|
Post by laughter on Aug 9, 2013 17:28:25 GMT -5
(From chapter 88 of "I AM THAT", "Knowledge by the Mind Is Not True Knowledge") seeker: Your working theory seems to be that the waking state is not basically different from dreaming and the dreamless sleep. The three states are essentially a case of mistaken self-identification with the body. Maybe it is true but I feel, it is not the whole truth. Niz: Do not try to know the truth, for knowledge by the mind is not true knowledge. But you can know what is not true, which is enough to liberate you from the false. The idea that you know what is true is dangerous, for it keeps you imprisoned in the mind. It is when you do not know that you are free to investigate. And there can be no salvation without investigation because non-investigation is the main cause of bondage. So what’s Niz saying here? Maybe he’s saying that if you’re not investigating, that if you consider the seeking to be done, that you are causing your own bondage? Nah – done/open is a false dichotomy as the end of the seeking doesn’t imply the end of investigation. There is, however, a difference between compulsive seeking and effortless discovery. So, now, is what I’m saying that there is a “before” and an “after”? … wow, it sure seems like there is a difference in the qualities of experience between the compulsion to seek on one hand and what can only be described as effortlessness on the other. This does have a resolution that can be expressed and the key to that resolution is to understand that the investigation that Niz is referring to is self-inqury. Upon realizing what (/non-what ) not-two points toward, it becomes pretty clear that there is nothing … no act, no question, no answer no inactivity … nothing that is not self-inquiry. In simply being we are investigating. Investigation is the case, whether it be by seeking or effortless discovery. The investigation is hindered though, by taking an idea for the truth and resting on it. That what Niz means by knowledge isn’t an idea is pretty easy to grasp in and of itself but where it gets more subtle and tricky is that by knowledge, he’s really referring to any movement of mind, rational thinking mind or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 17, 2013 8:40:39 GMT -5
(From Chapter 88 of "I AM THAT", "Knowledge by the Mind is not True Knowledge") Q: I have found that realized people usually describe their state in terms borrowed from their religion. You happen to be a Hindu, so you talk of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva and use Hindu approaches and imagery. Kindly tell us -- what is the experience behind your words? What reality do they refer to? Niz: It is my way of talking, a language I was taught to use. Q: But what is behind the language? Niz: How can I put it into words, except in negating them? Therefore, I use words like 'timeless', 'spaceless', 'causeless'. These too are words, but as they are empty of meaning, they suit my purpose. Q: If they are meaningless, why use them? Niz: Because you want words where no words apply. Q: I can see your point. Again, you have robbed me of my question!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2013 21:50:25 GMT -5
This gets back to a key point that was buried in the debate with Andy. Niz sort of centers his discussions on "I am" and looks in two directions from this center. In one direction, it's the sense of being that emerges as the attachments to it are recognized. In the other direction it's the anchor that attachments get hooked onto. Never really considered Niz looking in any particular direction, himself, but have the impression that his instruction was always to look inward at the 'sense I am'. That one exists, after all 'is the only thing one can know'. Yes, this is what happens when one focuses on the outer. But Niz never said the 'sense I am' is the 'ground sense of being'. As you point out above, it's more for the purposes of knowing what one is not (as you discuss below). For me, it's a sort of starting point, eventually to be transcended, as it remains the 'core delusion'. Because it's the 'only thing one can know', i.e., it's the point from which one can understand what one doesn't know. I don't remember reading this. Could you provide a quote? Agreed. Which is why I'm okay with E (or anyone else) defining ego as he does, though I still the attempt to define ego at all as TMT, and usually avoid discussions on it for that reason. ========= Never really considered Niz looking in any particular direction, himself, but have the impression that his instruction was always to look inward at the 'sense I am'. That one exists, after all 'is the only thing one can know'. Yes, I agree that's his instruction, and his primary point is that "I am", your sense of being, is the one