|
Post by topology on Jul 1, 2013 11:27:09 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. What you are telling me is that the whole purpose of redefining words is about making E and R wrong? In essence you believe aprior that there shouldn't be a way to hang a hat, you see someone you think is hanging a hat and proceed to redefine words in such a way you think it takes their supposed hat-hanging away. Redefining words to make someone wrong (implicitly you right) is sophistry.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 11:35:31 GMT -5
What if somebody hears that idea of yours and realizes the truth of it? Haha, then somebody should hit them with a broom in the forehead as quickly as possible, before that truth has a chance to set in. What if somebody follows your advice and the broom hitting works?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 1, 2013 11:36:37 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. 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. I have expanded it for a few reasons, one of them has been to neutralize a preference often given to sense perceptions over rational thought, to neutralize a preference given to reality over imagination, to neutralize a preference given to truth over falsity, to neutralize a preference for seeing over thinking, to neutralize a preference for anything that we can possibly come up with. In doing so, I couldn't possibly point away from ideation anymore than I am. Another reason I have expanded it is to show that realizations are not some special prior thing. They happen as part of the world, as part of experiencing, as part of existing. If I redefine words willy nilly, then I can use them to show anything I want. What is the basis for the meaning of words? Where does their meaning come from for you?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 11:36:39 GMT -5
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. What you are telling me is that the whole purpose of redefining words is about making E and R wrong?In essence you believe aprior that there shouldn't be a way to hang a hat, you see someone you think is hanging a hat and proceed to redefine words in such a way you think it takes their supposed hat-hanging away. Redefining words to make someone wrong (implicitly you right) is sophistry. No. And this redefinition is not new on this forum, and even beyond that. Extending 'ideas' to include all things is no different to extending 'imagination' to all things, or even extending 'mind' to include all things.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 11:39:58 GMT -5
As I see it, mind refers to appearances, while Being refers to existence, meaning that which never appears. So 'Being' and 'existence' mean exactly the same thing to you? You wouldn't say that a dog exists? No, that's not how I define existence in the existential sense. Appearances are just appearances. They don't have any inherent existence. Those appearances are empty. That's what it means to say you're already dead, or you were never born.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 11:41:52 GMT -5
I have expanded it for a few reasons, one of them has been to neutralize a preference often given to sense perceptions over rational thought, to neutralize a preference given to reality over imagination, to neutralize a preference given to truth over falsity, to neutralize a preference for seeing over thinking, to neutralize a preference for anything that we can possibly come up with. In doing so, I couldn't possibly point away from ideation anymore than I am. Another reason I have expanded it is to show that realizations are not some special prior thing. They happen as part of the world, as part of experiencing, as part of existing. If I redefine words willy nilly, then I can use them to show anything I want. What is the basis for the meaning of words? Where does their meaning come from for you? I don't really understand what you are asking, but perhaps I just answered it above.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 11:45:20 GMT -5
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. That sounds odd because its wrong. You think it's wrong, and so it sounds odd. I'm saying all ideas and appearances are imaginary. Realization is neither.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 11:46:36 GMT -5
So 'Being' and 'existence' mean exactly the same thing to you? You wouldn't say that a dog exists? No, that's not how I define existence in the existential sense. Appearances are just appearances. They don't have any inherent existence. Those appearances are empty. That's what it means to say you're already dead, or you were never born. So you wouldn't say that a dog exists? Would you say that you experience the existence of a dog, or dogs? In terms of what is most self-evident, I would say that a dog is experienced to exist, and THEN we might say (if we wanted to) 'oh, well, its really just an appearance'. Its the same with 'Being'. Its an afterthought after existence has already been experienced. Not that the idea of 'Being' and 'appearances' is without value.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 11:48:33 GMT -5
I actually agree with that. Yes, its nothing that you wouldn't say yourself. Its just a shame that you have objectified 'realizations' and set them aside as something more special than they are. Yes, clarity is 'special'. You imply as much when you say it's a shame I don't see what you see.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 1, 2013 11:48:51 GMT -5
If I redefine words willy nilly, then I can use them to show anything I want. What is the basis for the meaning of words? Where does their meaning come from for you? I don't really understand what you are asking, but perhaps I just answered it above. No you didn't answer it above. How does the word "cow" get its meaning? The three letters C O W are put next to each other and it has a meaning attached. Where did the meaning come from? How did the association happen?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 1, 2013 11:49:53 GMT -5
Greetings.. That sounds odd because its wrong. You think it's wrong, and so it sounds odd. I'm saying all ideas and appearances are imaginary. Realization is neither. I'm saying your model is valid only for 'you'.. why do you hold onto a model? just look.. tell us what you see, not what you 'think' you see.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 11:50:07 GMT -5
Realization doesn't provide one with a foundational truth. Realizations CAN do. Hence why so many spiritual seekers end up identified with Awareness or some such thing. Nobody has ever realized that they are an awareness thingy. That's mind concluding stuff.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 11:52:33 GMT -5
That sounds odd because its wrong. You think it's wrong, and so it sounds odd. I'm saying all ideas and appearances are imaginary. Realization is neither. So you are saying that 'its all imaginary, except realizations'! Its....ludicrous. insane. crazy. I don't have the appropriate adjective to describe it. There is something else odd here (aside from that). I would say that saying 'its all an idea' is the same pointer as 'its all imaginary'. You seem to be putting the latter 'above' the former there, or am I misunderstanding there? It creates the sense that ideas and appearances are imagined BY something. I guess that 'realizations' must exist with this 'something' do they? Are they next door neighbours or something?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 11:54:08 GMT -5
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. rolling of eyes happening again. I don't believe I am a separate person, but then I don't believe I am not a separate person. I can comment on the experience, and the experience is that it certainly seems that there are other individuals in a different location in space, it seems as if I have the power to cause certain things happen, it seems as I am able to control certain things (like my car). Its not about true/false, its about the path of least resistance and its about intelligence. Right, that's what I'm talking about. You came 'full circle' back from Mt Woowoo and brought all your personal baggage back with you instead of tossing it off the mountain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 11:54:10 GMT -5
I say clarity is always 'present' and not being noticed. In an odd way, a timeless realization cannot 'happen', it can only be noticed. NPM (noticing per minute). It's a unit I heard of, tongue-'n-cheekingly coined by Joseph Goldsetein, when speaking about the practice of mindfulness. Beginners have low npm's but it goes up with practice.
|
|