|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 17:44:37 GMT -5
Nobody has ever realized that they are an awareness thingy. That's mind concluding stuff. Many many spiritual seekers have had the realization that they are not the bodymind. What they then do is identify with what they conceive to be 'not' the bodymind. Spiritual forums are littered with the carcasses of this type of identification issue. You are correct though that that a conclusion has been formed, but it was after the initial realization. Yes, but don't blame the realization for the conclusion or conclude that the realization IS a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 17:49:40 GMT -5
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. Well, your model is quite unusual, but 'clarity' is being objectified in it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 17:50:21 GMT -5
Many many spiritual seekers have had the realization that they are not the bodymind. What they then do is identify with what they conceive to be 'not' the bodymind. Spiritual forums are littered with the carcasses of this type of identification issue. You are correct though that that a conclusion has been formed, but it was after the initial realization. Yes, but don't blame the realization for the conclusion or conclude that the realization IS a conclusion. I'm not. I have said repeatedly that a realization is an idea, not a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 17:52:55 GMT -5
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. Transcending means including and going beyond. The goal is NOT to toss the personal away. That's correctamente. The personal baggage refers to the self delusion that arises from identification as a separate, volitional person. It refers to illusion. Toss the illusion by seeing through it. You're not sposed to conclude the illusion isn't really an illusion after all. Yes, Martha, it's still illusion even when you come back 'full circle'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 17:56:46 GMT -5
But when the realizations never happened, pretending to rejoin the dreamstate is just a pretense to re-activate the egoic self as an enlightened self. Nothing has changed except the addition of some spiritual arrogance. As I just said, transcending is inclusion and going beyond. We don't get rid of 'ego', we dont get rid of the 'I-thought, we don't get rid of 'Andrew/Phil', we don't get rid of experiencing ourselves as an individual/person, we don't get rid of experiencing the ability to make something happen, we don't get rid of the sense of being able to control something, we don't even get rid of all our attachments and fears. That stuff just loses it primacy. I never suggested otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 17:59:53 GMT -5
Transcending means including and going beyond. The goal is NOT to toss the personal away. That's correctamente. The personal baggage refers to the self delusion that arises from identification as a separate, volitional person. It refers to illusion. Toss the illusion by seeing through it. You're not sposed to conclude the illusion isn't really an illusion after all. Yes, Martha, it's still illusion even when you come back 'full circle'. No, 'the illusion' as you call it, is not tossed. Its included and gone beyond. I didn't conclude 'the illusion' isn't really 'an illusion'. I realized that the realization was just another perception point i.e. not necessarily true or false. Hence why (unlike you), I have no need to insist that what you call 'illusion', is or isn't 'an illusion'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 18:00:36 GMT -5
As I just said, transcending is inclusion and going beyond. We don't get rid of 'ego', we dont get rid of the 'I-thought, we don't get rid of 'Andrew/Phil', we don't get rid of experiencing ourselves as an individual/person, we don't get rid of experiencing the ability to make something happen, we don't get rid of the sense of being able to control something, we don't even get rid of all our attachments and fears. That stuff just loses it primacy. I never suggested otherwise. I think you did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 18:30:29 GMT -5
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. better pace yerself, and drink plenty of fluids
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 19:07:06 GMT -5
In the process I would say attachments fall away, conditioned fears fall away, egoic needs, limiting beliefs fall away....but 'the personal' itself stays present. In an 'intimacy' sense, everything is actually much more personal these days. But attachments, conditioned fears, egoic needs, limiting beliefs are all characteristics of the personal, silly. Saying that the personal yet remains is like saying that although the leaves, branches, and trunk of a tree may be felled, the tree remains. I dunno, Andrew. You really say some srewey stuff, sometimes. Id say the personal remains in an impersonal way, which might sound equally 'srewey'. 'Personal' has a common connotation of referring to the aspect of mind identification and all of the attending needs, fears and such, and so it doesn't describe so well what this interaction is all about.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 19:12:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. As I just said, transcending is inclusion and going beyond. We don't get rid of 'ego', we dont get rid of the 'I-thought, we don't get rid of 'Andrew/Phil', we don't get rid of experiencing ourselves as an individual/person, we don't get rid of experiencing the ability to make something happen, we don't get rid of the sense of being able to control something, we don't even get rid of all our attachments and fears. That stuff just loses it primacy. Then, 'primacy' can lose its primacy.. Be well.. What could that possibly mean?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 19:23:52 GMT -5
But attachments, conditioned fears, egoic needs, limiting beliefs are all characteristics of the personal, silly. Saying that the personal yet remains is like saying that although the leaves, branches, and trunk of a tree may be felled, the tree remains. I dunno, Andrew. You really say some srewey stuff, sometimes. Id say the personal remains in an impersonal way, which might sound equally 'srewey'. 'Personal' has a common connotation of referring to the aspect of mind identification and all of the attending needs, fears and such, and so it doesn't describe so well what this interaction is all about. Understand and agree. 'Personal' is not inherently 'egoic'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 19:25:09 GMT -5
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. What I said above actually has nothing to do with how words are defined. If anything, it calls into question the idea that we can be aware of anything that exists, outside of mind. E defines realization in a way that seems to place it outside of mind. I (and I think Andrew too) don't so much question the definition of that word, (although that may have some point occurred) but more the very idea that there is seeing that CAN occur beyond or outside of mind. 'Beyond mind' is a pointer, not to be taken literally as you have done. We could say, though not with word lawyering accuracy, that realization holds a unique position between thought and simple, empty awareness. As such, it can clarify conceptualization without, itself, being conceptual. I have no problem with referring to that as seeing beyond mind. The only reason such a thing is possible is because you are not mind. Mind appears to you.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 19:27:33 GMT -5
Id say the personal remains in an impersonal way, which might sound equally 'srewey'. 'Personal' has a common connotation of referring to the aspect of mind identification and all of the attending needs, fears and such, and so it doesn't describe so well what this interaction is all about. Understand and agree. 'Personal' is not inherently 'egoic'. Agree.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 19:32:26 GMT -5
What I said above actually has nothing to do with how words are defined. If anything, it calls into question the idea that we can be aware of anything that exists, outside of mind. E defines realization in a way that seems to place it outside of mind. I (and I think Andrew too) don't so much question the definition of that word, (although that may have some point occurred) but more the very idea that there is seeing that CAN occur beyond or outside of mind. How is mind known? We're likely not operating with the same ontology. My use of "mind" doesn't encompass everything. Mind is bounded and what is aware of mind is not mind itself. It's kinda like examining the outside of the walls of a prison and concluding that they are much too well built for me to be able to escape.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 1, 2013 19:49:21 GMT -5
What I said above actually has nothing to do with how words are defined. If anything, it calls into question the idea that we can be aware of anything that exists, outside of mind. E defines realization in a way that seems to place it outside of mind. I (and I think Andrew too) don't so much question the definition of that word, (although that may have some point occurred) but more the very idea that there is seeing that CAN occur beyond or outside of mind. 'Beyond mind' is a pointer, not to be taken literally as you have done. We could say, though not with word lawyering accuracy, that realization holds a unique position between thought and simple, empty awareness. As such, it can clarify conceptualization without, itself, being conceptual. I have no problem with referring to that as seeing beyond mind. The only reason such a thing is possible is because you are not mind. Mind appears to you. Yes, taking pointers literally seems to be a widespread issue around here. Instead of looking where the pointer is pointing, the Extra-Literal folks lick them, take saliva samples and present their saliva sample analysis to the forum as if that would matter somehow when all they had to do was just turn their heads and just look into the direction the pointer was pointing and then forgetaboutit.
|
|