thing that you can know: Niz: Go back to that state of pure being where the 'I am' is still in its purity, before it became contaminated with 'this I am' or 'that I am.' Niz: Hold on to the sense "I am" to the exclusion of everything else. When thus the mind becomes completely silent, it shines with a new light and vibrates with new knowledge. It all comes spontaneously - you need only hold on to the "I am". This best exemplifies what I meant about the idea of Niz taking two different perspectives (inner and outer) on the "I am": (From Chapter 78 of "I AM THAT", "All Knowledge is Ignorance")Q: Is the sense 'I am' real or unreal? Niz: Both. It is unreal when we say, 'I am this, I am that.' It is real when we mean, 'I am not this, nor that.' The knower comes and goes with the known and is transient; but that which knows that it does not know, which is free of memory and anticipation, is timeless. Now with respect to the discussion about ego: I'm okay with E (or anyone else) defining ego as he does, though I still the attempt to define ego at all as TMT, and usually avoid discussions on it for that reason. Yeah, sorting out definitions is what it is, but in this instance I wanted to get at the root of the disagreement -- not to make you wrong but just to try to help facilitate mutual understanding. You'd said: Well, yeah. Can't say it without 'I', now can ya? My take on what Niz means by "I am" is different, in that, even in the instance of an "I am" that is false (obscured) due to attachment to it, that falseness is simply a matter of perspective. (laffy speaking to E'): I favor your interpretation of ego as being the agency of misidentification rather than the simple sense of our existence, but in starting from the first principle of initial separation, Niz did on occasion speak of this sense of being with the same negative connotations of this agency. I don't remember reading this. Could you provide a quote? Well one quote that would apply directly would be the one about "I am" as the core delusion that Andy put up (not from "I AM THAT"). Everything that I've read him saying on this though, is always in the context of that outward-looking perspective. Two examples: Niz: The present "I am" is as false as the "I was" and "I shall be". It is merely an idea in the mind, an impression left by memory, and the separate identity it creates is false. This habit of referring to a false center must be done away with; the notion "I see", I feel", "I think", "I do", must disappear from the field of consciousness; what remains when the false is no more is real. (2nd paragraph of Chapter 62 of "I AM THAT", "In the Supreme, the Witness Appears") Niz: It is because the "I am " is false that it wants to continue. Reality does not need to continue -- knowing itself to be indestructible, it is indifferent to the destruction of forms and expressions. To strengthen and stabilize the "I am" we do all sorts of things -- all in vain, for the "I am" is being rebuilt from moment to moment. It is unceasing work and the only radical solution is to dissolve the separative sense of "I am such-and-such person" once and for all. Being remains, but not self-being. (From Chapter 63 of "I AM THAT", "The Notion of Doership Is Bondage") There again, if you look at the context of the chapter in entirety, this is based on who he's speaking with. My take is that ego needs the "I-thought", that without the sense of being, without the "I am", there's nothing for ego to attach to, but that this is a one way street, and that resting in the silence of the pure being of "I am" doesn't involve ego. ====== For me, it's a sort of starting point, eventually to be transcended, as it remains the 'core delusion'. Here are a couple relevant to that: seeker: How do you come to know a state of pure being which is neither conscious or unconscious? All knowledge is in consciousness only. There may be such a state as the abeyance of the mind. Does consciousness then appear as the witness? Niz: The witness only registers events. In the abeyance of mind, even the sense "I am" dissolves. There is no "I am" without the mind. from Chapter 37 of "I AM THAT" (From Chapter 65 of "I AM THAT", "A Quiet Mind is All You Need") seeker: However deeply I look, I find only the mind. Your words, "beyond the mind", give me no clue. Niz: While looking with the mind, you cannot go beyond it. To go beyond, you must look away from the mind and its contents. seeker: In what direction am I to look? Niz: All directions are within the mind! I am not asking you to look in any particular direction. Just look away from all that happens in your mind and bring it to the feeling "I am". The "I am" is not a direction. It is the negation of all direction. Ultimately, even the "I am" will have to go, for you need not keep on asserting what is obvious. Bringing the mind to the feeling "I am" merely helps in turning the mind away from everything else. Here we run into some simple and honest differences of perspective and ontology with the 3M's. Reefs has expressed his opinion on Niz's vocabulary, Silence has repeatedly said that there's nothing beyond mind, and E's focus is relentlessly on WIBGO which tends to steer him away from any ineffable woo-wooiness. Nothin' right or wrong about that it's just helpful to know where peeps are comin' from.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 25, 2013 22:05:36 GMT -5
