|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 27, 2018 5:53:41 GMT -5
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. The idea of an experience having a beginning and end is an odd one, because the actuality is more of a flow. But I understand the value and relevance of talking about it in that way....it's so that we can talk about the difference between ordinary experience and realization, and maybe also CC realization. So in this sense... I would say an ordinary experience (taste, smell etc) can be said to have duration, i.e a beginning that is distinct from the end. Whereas a realization does begin and end, but because it is instantaneous (has no duration), the beginning is not distinct FROM the end. Whereas a CC realization does begin, but doesn't end i.e it endures. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 27, 2018 5:54:34 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.  |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 27, 2018 8:56:57 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. But it also does happen at some point in time. That's the point. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 27, 2018 10:15:44 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. It happens on a particular date and time, but it's instantaneous. Mind is not involved in the actual realization. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 27, 2018 10:19:46 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? Who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2018 10:20:51 GMT -5
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. I agree. On this forum I shouldn't have used the term "realization" because it potentially could confuse one of the main issues that we discuss here. Perhaps I should have referred to what happened as "a eureka moment" because those events are fairly common, and are not transcendental/existential. I'm glad that discussion occurred, however, because it revealed several interesting aspects regarding what happened. After I told my daughter about Sifting's post, she couldn't believe it. It took her two days of looking at the numbers and contemplating the issue to finally get it. We've been laughing ever since about the fact that a misunderstanding triggered a complete change in financial behavior that was massively beneficial. It also revealed the risk involved in my original approach, which is the reason why financial gurus like Dave Ramsey would be opposed to it. The actual eureka moment involved seeing how detrimental debt can be, and it led to the development of a quick way of seeing one's entire financial situation at a single glance, as well as a way of seeing how that situation is changing over time (whether things are getting better, financially, or worse, and by how much). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 27, 2018 10:23:09 GMT -5
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. Ah, you recognize it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 27, 2018 11:03:41 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. I'm glad I'm not involved in the same discussion you are. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 27, 2018 12:44:57 GMT -5
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. The idea of an experience having a beginning and end is an odd one, because the actuality is more of a flow. But I understand the value and relevance of talking about it in that way....it's so that we can talk about the difference between ordinary experience and realization, and maybe also CC realization. So in this sense... I would say an ordinary experience (taste, smell etc) can be said to have duration, i.e a beginning that is distinct from the end. Whereas a realization does begin and end, but because it is instantaneous (has no duration), the beginning is not distinct FROM the end. Whereas a CC realization does begin, but doesn't end i.e it endures. When we talk about "having an experience," What we're doing is making a distinction. We're abstractly dividing the flow of life into a specific segment of time that we want to highlight. The beginning and ending of the experience is obviously imaginary, but we usually make such a distinction for the purpose of communication. The segments can be short (I experienced a car wreck today) or extremely long. For example, people will sometimes say, "My life has been an interesting experience" by which they mean the totality of the time they've existed as a human has been unique in some or many ways. People also will say, "I experienced a tree," by which they usually mean, "I perceived a tree," and this usage is a little different because it refers to something happening wherein the duration is uncertain. It may mean that they've stood and looked at a tree for a long period of time, or it may mean that they spotted a tree momentarily. In general, all references to having experiences within a dualistic perspective fit the definition we've been using--a period of time during which something notable has happened--and it's based upon the idea of a separate observer who has experienced something that lasted from a beginning point to an ending point in time. A realization, within a dualistic perspective, is a sudden seeing of something that has gone unseen in the past. It can either be a sudden seeing that an idea to which one was attached (believed) is false, or it can be the seeing of something brand new for the first time (a eureka event like the seeing that a structure like the benzene ring or a dna molecule), or it can be the seeing of a difference between an idea about something and what the actuality of the thing is (the thing in itself--sich an dich). Some people suddenly see how mind talk, in general, creates a cognitive meta-reality that is false in relation to what is actual. As a result, they see both what is so and what isn't so. All of these realizations inform mind, and there seems to be general agreement about this. The main disagreement that arises here concerns events that don't fit any of these situations. For people like Sekida, Tolle, Courtois, Achaan Chah, and countless others, ordinary reality suddenly disappears, and they find themselves living in a different world. When this happens, there is usually a transformation of mental processing, and the intellect does not know what has happened (mind is not informed). Sometimes a conventional sense of selfhood returns after a period of time, and sometimes it doesn't. For mind to consciously know what has happened, it has to return to some level of dualistic functionality and to some sense of separateness, and for there to be understanding ABOUT what has happened there must be considerable reflectivity and conceptualization. IOW, a CC can be thought about as either an event, or an experience, or a realization depending upon which aspect of that happening is focused upon. From the standpoint of someone suddenly thrust into a state of non-conceptual cosmic awareness, there is only the infiniteness, wholeness, and aliveness of THIS, and all perception is direct and unmediated by reflective thought. The disintegration of "ordinary" reality is instantaneous, so time is definitely not involved in that precipitating event. We can say that "the experience of oneness" is an experience only when it is considered from a dualistic perspective, but from within the state of oneness there is only NOW, and no words can adequately describe what is directly apprehended. As Jacob Boehm put it, "The Infinite can only be known (apprehended directly) by the Infinite. To see the Infinite one must cease to be finite." He also told his main disciple, "To see the Infinite, one must throw thyself into that wherein no creature dwelleth." |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 27, 2018 14:06:04 GMT -5
