|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 3, 2014 11:02:59 GMT -5
Every opportunity has been taken to disclaim that objectification of 'I am', and I've criticized Niz, or at least the translation of his words, for doing the same. ("the I am") Well, yeah, that's what happens when limits are put upon the Unlimited.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 11:19:08 GMT -5
You're not actually interested in what is being said by either Niz or Enigma, are you? How interested are you in the understandings that are not in agreement with the beliefs Niz describes?.. that seems to be the decline of this forum, that understandings not aligned with advaitist ideology are ostracized criticized ridiculed and mocked for not changing the understandings that there is 'no one' there to change.. the new forum visitor is told they have no volition for changing their understandings, then they are ostracized criticized ridiculed and mocked for not changing the understandings.. the power structure of this forum is intolerant of understandings not aligned with its own.. The Advaitist ideology is a stepping stone to clarity, and clarity attaches to no ideology.. clarity sees what 'is' and accepts it 'as is', without shaping it to conform to the limitations of an individualized perspective.. I love you Tzu.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 3, 2014 11:38:03 GMT -5
Every opportunity has been taken to disclaim that objectification of 'I am', and I've criticized Niz, or at least the translation of his words, for doing the same. ("the I am") Well, yeah, that's what happens when limits are put upon the Unlimited. If by "unlimited" you mean Niz, no. Niz was a man bound in thought by the limitations of his mind, and in word by the limitations of language. A person can only point haphazardly beyond personhood. You yourself were just warning about the mistake of identification with 'unlimited', and this applies to others as well. Question everything you hear and look with your own inward sight.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2014 12:05:33 GMT -5
Every opportunity has been taken to disclaim that objectification of 'I am', and I've criticized Niz, or at least the translation of his words, for doing the same. ("the I am") Well, yeah, that's what happens when limits are put upon the Unlimited. If there is a limit on it it isn't the unlimited, so that attempt is always doomed to failure from the get go.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2014 12:35:14 GMT -5
Niz: "When the meditator forgets himself totally in meditation, it is ‘vishranti’ which means complete relaxation ending in total forgetfulness. This is the blissful state, where there is no need for words, concepts or even the sense of ‘I am’. The state does not know ‘it is’ and is beyond happiness and suffering and altogether beyond words; it is called the ‘Parabrahman’ – a non-experiential state." M: That in which consciousness happens, the universal consciousness or mind, we call the ether of consciousness. All the objects of consciousness form the universe. What is beyond both, supporting both, is the supreme state, a state of utter stillness and silence. Whoever goes there, disappears. It is unreachable by words, or mind. You may call it God, or Parabrahman, or Supreme Reality, but these are names given by the mind. It is the nameless, contentless, effortless and spontaneous state, beyond being and not being.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2014 12:57:10 GMT -5
"The primary ignorance is about our ‘I amness’; we have taken it as the Ultimate, which is ignorance. We presume that this consciousness is the eternal, the Ultimate, which is the mistake." The most important word in that sentence is "about". The bottom line is that Niz pointed those attached to form toward emptiness and away from emptiness for those who weren't. When I first opened my copy of "I AM THAT" and found out it was just a collection of dialogs there was a little disappointment, but after having read them I'm very thankful for the context of the words that each provided. Q: So we are children to be fed on words? Niz: As long as you give importance to words, you are children. (start of chapter 39 of "I AM THAT", "By Itself, Nothing Has Existence") The sense of being seems to the person as inescapably personal since the body is the gateway and conduit to the here and now. Tolle, for instance spends quite a bit of "The Power Now" referencing the "inner body". I found two recurring vectors in the Niz dialogs: a) focus on "I AM", and b) beyond the body and the mind is the ineffability of what we are, and while the focus on our sense of being can open us up to that, there is nothing to do and noone to do it. One of the ideas that I found tended to often trouble peeps as expressed over on the Tolle board is the notion "I am God", and this quote I'm replying to seems to be addressed to that, as is this one. These seem to me a disclaimer of a sort and to contradict other statements. In terms of pointing, the problem comes down to the question of whether or not God is something separate and apart from us or is to be found within each and every one of us. It is the mind that makes this question.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 3, 2014 13:04:57 GMT -5
The admonishment to 'question everything', applies to everything, even to Niz and his understandings..
When 'that which is' is seen in its isness rather than as idealized or described by others, it becomes clearly apparent that the appropriate activity is to help others experience what 'is', rather than the ideas, descriptions, and preferences..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 3, 2014 14:08:26 GMT -5
Ideas, preferences and descriptions are all part of what is, and some of these point the listener/reader away from ideas, preferences and descriptions, while others, don't.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 4, 2014 8:42:19 GMT -5
Niz: "Being and non-being alternate and their reality is momentary. The immutable reality lies beyond space and time. Realize the momentariness of being and non-being and be free from both"
Existence is a sensory experience. The child one days realizes that "he is". But that sense of being came out of Nowhere. From non-beingness beingness arose. In deep sleep there is non-beingness, there is no sensory activity, no sense of existence whatsoever, yet we awaken again to the sense of being and know non-being in hindsight. Till this day, from the first appearance of I AM-ness in the child, we alternate between a sense of existence and non-existence. But to him/her who has recalled the first arising of his/her sense of existence as a child, it is also known that as the Witness of that initial arising, You are prior to it.
