|
Post by enigma on Jul 21, 2014 17:21:33 GMT -5
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. If I remember right, for Popeye it was "I am WHAT I am", which is identification. 'I am' isn't identification with anything. Andrew used to use such comments by Niz as the basis for declaring that he doesn't know he exists, which placed him in the rarefied non-company of Paragirraffeman.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 21, 2014 17:31:36 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. That reflects my view of it very nicely.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 21, 2014 17:35:27 GMT -5
I Am I Am. Like Popeye. If I remember right, for Popeye it was "I am WHAT I am", which is identification. 'I am' isn't identification with anything. Andrew used to use such comments by Niz as the basis for declaring that he doesn't know he exists, which placed him in the rarefied non-company of Paragirraffeman. by my recollection it was "I ams what I ams!". The interesting thing about neti-neti, especially in the context of what Niz had to say, is that, purely speaking, it doesn't even really involve pointing until the pure, unattached sense of being is encountered. If it's only encountered conceptually, then the pointing beyond it to emptiness might sound as though the description is of non-existence, and, in fact, as maxy and andy both demonstrated, Niz can be quoted out of context saying just that. To point out that one is not their possessions, the clothes on their back, their situation or even their right arm is really, in the final analysis, just common sense. To suggest to someone to find themselves in the space between thoughts is a less common notion. To go on from there and point with the idea that the still and quiet sense of being isn't an effect of some cause outside of one's self and yet is neither completely subjective and defies direct description seems to be a sort of challenge to the ego, as it leaves the thinker with nothing to do and the identifier with nowhere to rest.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 21, 2014 20:43:37 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'? Yes, the active mind can become attached to the idea of a still mind, until the experiencer actually experiences 'still mind' awareness.. The radio receiver's "ticks and white noise" are random and without inherent meaning, and the influence of beliefs and conditioning is intentional.. the similarity is that the the information comes from an identifiable physical manifestation, whether the information is random and without meaning, or intentional and purposeful, or even when the information is clear and consistent with what is happening.. the same sort of physical manifestation, radios or humans, can broadcast 'information', but the question remains; what is the 'information' based upon, and what is the intention of the broadcast.. when the information is intended to open opportunities for others to see/experience clearly and trusting that clarity to reveal what 'is', the use of tactics to ensure that the experiencer sees/experiences the information a special way is contradictory.. that's like telling someone they are liberated, then explaining the rules for being liberated..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 21, 2014 20:53:01 GMT -5
Pointers are like hats or ice cream cones. If one doesn't fit or if it doesn't taste good, they're meant to be thrown away. There's nothing wasteful here 'cause the pointer is only an idea.
Now, to cling to a pointer and constantly b1tch about how harmful it is ... that's just a simple misuse of it.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 21, 2014 21:04:50 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. Who is the Zen teacher, and who is the Zen teacher teaching? the teacher/student 'persons' play the intricate games of Zen, or Advaita, or Buddhism, or some other ritual distraction from the simplicity of clarity.. "Ordinary life IS the way".. so be fully present for it, not telling riddles and playing mind-games.. Freedom from the known is rare, 'freedom from the mind' is a misunderstanding of the terms..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 4:59:10 GMT -5
Hi Bro.... at present, being ordinary is extra-ordinaryas I have Rupert Murdocks sons signiture on a letter he has written,(dated 20/7/2014) saying that I exhibit 'anti-social behaviour'...he has notified the Police. Insecure as head of a Corporation got to be seen as Non-Leadership in action. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 7:46:04 GMT -5
I Am I Am. Like Popeye. If I remember right, for Popeye it was "I am WHAT I am", which is identification. 'I am' isn't identification with anything. Andrew used to use such comments by Niz as the basis for declaring that he doesn't know he exists, which placed him in the rarefied non-company of Paragirraffeman. Okay Popeye isn't the best example. I think he actually said I Yam what I Yam and that's all that I Yam. It's a not an uncommon condition among seekers, I hear. One step closer than the couch potato. As I understand it, 'I Am' can be taken in at least two ways: 1. As the root label or identification onto which all sorts of other illusory mis-identities can be attached. -- 'man' 'husband' 'father' 'bored' 'self-loathing' 'burping'... By having folks look out for the I Am, the strategy of neti neti is simplified. 2. As pure flowing being or somesuch. Nonconceptual. That which looks from these eyes that is no different than that which looks from your eyes. This is what is 'left' after neti neti. But in either case, it seems to me that identification to 'I Am' itself can happen. Maybe after years of using I Am as a strategy, it just becomes ingrained to constantly think 'I Am' and groove with pure flowing being. But Niz is just saying that 'I Am' ain't necessary. Get on with your life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 7:47:15 GMT -5
