|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 30, 2013 13:12:57 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. Hmmm. Was there anything in particular that resonated with you, or was it the the whole thing in general?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 30, 2013 13:20:55 GMT -5
Wow, this is really good, Jly. Hmmm. Was there anything in particular that resonated with you, or was it the the whole thing in general? In general, yeah. It helped me to see that maybe the reason I'm not always appearing to 'get' what others are attempting to get across to me here is because I've had such experiences my whole life and I fully recognize, acknowledge, more or less comprehend what goes on when those realizations/revelations happen to a person...The words get in the way of seeing these things clearly. It helped to illustrate better than most.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 30, 2013 13:24:12 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. [bjI'd rather say that this entire thread puts your own spiritual arrogance on display. [/b] 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... [/quote] that's the problem with beating someone over the head with the ESA club, it comes across as arrogant itself...
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 30, 2013 13:29:59 GMT -5
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. Yeah, since he's matched you post for post.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 30, 2013 13:40:36 GMT -5
Hmmm. Was there anything in particular that resonated with you, or was it the the whole thing in general? In general, yeah. It helped me to see that maybe the reason I'm not always appearing to 'get' what others are attempting to get across to me here is because I've had such experiences my whole life and I fully recognize, acknowledge, more or less comprehend what goes on when those realizations/revelations happen to a person...The words get in the way of seeing these things clearly. It helped to illustrate better than most. True enough about words. Glad it helped.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 13:40:40 GMT -5
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. Yes. I think you would agree that what is experienced is clackety clack, slurp slurp, herp derp, right? The stuff that is experienced is not what you would call 'Being', it is existence (I think you sometimes call it 'reality'). So in existence, or in reality....the idea of 'Being' is conceived and present.... it can't be conceived/present prior to existence or reality. There also might be a feeling of Beingness in existence/in reality. In this sense, i.e in the sense that anything experienced or perceived is an idea, an illusion, or imagination.....'Being' or 'Beingness' is an idea, an illusion, imagination. In just the same way that everything else is. Really what I am saying here is that emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Being is Mind and Mind is Being. And that is a pointer AWAY from the trap of holding emptiness/Being as a foundation of form/Mind. Its a pointer away from pointers!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 13:48:09 GMT -5
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. Oh, I agree there is the experience of ideas being absent. To clarify, what I have been talking about is an expanded definition of 'ideas', which includes more than what we normally take to be 'ideas'. I have been suggesting that everything experienced/perceived is an idea, though we could swap that word for 'imaginary'. And whether it is 'idea' or 'imaginary' (and those words are inadequate really), the point is really to convey that anything experienced/perceived is subjective and empty.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 30, 2013 13:56:06 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. Perhaps there is some difference in word usage. In nirvikalpa samadhi is the experience absent? Are sights, sounds, textures literally not perceived (no phenomenal experience) or are they simply not recognized by the mind, no interpretation of the experience happening?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 30, 2013 13:57:48 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. That is what I am getting from Andrew, not making a distinction between the concept and the experience behind the concept.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 30, 2013 14:03:45 GMT -5
You mean you cannot imagine a realization being anything but an idea. That is what I am getting from Andrew, not making a distinction between the concept and the experience behind the concept. In this conversation I have been saying 'its all ideation/imagination', and there are no distinctions made within that. One of the reasons I have done that is to show that realizations are not some special thing that are prior to 'the world - outer or inner' i.e. they can be questioned. Though as part of the conversation I have been happy to distinguish between conceptual/non-conceptual at times and also Mind/Being.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 30, 2013 14:20:53 GMT -5
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. Oh, I agree there is the experience of ideas being absent. To clarify, what I have been talking about is an expanded definition of 'ideas', which includes more than what we normally take to be 'ideas'. I have been suggesting that everything experienced/perceived is an idea, though we could swap that word for 'imaginary'. And whether it is 'idea' or 'imaginary' (and those words are inadequate really), the point is really to convey that anything experienced/perceived is subjective and empty. why redefine the word "idea"? Experience is illusory. Holding onto the experience and resisting it's change creates attachment and suffering. There's no need to expand the meaning of the word "idea" to talk about the inherent illusory nature of experience. The reason you sound so confusing is because your dogs are cats, your cats are birds, your birds are fleas and your fleas are dogs.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 30, 2013 14:23:23 GMT -5
Oh, I agree there is the experience of ideas being absent. To clarify, what I have been talking about is an expanded definition of 'ideas', which includes more than what we normally take to be 'ideas'. I have been suggesting that everything experienced/perceived is an idea, though we could swap that word for 'imaginary'. And whether it is 'idea' or 'imaginary' (and those words are inadequate really), the point is really to convey that anything experienced/perceived is subjective and empty. why redefine the word "idea"? Experience is illusory. Holding onto the experience and resisting it's change creates attachment and suffering. There's no need to expand the meaning of the word "idea" to talk about the inherent illusory nature of experience. The reason you sound so confusing is because your dogs are cats, your cats are birds, your birds are fleas and your fleas are dogs. Oh, please, Top. I've seen everybody else say that, but I haven't observed Andrew say that anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 30, 2013 14:25:36 GMT -5
Spiritual identities don't form from realizations. They form from fitting on belief systems and trying to force realizations. It's like an endless version of "If I say it this way to myself, will do that the trick!?" How about this way? In the context of spirituality, all we're talking about is the cessation of looking to thought for confirmation about oneself, God, life in general. The cessation of looking to thought in smaller contexts is not necessary and absurd. What this basically means is that realization is just certain thought patterns ceasing to have any sort of existence beyond a memory that may or may not be accessible. Thought patterns about the nature of reality don't usually stop on their own and so it's just seeing the absurdity of the thought(s). There's nothing to attach to there anymore than you're feeling attached to thinking about elephants sky diving right now. The only part that I would agree with you on is that the experience that results from the cessation of certain thoughts may be intensely pleasurable and this can certainly become an object of desire to repeat. The futility of this though is incredibly difficult to not notice for any long length of time. In other words, it's next to impossible to remain in denial about whether you caused the experience and whether you can do it again whenever you want. Hello. I thought I wasn't worth conversing with, I'm not sure I'm gonna bother with this. Quick scan.....okay, you're talking nonsense. Haha, you're a funny character andrew.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 30, 2013 14:29:00 GMT -5
Okay. Now, why are we supposed to 'see through the seemingly concrete nature of things', again? Hold on. You still haven't settled clackety-clack, yet. Not saying I DO have to expand any definitions. You need to clarify yours. And it starts with clackety-clack being an idea. If you can't do that, everything else you say is pointless. In order to settle 'clackety clack', you have to expand your definition of 'ideas' temporarily. If you are not willing to do that, that's fine, then the only other thing I could offer you is the 'its all imagined' pointer. I'm not saying we are 'supposed' to see through the seemingly concrete nature of things, but I am assuming that that is part of what this forum is all about. Yes, that's basically what I see you doing. You're just stretching your conceptual box as wide as you can so everything looks equal to you.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 30, 2013 14:35:27 GMT -5
Saying 'it can't be talked about' is saying something about it. Its an idea. Only Mr Extra-Literal could say that. Yes, in fact it's becoming more clear why Andrew and Beingist can find common ground even though they may be looking at things vastly differently. I'd even dare to say that Andrew is more of a literalist than Beingist.
|
|