|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 23:12:14 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? If we define experience as having a beginning and an end, then (from the relative perspective) a realization does have a beginning but no end. From the absolute perspective, however, it has neither beginning nor end. So this may be one of those context things again. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 23:14:44 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 I'm not sure about that part. Some seem pretty miffed.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 23:18:42 GMT -5
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. 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. Correct. This should also make it abundantly clear why the appearances-only doctrine can't be based on a realization. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 26, 2018 23:19:36 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. Zackly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2018 23:38:00 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. 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. By your description you state the obvious that realizations are dualistic. They collapse beliefs held by peeps, there's that word again. The way I heard it explained by Ramana et al, is that once mind searches for its source unsuccesfully it realizes its illusory nature and subsides. Brahman doesn't need to know it is only Brahman. Now you can argue that Brahman is realized after one sees through the illusion, but that's a different meaning of the word realization, that meaning is achieving a goal. It is the false self that realizes it is false. No? But the whole point of my argument was circuitous, indirect. It's an attack on folks throwing the non-dual trump card in the midst of discussion when things seem to be slipping. Everything said or written is dualistic or really bizarre and contadictory if not, so it seems to me to be an unfair and deceptive tactic. I've had realizations which are non-dual and you've had only CCs which are dual. I'm more non-dual than you are. This is nonsense. But then again this whole thread is nonsense. It's like a scene that could have gained a prominent place in Dante's Inferno, a realm of hell for the enlightened folk were they argue about who is enlightened and what is enlightenment for eternity. I don't think Dante could have written it better. But please don't let this observation deter. I enjoy a good work of fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 27, 2018 0:07:58 GMT -5
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. By your description you state the obvious that realizations are dualistic. They collapse beliefs held by peeps, there's that word again. The way I heard it explained by Ramana et al, is that once mind searches for its source unsuccesfully it realizes its illusory nature and subsides. Brahman doesn't need to know it is only Brahman. Now you can argue that Brahman is realized after one sees through the illusion, but that's a different meaning of the word realization, that meaning is achieving a goal. It is the false self that realizes it is false. No? But the whole point of my argument was circuitous, indirect. It's an attack on folks throwing the non-dual trump card in the midst of discussion when things seem to be slipping. Everything said or written is dualistic or really bizarre and contadictory if not, so it seems to me to be an unfair and deceptive tactic. I've had realizations which are non-dual and you've had only CCs which are dual. I'm more non-dual than you are. This is nonsense. But then again this whole thread is nonsense. It's like a scene that could have gained a prominent place in Dante's Inferno, a realm of hell for the enlightened folk were they argue about who is enlightened and what is enlightenment for eternity. I don't think Dante could have written it better. But please don't let this observation deter. I enjoy a good work of fiction. No, they are not dualistic. Dualistic means subject/object split. We have to distinguish between the event of realization and the informing of the mind after the event. The event of realization is prior to mind. Mind is sorta knocked out or surpassed. No collapsing of beliefs necessary for that because it happens all prior to that level of reality we call mind. There's no mind involvement there. In the aftermath, however, the collapsing happens on the mind level. And how profound the collapsing is depends on the complexity and size of your conceptual structures. For some their entire world (and even body) breaks down (see U.G. who called it a calamity for that reason). For some others it's more like a burden has been lifted. The event is always the same, has always been the same trhu-out the centuries, but in the aftermath that's where you find stark differences. What mind can do is realize the futility but that doesn't equal a realization or even cause a realization. This only places you in front of the gateless gate. That's all. So you are right, it's not the false self that realizes it is false. The false self will not get enlightened. That has been the main point of critique regarding paths to enlightenment. The false self has no idea what it is getting itself into. If it knew, it would do everything possible to avoid that event from happening (which is usually what happens). So what gets you thru the gateless gate is a higher force. When seekers become very sincere that's usually when that higher force has taken over. Papaji called it having your head already in the tiger's mouth. So from there on, all it takes is a little grace. And I basically agree that, in a way, the post-realization conceptualization process is a work of fiction. So we have to be careful to not get carried away with our post-realization models of reality (which is not so easy in a place like this, hehe). But it's all good.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2018 1:52:43 GMT -5