Hi Bro.... at present, being ordinary is extra-ordinaryas I have Rupert Murdocks sons signiture on a letter he has written,(dated 20/7/2014) saying that I exhibit 'anti-social behaviour'...he has notified the Police. Insecure as head of a Corporation got to be seen as Non-Leadership in action. Haha! you must be doing something right!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 7:55:26 GMT -5
If I remember right, for Popeye it was "I am WHAT I am", which is identification. 'I am' isn't identification with anything. Andrew used to use such comments by Niz as the basis for declaring that he doesn't know he exists, which placed him in the rarefied non-company of Paragirraffeman. by my recollection it was "I ams what I ams!". The interesting thing about neti-neti, especially in the context of what Niz had to say, is that, purely speaking, it doesn't even really involve pointing until the pure, unattached sense of being is encountered. If it's only encountered conceptually, then the pointing beyond it to emptiness might sound as though the description is of non-existence, and, in fact, as maxy and andy both demonstrated, Niz can be quoted out of context saying just that. To point out that one is not their possessions, the clothes on their back, their situation or even their right arm is really, in the final analysis, just common sense. To suggest to someone to find themselves in the space between thoughts is a less common notion. To go on from there and point with the idea that the still and quiet sense of being isn't an effect of some cause outside of one's self and yet is neither completely subjective and defies direct description seems to be a sort of challenge to the ego, as it leaves the thinker with nothing to do and the identifier with nowhere to rest. Hey now wait a minute there buster! I put the context right in the OP. With more context posted just below it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 22, 2014 8:04:39 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. Who is the Zen teacher, and who is the Zen teacher teaching? the teacher/student 'persons' play the intricate games of Zen, or Advaita, or Buddhism, or some other ritual distraction from the simplicity of clarity.. "Ordinary life IS the way".. so be fully present for it, not telling riddles and playing mind-games.. Freedom from the known is rare, 'freedom from the mind' is a misunderstanding of the terms.. Tzu: Thanks for presenting the forum with a unique riddle (koan) of your own creation. Indeed! "Who is the Zen teacher, and who is the Zen teacher teaching?" Anyone who finds the answer to this question will have a major realization.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 8:10:09 GMT -5
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. Is that like how a radio receiver adds it's own little ticks and white noise as the radio waves are 'translated'? Yes, the active mind can become attached to the idea of a still mind, until the experiencer actually experiences 'still mind' awareness.. The radio receiver's "ticks and white noise" are random and without inherent meaning, and the influence of beliefs and conditioning is intentional.. the similarity is that the the information comes from an identifiable physical manifestation, whether the information is random and without meaning, or intentional and purposeful, or even when the information is clear and consistent with what is happening.. the same sort of physical manifestation, radios or humans, can broadcast 'information', but the question remains; what is the 'information' based upon, and what is the intention of the broadcast.. when the information is intended to open opportunities for others to see/experience clearly and trusting that clarity to reveal what 'is', the use of tactics to ensure that the experiencer sees/experiences the information a special way is contradictory.. that's like telling someone they are liberated, then explaining the rules for being liberated.. Let me guess, you think certain linguistic happenings express an attachment to beliefs otherwise known as dogmatic thinking and that when these certain linguistic happenings are enforced on a 'student' in a teacher-student hierarchical relationship it confines the liberated's liberation. And you feel it is your duty to warn the innocent readers of the internet that certain linguistic happenings may actually confine the liberation that is already their's to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 22, 2014 9:56:06 GMT -5
If I remember right, for Popeye it was "I am WHAT I am", which is identification. 'I am' isn't identification with anything. Andrew used to use such comments by Niz as the basis for declaring that he doesn't know he exists, which placed him in the rarefied non-company of Paragirraffeman. Okay Popeye isn't the best example. I think he actually said I Yam what I Yam and that's all that I Yam. It's a not an uncommon condition among seekers, I hear. One step closer than the couch potato. As I understand it, 'I Am' can be taken in at least two ways: 1. As the root label or identification onto which all sorts of other illusory mis-identities can be attached. -- 'man' 'husband' 'father' 'bored' 'self-loathing' 'burping'... By having folks look out for the I Am, the strategy of neti neti is simplified. 2. As pure flowing being or somesuch. Nonconceptual. That which looks from these eyes that is no different than that which looks from your eyes. This is what is 'left' after neti neti. But in either case, it seems to me that identification to 'I Am' itself can happen. Maybe after years of using I Am as a strategy, it just becomes ingrained to constantly think 'I Am' and groove with pure flowing being. But Niz is just saying that 'I Am' ain't necessary. Get on with your life.Maybe so, but I say it's useful to notice what isn't so, and what isn't a problem. That's the direction of Neti-Neti rather than taking an ax to stuff that was never an issue to begin with. Again, 'I am' just means 'I exist', and this is known pre-conceptually. It's not false, and so you can't take an ax to it and make it go away. This is fundamental isness, and while it serves as the foundation for all sorts of identifying labels, by itself it cannot cause suffering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 11:00:32 GMT -5
