the peace of realization

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
otiosedodge
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
Location: Italy

the peace of realization

Post by otiosedodge »

Hi everyone,

I'm having trouble getting my head around the nature of the peace of ultimate realization. It's now clear to me that all things are illusory, and that to attach one's self to things (including the self) is the source of all suffering. But I get hung up on the idea that peace results from this realization, because isn't peace just another thing?

Like a good boy, I went and looked up peace in the dictionary. At least one definition defined it as the absence of conflict. Is this the key? Is it the fact that peace is not something, but merely the absence of other things?

OD
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: the peace of realization

Post by Tomas »

.

-otiosedodge-
I'm having trouble getting my head around the nature of the peace of ultimate realization.

-tomas-
Well, like, who isn't? Wake up in the morning and it's a new day, in many ways like some that have passed before. Not like it is from on other days but just that I wash the hair, take a leak/dump, take with the girlfriend and kiss the daughter every morning. Make breakfast for us and out (we) go to face the uncertainties of the world-at-large.


-otiosedodge-
It's now clear to me that all things are illusory, and that to attach one's self to things (including the self) is the source of all suffering.

-tomas-
It's one of the fears of going to bed for that infers that one will slumber silently and wake up in the middle of the night and having to do the chore of lifting the seat and urinating into a round water container (flush or save the water till morning?) and remembering to go back directly to bed and count the sheep so the cocktail conversation doesn't win the upper hand.


-otiosedodge-
But I get hung up on the idea that peace results from this realization, because isn't peace just another thing?

-tomas-
Calm down, Sonny Boy. Pace yourself!

No. One of the hazards that single folk have is that they will die alone. They may not be discovered for days, (perhaps weeks if they pay their utilities & rent/mortgage on a regular basis) however if one only slips and falls but can't get up because of a broken neck where paralyzation take place, then you will quickly realize an "inner peace" will envelop (come) over you and all will be well :-)


-otiosedodge-
Like a good boy, I went and looked up peace in the dictionary.

-tomas-
Hey, every good boy deserves favour ;-) Moody Blues..


-otiosedodge-
At least one definition defined it as the absence of conflict. Is this the key?

-tomas-
Find a girl who is willing to accept your spirit and then move on.


-otiosedodge-
Is it the fact that peace is not something, but merely the absence of other things?

-tomas-
My first thought is that the equivalent of peace is death. Insofar as much is expected of each of us but only a very select few attain the prize at the end of our day. More later.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: the peace of realization

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hi OD, good questions. Like love, it seems peace has many meanings as well.

Perhaps it's an idea to look into conflict since it's opposed to a peace that's caused by a lack of it. Heraclitus noted that "all things come into being through strife", or by some "conflict of opposites". This would turn the lack of conflict into a lack of things, which would be death when life is seen as a collection of things. The Buddhist would call it emptiness: when there's no thing, then there's no conflict.

So far this line of definitions would affirm your proposal of peace being the "absence of [other] things". Another question that could rise is if the absence of things would give room to positive or calm feelings, satisfaction or joy. While a whole range of feelings might occur in the long process of addressing the nature of reality and things, the answer to the question can only be answered when it's clear what a feeling really is, what kind of experience it is and what makes it stand out from other experiences to become a feeling. Do we see or feel a tree?

To understand what is meant with the peace of realization, one has to first unravel these questions. But it's pretty obvious already we're not talking about something comparable to a prolonged sensation caused by drugs, moods, mental disorder or circumstances. Perhaps one could take a stab at it by suggesting the realization equals the understanding, which equals, "perfectly aligns" with sense-awareness and experiencing at the very base. As such one captures also the base of feeling, at which lies peace as ground of all being and feeling.

It's a pretty ugly stab!
otiosedodge
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
Location: Italy

Re: the peace of realization

Post by otiosedodge »

Hi Diebert,

I've been thinking (obsessing) more about it, and I think that it does come down to the fact that peace can be defined as the 'ground of all being', as you say. Maybe peace is the only thing that really exists, and emptiness doesn't apply to it. It somehow seems inelegant to leave it there, but if that's the way it works...

I can definitely remember moments when I wasn't conceptualizing, and in retrospect, they were quite peaceful. I think that one must keep in mind that those moments are labeled in retrospect, and hence are at best approximations of what the moment actually is, but I also think that they're the best empirical indicator of what ultimate reality is.

