|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 16:21:53 GMT -5
"I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty." - the original Tzu I love that quote, but I've always tried to be careful not to read too much in to it. Kinda grabs ya' by the boo-boo, don't it? hesssssssshhhhhhh hessssshhhhh hessshhhh... 'ere .......What?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 16:23:30 GMT -5
"I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty." - the original Tzu I love that quote, but I've always tried to be careful not to read too much in to it. I've known how to tie my shoes for a very long time, and am thankful for it. Maybe you can teach Steve-o if he ever becomes willing to know how. An empty mind can be a beautiful thing, like standing on a mountain top on a crystal clear day when you can see to the horizon. Everything can be seen, anything can be talked about and the view remains as clear as ever. Hunched over, playing with one's fingers, muddling over and over 'I must not know anything. I must not know anything', is a very different view. As a general comment to nobody, I've mentioned before that I have a tolerance level for insanity that gets exceeded on this forum from time to time. Right now is one of those times. Be assured, I'll get over it. A day trip to a mental care facility might help boost your tolerance level, there.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 16:24:16 GMT -5
Kinda grabs ya' by the boo-boo, don't it? hesssssssshhhhhhh hessssshhhhh hessshhhh... 'ere .......What? My question exactly (though, it didn't seem important enough to ask).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 16:29:01 GMT -5
Kinda grabs ya' by the boo-boo, don't it? hesssssssshhhhhhh hessssshhhhh hessshhhh... 'ere .......What? The quote.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 16:29:21 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. It's usually quite difficult for most who are not directly involved in a conversation to see what's really going on, especially when there's some clever manipulation going on, like word lawyering and picture painting. Good on you that you can do that.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 1, 2013 16:33:43 GMT -5
Perhaps an example or two of your personal experience with realization can help illumine your words for others to see what you are saying better. Do you have any? I don't know how to relate an experience of something that isn't an experience. Fair enough. But if you have never experienced a realization I am not sure how you can speak with such certainty about what it is or what it isn't? I suspect, though, the we are talking apples and oranges so I will drop it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 17:08:11 GMT -5
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. As you often do, you've reversed it. You don't have a self evident experience that an appearance is a dog that exists. You have to conclude that. If you miss where you made that conclusion and take your conclusions to be self evident (that sounds a lot like Tzu) then you might imagine that 'it's just an appearance' is a conclusion. Basically, you step into your assumption/conclusion process wherever you want to, and declare everything after that an assumption or conclusion that you should ignore. That way you can conclude whatever you want and call it self evident and make yourself right and everybody else wrong.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 17:12:05 GMT -5
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. As you often do, you've reversed it. You don't have a self evident experience that an appearance is a dog that exists. You have to conclude that. If you miss where you made that conclusion and take your conclusions to be self evident (that sounds a lot like Tzu) then you might imagine that 'it's just an appearance' is a conclusion. Basically, you step into your assumption/conclusion process wherever you want to, and declare everything after that an assumption or conclusion that you should ignore. That way you can conclude whatever you want and call it self evident and make yourself right and everybody else wrong. check yourself there dude, I said 'MOST self evident' Is it not more self evident that a dog exists than it is that a dog is an appearance? Would you say that you experience the existence of a dog? Wouldn't you say that a dog exists?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 17:13:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. Your questions are based on incorrect assumptions. This is what you and Figandrew do on a regular basis, and then you complain that I don't address your misconceived questions. I'm not holding onto a model. I'm always looking and telling you what I see. What now?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 17:18:06 GMT -5
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. I'm saying all ideas and appearances are imaginary. Realization is neither. If you want to hear it again, go ahead and stuff your words in my mouth again. I have no idea what yer talking about.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 17:19:31 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. I lllllike it!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 17:22:24 GMT -5
So you are saying that 'its all imaginary, except realizations'! Its....ludicrous. insane. crazy. I don't have the appropriate adjective to describe it. I'm saying all ideas and appearances are imaginary. Realization is neither. If you want to hear it again, go ahead and stuff your words in my mouth again. I have no idea what yer talking about. So if realizations are not ideas, appearances, or imaginary, they must be disco dancing with whatever is prior to ideas and appearances and imagination, yes? They are out having lunch with a prior imaginer, yes? And you say that you are not holding onto a model!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 17:39:05 GMT -5
Yes, clarity is 'special'. You imply as much when you say it's a shame I don't see what you see. I value clarity but I don't objectify it or set it aside from the rest of Life. I don't even know what that would mean, but it sounds like it would take a lot of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 17:40:55 GMT -5
What if somebody follows your advice and the broom hitting works? I would suggest he finds a new Guru before he gets a concussion... Well, there's that too.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 1, 2013 17:42:41 GMT -5
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. I lllllike it! I don't really use the term noticing much, does noticing make a ripple in the mind?
|
|