Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pm
Just do not engage in reification.
It is not unreify per se but rather one has to change one's neural connection to avoid trigger reification.
I don't agree with that, because that's implying there is a you that can avoid you.
How can you disagree with something you do not understand yet?
Your postings indicate you are reifying.
For example,
-say initially you are afraid of spiders.
-then after some review you claimed you are no longer afraid of spiders.
-when a spider is presented you may not jump and shrieked like the past, but your body language show that you are still afraid of spiders, i.e. not fully cured of Arachnophobia [fears of spider].
In this case, your postings indicate you are still reifying something out of nothing.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:03 amIt is like having a certain phobia [say spiders] and doing the necessary to change the relevant neural connections so that one do not have the phobia of spiders at all.
This is synonymous to the rope and snake idea. Knowing the snake is just the rope.
It is quite different.
In the case of a rope and snake, we can use a torchlight to shine on the rope or get the person to go near and pick up the rope to confirm it is not a snake.
Generally, [with exceptions] to cure a phobia will take months of education and reconditions to rewire the neurons necessary to cure the phobia.
However note to reverse the propensity to reify in the case of theism is much more complex and can take a very long time.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pmCatch 22 is dualism.
As I had mentioned I was into Advaita Vedanta [Jnana] for a long time and obviously I am aware of the concept of neti neti i.e. 'not this, not this' 'not this, not that'.
But somehow there is the very strong tendency of the idea of Brahman to draw the followers toward reification as I have pointed out in your posts.
Brahman is just another word for source.
Source cannot be removed or negated, as that would be source negating itself. Source can never be unsourced.
That is the point, you are stuck to the idea of something, in this case,
the source.
It is to be something rather than nothing.
It can be very eerie and scary to stand on nothing.
That is why you are compelled to reify something theistic.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pmThe purpose of the exercise is to negate rationalizations and other distractions
from the non-conceptual meditative awareness of reality.
The above still imply reification of Brahman as something which is not from the conventional conceptualization.
I don't agree. You're assuming there is a something that can approach the stateless state of nondual awareness. It doesn't work like that. You cannot approach what you are. You are already being what you are. There is no room to approach it...or move away from it.
This is the issue.
In the ultimate analysis, you are always referring to something, i.e. clinging to something.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pmPoint is, Advaita Vedanta avoids/negates conceptualization but missed to negate idealization [note my repetition of philosophical ideas in contrast to concepts].
I've no idea what you mean by avoids/negates ''idealization'' ?
Idealization is some refined process in the mind that compels a person to reify.
Note Kant [mine];
Kant in CPR wrote:They [idealization of reifications] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397 -NKS
Note, even the wisest will be tempted by the reified illusion.
The idealization spring from some refine processes of reasoning in the brain;
Kant wrote:These conclusions [reifications] are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
B397 - NKS
Instead of simply brushing it off, you should make an attempt to understand [not necessary agree with] what it is all about.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:21 pmYou just do not have the philosophical mesh to filter out what philosophical-ideas are.
Idealization is a very refine philosophical aspect of reasoning.
This is where the Buddha detected the difference and introduced his non-reificating Buddhism.
I have no idea what you mean by this statement, sorry.
If you want to understand [not necessary to agree with], you will have to read up Kant and Buddhism-proper.