|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 26, 2018 11:03:03 GMT -5
All events are experiences and all experiences are dualistic, no matter how cosmic they are. I think we've agreed to disagree about this. I'm simply presenting a countervailing view to yours of what's going on. As am I, which results in an odd non-conversation conversation and begs the question as to what 'agreeing to disagree' really means. What actually happened is you decided not to pursue conversation on the topic because I have no right to participate based on the fact that I have not had your experience. It's fine, really. |
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 26, 2018 11:16:31 GMT -5
Like you, when it happened to Eckhart Tolle, he didn't understand what had happened to him until much later because he had no reference for it. He only knew that he woke up in a different world than the one he lived in prior to getting sucked into what he called "a vortex" triggered by one strange thought that stopped his mind. Later, he realized that 80% of his thinking had simply ceased as a result of what happened. This is one reason that he talks so much about mind talk and the effect of incessant mind talk. The way I see it, Tolle created a focus of mind on the question 'Who is it who can't stand to live with myself?' This is not different from inquiring 'Who am I', and is an excellent focus for potential realization. Once disassociated from mind identity, the corresponding self referential thoughts ceased and Peace ensued. in the big book (alcoholics anonymous) there is this statement on pg 84 . BEING CONVINCED THAT "THE SELF" IN ITS VARIOUS MANIFESTATIONS IS WHAT HAS DEFEATED US...at that time i'd been a staunch member for 22 yrs and could not figure out what that self was. I actually thought it was intended for folks "less developed" than yours truly.lol...I read pon, started watchin my thoughts and one day walkin beside a small creek it came to me and I seen clearly that those thoughts had nothin to do with my true self. ego is an amazing thing ( self referential thoughts as zen calls it)..that's when I got on the internet and found this place. its like my grandchildren say WOW PAPAW... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2018 12:29:01 GMT -5
Okay, now this IS interesting. So you take it as 'transcendent truth' that you are conscious, alive, sentient, experiencing.....but when ZD, Reefs etc speak of a 'transcendent truth' that they have had....you have challenged it on the basis that it is a 'transcendent truth'!!! So are transcendent truths questionable or not? If they're not questionable, then you have to accept Reefs/ZD's transcendent truth, even though you may not personally yet know what they know. Just for the record, when I talk about CC I am referring to the realization, not the experience. ZD uses the term a lot more loosely. And I basically agree with Enigma about experiences not being realizations, always have. It's better to keep the terms apart and not mix them or else everyone thinks they had a CC. But I also do understand how someone who doesn’t have an actual reference for this realization would dismiss it as a spectacular woo-woo experience even though there’s nothing woo-woo about a CC. And there’s nothing I can do or say to change that either. That’s just the nature of realizations, you have to have had the actual realization in order to understand what’s been talked about. That’s called truthin’. On the contrary, if you haven’t had the realization but are at least open minded enough, you can come pretty close to a good conceptual understanding though, but it’s always going to be a mere shadow of the actual thing. Truth is not truthin'. I'll buy the distinctiion between realization and experience for argument's sake. Though semantically I believe realizations are a subset of experiences, but don't want to argue that point. What is distressing to my left brain is the notion that any realization can be non-dual. By definition a realization is an acquired understanding or broadened awareness, there is a subject acquiring that understanding. In advaitan (with disdain) terms the contracted or little self must be the culprit bestowed with this new gift of understanding, for the big Self already has this understanding, the Self is the source. So how is this non dual? Now on the other hand I can see how a CC experience can be non-dual since they can defy logic. In my non-humble opinion, there is "noone" who is self realized and arguing about is a dead give-away that you are interacting with a contracted version of Self. But this is all academic, fodder for the intellect. I wish I had a keisaku handy. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Dec 26, 2018 13:05:16 GMT -5
It's only an oxymoron if one is attached to a particular definition or a particular way of thinking about the life events that we label "CC's". If someone prefers to call a CC a CC event rather than a CC experience, it doesn't change what happened. It just changes the way we talk about it or think about it.All events are experiences and all experiences are dualistic, no matter how cosmic they are. So presumably, by extension you're positing that realisation isn't an event. That always seems odd to me. Not an event, not an experience, and certainly not a non-dual experience or event, which would be oxymoronic. And yet somehow zd indelibly recalls the time, date and location of these 'non-events'. Tolle too for that matter. Seems to me the line drawn between the timelessness of realisation and the experiential informing of mind is generally somewhat arbitrary. And perhaps too is arbitrary, the mind-chopping that creates the 'time' and 'event' in your definition, "An experience is an event occuring in time". Subsequently, (as has been suggested), there's a lot of creation in action going on.