Hey for our Nis lovers. Not sure if you know this but so much of Nis material is freely given for download by his direct disciple Stephen Wolinsky linkA valuable recourse for his teaching Nowhereman
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2013 1:40:19 GMT -5
Never really considered Niz looking in any particular direction, himself, but have the impression that his instruction was always to look inward at the 'sense I am'. That one exists, after all 'is the only thing one can know'. Yes, this is what happens when one focuses on the outer. But Niz never said the 'sense I am' is the 'ground sense of being'. As you point out above, it's more for the purposes of knowing what one is not (as you discuss below). For me, it's a sort of starting point, eventually to be transcended, as it remains the 'core delusion'. Because it's the 'only thing one can know', i.e., it's the point from which one can understand what one doesn't know. I don't remember reading this. Could you provide a quote? Agreed. Which is why I'm okay with E (or anyone else) defining ego as he does, though I still the attempt to define ego at all as TMT, and usually avoid discussions on it for that reason. ========= Never really considered Niz looking in any particular direction, himself, but have the impression that his instruction was always to look inward at the 'sense I am'. That one exists, after all 'is the only thing one can know'. Yes, I agree that's his instruction, and his primary point is that "I am", your sense of being, is the one thing that you can know: Niz: Go back to that state of pure being where the 'I am' is still in its purity, before it became contaminated with 'this I am' or 'that I am.' Niz: Hold on to the sense "I am" to the exclusion of everything else. When thus the mind becomes completely silent, it shines with a new light and vibrates with new knowledge. It all comes spontaneously - you need only hold on to the "I am". This best exemplifies what I meant about the idea of Niz taking two different perspectives (inner and outer) on the "I am": (From Chapter 78 of "I AM THAT", "All Knowledge is Ignorance")Q: Is the sense 'I am' real or unreal? Niz: Both. It is unreal when we say, 'I am this, I am that.' It is real when we mean, 'I am not this, nor that.' The knower comes and goes with the known and is transient; but that which knows that it does not know, which is free of memory and anticipation, is timeless. Now with respect to the discussion about ego: I'm okay with E (or anyone else) defining ego as he does, though I still the attempt to define ego at all as TMT, and usually avoid discussions on it for that reason. Yeah, sorting out definitions is what it is, but in this instance I wanted to get at the root of the disagreement -- not to make you wrong but just to try to help facilitate mutual understanding. You'd said: Well, yeah. Can't say it without 'I', now can ya? My take on what Niz means by "I am" is different, in that, even in the instance of an "I am" that is false (obscured) due to attachment to it, that falseness is simply a matter of perspective. I don't remember reading this. Could you provide a quote? Well one quote that would apply directly would be the one about "I am" as the core delusion that Andy put up (not from "I AM THAT"). Everything that I've read him saying on this though, is always in the context of that outward-looking perspective. Two examples: Niz: The present "I am" is as false as the "I was" and "I shall be". It is merely an idea in the mind, an impression left by memory, and the separate identity it creates is false. This habit of referring to a false center must be done away with; the notion "I see", I feel", "I think", "I do", must disappear from the field of consciousness; what remains when the false is no more is real. (2nd paragraph of Chapter 62 of "I AM THAT", "In the Supreme, the Witness Appears") Niz: It is because the "I am " is false that it wants to continue. Reality does not need to continue -- knowing itself to be indestructible, it is indifferent to the destruction of forms and expressions. To strengthen and stabilize the "I am" we do all sorts of things -- all in vain, for the "I am" is being rebuilt from