By your description you state the obvious that realizations are dualistic. They collapse beliefs held by peeps, there's that word again. The way I heard it explained by Ramana et al, is that once mind searches for its source unsuccesfully it realizes its illusory nature and subsides. Brahman doesn't need to know it is only Brahman. Now you can argue that Brahman is realized after one sees through the illusion, but that's a different meaning of the word realization, that meaning is achieving a goal. It is the false self that realizes it is false. No? But the whole point of my argument was circuitous, indirect. It's an attack on folks throwing the non-dual trump card in the midst of discussion when things seem to be slipping. Everything said or written is dualistic or really bizarre and contadictory if not, so it seems to me to be an unfair and deceptive tactic. I've had realizations which are non-dual and you've had only CCs which are dual. I'm more non-dual than you are. This is nonsense. But then again this whole thread is nonsense. It's like a scene that could have gained a prominent place in Dante's Inferno, a realm of hell for the enlightened folk were they argue about who is enlightened and what is enlightenment for eternity. I don't think Dante could have written it better. But please don't let this observation deter. I enjoy a good work of fiction. No, they are not dualistic. Dualistic means subject/object split. We have to distinguish between the event of realization and the informing of the mind after the event. The event of realization is prior to mind. Mind is sorta knocked out or surpassed. No collapsing of beliefs necessary for that because it happens all prior to that level of reality we call mind. There's no mind involvement there. In the aftermath, however, the collapsing happens on the mind level. And how profound the collapsing is depends on the complexity and size of your conceptual structures. For some their entire world (and even body) breaks down (see U.G. who called it a calamity for that reason). For some others it's more like a burden has been lifted. The event is always the same, has always been the same trhu-out the centuries, but in the aftermath that's where you find stark differences. What mind can do is realize the futility but that doesn't equal a realization or even cause a realization. This only places you in front of the gateless gate. That's all. So you are right, it's not the false self that realizes it is false. The false self will not get enlightened. That has been the main point of critique regarding paths to enlightenment. The false self has no idea what it is getting itself into. If it knew, it would do everything possible to avoid that event from happening (which is usually what happens). So what gets you thru the gateless gate is a higher force. When seekers become very sincere that's usually when that higher force has taken over. Papaji called it having your head already in the tiger's mouth. So from there on, all it takes is a little grace. And I basically agree that, in a way, the post-realization conceptualization process is a work of fiction. So we have to be careful to not get carried away with our post-realization models of reality (which is not so easy in a place like this, hehe). But it's all good. Yes. I get that the truth, no separation, brahman, is timeless, prior to mind. I kind of understand what you're doing. You're setting aside a special meaning for the word realization to separate it from experiences in this context, which is cool. Though what you're describing is a distant cousin of how most folks use the word. I kind of like how Hedderman describes this. He doesn't use the word realization. He calls it freedom from self as opposed to freedom of self, and describes it as "traveling lighter." Yes you are right: the false self does not get enlightened, but according to Ramana enlightenment happens once the false self unravels by pulling on its own loose thread. It self destructs through SE. His notion, not mine. My notion about realization is go sit. I'm getting off this thread. My last post on it, but will continue reading it. It's non-dual Jerry Springer. |
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 27, 2018 2:06:49 GMT -5
No, they are not dualistic. Dualistic means subject/object split. We have to distinguish between the event of realization and the informing of the mind after the event. The event of realization is prior to mind. Mind is sorta knocked out or surpassed. No collapsing of beliefs necessary for that because it happens all prior to that level of reality we call mind. There's no mind involvement there. In the aftermath, however, the collapsing happens on the mind level. And how profound the collapsing is depends on the complexity and size of your conceptual structures. For some their entire world (and even body) breaks down (see U.G. who called it a calamity for that reason). For some others it's more like a burden has been lifted. The event is always the same, has always been the same trhu-out the centuries, but in the aftermath that's where you find stark differences. What mind can do is realize the futility but that doesn't equal a realization or even cause a realization. This only places you in front of the gateless gate. That's all. So you are right, it's not the false self that realizes it is false. The false self will not get enlightened. That has been the main point of critique regarding paths to enlightenment. The false self has no idea what it is getting itself into. If it knew, it would do everything possible to avoid that event from happening (which is usually what happens). So what gets you thru the gateless gate is a higher force. When seekers become very sincere that's usually when that higher force has taken over. Papaji called it having your head already in the tiger's mouth. So from there on, all it takes is a little grace. And I basically agree that, in a way, the post-realization conceptualization process is a work of fiction. So we have to be careful to not get carried away with our post-realization models of reality (which is not so easy in a place like this, hehe). But it's all good. Yes. I get that the truth, no separation, brahman, is timeless, prior to mind. I kind of understand what you're doing. You're setting aside a special meaning for the word realization to separate it from experiences in this context, which is cool. Though what you're describing is a distant cousin of how most folks use the word. I kind of like how Hedderman describes this. He doesn't use the word realization. He calls it freedom from self as opposed to freedom of self, and describes it as "traveling lighter." Yes you are right: the false self does not get enlightened, but according to Ramana enlightenment happens once the false self unravels by pulling on its own loose thread. It self destructs through SE. His notion, not mine. My notion about realization is go sit. I'm getting off this thread. My last post on it, but will continue reading it. It's non-dual Jerry Springer. hedderman gets that term from the big book of alcoholics anonymous. freedom from the bondage of self |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 27, 2018 3:21:43 GMT -5
