|
Post by andrew on Jul 4, 2013 15:07:46 GMT -5
You mean.....you're not suggesting to get a butterfly net, catch every idea, transfer the net containing the ideas to the stove and find that single stubborn greasy spot that just won't wash away, and then....quickly, before any ideas escape, transfer all those ideas into that greasy spot? Hehehe. You really DO think I'm a bit crazy. Sometimes I really do, yes. Ideas are seen to be imagination. That's all it means. You hear something weird that I can't discern, Silver want's a full definition of the term, and Tzu thinks it's part of my plot to confuse and take over the world. Yes, there's lots of insanity here. The idea that 'its all imaginary' would also have to be imaginary on that basis. Now, are you suggesting that there is something that isn't ideas, and that isn't imaginary? Even if its something 'that cannot be named'?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 4, 2013 15:09:13 GMT -5
I would just say that mind collapses in on itself, or dissolves in on itself And then what? Play of ideas is over? That's where the positionless position fun begins.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 4, 2013 15:10:36 GMT -5
I have clearly said that realizations are crucial, and I never actually said that pointing is useless. That's more giraffe-ing. I am saying that this realization supersedes all realizations, including itself. I HAVE said that your realizations are not worth the paper they are printed out. That's a pointer to the superseding realization. What are my realizations? You mean you didn't save the paperwork??
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 4, 2013 15:20:57 GMT -5
My issue here is with the word 'illusion', because although its true that the primary realizations do involve 'seeing through illusions', the ultimate realization collapses the boundary between illusion and not-illusion. Does it collapse into a greasy spot or would say it's more of a charred area? Realizations themselves are not ideas, and so the boundary you see as having collapsed is just an imaginary boundary that you added. You then call the acknowledgment of this imaginary idea a transcendent realization that trumps all other realizations, which puts where you wanted to be in the first place; at a positionless position of ambiguous paradoxical certaintyless certainty. Realizations do not come and go. You conclude this because your mind has usurped the sovereignty of your seeing, and so you no longer see. What you saw (assuming you saw anything) has not gone anywhere. You are the one who went somewhere with your ideas. On this forum, I'm almost always responding directly from that seeing. The talking about it is a challenge. The seeing is effortless. It has not gone anywhere. Where would it go? The 'ultimate realization' doesn't collapse the boundary into anything, it just collapses the boundary. All boundaries are collapsed. All dualities are collapsed. The difference between reality and illusion loses its significance, the difference between truth and falsity loses its significance, the difference between actuality and imagination loses its significance. It is realized that 'everything is a play of ideas' and that 'realizations' are part of this play. Where else could realizations exist? I know that you have decided that there IS 'an unchanging' (and that realizations exist in some realm between unchanging and changing) but I have shown your logic to be flawed, and the realization of 'an unchanging' is one that this trumped by the ultimate realization. There MAY be 'an unchanging' or there may not be. Its the openness that's the key. Its the possibility that is key. That's not-knowing. The ultimate realization usurps the 'sovereignty' of any non-dual realization. With this realization, 'sovereignty of seeing' becomes totally irrelevant. I know that you are always responding directly from your sovereignty of seeing, and that's the problem. You have taken up a position and you're not budging even though holding that position requires you to bizarrely define 'existence' and 'Being' to be exactly the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 4, 2013 15:23:34 GMT -5
So the play of ideas continues without mind? Of course. Everything is a play of ideas. Isn't mind what plays with ideas??
