|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 21:12:23 GMT -5
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. So if a snake is seen to be a rope, you hang onto the idea that it is a snake, and somehow go beyond snakes or sumthin? Illusions are subjective misintrpretations. They don't continue after you cease to misinterpret. I would say you concluded correctly since your 'realizations' are really just more ideas.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 21:15:20 GMT -5
I never suggested otherwise. I think you did. I've said for years that to transcend is to include and go beyond. I've been saying it longer than you have and I suspect you got it from me. Thanks for trying to teach it to me, though, and don't ever give up trying to convince me.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 21:18:57 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 I've got my water bottle right here and I'm breathing deeply. ***shaking off shoulder tension and climbing back into ring***
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 21:29:17 GMT -5
'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. Don't they teach that in Speerichuality 101?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 21:32:10 GMT -5
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. Where?? Over there, dammit!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 21:33:30 GMT -5
'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. 'Its all imagined, except for realizations which are dining out somewhere between the imaginer and the imagined'? Are you mocking?!
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 1, 2013 21:45:53 GMT -5
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. I'm saying that realizations occur, but they are not experiences. Experiences are events that occur in time; movements that can be replayed from memory; happenings. Realization is unique in that it is none of these things because it is not a movement of mind. Some peeps here like to talk about clarity happening in a still mind. If realizations happens in a still mind, how can it be an event happening in mind that results in an experience that can be related? I can (and do, rather continually) relate how mind is informed by these realizations, but I cannot relate the realizations themselves. They are not the realization of 'something'. We are using the word in different ways. The realization I speak of is Self revealing Self to the Self which up until then had been obscured and entangled in mind identification. The effect of realization is instantaneous clarity, at least for that moment, of Ones True Nature as Silent Awareness, which is clearly seen to be other than mind. I agree that Self is not experienced, if that is what you mean. But the revelation of Self as Self seen through the medium of the mind is a mind blowing experience...literally.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 21:50:14 GMT -5
You already know that our definition of 'realization' is very different from yours and you also know that we only use it as a pointer. So as long as you take everything literally there's no common ground for a conversation. Have you noticed? What? So a realization is a pointer now? I don't think our definition is much different, I'm just not elevating 'realizations' as much as you guys because I am positing them within experience, and therefore they come and go just like everything else. So in your experience, you've realized stuff and then unrealized it?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 21:52:28 GMT -5
Debris isn't a 'Where'... I think your pointer is malfunctioning... Those batteries don't last long, ya know.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 22:05:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. I'm saying that realizations occur, but they are not experiences. Experiences are events that occur in time; movements that can be replayed from memory; happenings. Realization is unique in that it is none of these things because it is not a movement of mind. Some peeps here like to talk about clarity happening in a still mind. If realizations happens in a still mind, how can it be an event happening in mind that results in an experience that can be related? I can (and do, rather continually) relate how mind is informed by these realizations, but I cannot relate the realizations themselves. They are not the realization of 'something'. You seem to be shifting the target to wherever you are shooting.. there's nothing particularly special about realization, until someone attaches that sort of value to it.. Realizations are experienced, otherwise there's no basis for pointing/discussing..Be well.. It's true there's no basis for discussing them. Really, we can only talk about how mind is informed by them.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 22:16:22 GMT -5