Okay Popeye isn't the best example. I think he actually said I Yam what I Yam and that's all that I Yam. It's a not an uncommon condition among seekers, I hear. One step closer than the couch potato. As I understand it, 'I Am' can be taken in at least two ways: 1. As the root label or identification onto which all sorts of other illusory mis-identities can be attached. -- 'man' 'husband' 'father' 'bored' 'self-loathing' 'burping'... By having folks look out for the I Am, the strategy of neti neti is simplified. 2. As pure flowing being or somesuch. Nonconceptual. That which looks from these eyes that is no different than that which looks from your eyes. This is what is 'left' after neti neti. But in either case, it seems to me that identification to 'I Am' itself can happen. Maybe after years of using I Am as a strategy, it just becomes ingrained to constantly think 'I Am' and groove with pure flowing being. But Niz is just saying that 'I Am' ain't necessary. Get on with your life.Maybe so, but I say it's useful to notice what isn't so, and what isn't a problem. That's the direction of Neti-Neti rather than taking an ax to stuff that was never an issue to begin with. Again, 'I am' just means 'I exist', and this is known pre-conceptually. It's not false, and so you can't take an ax to it and make it go away. This is fundamental isness, and while it serves as the foundation for all sorts of identifying labels, by itself it cannot cause suffering. Well yes if I Am is being referred to in the second sense, for example as an answer to a question 'do you exist?' then trying to hack it away is going to be a big exercise in futility. Much like doubting it. If it's being referred to in the first sense, as a strategy, then there is a time to put it on the block.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 22, 2014 11:05:37 GMT -5
Okay Popeye isn't the best example. I think he actually said I Yam what I Yam and that's all that I Yam. It's a not an uncommon condition among seekers, I hear. One step closer than the couch potato. As I understand it, 'I Am' can be taken in at least two ways: 1. As the root label or identification onto which all sorts of other illusory mis-identities can be attached. -- 'man' 'husband' 'father' 'bored' 'self-loathing' 'burping'... By having folks look out for the I Am, the strategy of neti neti is simplified. 2. As pure flowing being or somesuch. Nonconceptual. That which looks from these eyes that is no different than that which looks from your eyes. This is what is 'left' after neti neti. But in either case, it seems to me that identification to 'I Am' itself can happen. Maybe after years of using I Am as a strategy, it just becomes ingrained to constantly think 'I Am' and groove with pure flowing being. But Niz is just saying that 'I Am' ain't necessary. Get on with your life.Maybe so, but I say it's useful to notice what isn't so, and what isn't a problem. That's the direction of Neti-Neti rather than taking an ax to stuff that was never an issue to begin with. Again, 'I am' just means 'I exist', and this is known pre-conceptually. It's not false, and so you can't take an ax to it and make it go away. This is fundamental isness, and while it serves as the foundation for all sorts of identifying labels, by itself it cannot cause suffering. I know we've corresponded about this before but the conversation has once again led us here. Depending on context, Niz (at least once) distinguished between being and existence, in that all existence is only ever a reflection of being: seeker: Here I am sitting in front of you. What part of it is imagination? Niz: The whole of it. Even space and time are imagined. seeker: Does it mean that I don't exist? Niz: I too do not exist. All existence is imaginary. seeker: Is being, too, imaginary? Niz: Pure being, filling all and beyond all, is not existence which is limited. All limitation is imaginary; only the unlimited is real. By my eye this can be translated into the Buddhist heart sutra by equating being with emptiness and existence with form. Anything that appears to us is an entanglement of form with emptiness, as emptiness has no form, but there is no form but for emptiness. On the other hand, to a person who might doubt even their sense of being, the context is flipped: (From Chapter 92 of "I AM THAT", "Go Beyond the 'I am the body' idea")Niz: People differ. But all are faced with the fact of their own existence. 'I am' is the ultimate fact; 'Who am I'? is the ultimate question to which everybody must find an answer. It's just various versions of the mind/body problem playing itself out in the thoughts of a myriad of seekers, and it seems to me that Niz was all about pulling the rug out from under the intellect .. the point of his teaching was to deny any place for the mind to rest, to negate any core basis around which a conceptualized identity might form up.
|
|