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 4, 2013 15:29:04 GMT -5
*hands Enigma his Andrew decoder ring* It's a substitution cypher. I don't think he understands your use of realization as a verb and thinks you are using it as a noun. "A run through the forrest" is an event. Events are hybrid creatures. They are talked about as if they are nouns, but they are based on verbs and represent change in state. Of realization were a true noun, not an event, it would be a conclusion. Was it Farmer that said recently that he used to experience the silent gap between thoughts until silence became pervasive and thoughts appeared on the backdrop of silence. That shift between foreground and background is essentially for getting perspective on the whole shebang. Andrew anchors his whole understanding on the idea that it is all a play of ideas. We have no opportunity to hear if there is any silence happening in and around those ideas. Until the ideas are swallowed by the silence, it's going to continue to be fleas chasing their own tails. Yeah, it's clear he thinks realizations are ideas, so it doesn't really matter what I call them. He's going to assume I'm playing with ideas, which is really what everyone assumes who has never 'experienced' a realization. Tzu, for example, calls everyone's realizations beliefs, and calls his own ideas self evident clarity. It's that point of supposed self evident clarity that he and Andrew can rejoin as compadres and agree that illusory experience is, in fact, 'what is'. Its absurd to suggest that I have never 'experienced' a realization, I couldn't possibly talk about all this stuff if I hadn't. And I acknowledge that the WAY you talk about 'realization' may have value to someone who has never had one, but the way you talk about them is as a pointer i.e. you suggest that they exist or happen in some prior realm of something. It means that you HAVE to say that realizations are true and this is a massive problem (and contradiction) in itself. Seeing what I am saying would would mean surrendering the 'sovereignty of your seeing' though, and which would leave you without a position. And to be clear, the position that you have firmly (and mentally) posited yourself in is 'prior to appearances'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 4, 2013 15:31:05 GMT -5
Of course. Everything is a play of ideas. Isn't mind what plays with ideas?? All ideas happen in 'Mind', and 'Mind' is not collapsed.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 4, 2013 17:05:35 GMT -5
Sometimes I really do, yes. Ideas are seen to be imagination. That's all it means. You hear something weird that I can't discern, Silver want's a full definition of the term, and Tzu thinks it's part of my plot to confuse and take over the world. Yes, there's lots of insanity here. The idea that 'its all imaginary' would also have to be imaginary on that basis. Now, are you suggesting that there is something that isn't ideas, and that isn't imaginary? Even if its something 'that cannot be named'? Yer kidding, right?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 4, 2013 17:10:43 GMT -5
The idea that 'its all imaginary' would also have to be imaginary on that basis. Now, are you suggesting that there is something that isn't ideas, and that isn't imaginary? Even if its something 'that cannot be named'? Yer kidding, right? No. You say 'its all imagined', and you have posited realizations outside of that (which contradicts it). Is there anything else you have posited outside of that which contradicts it? You also say 'its all a dream' and I suspect you posit realizations outside of that too.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 4, 2013 17:13:36 GMT -5
Does it collapse into a greasy spot or would say it's more of a charred area? Realizations themselves are not ideas, and so the boundary you see as having collapsed is just an imaginary boundary that you added. You then call the acknowledgment of this imaginary idea a transcendent realization that trumps all other realizations, which puts where you wanted to be in the first place; at a positionless position of ambiguous paradoxical certaintyless certainty. Realizations do not come and go. You conclude this because your mind has usurped the sovereignty of your seeing, and so you no longer see. What you saw (assuming you saw anything) has not gone anywhere. You are the one who went somewhere with your ideas. On this forum, I'm almost always responding directly from that seeing. The talking about it is a challenge. The seeing is effortless. It has not gone anywhere. Where would it go? The 'ultimate realization' doesn't collapse the boundary into anything, it just collapses the boundary. All boundaries are collapsed. All dualities are collapsed. The difference between reality and illusion loses its significance, the difference between truth and falsity loses its significance, the difference between actuality and imagination loses its significance. It is realized that 'everything is a play of ideas' and that 'realizations' are part of this play. Where else could realizations exist? I know that you have decided that there IS 'an unchanging' (and that realizations exist in some realm between unchanging and changing) but I have shown your logic to be flawed, and the realization of 'an unchanging' is one that this trumped by the ultimate realization. There MAY be 'an unchanging' or there may not be. Its the openness that's the key. Its the possibility that is key. That's not-knowing. The ultimate realization usurps the 'sovereignty' of any non-dual realization. With this realization, 'sovereignty of seeing' becomes totally irrelevant. I know that you are always responding directly from your sovereignty of seeing, and that's the problem. You have taken up a position and you're not budging even though holding that position requires you to bizarrely define 'existence' and 'Being' to be exactly the same thing. Sometimes I think you're just screwin with us.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 4, 2013 17:18:02 GMT -5
Isn't mind what plays with ideas?? All ideas happen in 'Mind', and 'Mind' is not collapsed. Great, now we have to deal with an Ultimate Mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 4, 2013 17:21:44 GMT -5
