|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 21:28:53 GMT -5
Realizations are never in conflict with each other. Well, by 'trump', I don't necessarily mean they are in direct conflict, more just that one can supercede another. Perhaps for example, it can be realized that 'I am not a separate volitional person'. And then it can be realized that I am 'This'. The second supersedes the first. The way I see it, certain realization only cover certain aspects of reality. In that sense I would agree that one realization may supersede or trump another one (i.e. giving a much fuller picture of reality). However, speaking about realizations as a whole, I would consider them all as more or less equal in importance, like the two sides of a coin. That's why I prefer to call them complementary. Where people regularly get into trouble is in the post-realization conceptualization process when they start moving into territory that isn't actually covered by the realization they've had. And that's basically at the root of the CC controversy. What some people have to say on this topic is backed by an actual realization and can therefore be called pointing, what some others have to say on this topic is not and therefore speculation. Big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 26, 2018 21:31:39 GMT -5
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... Google and read the story of the 10th man. I think that's a story about "and could not figure out what that self was". |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 21:39:33 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'. In the terms E was using, I would assume that relative truths are associated with normal experience. He said that his knowing that he is conscious, sentient, alive, and experiencing is a transcendental truth, and as he sees this as unquestionable. I guess his issue with 'sartori' is that he doesn't see that as transcendental truth, he sees it as normal experience. I would say that sartori definitely falls into the category of transcendental truth. Do you mean kensho? Because the realization Enigma seems to have an actual reference for is satori. That's the perspective he is usually speaking from. So why would he dismiss satori as normal experience? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 21:43:22 GMT -5
How can there be a non-dual experience? Experience is all about duality. Is this really a serious question? If so, what would you call direct seeing in which there is no separate observer or time? You've been calling it a realization. Well, this is what occurs in a CC, but it can only be processed dualistically afterwards. IOW, you've said that a realization involves realizing what is NOT so. This realization cannot occur during a non-dual experience, or non-dual event, or whatever-we-want-to-call-it, because everything is direct, and there is no separate entity who can think about or know what's been realized until the intellect becomes dualistically functional again. During a CC there can be no comparative thinking regarding what is so or what is not so because there is only what is so. This is why many of us claim that a CC is not an experience in the usual dualistic sense. During a CC there is only oneness. I think the problem here is when people use perception and experience interchangeably. This is similar to Tenka's issue with the term 'thought'. His own definitions of words severely limited his understanding. In fact, with his definition, it was impossible to get our point across to him. I am seeing the same happening in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 21:46:50 GMT -5
Well, by 'trump', I don't necessarily mean they are in direct conflict, more just that one can supercede another. Perhaps for example, it can be realized that 'I am not a separate volitional person'. And then it can be realized that I am 'This'. The second supersedes the first. by informing mind about what's going on, and that's why I've mentioned this issue in the past. Suddenly seeing that one is NOT an SVP is usually (but maybe not always) followed by the subsequent realization, "I am THIS." Perhaps, and I'm speculating here, realizing "I am THIS" is more likely to occur if one has first apprehended the totality, wholeness, and infiniteness of reality. My actual thought following the realization that I was NOT who I had thought I was, and then the subsequent realization of what was actually aware of the world in the absence of a SVP, was, "I am the process of reality, itself." Several years later, I shortened this statement of the obvious to, "I am THIS." That's the way I see it too. That's why I call it complementary. It gives a more fuller, more complete picture of reality. But this doesn't mean that one realization is more important than the other in the big scheme of things, even though that may actually be the case if we are talking about certain aspects of reality (e.g. SVP). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 22:03:15 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'. My point is that the realization does not become consciously known in the sense that E. uses the term until afterwards. During a CC various thoughts occurred, but in my case there was no reflective thought such as, "Oh, reality isn't what I thought it was," nor was there any thought, such as, "Wow, so this is what reality really is." There was no comparative thinking. I was simply living in a new and different world where there was no separation, and the body/mind organism had no idea who was perceiving it. The usual dualistic way of perceiving reality had been totally replaced by direct perception. The body/mind was only perceiving what was obviously SO rather than what is NOT so. If we want to define "realization" to be either the realization of what is so as well as what is not so, that's okay with me, but E.'s definition is obviously lacking one side of the coin. I've asked this before, but never gotten an answer. When someone with a strongly-defined sense of selfhood that seems to be "in here," suddenly sees that that sense of "me" has vanished, this is a direct seeing that something that once seemed to be present is no longer present. Is this seeing of an absence an experience or a realization? It happens instantly, so time is definitely not involved, and it is only AFTER that seeing occurs, that one then realizes, "Oh, I'm not a SVP as I previously thought." IOW, I question any definition of the word "realization" that is too narrow to encompass what appear to be different kinds of direct seeing. I understand. And I agree. Enigma ignores the other side of the coin because he hasn't seen it. And so it's all extremely lopsided. But what I was getting at is the inflationary use of the term 'realization'. Recently you were talking about a 'financial enlightenment realization' and I do understand what you mean by that but in the context of the experience vs. realization discussions such statements are probably more confusing than clarifying. And I think Enigma has a similar issue with that. It's true that in an everyday context this would be called a realization, but here on the forum, where we have very specialized vocabulary, I think we should be more careful with how we use certain words in order to keep things clear and simple. Just a suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 26, 2018 22:10:02 GMT -5
