:24:35 GMT -5
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'. Yes, but you're assuming that Being is an idea to point away from. It is from Being any real pointing is being done. I understand what you mean when you say it is 'from Being that any real pointing is done', but unless it has been realized that 'Being' is as much an illusion as anything else, 'real pointing from Being' won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 12:26:48 GMT -5
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. Hi, Ag Interesting, but that might be, like the demarcation point for everyone on the board--whether you think all is mind, or all is Being. Might be worth a poll, if only to satisfy my curiosity. I would say they are both just pointers, relevant in different situations. I would say the most direct statement about an 'all' is to say that 'its all existence' or 'its all Life'.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 30, 2013 12:36:23 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. I agree Realization does not happen in time. It happens in the Present Moment. And I agree that thoughts about it happen in time. But would we even know Realization happened if it wasn't experienced by mind when it did? BTW, Realizations are not always about seeing the whole. A realization can be a mere glimpse of Reality that is likened to a tiny mustard seed that later grows into something Gigantic. My personal experience is similar to what Francis Lucille says here: "Although a first glimpse of reality is an event of cosmic proportions, it may remain unnoticed at first and work its way in the background of the mind until the egoistic structure collapses, just as a building severely damaged by an earthquake remains stand- ing for some time and collapses a few months later, gradually or suddenly. This effect is due to the fact that the glimpse does not belong to the mind. The mind, which until now was the slave of the ego, becomes the servant and lover of the eternal splendor that illuminates thoughts and perceptions. As a slave of the ego, the mind was the warden of the jail of time, space and causation; as a servant of the highest intelligence and a lover of the supreme beauty, it becomes the instrument of our liberation. Two years after the first glimpse, I had achieved a good intellectual understanding of the nondual perspective, although a few questions still remained unanswered. I knew from experience that any attempt to fulfill my desires was doomed to failure. It had become clear to me that I was consciousness, rather than my body or my mind. This knowledge was not a purely intellectual one, a mere concept, but seemed to somehow originate from experience, a particular kind of experience devoid of any objectivity."
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 30, 2013 12:44:46 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. I agree Realization does not happen in time. It happens in the Present Moment. And I agree that thoughts about it happen in time. But would we even know Realization happened if it wasn't experienced by mind when it did? BTW, Realizations are not always about seeing the whole. A realization can be a mere glimpse of Reality that is likened to a tiny mustard seed that later grows into something Gigantic. My personal experience is similar to what Francis Lucille says here: "Although a first glimpse of reality is an event of cosmic proportions, it may remain unnoticed at first and work its way in the background of the mind until the egoistic structure collapses, just as a building severely damaged by an earthquake remains stand- ing for some time and collapses a few months later, gradually or suddenly. This effect is due to the fact that the glimpse does not belong to the mind. The mind, which until now was the slave of the ego, becomes the servant and lover of the eternal splendor that illuminates thoughts and perceptions. As a slave of the ego, the mind was the warden of the jail of time, space and causation; as a servant of the highest intelligence and a lover of the supreme beauty, it becomes the instrument of our liberation. Two years after the first glimpse, I had achieved a good intellectual understanding of the nondual perspective, although a few questions still remained unanswered. I knew from experience that any attempt to fulfill my desires was doomed to failure. It had become clear to me that I was consciousness, rather than my body or my mind. This knowledge was not a purely intellectual one, a mere concept, but seemed to somehow originate from experience, a particular kind of experience devoid of any objectivity." Wow, this is really good, Jly.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 30, 2013 12:46:21 GMT -5
Hi, Ag Interesting, but that might be, like the demarcation point for everyone on the board--whether you think all is mind, or all is Being. Might be worth a poll, if only to satisfy my curiosity. I would say they are both just pointers, relevant in different situations. I would say the most direct statement about an 'all' is to say that 'its all existence' or 'its all Life'. All Being, to me. Mind is an illusion. But, this understanding can change with realization.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 30, 2013 12:51:53 GMT -5
Hi, Ag Interesting, but that might be, like the demarcation point for everyone on the board--whether you think all is mind, or all is Being. Might be worth a poll, if only to satisfy my curiosity. I would say they are both just pointers, relevant in different situations. I would say the most direct statement about an 'all' is to say that 'its all existence' or 'its all Life'. That bit '...both just pointers, relevant in different situations' really stands out for me.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2013 12:57:29 GMT -5
I agree Realization does not happen in time. It happens in the Present Moment. And I agree that thoughts about it happen in time. But would we even know Realization happened if it wasn't experienced by mind when it did? BTW, Realizations are not always about seeing the whole. A realization can be a mere glimpse of Reality that is likened to a tiny mustard seed that later grows into something Gigantic. My personal experience is similar to what Francis Lucille says here: "Although a first glimpse of reality is an event of cosmic proportions, it may remain unnoticed at first and work its way in the background of the mind until the egoistic structure collapses, just as a building severely damaged by an earthquake remains stand- ing for some time and collapses a few months later, gradually or suddenly. This effect is due to the fact that the glimpse does not belong to the mind. The mind, which until now was the slave of the ego, becomes the servant and lover of the eternal splendor that illuminates thoughts and perceptions. As a slave of the ego, the mind was the warden of the jail of time, space and causation; as a servant of the highest intelligence and a lover of the supreme beauty, it becomes the instrument of our liberation. Two years after the first glimpse, I had achieved a good intellectual understanding of the nondual perspective, although a few questions still remained unanswered. I knew from experience that any attempt to fulfill my desires was doomed to failure. It had become clear to me that I was consciousness, rather than my body or my mind. This knowledge was not a purely intellectual one, a mere concept, but seemed to somehow originate from experience, a particular kind of experience devoid of any objectivity." Wow, this is really good, Jly. Do you realize that it implies that icky "no-you" noduallie stuff?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 30, 2013 13:00:42 GMT -5
Wow, this is really good, Jly. Do you realize that it implies that icky "no-you" noduallie stuff? Ha ha. I've clearly seen it - a fair amount of 'it' and am not unfamiliar with some of those 'experiences' - I have yet to see a post with such simplicity and clarity about it. Iow - no politics. I guess you just don't know me all that well.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 30, 2013 13:05:23 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. The issue at play that I see, Andrew, is this: "the absence of ideas" is not an idea when ideas are absent. There is an experience of ideas being absent. In communication, everything is a play of ideas, but in mental silence (in the experience, not the concept), there are no ideas. What I think I've seen you do is equate experience and ideas, that if experience is happening then there are ideas present. Do you make that ontological equivalence? If you do, then there really is no point in discussing it unless you are open to revising your ontology. I am certain that ideas can be absent while experience remains. I've experienced it. I use ideas to communicate about experiences when talking with others, so I understand how you could get the impression that it's all just ideas since that is what gets used in expression. If I had a way of sharing the experience of the absence of all ideas, i'd do it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2013 13:10:38 GMT -5
Do you realize that it implies that icky "no-you" noduallie stuff? Ha ha. I've clearly seen it - a fair amount of 'it' and am not unfamiliar with some of those 'experiences' - I have yet to see a post with such simplicity and clarity about it. Iow - no politics. I guess you just don't know me all that well. ... I've tipped my hat to "that" a few times if you will recall. JLU is cool like that. He's got some good stuff to say. But you sure ur not just rezzin' just cause he's swingin' at E'?
|
|