No. You say 'its all imagined', and you have posited realizations outside of that (which contradicts it). Is there anything else you have posited outside of that which contradicts it? You also say 'its all a dream' and I suspect you posit realizations outside of that too. My work is done here. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 4, 2013 17:24:48 GMT -5
No. You say 'its all imagined', and you have posited realizations outside of that (which contradicts it). Is there anything else you have posited outside of that which contradicts it? You also say 'its all a dream' and I suspect you posit realizations outside of that too. My work is done here. Hehe. Okay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2013 19:07:10 GMT -5
Does it collapse into a greasy spot or would say it's more of a charred area? Realizations themselves are not ideas, and so the boundary you see as having collapsed is just an imaginary boundary that you added. You then call the acknowledgment of this imaginary idea a transcendent realization that trumps all other realizations, which puts where you wanted to be in the first place; at a positionless position of ambiguous paradoxical certaintyless certainty. Realizations do not come and go. You conclude this because your mind has usurped the sovereignty of your seeing, and so you no longer see. What you saw (assuming you saw anything) has not gone anywhere. You are the one who went somewhere with your ideas. On this forum, I'm almost always responding directly from that seeing. The talking about it is a challenge. The seeing is effortless. It has not gone anywhere. Where would it go? The 'ultimate realization' doesn't collapse the boundary into anything, it just collapses the boundary. All boundaries are collapsed. All dualities are collapsed. The difference between reality and illusion loses its significance, the difference between truth and falsity loses its significance, the difference between actuality and imagination loses its significance. It is realized that 'everything is a play of ideas' and that 'realizations' are part of this play. Where else could realizations exist? I know that you have decided that there IS 'an unchanging' (and that realizations exist in some realm between unchanging and changing) but I have shown your logic to be flawed, and the realization of 'an unchanging' is one that this trumped by the ultimate realization. There MAY be 'an unchanging' or there may not be. Its the openness that's the key. Its the possibility that is key. That's not-knowing. The ultimate realization usurps the 'sovereignty' of any non-dual realization. With this realization, 'sovereignty of seeing' becomes totally irrelevant. I know that you are always responding directly from your sovereignty of seeing, and that's the problem. You have taken up a position and you're not budging even though holding that position requires you to bizarrely define 'existence' and 'Being' to be exactly the same thing. A river to a man seems like a river, but to a hungry demon which sees fire in water, it seems to be like fire. Therefore, to speak to a man about a river 'existing' would have some sense, but to this fabulous being it would have no meaning or 'non-existence'. So, when we talk about the nature of 'things' being like illusions, we are saying that they can be said 'neither' to be existent nor non-existent. Further, it is a mistake to identify this passing life for the changeless life of 'truth'. Yet it cannot be said that, apart from this world of change and appearances, there is 'another' world of permanence and truth. It is a mistake to regard this world as either a temporal world, or as a 'real' one. But ignorant people of this world conclude that this 'is' a real world and act on this absurd assumption, creating suffering. A wise man, recognizing that the world is illusion like, does not act as if it 'were' real, and so he escapes suffering. Bhudda
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 4, 2013 20:31:26 GMT -5
Greetings.. The 'ultimate realization' doesn't collapse the boundary into anything, it just collapses the boundary. All boundaries are collapsed. All dualities are collapsed. The difference between reality and illusion loses its significance, the difference between truth and falsity loses its significance, the difference between actuality and imagination loses its significance. It is realized that 'everything is a play of ideas' and that 'realizations' are part of this play. Where else could realizations exist? I know that you have decided that there IS 'an unchanging' (and that realizations exist in some realm between unchanging and changing) but I have shown your logic to be flawed, and the realization of 'an unchanging' is one that this trumped by the ultimate realization. There MAY be 'an unchanging' or there may not be. Its the openness that's the key. Its the possibility that is key. That's not-knowing. The ultimate realization usurps the 'sovereignty' of any non-dual realization. With this realization, 'sovereignty of seeing' becomes totally irrelevant. I know that you are always responding directly from your sovereignty of seeing, and that's the problem. You have taken up a position and you're not budging even though holding that position requires you to bizarrely define 'existence' and 'Being' to be exactly the same thing. A river to a man seems like a river, but to a hungry demon which sees fire in water, it seems to be like fire. Therefore, to speak to a man about a river 'existing' would have some sense, but to this fabulous being it would have no meaning or 'non-existence'. So, when we talk about the nature of 'things' being like illusions, we are saying that they can be said 'neither' to be existent nor non-existent. Further, it is a mistake to identify this passing life for the changeless life of 'truth'. Yet it cannot be said that, apart from this world of change and appearances, there is 'another' world of permanence and truth. It is a mistake to regard this world as either a temporal world, or as a 'real' one. But ignorant people of this world conclude that this 'is' a real world and act on this absurd assumption, creating suffering. A wise man, recognizing that the world is illusion like, does not act as if it 'were' real, and so he escapes suffering. BhuddaA wise man is not troubled by such distinctions.. he pays attention, and does what is necessary for harmony.. Buddha was a babbler.. Be well..
|
|