|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 23:03:52 GMT -5
How many well respected teachers have said 'oneness is the truth', and repeated that over and over? Course, I haven't read it all, but you're the only human being I've known who's said that, at least with such specificity.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 2, 2013 0:35:14 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. 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. You and i may have realizations that conflict with what is realized by the other.. you might realize 'oneness without a second', and.. i might realize 'oneness as contrasted by separation'.. between us, we have a common 'frame of reference', mind.. a medium where we can explore the realizations in the context of what 'is actual'.. Among many spiritual seekers and alleged masters, there is an inclination to demonize 'mind' as an obstacle to clarity/awareness/realization, i don't share that inclination or understanding.. i sense that misunderstanding mind, or failing to use it well, are the likely inspirations for suspicions about mind's potential.. From a holistic awareness, mind is a functional part of a greater whole, itself a process for converting potential into reality.. it is not realistic to imagine mind as separate from reality, or from what 'is', as it is mind doing the imagining.. mind is informed through its experience of realizing what 'is'.. 'real'-ization, becoming aware of what is 'real'.. and, the awareness of what is 'real' is informed by the experience of it.. Increasingly, spirituality seems to searching for a way to define itself in mystical or transcendental terms, creating conflicts between what clarity reveals and what imagination wants to hold onto.. prior to understanding quantum mechanics, particle and theoretical physics, and the evolution of technologies that expanded the capabilities for observation of the Cosmos exponentially into infinitely larger and smaller structures of existence and their relationships, prior to these advances mystical and transcendental explanations filled the the gap between experience and understanding.. where people experienced phenomena they could not understand, mystical and transcendental explanations could soothe troubled minds, but.. with many of those 'explanations' failing in the light of mind's evolving potential for observing and understanding, the mystical and transcendental explanations needed to evolve, too, if they were to maintain the illusion of a separate and more powerful process for attracting the 'power' needed to survive.. that 'power' being 'belief'.. Now, the transcendental and mystical explanations for their existence depend on creating the illusion that 'mind' cannot grasp what is their's.. ironically, this creates a separation where the 'spiritual' claim contradicts 'separation', but depends on it.. what i understand, through experience AND realization, is that there is a union where mind/awareness/realization form reality, and where what 'is', 'is'.. where oneness or separation or any other belief insists it is the primary agent of existence/being, it creates the separation that defeats its intention.. or, more concisely, cooperation is always more productive than conflict..though, i sense there will be those compelled to show examples where they believe differently, but those examples will be narrowly focused on supporting beliefs.. The still mind, through clarity, informs the active mind of what 'is', but.. without the stillness, there is only illusion counseling illusion, realizations cannot adequately or accurately inform a mind that is not clear.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 2, 2013 0:47:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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. Mind doesn't appear to you.. it is inherent as an aspect of what you are, it is not separate from 'you'.. you E, use mind to try to defeat mind, and consequently defeat your beliefs about mind.. you are not 'looking', you are 'thinking' about how to create illusions about mind.. just look, and there is no need to concern yourself with 'mind'.. mind is an enemy 'you' have created.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 2, 2013 0:52:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. How many well respected teachers have said 'oneness is the truth', and repeated that over and over? Course, I haven't read it all, but you're the only human being I've known who's said that, at least with such specificity. No matter how many times a belief is repeated, nor by whom, it remains a belief.. 'oneness' is a concept, a meaning assigned to a word.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 2:15:55 GMT -5
check yourself there dude, I said 'MOST self evident' It makes no sense to say MOST self evident, so I took that to be a brain fart. Stuff is either self evident or it is not. No, it is only "more self evident" to you from the conviction that it exists outside of you rather than in your consciousness. What is most self evident to you is what you believe, but that has nothing to do with self evident or what may actually be the case. You're going to keep asking those questions for days until I answer, aren't you? What I experience is 'woof, woof'. Everything else is a thought ABOUT it. I experience the same thing watching Lassie reruns, but I conclude that one is on a TV screen, and it doesn't exist in any form other than light patterns, and the other wants to go for a walk and could be said to exist in that context. These are conclusions ABOUT my 'woof, woof' experience. To be clear, it's not more evident to me that something exists outside of me than it is that things are appearances to me. What is most evident is that appearances are appearing. That is also what is most evident to you. To say that you don't experience time and space is nonsense. We are experiencing physical reality and that means experiencing something in a different location, regardless of whether time and space is an illusion or not. It is self-evident that a dog exists far more than it is self-evident that a dog is an appearance. It may be technically accurate that there are no 'objects', but nevertheless we do experience objects. You do experience dogs (the existence of them). You really do have an unusual filter in your perception.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 2:17:59 GMT -5
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! Well, you're the one assembling the model for me. I'm just telling you what they are not. And telling me what they are.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 2:22:27 GMT -5
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. Yes, 'realizations' are really just more ideas. The snake/rope metaphor does not apply to this. I may have had the realization that 'Andrew' is not who I am, but at no point has 'Andrew' been discarded. Someone calls my name and there is a recognition that I am being spoken to. I have no interest in whether Andrew is or isn't an illusion these days, either way is just another point of perception.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 2:24:19 GMT -5
'Its all imagined, except for realizations which are dining out somewhere between the imaginer and the imagined'? Are you mocking?! Yes!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 2:30:01 GMT -5
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? I had realizations which had a profound impact, but eventually realizations were realized to be just another point of perception, another idea that is not necessarily true or false. I still realize stuff, but the realizing happens on the surface these days. They are just more 'waves'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 2:32:50 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.