I suppose the real question is whether that's just the nature of the beast, or whether it's more than is necessary ... for whatever reason. I say that last part because I see arbitrariness as a fallacy, hehe Just musing.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 26, 2018 13:59:54 GMT -5
I think we've agreed to disagree about this. I'm simply presenting a countervailing view to yours of what's going on. As am I, which results in an odd non-conversation conversation and begs the question as to what 'agreeing to disagree' really means. What actually happened is you decided not to pursue conversation on the topic because I have no right to participate based on the fact that I have not had your experience. It's fine, really. No, I think you have every right to state your views based on your realizations and experiences. I simply don't agree with some of your definitions and ideas. They don't seem flexible or broad enough to cover the range of ND events that sages write about. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 26, 2018 17:23:43 GMT -5
All events are experiences and all experiences are dualistic, no matter how cosmic they are. So presumably, by extension you're positing that realisation isn't an event. That always seems odd to me. Not an event, not an experience, and certainly not a non-dual experience or event, which would be oxymoronic. And yet somehow zd indelibly recalls the time, date and location of these 'non-events'. Tolle too for that matter. Seems to me the line drawn between the timelessness of realisation and the experiential informing of mind is generally somewhat arbitrary. And perhaps too is arbitrary, the mind-chopping that creates the 'time' and 'event' in your definition, "An experience is an event occuring in time". Subsequently, (as has been suggested), there's a lot of creation in action going on.
I suppose the real question is whether that's just the nature of the beast, or whether it's more than is necessary ... for whatever reason. I say that last part because I see arbitrariness as a fallacy, hehe Just musing. It's pretty simple, really. An event is an something which happens at some point in time for some period of time whereas a realisation is a revelation of 'what is' all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 26, 2018 17:44:48 GMT -5
So presumably, by extension you're positing that realisation isn't an event. That always seems odd to me. Not an event, not an experience, and certainly not a non-dual experience or event, which would be oxymoronic. And yet somehow zd indelibly recalls the time, date and location of these 'non-events'. Tolle too for that matter. Seems to me the line drawn between the timelessness of realisation and the experiential informing of mind is generally somewhat arbitrary. And perhaps too is arbitrary, the mind-chopping that creates the 'time' and 'event' in your definition, "An experience is an event occuring in time". Subsequently, (as has been suggested), there's a lot of creation in action going on.
I suppose the real question is whether that's just the nature of the beast, or whether it's more than is necessary ... for whatever reason. I say that last part because I see arbitrariness as a fallacy, hehe Just musing. It's pretty simple, really. An event is an something which happens at some point in time for some period of time whereas a realisation is a revelation of 'what is' all the time. That would mean realization is an event though (because a revelation is an event), wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 26, 2018 17:51:43 GMT -5
It's pretty simple, really. An event is an something which happens at some point in time for some period of time whereas a realisation is a revelation of 'what is' all the time. That would mean realization is an event though (because a revelation is an event), wouldn't it? It would be an event in the sense of when you become consciously aware of 'what is all the time'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 26, 2018 17:56:18 GMT -5
That would mean realization is an event though (because a revelation is an event), wouldn't it? It would be an event in the sense of when you become consciously aware of 'what is all the time'. yes, makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 26, 2018 19:14:42 GMT -5
this reminds me of an aa meeting. 25 people talkin and nobody listening but heres the kicker. WE ALL GO HOME FEELIN MUCH BETTER...lol
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 26, 2018 19:28:28 GMT -5
Just for the record, when I talk about CC I am referring to the realization, not the experience. ZD uses the term a lot more loosely. And I basically agree with Enigma about experiences not being realizations, always have. It's better to keep the terms apart and not mix them or else everyone thinks they had a CC. But I also do understand how someone who doesn’t have an actual reference for this realization would dismiss it as a spectacular woo-woo experience even though there’s nothing woo-woo about a CC. And there’s nothing I can do or say to change that either. That’s just the nature of realizations, you have to have had the actual realization in order to understand what’s been talked about. That’s called truthin’. On the contrary, if you haven’t had the realization but are at least open minded enough, you can come pretty close to a good conceptual understanding though, but it’s always going to be a mere shadow of the actual thing. Truth is not truthin'. I'll buy the distinctiion between realization and experience for argument's sake. Though semantically I believe realizations are