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. I agree. On this forum I shouldn't have used the term "realization" because it potentially could confuse one of the main issues that we discuss here. Perhaps I should have referred to what happened as "a eureka moment" because those events are fairly common, and are not transcendental/existential. I'm glad that discussion occurred, however, because it revealed several interesting aspects regarding what happened. After I told my daughter about Sifting's post, she couldn't believe it. It took her two days of looking at the numbers and contemplating the issue to finally get it. We've been laughing ever since about the fact that a misunderstanding triggered a complete change in financial behavior that was massively beneficial. It also revealed the risk involved in my original approach, which is the reason why financial gurus like Dave Ramsey would be opposed to it. The actual eureka moment involved seeing how detrimental debt can be, and it led to the development of a quick way of seeing one's entire financial situation at a single glance, as well as a way of seeing how that situation is changing over time (whether things are getting better, financially, or worse, and by how much). Serendipity used to be my favorite word. I even lived on West Serendipity for a while in Colorado Springs, Co. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 27, 2018 18:29:58 GMT -5
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? It's just a story. Wu Wei Wu wrote a book about the story called The Tenth Man. Ten men cross a river. One man decided he should count to make sure nobody was lost in the current. He counted out pointing to one man each as he counted. He came up with only nine men. So then they each counted, in case someone made a mistake. Every man came up with only nine. .....¡ ¿ (There's actually something very significant buried in the story). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 27, 2018 19:03:22 GMT -5
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. I don't keep creating new categories of truth. I'm using the term 'transcendent truth' as a potentially more clear term than Truth. That one attempt is what lead to accusations of rabbit holes and excessive complexity and goal post changes so numerous you can't keep up. Get a grip, people! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 27, 2018 19:17:32 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. The "false self" is on a Kobayashi Maru mission. It can start the journey but never end the journey. If it doesn't end during life it ends at death. It cannot "win". (For the uninitiated, a Star Trek reference). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 28, 2018 5:17:19 GMT -5
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. The "false self" is on a Kobayashi Maru mission. It can start the journey but never end the journey. If it doesn't end during life it ends at death. It cannot "win". (For the uninitiated, a Star Trek reference). SDP: I understand what you're suggesting here, but to be perfectly accurate the "false self" never even starts the journey because the false self and the journey are both imaginary. THIS, in the form of a human who imagines itself as separate, thinks that it's a person on a journey, and thinks that it's making progress, but that's the illusion. In the form of some humans THIS eventually discovers that THIS is all there is, and that the "false self" was imagined. It discovers that the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is why people who wake up always laugh. They realize that what they ARE got fooled into a cosmic case of mistaken identity. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2018 6:57:12 GMT -5
The "false self" is on a Kobayashi Maru mission. It can start the journey but never end the journey. If it doesn't end during life it ends at death. It cannot "win". (For the uninitiated, a Star Trek reference). SDP: I understand what you're suggesting here, but to be perfectly accurate the "false self" never even starts the journey because the false self and the journey are both imaginary. THIS, in the form of a human who imagines itself as separate, thinks that it's a person on a journey, and thinks that it's making progress, but that's the illusion. In the form of some humans THIS eventually discovers that THIS is all there is, and that the "false self" was imagined. It discovers that the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is why people who wake up always laugh. They realize that what they ARE got fooled into a cosmic case of mistaken identity. I'm still not sure you understand my view, as I keep giving it and then you reply giving your view. So I tried to think of another way to give it. I'm sure you know the basic story of the Ugly Duckling, a swan gets raised by ducks. The swan is "conditioned" in a very real sense to think/believe/act/and consider itself a duck, albeit an ugly duck. Now, you always maintain that the-swan-thinking-It-is-a-duck comes from the-whole-cosmos. I maintain the swan-error comes from *local* effects, namely, being raised in a duck family. Furthermore, you seem to maintain that it's OK/acceptable for the swan to keep *acting* like a duck as long as the now-knows-it's-a-swan knows the duck-acting is imaginary. Whereas I maintain that no, the now-knows-it's-a-swan, in a real sense, must ~escape~/remove its conditioning as a duck, and now-live as a swan should live. IOW, it's not enough to Realize one's "duckness" Is imaginary. And it is absolutely not a matter of being reconditioned to-be a swan. Once the duck-conditioning is removed, being a swan is perfectly natural. But the conditioning doesn't just go away upon the Realization one is actually a swan. That's what "alignment" is (for). sdp also maintains that as long as the conditioning is functional (the swan is still acting as if it is a duck) the Whole cosmos is not operating through the body-organism, it is acting through the conditioning (that is the conditioning filters and colors what enters). But yes, I know all this is at odds with your paradigm (and yes I know you don't consider that you have a paradigm, that you consider it the case you are ~operating from~ just THIS/What Is). |
|
