|
Post by enigma on Jul 18, 2014 18:20:19 GMT -5
The sense of existence (which I'm assuming is what the 'I am' refers to) is what is 'part and parcel' to being conscious. It's more fundamental than a conclusion and no thought or belief is involved. I don't know how one 'puts an ax' to a sense of existence that is inherent to existing. Further, I don't know why existence would benefit from that or why it seeks benefit. What existence exists AS is a mental conclusion/belief about the nature of the experiencer. It is not inherent to experiencing and it objectifies subjectivity and binds existence to time and space, creating the illusion that it comes and goes as all objects do. My take is that what Niz was recommending taking the axe two wasn't the sense of being but a reflective and personalized objectification of that sense based in time and thought. An objectification of 'I am' is 'I am this or that'. Hasn't Niz talked about it that way? Here he seems to be talking about 'I am' as I do, but wants to ax it anyhoo.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 18, 2014 22:12:11 GMT -5
My take is that what Niz was recommending taking the axe two wasn't the sense of being but a reflective and personalized objectification of that sense based in time and thought. An objectification of 'I am' is 'I am this or that'. Hasn't Niz talked about it that way? Here he seems to be talking about 'I am' as I do, but wants to ax it anyhoo. My guess is that he tells folks to witness and some of them objectify it: "I am separate". "I am the witness". My guess is that this is who he's handing the axe to.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 19, 2014 0:01:52 GMT -5
An objectification of 'I am' is 'I am this or that'. Hasn't Niz talked about it that way? Here he seems to be talking about 'I am' as I do, but wants to ax it anyhoo. My guess is that he tells folks to witness and some of them objectify it: "I am separate". "I am the witness". My guess is that this is who he's handing the axe to. At least that would make sense.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 19, 2014 6:37:07 GMT -5
Well yes .. the sense of I am this or I am that or I am not this or that is part of the parcel for a conscious self in identity . There can become issues with what one believes themselves to be in relation to and in reflection of everything else . Some however are comfortable in their own understandings that are identity based and conflict only arises when one experiences something different to their current understandings . The sense of existence (which I'm assuming is what the 'I am' refers to) is what is 'part and parcel' to being conscious. It's more fundamental than a conclusion and no thought or belief is involved. I don't know how one 'puts an ax' to a sense of existence that is inherent to existing. Further, I don't know why existence would benefit from that or why it seeks benefit. What existence exists AS is a mental conclusion/belief about the nature of the experiencer. It is not inherent to experiencing and it objectifies subjectivity and binds existence to time and space, creating the illusion that it comes and goes as all objects do. I would say the one in experience believes in one's experience . It perhaps matters not if one ascertains whether or not what is in experience is real or not but there is an inherent belief that one is aware of self to some capacity . An awareness of just 'being' beyond identification I would say doesn't entertain the mind that evaluates whats happening and what's happening to whom . Beliefs fall into that field of mind I would say . This is inline with what you have said I would say in your second para .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 19, 2014 6:39:30 GMT -5
Well yes .. the sense of I am this or I am that or I am not this or that is part of the parcel for a conscious self in identity . There can become issues with what one believes themselves to be in relation to and in reflection of everything else . Some however are comfortable in their own understandings that are identity based and conflict only arises when one experiences something different to their current understandings . Comfy cozy concepts cling cloyingly centered certainly crowning the clown. Try saying that 10 times quickly
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 19, 2014 9:40:54 GMT -5
The sense of existence (which I'm assuming is what the 'I am' refers to) is what is 'part and parcel' to being conscious. It's more fundamental than a conclusion and no thought or belief is involved. I don't know how one 'puts an ax' to a sense of existence that is inherent to existing. Further, I don't know why existence would benefit from that or why it seeks benefit. What existence exists AS is a mental conclusion/belief about the nature of the experiencer. It is not inherent to experiencing and it objectifies subjectivity and binds existence to time and space, creating the illusion that it comes and goes as all objects do. I would say the one in experience believes in one's experience . It perhaps matters not if one ascertains whether or not what is in experience is real or not but there is an inherent belief that one is aware of self to some capacity . An awareness of just 'being' beyond identification I would say doesn't entertain the mind that evaluates whats happening and what's happening to whom . Beliefs fall into that field of mind I would say . This is inline with what you have said I would say in your second para . Experience is believed more readily than even one's own ideas because it is believed that sensory experience is separate from thought; objective and external rather than subjective and internal. Something seems to be objectively happening 'out there' and is generally considered to be reality if only it can be reliably and correctly perceive. This is what the scientific method is about, but this 'objective' observation is already hopelessly entangled with the subject who is apparently observing. This entanglement happens at the level of the perceiving mind and also at the level of creation itself such that subject and object, thought and sensory perception, inside and outside are also just ideas; conceptual distinctions that have no actuality beyond appearances. At that point, there are no answers to be found and no meaningful questions to be asked. We fumble around with terms like Isness and Being and Emptiness and This in a crude attempt to point beyond, or prior to, appearances.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 19, 2014 9:45:19 GMT -5
My guess is that he tells folks to witness and some of them objectify it: "I am separate". "I am the witness". My guess is that this is who he's handing the axe to. At least that would make sense. often a peril of a sort!