a subset of experiences, but don't want to argue that point. What is distressing to my left brain is the notion that any realization can be non-dual. By definition a realization is an acquired understanding or broadened awareness, there is a subject acquiring that understanding. In advaitan (with disdain) terms the contracted or little self must be the culprit bestowed with this new gift of understanding, for the big Self already has this understanding, the Self is the source. So how is this non dual? Now on the other hand I can see how a CC experience can be non-dual since they can defy logic. In my non-humble opinion, there is "noone" who is self realized and arguing about is a dead give-away that you are interacting with a contracted version of Self. But this is all academic, fodder for the intellect. I wish I had a keisaku handy. I would not say a realization is an acquired understanding. The realization, itself, is a loss of understanding, a seeing through of illusion. Mind will enter the scene after the fact and conceptualize an understanding from that loss. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 26, 2018 19:39:56 GMT -5
All events are experiences and all experiences are dualistic, no matter how cosmic they are. So presumably, by extension you're positing that realisation isn't an event. That always seems odd to me. Not an event, not an experience, and certainly not a non-dual experience or event, which would be oxymoronic. And yet somehow zd indelibly recalls the time, date and location of these 'non-events'. Tolle too for that matter. Seems to me the line drawn between the timelessness of realisation and the experiential informing of mind is generally somewhat arbitrary. And perhaps too is arbitrary, the mind-chopping that creates the 'time' and 'event' in your definition, "An experience is an event occuring in time". Subsequently, (as has been suggested), there's a lot of creation in action going on.
I suppose the real question is whether that's just the nature of the beast, or whether it's more than is necessary ... for whatever reason. I say that last part because I see arbitrariness as a fallacy, hehe Just musing. A realization, itself, is instantaneous and contains no information. Until mind moves again, it is not known what has been realized. In a sense, a realization is like suddenly getting a bird's eye view and seeing things as they are. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 26, 2018 20:25:48 GMT -5
A realization, itself, is instantaneous... in·stan·ta·ne·ous /ˌinstənˈtānēəs/Submit adjective 1. occurring or done in an instant or instantly. "her reaction was almost instantaneous" synonyms: immediate, instant, on-the-spot, prompt, swift, speedy, rapid, quick, express, expeditious, lightning ______________________________________________________________________________________ Yes, while in form, realization happens in an instance of time...on a particular date, at a particular time. What is realized is a different story. When is another. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2018 20:33:28 GMT -5
I'll buy the distinctiion between realization and experience for argument's sake. Though semantically I believe realizations are a subset of experiences, but don't want to argue that point. What is distressing to my left brain is the notion that any realization can be non-dual. By definition a realization is an acquired understanding or broadened awareness, there is a subject acquiring that understanding. In advaitan (with disdain) terms the contracted or little self must be the culprit bestowed with this new gift of understanding, for the big Self already has this understanding, the Self is the source. So how is this non dual? Now on the other hand I can see how a CC experience can be non-dual since they can defy logic. In my non-humble opinion, there is "noone" who is self realized and arguing about is a dead give-away that you are interacting with a contracted version of Self. But this is all academic, fodder for the intellect. I wish I had a keisaku handy. I would not say a realization is an acquired understanding. The realization, itself, is a loss of understanding, a seeing through of illusion. Mind will enter the scene after the fact and conceptualize an understanding from that loss. Who loses that understanding? Who has the aha? |
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 26, 2018 20:54:19 GMT -5
So presumably, by extension you're positing that realisation isn't an event. That always seems odd to me. Not an event, not an experience, and certainly not a non-dual experience or event, which would be oxymoronic. And yet somehow zd indelibly recalls the time, date and location of these 'non-events'. Tolle too for that matter. Seems to me the line drawn between the timelessness of realisation and the experiential informing of mind is generally somewhat arbitrary. And perhaps too is arbitrary, the mind-chopping that creates the 'time' and 'event' in your definition, "An experience is an event occuring in time". Subsequently, (as has been suggested), there's a lot of creation in action going on.
I suppose the real question is whether that's just the nature of the beast, or whether it's more than is necessary ... for whatever reason. I say that last part because I see arbitrariness as a fallacy, hehe Just musing. A realization, itself, is instantaneous and contains no information. Until mind moves again, it is not known what has been realized. In a sense, a realization is like suddenly getting a bird's eye view and seeing things as they are. enigma that's good stuff right there. |
|