I'm saying that realizations occur, but they are not experiences. Experiences are events that occur in time; movements that can be replayed from memory; happenings. Realization is unique in that it is none of these things because it is not a movement of mind. Some peeps here like to talk about clarity happening in a still mind. If realizations happens in a still mind, how can it be an event happening in mind that results in an experience that can be related? I can (and do, rather continually) relate how mind is informed by these realizations, but I cannot relate the realizations themselves. They are not the realization of 'something'. I dunno, E. I mean, on the one hand, I can agree that the result of the realization (or, subsequent to the movement of the realization, if that works) isn't an experience. More like an expansion of consciousness, or perspective, as you've called it. But I can never forget April 24, 1994 as the date of my most major realization, and it sure seemed to me like an experience. How else would that date be etched in my memory? (Seriously, I remember that date more easily than my own birthday). Right, well you assigned a date to a timeless non-event, but that doesn't turn it into an experience. Can you relate the sequence of events of that realization as they occurred? Not what mind did in response, but the realization itself. Roight. Now that rings true as a realization. Where experience may begin is with mind letting go. Before that...................A realization leaves no tracks in the mind. It isn't mind stuff. Mind DOES play a role, but it is responding to a self evident truth that it cannot deny. And yet this truth is not an idea. It's the damndest thing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 22:19:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. What could that possibly mean? That there is no 'primacy' where clarity is present.. Be well.. I don't know what that means either.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 22:24:48 GMT -5
I'm saying that realizations occur, but they are not experiences. Experiences are events that occur in time; movements that can be replayed from memory; happenings. Realization is unique in that it is none of these things because it is not a movement of mind. Some peeps here like to talk about clarity happening in a still mind. If realizations happens in a still mind, how can it be an event happening in mind that results in an experience that can be related? I can (and do, rather continually) relate how mind is informed by these realizations, but I cannot relate the realizations themselves. They are not the realization of 'something'. We are using the word in different ways. The realization I speak of is Self revealing Self to the Self which up until then had been obscured and entangled in mind identification. The effect of realization is instantaneous clarity, at least for that moment, of Ones True Nature as Silent Awareness, which is clearly seen to be other than mind. I agree that Self is not experienced, if that is what you mean. But the revelation of Self as Self seen through the medium of the mind is a mind blowing experience...literally. I don't know that we're talking about different things, except that you seem to be talking about how mind responds to the realization, which of course is an experience. But the realization itself was not a sequence of events, right? Did the realization unfold over a period of time, or was it mind that 'unfolded'? Wasn't the realization itself instantaneous? Did it come to you in pieces that you had to assemble?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 22:43:36 GMT -5
I dunno, E. I mean, on the one hand, I can agree that the result of the realization (or, subsequent to the movement of the realization, if that works) isn't an experience. More like an expansion of consciousness, or perspective, as you've called it. But I can never forget April 24, 1994 as the date of my most major realization, and it sure seemed to me like an experience. How else would that date be etched in my memory? (Seriously, I remember that date more easily than my own birthday). Right, well you assigned a date to a timeless non-event, but that doesn't turn it into an experience. Can you relate the sequence of events of that realization as they occurred? Not what mind did in response, but the realization itself. Roight. Now that rings true as a realization. Where experience may begin is with mind letting go. Before that...................A realization leaves no tracks in the mind. It isn't mind stuff. Mind DOES play a role, but it is responding to a self evident truth that it cannot deny. And yet this truth is not an idea. It's the darndest thing. It is the darndest thing. For a long time, I could relate the series of events, and actually considered writing them down, but the effort was quickly thwarted by the stark fact that not only would such a recording be only an interpretation (and a very poor one at that), but the events themselves were really trivial, if not meaningless, in comparison to the expansion of perspective that accompanied the realization, and there was no way on God's green earth to put that understanding on paper. So, I can see your points. I just can't say that it wasn't an experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 22:56:27 GMT -5
The reason for divvying it up is to talk about how it's already been divvied up, and to point to that. Two wrongs do not make a right. And FWIW..you are only perceiving a divvying up....I guess when you've got the knife and measuring tape out, everything looks like a dividing line. Then, I suggest, stop focusing on the 'otherwise.' Beyond mind, there is nothing to know.... no thing to exclude. TMT What is being divvied up in my reality? Who cares? How many perfectly fine sheep have followed another sheep, just because he looked like he knew where he was going? Sure, If somehow I actually found myself in such a situation, (I cannot even tell you how unlikely it is I'd ever partake in a 'satsang') it's entirely possible I would do just that....IF that appeared to be the case.
|
|