Niz: "What you must witness is not your thoughts but the consciousness ‘I am’. Everything is an expression of the ‘I am,’ but you are not that; you are prior to the ‘I am’."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 4, 2014 10:40:53 GMT -5
Niz: "Being and non-being alternate and their reality is momentary. The immutable reality lies beyond space and time. Realize the momentariness of being and non-being and be free from both" Existence is a sensory experience. The child one days realizes that "he is". But that sense of being came out of Nowhere. From non-beingness beingness arose. In deep sleep there is non-beingness, there is no sensory activity, no sense of existence whatsoever, yet we awaken again to the sense of being and know non-being in hindsight. Till this day, from the first appearance of I AM-ness in the child, we alternate between a sense of existence and non-existence. But to him/her who has recalled the first arising of his/her sense of existence as a child, it is also known that as the Witness of that initial arising, You are prior to it. Niz: "What you must witness is not your thoughts but the consciousness ‘I am’. Everything is an expression of the ‘I am,’ but you are not that; you are prior to the ‘I am’." I'm going to assume that what he means when he says "the I am" is "the consciousness I am" or 'the sense I am' so that I don't have to keep accusing him of objectifying 'I am'. I'm also going to assume that what he means by "being" is identification with form. Given those assumptions, I don't have a problem with what Niz said here, but I don't know how to reconcile the sense of non-existence referred to in the apparent commentary. The absence of a sense of existence is not the presence of anything. One is not alternating between existence and non-existence.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 4, 2014 11:17:54 GMT -5
I don't know how to reconcile the sense of non-existence referred to in the apparent commentary. According to Niz it can't be reconciled intellectually. What he speaks of is beyond the boundary of intellectual understanding. "The borderline of beingness and non-beingness is intellect-boggling, because the intellect subsides at that precise location." "Why is the intellect puzzled here? That beingness which you are experiencing is melting away. When the concept of ‘I am’ goes, intellect also goes." This is apparently why he is constantly telling others to meditate continuously upon the sense of I AM alone, until it gives up its secrets. "If you want to know your true nature, you must have yourself in mind all the time, until the secret of your being stands revealed."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 4, 2014 11:26:56 GMT -5
Niz: "Being and non-being alternate and their reality is momentary. The immutable reality lies beyond space and time. Realize the momentariness of being and non-being and be free from both" Existence is a sensory experience. The child one days realizes that "he is". But that sense of being came out of Nowhere. From non-beingness beingness arose. In deep sleep there is non-beingness, there is no sensory activity, no sense of existence whatsoever, yet we awaken again to the sense of being and know non-being in hindsight. Till this day, from the first appearance of I AM-ness in the child, we alternate between a sense of existence and non-existence. But to him/her who has recalled the first arising of his/her sense of existence as a child, it is also known that as the Witness of that initial arising, You are prior to it. Niz: "What you must witness is not your thoughts but the consciousness ‘I am’. Everything is an expression of the ‘I am,’ but you are not that; you are prior to the ‘I am’." I'm going to assume that what he means when he says "the I am" is "the consciousness I am" or 'the sense I am' so that I don't have to keep accusing him of objectifying 'I am'. I'm also going to assume that what he means by "being" is identification with form. Given those assumptions, I don't have a problem with what Niz said here, but I don't know how to reconcile the sense of non-existence referred to in the apparent commentary. The absence of a sense of existence is not the presence of anything. One is not alternating between existence and non-existence. Re the commentary: notice the explicit definition of existence. There's a question here that's pure hyperminding nitro -- what is outside of/beyond/other than the senses? Reasoning about the absence of sensory activity in deep sleep without an overall context of pointing is an invitation to the mind to hop onto the hamster wheel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 12:35:53 GMT -5
The admonishment to 'question everything', applies to everything, even to Niz and his understandings.. When 'that which is' is seen in its isness rather than as idealized or described by others, it becomes clearly apparent that the appropriate activity is to help others experience what 'is', rather than the ideas, descriptions, and preferences.. Do you ever question your still mind assertions? I question your still mind assertions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 4, 2014 12:43:34 GMT -5
I don't know how to reconcile the sense of non-existence referred to in the apparent commentary. According to Niz it can't be reconciled intellectually. What he speaks of is beyond the boundary of intellectual understanding. "The borderline of beingness and non-beingness is intellect-boggling, because the intellect subsides at that precise location." "Why is the intellect puzzled here? That beingness which you are experiencing is melting away. When the concept of ‘I am’ goes, intellect also goes." This is apparently why he is constantly telling others to meditate continuously upon the sense of I AM alone, until it gives up its secrets. "If you want to know your true nature, you must have yourself in mind all the time, until the secret of your being stands revealed." Okay, if the 'sense of non-existence' is self realization prior to form, then I understand, but to me it's an odd way of talking that can (and obviously does) lead to much confusion.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 4, 2014 13:03:07 GMT -5
According to Niz it can't be reconciled intellectually. What he speaks of is beyond the boundary of intellectual understanding. "The borderline of beingness and non-beingness is intellect-boggling, because the intellect subsides at that precise location." "Why is the intellect puzzled here? That beingness which you are experiencing is melting away. When the concept of ‘I am’ goes, intellect also goes." This is apparently why he is constantly telling others to meditate continuously upon the sense of I AM alone, until it gives up its secrets. "If you want to know your true nature, you must have yourself in mind all the time, until the secret of your being stands revealed." Okay, if the 'sense of non-existence' is self realization prior to form, then I understand, but to me it's an odd way of talking that can (and obviously does) lead to much confusion. There is no sense of non-existence. It is known only in hindsight. I will leave this with two last quotes of interest (to me anyway) by Niz: "In my original true state I have no form and no thoughts. I didn’t know I was, but suddenly another state appeared in which I had a form and thought, ‘I am’. How did this appear? The one who explains how these appearances have come about is the Sat-Guru." "‘Sat-Guru’ is your true Self. The ‘I am’ is the ‘Guru’ or consciousness in a body. This ‘I am’ is witnessed by the Self in you or the ‘Sat-Guru’ which is un-manifest..."
|
|