Non-conceptually, what is?

[Relinquish]

This question, if used correctly, is a way to DIRECTLY experience Reality Itself.

To use it correctly is to ask it without wanting to arrive at an answer of any kind.

Non-conceptually, what is?

Just look....

The following is a conceptual translation of what I experience when I use this question in the way it is intended to be used;

In truth, ALL 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') can be justifiably regarded as 'impermanent discernable features' of Reality Itself.

Naturally, the totality of these impermanent discernable features spend their entire existence within the boundaries of one of Reality's two 'permanent discernable features'; the 'Everything' (which, as a whole, can be described as an 'ever-changing coherent asymmetry').

The so-called 'space' that apparently encompasses the 'Everything' is Reality's other permanent discernable feature; the 'Nothing' (which is itself absolutely changeless, structureless and un-encompassed).

If the 'ceaseless change' that is the 'Everything' had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Logically, such a situation is an absolute impossibility.

Therefore (given the fact that the 'Everything' DID evidently have a beginning), this ceaseless change MUST be eternally cyclic.

If the discernable features of Reality Itself (both permanent and impermanent) COULD have been different, they WOULD have been different.

Because there is no way to know why they COULDN'T have been different, there is no way to know why they are as they are.

Likewise, the actual reason WHY Reality Itself has any discernable features at all (some of which apparently have the capacity to 'experience' themselves and their surroundings) is absolutely unknowable.

Evidently, some of the 'conscious' impermanent discernible features are of such an extreme level of physical complexity that they have the natural capacity to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings.

This hypnosis makes it SEEM to these extremely complex 'conscious features' (or in other words, 'intelligent body/mind life-forms') that each of the impermanent discernable features (including themselves) are in fact 'solely self-inclusive' (which is to say, that they are all fundamentally existing different 'things' and 'events' that each have their own separate, independent nature), and that they themselves each have their own personal consciousness and are the autonomous originators of their own particular movements.

As such, the 'hypnotized conscious features' perceive Reality to be a vast, confusingly fragmented and threatening situation, and so perceive themselves to be isolated and vulnerable individuals. This is the illusion of multiplicity, seperateness and duality. The hypnosis it arises from is the fundamental basis of ALL suffering.

Sometimes, this hypnosis is unexplainably woken up from. This waking up is the very REALIZATION that ALL so-called 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are NEVER anything other than impermanent discernable features of Reality Itself. When this happens, the illusion that one has ever been (or will ever be) an independently existing individual naturally dissolves, as do the feelings of isolation and vulnerability that are inherently associated with this illusion.

It's simply seen that, in truth, there is ONLY EVER the Absolute Mystery that is 'Reality-being-Itself'....

But don't just take my word for it. Ask the question for yourself;

Non-conceptually, what is?

Perhaps YOU might like to share here with us a conceptual translation of what you experience with the use of this question.

☺

[AlexW]

You always experience reality directly, there is no other way to experience (you might think you don't experience reality when "living" in your conceptual interpretations, but the experience itself is always real).

Just look....

Yes! I agree! Just look! Just hear, just feel, just taste, just think... but don't expect any absolute truth from conceptual thought.

Whatever follows "Just look..." is a nice, conceptual description, but it has nothing to do with "reality" - it is again only an interpretation.
When asking "Non-conceptually, what is?" you can't really expect an answer as all answers are conceptual interpretations of "what is".
Even the answer *this* is already a concept that will evoke a range of different interpretations.

This question, if used correctly, is a way to DIRECTLY experience Reality Itself.

To use it correctly is to ask it without wanting to arrive at an answer of any kind.

No, I don't agree. There is no question that, if used correctly, will magically guide you to experience reality.
It will only change your interpretation - the change is restricted to the conceptual map that is being applied, but it will never make you experience reality. How could it? All that you ever experience already IS reality - if you are already there, does it make any sense trying to get there?

[RCSaunders]

Non-conceptually, what is?

"What," and, "is," are concepts. There is no such thing as a non-conceptual question.

Your premise is not only self-contradictory, it's a wonderful example of an oxymoron.

Randy

[-1-]

Our language is symbolic. All human lingual expressions are expressions of concepts. In all and any language. Ergo, what we express, are concepts. The reality-to-concept transformation occurs before or maybe during, the process of acquiring knowledge.

There are non-concepts, but the human mind deals only with concepts, and I can't prove this.

To NAME non-concepts is, therefore, impossible, although they, non-concepts, exist. It's impossible to name them, coz we use language to name them, and language can only express concepts.