[/b] So here you are seeing the problem of what you are saying i.e. you are positing truths objectively and absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 2, 2013 7:04:00 GMT -5
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? The realization was indeed instantaneous. It was as if a light was suddenly turned on within that illumined what was previously unseen. I can liken it to sitting in a dark room and someone has turned on the lights unexpectedly. The eyes instantly see the Light but the eyes are not the Knower of the Light. Gouge out the eyes and the Knower still is. But the eyes are the sense organ that inform the Knower of the lights presence. Without the eyes the Knower would not know the light has come. In the same way, the mind is not the Knower, but it is the sense organ that informs the Knower of the presence of inner Light. Without the mind, the Knower would not know. A man knocked out for surgery doesn't not know he exists, though exist he does. Only when the mind is back online does the Knower know he exists. For this reason I say the Knower experienced the Light, but only because the mind did too.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 2, 2013 9:18:50 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. That sounds like realization is a good old fashioned ho-down with a room full of self's .
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 2, 2013 9:23:19 GMT -5
It makes no sense to say MOST self evident, so I took that to be a brain fart. Stuff is either self evident or it is not. No, it is only "more self evident" to you from the conviction that it exists outside of you rather than in your consciousness. What is most self evident to you is what you believe, but that has nothing to do with self evident or what may actually be the case. You're going to keep asking those questions for days until I answer, aren't you? What I experience is 'woof, woof'. Everything else is a thought ABOUT it. I experience the same thing watching Lassie reruns, but I conclude that one is on a TV screen, and it doesn't exist in any form other than light patterns, and the other wants to go for a walk and could be said to exist in that context. These are conclusions ABOUT my 'woof, woof' experience. To be clear, it's not more evident to me that something exists outside of me than it is that things are appearances to me. What is most evident is that appearances are appearing. That is also what is most evident to you. To say that you don't experience time and space is nonsense. We are experiencing physical reality and that means experiencing something in a different location, regardless of whether time and space is an illusion or not. It is self-evident that a dog exists far more than it is self-evident that a dog is an appearance. It may be technically accurate that there are no 'objects', but nevertheless we do experience objects. You do experience dogs (the existence of them). You really do have an unusual filter in your perception. I'd say this is pretty much where your agenda consumes the conversation. You haven't gotten him to admit the answer you've been holding and so now you tell him that's what he's supposed to be saying.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 2, 2013 9:43:56 GMT -5
Greetings.. To say that you don't experience time and space is nonsense. We are experiencing physical reality and that means experiencing something in a different location, regardless of whether time and space is an illusion or not. It is self-evident that a dog exists far more than it is self-evident that a dog is an appearance. It may be technically accurate that there are no 'objects', but nevertheless we do experience objects. You do experience dogs (the existence of them). You really do have an unusual filter in your perception. I'd say this is pretty much where your agenda consumes the conversation. You haven't gotten him to admit the answer you've been holding and so now you tell him that's what he's supposed to be saying. In the same way that E redundantly repeats the "oneness is truth".. it like shouting "fire!!" in a crowded theater, and no one runs for the the door.. E expects people to accept his beliefs, A suspects that E can actually see what is actually happening, but E has invested too much of his 'identity' into the 'oneness' mantra, and is willing to continue the ruse.. i suspect so, too.. it would be more productive to explore Life happening that sorting-out the beliefs that become obstacles to that exploration.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 2, 2013 9:51:10 GMT -5
To say that you don't experience time and space is nonsense. We are experiencing physical reality and that means experiencing something in a different location, regardless of whether time and space is an illusion or not. It is self-evident that a dog exists far more than it is self-evident that a dog is an appearance. It may be technically accurate that there are no 'objects', but nevertheless we do experience objects. You do experience dogs (the existence of them). You really do have an unusual filter in your perception. I'd say this is pretty much where your agenda consumes the conversation. You haven't gotten him to admit the answer you've been holding and so now you tell him that's what he's supposed to be saying. I'm not telling E what he's supposed to be saying, I'm telling him what he is experiencing but is in denial of. Though in one way, it's true that E does sorta experience the appearance of a dog rather than the existence of a dog, but that's because there is abstract conceptualization filtering his perception.
|
|