|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 20:04:00 GMT -5
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. Asking Google to reveal ducky language...... "Tao Tao that can be very" ***Asking Google WTF*** Dào k? dào f?icháng dào>>>>>>>>>> "Digger digging abundant feichang" ***Giving Google finger and quitting while ahead***
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 20:10:02 GMT -5
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! Gunnin the engine would unnecessarily add more carbon dioxide into the environment. Does our cliff flyer have no environmental consciousness?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 20:18:06 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. It includes conclusions but only in a paradoxical way, as an 'interaction of concepts' points away from 'conclusions'. My conclusion is that an interaction of concepts points toward conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 20:38:45 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. As I see it, mind refers to appearances, while Being refers to existence, meaning that which never appears.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 20:55:10 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? Well, but it's not really experienced. Rather, the minds interpretation/translation, which may also be a vision or feeling sense, is what is experienced. When a realization occurs, there is a knowing that one knows, but it is not known what one knows. Until that translation unfolds as a story in mind, there is no experience. This raises the question of whether realization may be happening and mind may not be noticing. Hencely, there is no experience to mark that timeless realization. I say clarity is always 'present' and not being noticed. In an odd way, a timeless realization cannot 'happen', it can only be noticed. What I mean is that realization is whole unto itself. It may be cosmic, or about something specific like volition, but it arrives complete with no assembly required. Incompleteness is a mind attribute; parts that need to be fit together or ideas that need to be refined.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 20:59:10 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. Mind may be an illusion, depending on what one thinks it is, but there is a cognitive process happening anyway. An oasis may be an illusion but there's still the refraction of light happening.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 21:17:09 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. I actually agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by esteban on Jun 30, 2013 21:27:04 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. As I see it, mind refers to appearances, while Being refers to existence, meaning that which never appears. You, also, know too much, see too much, understand too much, and realize too much.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 21:27:58 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. I'd say most seekers make very clear distinctions between ideas (concepts) and experience. They'll say things like, 'I don't want to hear your ideas, I want to know what you have experienced.' Yes, that's it!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 21:33:50 GMT -5
That is what I am getting from Andrew, not making a distinction between the concept and the experience behind the concept. What I see Andrew doing is pointing out that some use a 'realization' to create a foundation or a 'place to hang their hat.' I see E doing this with his 'realization' of 'Oneness is true, separation is false'. In calling this a realization, (And revering a realization as a special kind of illumination that he regards to be different from all other ideas, as it is deemed to have occurred outside of mind), it is not subject to questioning, as are other mere ideas, and thus, it serves as a place for him to anchor onto....to grasp hold of as a foundation. Andrew is saying that even a realization can be and (if we value freedom) should be, subject to questioning and in seeing this, there is no longer any foundational 'truth' to hang our hat upon....to attach to. Realization doesn't provide one with a foundational truth.
|
|
|
Post by esteban on Jun 30, 2013 21:51:51 GMT -5
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. I'd say most seekers make very clear distinctions between ideas (concepts) and experience. They'll say things like, 'I don't want to hear your ideas, I want to know what you experienced Either way, they learn too much, and too much is taught. No ideas, or communicated experiences, can help a seeker one bit.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 30, 2013 22:03:14 GMT -5
When a realization occurs, there is a knowing that one knows, but it is not known what one knows. When one has been kept in a dark room and one day the light suddenly comes on there is pure seeing and wordless knowing prior to naming or labeling. Realization can "in-form" instantly and wordlessly and recede as quickly as it came. What happens in Its wake is a different subject, and whether It be a glimpse or One of final liberation another, but do you not believe that one can experience and "know" without naming or labeling? What I mean is that realization is whole unto itself.. It may be cosmic, or about something specific like volition, but it arrives complete with no assembly required. Incompleteness is a mind attribute; parts that need to be fit together or ideas that need to be refined. I was referring to when you said below. 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,
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 30, 2013 22:05:10 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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? Well, but it's not really experienced. Rather, the minds interpretation/translation, which may also be a vision or feeling sense, is what is experienced. When a realization occurs, there is a knowing that one knows, but it is not known what one knows. Until that translation unfolds as a story in mind, there is no experience.This raises the question of whether realization may be happening and mind may not be noticing. Hencely, there is no experience to mark that timeless realization. I say clarity is always 'present' and not being noticed. In an odd way, a timeless realization cannot 'happen', it can only be noticed. What I mean is that realization is whole unto itself. It may be cosmic, or about something specific like volition, but it arrives complete with no assembly required. Incompleteness is a mind attribute; parts that need to be fit together or ideas that need to be refined. With deep love and affection for the lessons you have revealed for me, i say to you.. you are struggling far too mightily with your 'thinking'.. the sting of a wasp is an experience without a story, realizing the clarity of a still mind's awareness is an experience without a story.. it is the story that follows the experience, even when the experience is imagined.. letting go of stories leaves only experiences, imagined experiences require effort, belief.. real experiences just happen, you don't have to 'notice' them, they can't be avoided, only denied/rejected.. Realization is direct experience with what 'is'.. it is revealed into mind/being, either as a story 'about' the experience, or.. as the experience itself, echoing eternally as who/what we 'are becoming'.. we become attachments to stories, or remain present absorbing experiences and becoming what we 'are', that which 'is happening'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 22:11:50 GMT -5
The ghost of Niz is currently boarding a plane from India to England to make a visit to our dear friend Andrew. What I hear Andrew saying Silence, in my estimation is really pretty much on par with what you said a ways back about accepting the fact that 'we're f*cked.' Those who are trying to cling to 'a realization' as something occurring outside of mind, and therefore, as being 'untouchable' in terms of questioning, are trying vehemently to find a way out of 'being f*cked.' I see your term, 'being f*cked' to be the equivalent of Andrew's 'without a foundation...without a place to hang your hat.' If there's no way to confirm the realization that you're phucked, I guess you're safe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 22:20:32 GMT -5
What I hear Andrew saying Silence, in my estimation is really pretty much on par with what you said a ways back about accepting the fact that 'we're f*cked.' Those who are trying to cling to 'a realization' as something occurring outside of mind, and therefore, as being 'untouchable' in terms of questioning, are trying vehemently to find a way out of 'being f*cked.' I see your term, 'being f*cked' to be the equivalent of Andrew's 'without a foundation...without a place to hang your hat.' Okay, but are you saying here that A's 'phucked', whoever listens to A is 'phucked', or we're all 'phucked', so we may as well all 'play at ideas'? Obviously, F and A don't believe they're Phucked. They believe they are separate persons with the freedom to believe and create what they want, including peace, joy and ease. That doesn't sound like phucked to me. It's actually a rescue plan, since realization would ensure their phuckedness, so they've dismissed that just as they've dismissed true and false and the question of separation and volition and duality and whatever else gets in the way.
|
|