moment to moment. It is unceasing work and the only radical solution is to dissolve the separative sense of "I am such-and-such person" once and for all. Being remains, but not self-being. (From Chapter 63 of "I AM THAT", "The Notion of Doership Is Bondage") There again, if you look at the context of the chapter in entirety, this is based on who he's speaking with. My take is that ego needs the "I-thought", that without the sense of being, without the "I am", there's nothing for ego to attach to, but that this is a one way street, and that resting in the silence of the pure being of "I am" doesn't involve ego. ====== For me, it's a sort of starting point, eventually to be transcended, as it remains the 'core delusion'. Here are a couple relevant to that: seeker: How do you come to know a state of pure being which is neither conscious or unconscious? All knowledge is in consciousness only. There may be such a state as the abeyance of the mind. Does consciousness then appear as the witness? Niz: The witness only registers events. In the abeyance of mind, even the sense "I am" dissolves. There is no "I am" without the mind. from Chapter 37 of "I AM THAT" (From Chapter 65 of "I AM THAT", "A Quiet Mind is All You Need") seeker: However deeply I look, I find only the mind. Your words, "beyond the mind", give me no clue. Niz: While looking with the mind, you cannot go beyond it. To go beyond, you must look away from the mind and its contents. seeker: In what direction am I to look? Niz: All directions are within the mind! I am not asking you to look in any particular direction. Just look away from all that happens in your mind and bring it to the feeling "I am". The "I am" is not a direction. It is the negation of all direction. Ultimately, even the "I am" will have to go, for you need not keep on asserting what is obvious. Bringing the mind to the feeling "I am" merely helps in turning the mind away from everything else. Here we run into some simple and honest differences of perspective and ontology with the 3M's. Reefs has expressed his opinion on Niz's vocabulary, Silence has repeatedly said that there's nothing beyond mind, and E's focus is relentlessly on WIBGO which tends to steer him away from any ineffable woo-wooiness. Nothin' right or wrong about that it's just helpful to know where peeps are comin' from. Niz just tells folks to retrace their steps.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 26, 2013 9:12:48 GMT -5
========= Yes, I agree that's his instruction, and his primary point is that "I am", your sense of being, is the one thing that you can know: This best exemplifies what I meant about the idea of Niz taking two different perspectives (inner and outer) on the "I am": Now with respect to the discussion about ego: Yeah, sorting out definitions is what it is, but in this instance I wanted to get at the root of the disagreement -- not to make you wrong but just to try to help facilitate mutual understanding. You'd said: My take on what Niz means by "I am" is different, in that, even in the instance of an "I am" that is false (obscured) due to attachment to it, that falseness is simply a matter of perspective. Well one quote that would apply directly would be the one about "I am" as the core delusion that Andy put up (not from "I AM THAT"). Everything that I've read him saying on this though, is always in the context of that outward-looking perspective. Two examples: There again, if you look at the context of the chapter in entirety, this is based on who he's speaking with. My take is that ego needs the "I-thought", that without the sense of being, without the "I am", there's nothing for ego to attach to, but that this is a one way street, and that resting in the silence of the pure being of "I am" doesn't involve ego. ====== Here are a couple relevant to that: Here we run into some simple and honest differences of perspective and ontology with the 3M's. Reefs has expressed his opinion on Niz's vocabulary, Silence has repeatedly said that there's nothing beyond mind, and E's focus is relentlessly on WIBGO which tends to steer him away from any ineffable woo-wooiness. Nothin' right or wrong about that it's just helpful to know where peeps are comin' from. Niz just tells folks to retrace their steps. Indeed. The term, 'repent' is used in Christian circles. Same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 26, 2013 9:21:58 GMT -5
Niz just tells folks to retrace their steps. Indeed. The term, 'repent' is used in Christian circles. Same thing. Do you go with the Webster meanings?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2013 9:36:22 GMT -5