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 21, 2014 2:20:13 GMT -5
I would say the one in experience believes in one's experience . It perhaps matters not if one ascertains whether or not what is in experience is real or not but there is an inherent belief that one is aware of self to some capacity . An awareness of just 'being' beyond identification I would say doesn't entertain the mind that evaluates whats happening and what's happening to whom . Beliefs fall into that field of mind I would say . This is inline with what you have said I would say in your second para . Yes I would agree with much of what you said . In some respect one's meaningless questions can create a merry-go-round of sorts that allows the dog to endlessly chase it's own tail but the self enquiry is a question in it's self that leads one to beyond self . So perhaps our mindful questions that are at times nothing more than shadows in reflection can actually point us beyond their appearance .
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 21, 2014 5:21:56 GMT -5
It is the 'beyond words' that is also the refuge that heaven seekers seek, a place that absolves the experiencers of their guilt and confusion.. nearly every person i've had discussions with about what is actually happening have had the experiences that others dress-up as 'special' and 'rare'.. the difference is how those 'special' or 'rare' or 'uncommon' experiences are described/expressed, and the level of openness and tolerance that people have with each other's expressions/descriptions..
Experience is what's happening, and one can 'experience' their own ideas, their own beliefs, and their own insights.. ideas, beliefs, insights happen through the interface of mind linking to cosmic consciousness, and.. the experiencer personalizes those experiences through their mindscape, or.. the mind is still and clear, unattached to a special structure, allowing the essence of what is happening to inform the experiencer of their relationship with the happening..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 11:47:29 GMT -5
The sense of existence (which I'm assuming is what the 'I am' refers to) is what is 'part and parcel' to being conscious. It's more fundamental than a conclusion and no thought or belief is involved. I don't know how one 'puts an ax' to a sense of existence that is inherent to existing. Further, I don't know why existence would benefit from that or why it seeks benefit. What existence exists AS is a mental conclusion/belief about the nature of the experiencer. It is not inherent to experiencing and it objectifies subjectivity and binds existence to time and space, creating the illusion that it comes and goes as all objects do. My take is that what Niz was recommending taking the axe two wasn't the sense of being but a reflective and personalized objectification of that sense based in time and thought. Yes -- it's a mantra tied to existence. Niz is jes sayin' 'dude get out of the friggin boat, you made it to the shore!'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 11:50:37 GMT -5
My take is that what Niz was recommending taking the axe two wasn't the sense of being but a reflective and personalized objectification of that sense based in time and thought. An objectification of 'I am' is 'I am this or that'. Hasn't Niz talked about it that way? Here he seems to be talking about 'I am' as I do, but wants to ax it anyhoo. pre yabbadabbabrahma is basically neti neti using I Am as the focal point. Then when neti neti has obliterated everything tied to I Am he's like 'enough already!' Stick a fork in it. Au revoir.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 11:56:04 GMT -5
It is the 'beyond words' that is also the refuge that heaven seekers seek, a place that absolves the experiencers of their guilt and confusion.. nearly every person i've had discussions with about what is actually happening have had the experiences that others dress-up as 'special' and 'rare'.. the difference is how those 'special' or 'rare' or 'uncommon' experiences are described/expressed, and the level of openness and tolerance that people have with each other's expressions/descriptions.. Still mind can be attached to in the same way, eh? There isn't one of those 'uncommon experiences' I can say I relate to in any way, so be sure to add me to your tally. It's not a problem. Experience is what's happening, and one can 'experience' their own ideas, their own beliefs, and their own insights.. ideas, beliefs, insights happen through the interface of mind linking to cosmic consciousness, and.. the experiencer personalizes those experiences through their mindscape, or.. the mind is still and clear, unattached to a special structure, allowing the essence of what is happening to inform the experiencer of their relationship with the happening.. Is that like how a radio receiver adds it's own little ticks and white noise as the radio waves are 'translated'?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 21, 2014 15:00:15 GMT -5