No, they are not dualistic. Dualistic means subject/object split. We have to distinguish between the event of realization and the informing of the mind after the event. The event of realization is prior to mind. Mind is sorta knocked out or surpassed. No collapsing of beliefs necessary for that because it happens all prior to that level of reality we call mind. There's no mind involvement there. In the aftermath, however, the collapsing happens on the mind level. And how profound the collapsing is depends on the complexity and size of your conceptual structures. For some their entire world (and even body) breaks down (see U.G. who called it a calamity for that reason). For some others it's more like a burden has been lifted. The event is always the same, has always been the same trhu-out the centuries, but in the aftermath that's where you find stark differences. What mind can do is realize the futility but that doesn't equal a realization or even cause a realization. This only places you in front of the gateless gate. That's all. So you are right, it's not the false self that realizes it is false. The false self will not get enlightened. That has been the main point of critique regarding paths to enlightenment. The false self has no idea what it is getting itself into. If it knew, it would do everything possible to avoid that event from happening (which is usually what happens). So what gets you thru the gateless gate is a higher force. When seekers become very sincere that's usually when that higher force has taken over. Papaji called it having your head already in the tiger's mouth. So from there on, all it takes is a little grace. And I basically agree that, in a way, the post-realization conceptualization process is a work of fiction. So we have to be careful to not get carried away with our post-realization models of reality (which is not so easy in a place like this, hehe). But it's all good. Yes. I get that the truth, no separation, brahman, is timeless, prior to mind. I kind of understand what you're doing. You're setting aside a special meaning for the word realization to separate it from experiences in this context, which is cool. Though what you're describing is a distant cousin of how most folks use the word. That's true. The way the word realization is used here doesn't really match the dictionary definition. Same for the word experience. If we would go with the dictionary definitions, the discussion would be a mess. So you have to be careful about certain keywords and how they are used here. Words are tools. Some words we regularly use are for special purpose only. And you will encounter them probably only on this forum used that way. I've invented a lot of new words over the years, actually, like pointer-licking, identity poker, hyper-minding or truthin' because there are no equivalent words in the dictionary to get my point across. Specialized vocabulary has the advantage of more precise communication. But it also has the disadvantage of sounding like gibberish to an outsider. And so the entire gig gets an occult or cultish like flavor. Tzu used called it 'the club' for a reason, hehe. I kind of like how Hedderman describes this. He doesn't use the word realization. He calls it freedom from self as opposed to freedom of self, and describes it as "traveling lighter." Yes you are right: the false self does not get enlightened, but according to Ramana enlightenment happens once the false self unravels by pulling on its own loose thread. It self destructs through SE. His notion, not mine. My notion about realization is go sit. I'm getting off this thread. My last post on it, but will continue reading it. It's non-dual Jerry Springer. Yeah, that sounds pretty accurate to me. Really, it doesn't matter much what words you use as long as your definitions are clear and consistent. That's all that's required. Clear and consistent language. In the past, we used to call SR 'cabbage' for a while because SR had become such a loaded word. Over time, too much is read into certain key words and so they cease to be useful. So we often try to find new ways of saying exactly the same. That's basically why I come here. But again, words are tools. Don't get stuck in the words. A bit of flexibility can go a long way. Too much flexibility, however, can be counterproductive. We call that 'assassinating' a word. You'll find different conceptualizations of how it all unravels or is supposed to unravel. So you'll find slightly different models of the actual realization process based on individual stories/experiences. But the main theme is that the SVP has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 27, 2018 5:25:31 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. Instantaneous is a good word, because it still puts it in time, but indicates that there is no 'thinking' in that moment. I would say there is information involved in that instant, perhaps a LOT of information, but it bypasses the thinking mind. It's as if it hits the unconscious mind directly, and then the conscious mind takes time afterwards to catch up. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 27, 2018 5:26:09 GMT -5
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? yes, good questions. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 27, 2018 5:27:14 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. 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. yes, also makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 27, 2018 5:27:46 GMT -5
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? ah yes, 'kensho'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 27, 2018 5:36:25 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. 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. Whereas the taste of an orange, or the felt sense of heat (ordinary 'dualistic' experience) comes and goes and has no enduring effect on experience, a CC realization has enduring effect. This means we can't put CC into the category of ordinary, 'dualistic' experience. I don't like calling ordinary experience 'dualistic', but E does. So going with it, if 'ordinary' experience is 'dualistic, and realization is instantaneous (so not an 'experience') then the CC realization could perhaps be said to be 'non-dual' experience, because it pervades 'dualistic' experience. It changes the quality of 'dualistic' experience. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 27, 2018 5:38:34 GMT -5
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. Yes, for me it's a sense of having the goal posts moved whenever I hit the ball. There's only so many times that I can play that game. |
|