Nice question actually. Thanks for asking.

[TimeSeeker]

Our language is symbolic. All human lingual expressions are expressions of concepts. In all and any language. Ergo, what we express, are concepts. The reality-to-concept transformation occurs before or maybe during, the process of acquiring knowledge.

There are non-concepts, but the human mind deals only with concepts, and I can't prove this.

To NAME non-concepts is, therefore, impossible, although they, non-concepts, exist. It's impossible to name them, coz we use language to name them, and language can only express concepts.

Nice question actually. Thanks for asking.

This is not true. Language can also express desires. You could say desires are concepts too, but the line gets blurred when they have prescriptive, rather than descriptive effect on reality.

Programming langauges are grounded. Using natural language processing you can convert a desire into something non-conceptual.

“Alexa, please buy some toothpaste.”

‘Buying’ and ‘toothpaste’ are concepts. The thing that arrives with DHL in a few hours is not a concept.

[AlexW]

To NAME non-concepts is, therefore, impossible, although they, non-concepts, exist

I agree with your post.
I would even go one step further and say that ONLY non-concepts truly exist. They are reality.
All concepts are imaginary and ultimately not real - they are only real within a conceptually agreed framework - e.g. language / meaning - this also includes so called "desires" as well as the "effects" the satisfaction of a desire might bring along.

[-1-]

To NAME non-concepts is, therefore, impossible, although they, non-concepts, exist

I agree with your post.
I would even go one step further and say that ONLY non-concepts truly exist. They are reality.
All concepts are imaginary and ultimately not real - they are only real within a conceptually agreed framework - e.g. language / meaning - this also includes so called "desires" as well as the "effects" the satisfaction of a desire might bring along.

I wish not to create a mutual admiration society, but I agree with your post. Insofar as "real" involves only tangible, physically existing palpable things. But in my conceptual world thoughts are also real, although not physical or tangible. This is a tough issue, and potentially very interesting, but it, i.e. how real thoughts actually are, had better be discussed in a forum of professional philosophers... and for me, of those only who can come down to my level of talk, i.e. expressing ideas without using technical terms.

[AlexW]

how real thoughts actually are, had better be discussed in a forum of professional philosophers... and for me, of those only who can come down to my level of talk, i.e. expressing ideas without using technical terms.

I don't think you require "technical terms" to discuss the reality of thoughts - its not that complicated - you don't need a PhD to understand your own existence (if this were so it would be very sad indeed ).

in my conceptual world thoughts are also real, although not physical or tangible

Yes, sure, thoughts are real - they arise and vanish, doesn't matter if you classify them as "physical or tangible" - these are again just concepts, but the thought itself (NOT its conceptual content) is real, just like a sound is real or the sensation that arises when you pinch your arm is real (by the way: I would define reality as *this* that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it - see P.K. Dick )
Once you award the sound or sensation certain properties, when you add meaning and mentally replace pure sensations with concepts then you have left reality and have entered the world of conditioned imagination/illusion... not that this conceptual world is bad or to be avoided, its obviously pretty handy, but it's not real.

[Dontaskme]

It's simply seen that, in truth, there is ONLY EVER the Absolute Mystery that is 'Reality-being-Itself'....

But don't just take my word for it. Ask the question for yourself;

Non-conceptually, what is?

Perhaps YOU might like to share here with us a conceptual translation of what you experience with the use of this question.

☺

Great post.



Non-conceptually, what is? ....Is this immediate IS-ness in which the question ''Non-conceptually, what is? '' never arises.

.

[trokanmariel]

what is = is after what

is after what = not is after

not is after = after is

after is = is after time

is after time = announcement of identity after time

announcement of identity after time = not of identity after time

not of identity after time = to identity after time

to identity after time = to identify after time

to identify after time = identify before time

identify before time = identify time time

identify time time = expose time time

[vegetariantaxidermy]

what is = is after what

is after what = not is after

not is after = after is

after is = is after time

is after time = announcement of identity after time

announcement of identity after time = not of identity after time

not of identity after time = to identity after time

to identity after time = to identify after time

to identify after time = identify before time

identify before time = identify time time

identify time time = expose time time

I love this.

[TimeSeeker]

what is = is after what

is after what = not is after

not is after = after is

after is = is after time

is after time = announcement of identity after time

announcement of identity after time = not of identity after time

not of identity after time = to identity after time

to identity after time = to identify after time

to identify after time = identify before time

identify before time = identify time time

identify time time = expose time time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)