An objectification of 'I am' is 'I am this or that'. Hasn't Niz talked about it that way? Here he seems to be talking about 'I am' as I do, but wants to ax it anyhoo. pre yabbadabbabrahma is basically neti neti using I Am as the focal point. Then when neti neti has obliterated everything tied to I Am he's like 'enough already!' Stick a fork in it. Au revoir. If neti-neti has eliminated identification tied to 'I am', who is axing and what needs to be axed? Whatever needs to be axed must be an identification. What is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 15:41:37 GMT -5
pre yabbadabbabrahma is basically neti neti using I Am as the focal point. Then when neti neti has obliterated everything tied to I Am he's like 'enough already!' Stick a fork in it. Au revoir. If neti-neti has eliminated identification tied to 'I am', who is axing and what needs to be axed? Whatever needs to be axed must be an identification. What is it? I Am I Am. Like Popeye.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 21, 2014 15:59:35 GMT -5
FWIW, I view the uncommon-type experiences we've discussed as something like shortcuts. The pathless path, in the absence of uncommon experiences, is a GRADUAL transition from being dominated by mind to becoming free of the mind, from imagination to direct experience, and from a past/future orientation to Presence and Being. Along the way many realizations occur, and those realizations gradually inform mind. One learns to stop judging, comparing, projecting, expecting, regretting, worrying, fantasizing, etc, and simply go about living life in the present moment as it happens. Existential questions get answered, or fall away, and one is content with "what is" as it is.
Uncommon experiences sometimes leapfrog this gradual progression in realization and understanding, and thrust a person instantly into an intellection-free world that is radically alive. This may lead to numerous realizations, but it also may take a while for those realizations to inform mind because mind will not immediately understand what has happened. Tolle, for example, had no idea what had happened to him when he went from being suicidally depressed to living in a state of wonder and bliss.
There is no more reason to deny that uncommon experiences happen than there is to suggest that such experiences are necessary. Clearly, they are NOT necessary, but for those people who happen to have them, such as Tolle, Bucke, Courtois, and dozens of others, they are life-changing peak experiences in their lives. The usual problem is that most people eventually return to "normal," (there are a few rare exceptions), and then they want to find a way to get back to the state of mind they temporarily experienced. They don't yet realize what's going on. From their perspective, they assume that somehow they fell into paradise, and then fell out of it again. Mistakenly assuming that they are separate entities to whom their uncommon experiences happened, they set out searching for a way to get them back. They don't yet realize that what they ARE is a unified field of Being rather than imagined separate entities.
This is the reason that Zen both acknowledges uncommon experiences but also eschews them as a goal. They know that dangling such experiences like a carrot in front of people will probably reinforce the sense that there is someone who can go after such experiences. This is why Zen teachers constantly tell students to meditate "with no gaining idea" ----no checking/reflecting on one's progress. This, of course, is usually easier said than done. Eventually, the seeker has to either let go of thoughts about seeking or pursue a path that automatically keeps attention shifted away from thoughts (ATA, etc) until the real seeker (the cosmos) discovers what is NOT so--personhood.
Zen has a phrase, "Ordinary life is the Way." This phrase points to freedom from the mind that is NOT special. In this case, ordinary is not ordinary; it is an extraordinary kind of ordinary--extraordinary because freedom from the mind is pretty rare.
|
|