========= Yes, I agree that's his instruction, and his primary point is that "I am", your sense of being, is the one thing that you can know: This best exemplifies what I meant about the idea of Niz taking two different perspectives (inner and outer) on the "I am": Now with respect to the discussion about ego: Yeah, sorting out definitions is what it is, but in this instance I wanted to get at the root of the disagreement -- not to make you wrong but just to try to help facilitate mutual understanding. You'd said: My take on what Niz means by "I am" is different, in that, even in the instance of an "I am" that is false (obscured) due to attachment to it, that falseness is simply a matter of perspective. Well one quote that would apply directly would be the one about "I am" as the core delusion that Andy put up (not from "I AM THAT"). Everything that I've read him saying on this though, is always in the context of that outward-looking perspective. Two examples: There again, if you look at the context of the chapter in entirety, this is based on who he's speaking with. My take is that ego needs the "I-thought", that without the sense of being, without the "I am", there's nothing for ego to attach to, but that this is a one way street, and that resting in the silence of the pure being of "I am" doesn't involve ego. ====== Here are a couple relevant to that: Here we run into some simple and honest differences of perspective and ontology with the 3M's. Reefs has expressed his opinion on Niz's vocabulary, Silence has repeatedly said that there's nothing beyond mind, and E's focus is relentlessly on WIBGO which tends to steer him away from any ineffable woo-wooiness. Nothin' right or wrong about that it's just helpful to know where peeps are comin' from. Niz just tells folks to retrace their steps. Yes, good summary ... that's pretty much about it!
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 26, 2013 15:29:11 GMT -5
Indeed. The term, 'repent' is used in Christian circles. Same thing. Do you go with the Webster meanings? Naw. This is one of those terms that doesn't have a classical Latin root, but the b: above comes close to my definition, which is basically 'to turn around and go back whence you came' (which is what 'retrace your steps' brought to mind). It's the Christian thing to throw in the guilt trip.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2013 18:11:22 GMT -5
Do you go with the Webster meanings? Naw. This is one of those terms that doesn't have a classical Latin root, but the b: above comes close to my definition, which is basically 'to turn around and go back whence you came' (which is what 'retrace your steps' brought to mind). It's the Christian thing to throw in the guilt trip. Quite a bit of cultural baggage with this word ... can't see how it can mean anything other than a swap rather than a drop.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 28, 2013 21:14:36 GMT -5
Naw. This is one of those terms that doesn't have a classical Latin root, but the b: above comes close to my definition, which is basically 'to turn around and go back whence you came' (which is what 'retrace your steps' brought to mind). It's the Christian thing to throw in the guilt trip. Quite a bit of cultural baggage with this word ... can't see how it can mean anything other than a swap rather than a drop.Quite so.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 28, 2013 21:21:44 GMT -5
Quite a bit of cultural baggage with this word ... can't see how it can mean anything other than a swap rather than a drop.Quite so. No idea what that even means.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 28, 2013 21:34:27 GMT -5
No idea what that even means. It means I agree with the bolded part. And the bolded part means that the way the word 'repent' is used seems to indicate belief swap instead of dropping beliefs. Tracing back your steps means dropping beliefs, not turning around and fixing something that is broken (as the word you used seems to indicate).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2013 21:37:28 GMT -5
No idea what that even means. It means I agree with the bolded part. And the bolded part means that the way the word 'repent' is used seems to indicate belief swap instead of dropping beliefs. Tracing back your steps means dropping beliefs, not turning around and fixing something that is broken (as the word you used seems to indicate). yup
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 28, 2013 21:44:14 GMT -5
No idea what that even means. It means I agree with the bolded part. And the bolded part means that the way the word 'repent' is used seems to indicate belief swap instead of dropping beliefs. Tracing back your steps means dropping beliefs, not turning around and fixing something that is broken (as the word you used seems to indicate). Well, good thing you used the word, 'seem'. I don't see how turning around and going the other way means fixing anything.
|
|