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... Google and read the story of the 10th man. I think that's a story about "and could not figure out what that self was". is it a book or an article? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 22:12:25 GMT -5
Is this really a serious question? If so, what would you call direct seeing in which there is no separate observer or time? You've been calling it a realization. Well, this is what occurs in a CC, but it can only be processed dualistically afterwards. IOW, you've said that a realization involves realizing what is NOT so. This realization cannot occur during a non-dual experience, or non-dual event, or whatever-we-want-to-call-it, because everything is direct, and there is no separate entity who can think about or know what's been realized until the intellect becomes dualistically functional again. During a CC there can be no comparative thinking regarding what is so or what is not so because there is only what is so. This is why many of us claim that a CC is not an experience in the usual dualistic sense. During a CC there is only oneness. An experience is an event occuring in time. Both the event and the time in which it occurs are dualistic perceptions involving mind. I didn't mean to say anything about CC's, just to say 'non-dualistic experience' seems like an oxymoron. The mistake you made is that everything you have to say about CC is solely based on your conclusions from the label 'CC experience' and your definition of the term ' experience' instead of the actual realization we call CC. And you basically admitted as much a long time ago. We tend to call that pointer licking around here. No doubt, it's all logically conclusive given your definitions (as was Gopal's ontology). But logically conclusive doesn't mean anything in terms of actuality. It just means you are good at logic. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 22:17:37 GMT -5
An experience is an event occuring in time. Both the event and the time in which it occurs are dualistic perceptions involving mind. I didn't mean to say anything about CC's, just to say 'non-dualistic experience' seems like an oxymoron. 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. Precisely. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 22:23:13 GMT -5
That I am conscious and experiencing is not a transcendent truth, though it IS unquestionable because it is self evident. Conversation is hard when you keep creating new categories of truth. There were a few reasons I gave up talking to Fig but this was the main one. You will be throwing in direct and indirect knowing into the mix next. So where does self-evidently true fit into the scheme of 'relative truth, transcendental truth, and Truth'? In my opinion, 'self-evidently true' is problematic because most folks would say it's self-evidently true that they are a person/self. Yeah, we used to call that going down the rabbit hole. The more we get into finer and finer distinctions the more complex it all gets and the more complex it gets the the more we move away from actual pointing which is always plain and simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 22:27:44 GMT -5
All events are experiences and all experiences are dualistic, no matter how cosmic they are. I'm simply presenting a countervailing view to yours of what's going on. Are you sure? Because as far as I am aware Enigma seems unable/unwilling to agree to disagree on this. Which is why this conversation keeps going and going. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 22:32:06 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. You certainly do have a right to participate, but in case you do, you can't be taken seriously (for obvious reasons). But you want to be taken seriously regardless, hence the contentious nature of the discussion. That's why most here would prefer to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 22:55:04 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. The way I used to tell realizations and experiences apart was by pointing out that experiences can be created at will and can also be replayed in the mind. Realizations cannot be created at will and they cannot be replayed in the mind. Realizations also belong to the realm of the absolute (or impersonal) and therefore prior to time and space. Experiences belong to the realm of the relative (or personal) and are therefore subject to time and space. So that's what this experience vs. realization deal is basically all about. Realizations always collapse beliefs/concepts about reality. That's why realizations are said to be a loss instead of a gain. There's no new conceptual knowledge acquired during a realization. What happens during a realization is that what has always been so is recognized as what it actually is, i.e. always having been so. In that sense, nothing new is seen. In the conceptualization process that occurs after the realization, which we tend to call 'the informing of the mind' around here, it may look as a gain though because a new understanding has taken place and with that new ways of conceptualizing reality. I think the source of confusion is the tendency of some people here to use the terms experience and perception interchangeably which I think the appearances-only club seems to be doing. That's why I asked if realizations arise in Consciousness. I haven't got an answer so far. Which is rather telling. If we use experience and perception interchangeably, we are in trouble. Because then it may seem as if realizations occur in some kind of vacuum. Which is absurd. There is perception happening during a realization. It's just not happening in an subject/object split fashion and also not limited to time and space as would be characteristic for normal experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 23:07:17 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.  Yeah, this is where it gets a bit silly. No realization happens in a vacuum, it is always couched in some kind of experience. How else could we even talk about prior SR or post SR? From the relative perspective time elapses, of course, even if it is just a split second. But from the absolute perspective, elapsing time makes no sense whatsoever. It's all now and instant and without beginning or end. So yes, a realization is an event. But not in the usual sense. I actually used call it a happening instead of event. Because it hits like lightning and out of the blue. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 23:09:47 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. But it also does happen at some point in time. That's the point. |
|