As for your point about the nature of a feeling: maybe that's being too scientific about it. Maybe we just have to take at face value our experience of feelings, and accept that emptiness is the best tool we can use to analyze their nature (except for ultimate peace, of course).
User avatar
Anders Schlander
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
Location: Denmark

Re: the peace of realization

Post by Anders Schlander »

It's not abandoning concepts, and when you say you're not conceptualizing, you said it felt peaceful, which is conceptualizing too. Rather, it's avoiding getting hung up on any particular thing or concept. Even the concept of being at ease, or not being anxious because you recognize that all things are emptiness, is obviously just another concept, too.

everything is emptiness, including a sense of peace. Emptiness is not peace, or unpeacefulness, there is no 'key', there is no magical perception, it just is.
otiosedodge
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
Location: Italy

Re: the peace of realization

Post by otiosedodge »

Hi Anders,

I claimed that one can identify the non-conceptual state as peaceful in retrospect, not in the moment where it is actually present. There would have to be someone present to identify it, and that 'someone' would be a concept. I don't think anyone can deny, when looking back, that there is no conflict in moments when 'we' are not conceptualizing. In fact, there is no conflict by definition, and hence there is only peace.

Besides this peace, I agree that one shouldn't get hung up on any particular thing or concept, because they're all delusions.

I also agree that emptiness is not peace. I think that emptiness is a tool we use (and then ultimately discard) to realize that there is only peace.

I think your perspective is dangerously close to nihilism. You seem to avoid the nihilistic perspective only by saying that emptiness 'just is', but isn't that just another act of conceptualization?
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: the peace of realization

Post by Tomas »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Perhaps one could take a stab at it by suggesting the realization equals the understanding, which equals, "perfectly aligns" with sense-awareness and experiencing at the very base. As such one captures also the base of feeling, at which lies peace as ground of all being and feeling.
Diebert,

You win the tastiest cookie [sweetest personality award] for being the sliest dog [wisest in practical affairs] on Genius Forums...

Kudos...
<a masterly study of primitive versus industrial society ... with the ~ going to the pagan man - Betty Kirk>

<they will compel new respect and admiration far beyond the ~ civilization finds itself obliged to pay - Collier's>
Don't run to your death
otiosedodge
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:38 pm
Location: Italy

Re: the peace of realization

Post by otiosedodge »

Another question.

If we don't claim that peace will result from realization, since it's just another concept, then what is the point of realization?

Maybe I have an answer, and would love to get feedback. My answer is:

Emptiness is the true nature of reality. The only thing we can gain from realization is seeing things as they are, and truth is fundamentally better than not-truth. I don't know if there are any further implications of this, but it seems to point to realization still having a positive valence, ie, being in line with truth. Any further implications?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: the peace of realization

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

otiosedodge wrote: Emptiness is the true nature of reality. The only thing we can gain from realization is seeing things as they are, and truth is fundamentally better than not-truth. I don't know if there are any further implications of this, but it seems to point to realization still having a positive valence, ie, being in line with truth. Any further implications?
Truth begetting truth. Not as much better but just its nature.
mensa-maniac

Re: the peace of realization

Post by mensa-maniac »

otiosedodge wrote:Hi everyone,

I'm having trouble getting my head around the nature of the peace of ultimate realization. It's now clear to me that all things are illusory, and that to attach one's self to things (including the self) is the source of all suffering. But I get hung up on the idea that peace results from this realization, because isn't peace just another thing?

Like a good boy, I went and looked up peace in the dictionary. At least one definition defined it as the absence of conflict. Is this the key? Is it the fact that peace is not something, but merely the absence of other things?

OD
Mensa-maniac says: "Is it the fact that peace is not something, but merely the absence of other things"
Yes, peace is the absence of the ego. You bring peace upon yourself by accepting and knowing thyself.
Once you come to the realization of your person, you accept it, embrace it because it is yourself you're coming to know. Once you learn to accept yourself, that you cannot change what is natural about you, you will come to realize that you've learnt something about yourself.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: the peace of realization

Post by DHodges »

otiosedodge wrote:At least one definition defined it as the absence of conflict. Is this the key? Is it the fact that peace is not something, but merely the absence of other things?
Yes. There will at least be that one less thing to be conflicted about, so you can give it a rest.
If we don't claim that peace will result from realization, since it's just another concept, then what is the point of realization?
It's not "just another concept," since realization (of emptiness) gives you insight into the nature of concepts themselves. It is the most fundamental kind of insight.
Emptiness is the true nature of reality. The only thing we can gain from realization is seeing things as they are, and truth is fundamentally better than not-truth.
Yes, that's it.
Any further implications?
No.
Locked