|
Post by zendancer on Jul 22, 2014 11:12:00 GMT -5
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. Yes. To exist is to come forth from, but come forth from what? From that which is nameless and unimaginable--pure being. I agree that Niz, like most non-duality teachers is often messing with people by pulling the rug out from under their intellects.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 22, 2014 11:26:41 GMT -5
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. This strikes me as applicable and illuminating of the issue: (From Chapter 62 of "I AM THAT", "In the Supreme the Witness Appears")Questioner: Some forty years ago J. Krishnamurti said that there is life only and all talk of personalities and individualities has no foundation in reality. He did not attempt to describe life -- he merely said that while life need not and cannot be described, it can be fully experienced, if the obstacles to its being experienced are removed. The main hindrance lies in our idea of, and addiction to, time, in our habit of anticipating a future in the light of the past. The sum total of the past becomes the 'I was', the hoped for future becomes the 'I shall be' and life is a constant effort of crossing over from what 'I was' to what ‘I shall be'. The present moment, the. 'now' is lost sight of. Maharaj speaks of 'I am'. Is it an illusion, like 'I was' and 'I shall be', or is there something real about it? And if the ‘I am' too is an illusion, how does one free oneself from it? The very notion of I am free of 'I am' is an absurdity. Is there something real, something lasting about the 'I am' in distinction from the 'I was', or ‘I shall be', which change with time, as added memories create new expectations? 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 centre 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. Q: What is this big talk about elimination of the self? How can the self eliminate itself? What kind of metaphysical acrobatics can lead to the disappearance of the acrobat? In the end he will reappear, mightily proud of his disappearing. Niz: You need not chase the 'I am' to kill it. You cannot. All you need is a sincere longing for reality. We call it atma-bhakti, the love of the Supreme: or moksha-sankalpa, the determination to be free from the false. Without love, and will inspired by love, nothing can be done. Merely talking about Reality without doing anything about it is self-defeating. There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' and the observer of that 'I am'. As long as the observer, the inner self, the 'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower' self, despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the observer (vyakta) accepts the person (vyakti) as a projection or manifestation of himself, and, so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goes and in the identity of the outer and the inner the Supreme Reality manifests itself. This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious of himself as the seer, he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial factor that brings Reality into focus.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 22, 2014 11:36:30 GMT -5
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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 12:01:18 GMT -5
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. This strikes me as applicable and illuminating of the issue: (From Chapter 62 of "I AM THAT", "In the Supreme the Witness Appears")Questioner: Some forty years ago J. Krishnamurti said that there is life only and all talk of personalities and individualities has no foundation in reality. He did not attempt to describe life -- he merely said that while life need not and cannot be described, it can be fully experienced, if the obstacles to its being experienced are removed. The main hindrance lies in our idea of, and addiction to, time, in our habit of anticipating a future in the light of the past. The sum total of the past becomes the 'I was', the hoped for future becomes the 'I shall be' and life is a constant effort of crossing over from what 'I was' to what ‘I shall be'. The present moment, the. 'now' is lost sight of. Maharaj speaks of 'I am'. Is it an illusion, like 'I was' and 'I shall be', or is there something real about it? And if the ‘I am' too is an illusion, how does one free oneself from it? The very notion of I am free of 'I am' is an absurdity. Is there something real, something lasting about the 'I am' in distinction from the 'I was', or ‘I shall be', which change with time, as added memories create new expectations? 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 centre 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. Q: What is this big talk about elimination of the self? How can the self eliminate itself? What kind of metaphysical acrobatics can lead to the disappearance of the acrobat? In the end he will reappear, mightily proud of his disappearing. Niz: You need not chase the 'I am' to kill it. You cannot. All you need is a sincere longing for reality. We call it atma-bhakti, the love of the Supreme: or moksha-sankalpa, the determination to be free from the false. Without love, and will inspired by love, nothing can be done. Merely talking about Reality without doing anything about it is self-defeating. There must be love in the relation between the person who says 'I am' and the observer of that 'I am'. As long as the observer, the inner self, the 'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower' self, despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when the observer (vyakta) accepts the person (vyakti) as a projection or manifestation of himself, and, so to say, takes the self into the Self, the duality of 'I' and 'this' goes and in the identity of the outer and the inner the Supreme Reality manifests itself. This union of the seer and the seen happens when the seer becomes conscious of himself as the seer, he is not merely interested in the seen, which he is anyhow, but also interested in being interested, giving attention to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate awareness is the crucial factor that brings Reality into focus. 'Affectionate awareness' <-- like. Doesn't sound like an axe murderer to me. That is a relevant quote and multivibrates with my internal resonance. Still, my teeny bean throws up a little question mark around 'sincere longing for reality' and 'love of the Supreme' and 'determination to be free from the false.' It's a recurring theme. Am I sincere enough?? Longing enough?? loving enough?? determined enough?? but it's all good in affectionate awareness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 22, 2014 19:57:34 GMT -5
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. Niz defines existence differently than I. I don't see how we can say appearances exist. As he says, existence in that sense is imaginary. However, that which is prior to form and does not take form, can be said to be existence, and only that. To me, that's what 'I am' refers to.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 22, 2014 20:07:26 GMT -5
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: 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: 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. Yes. To exist is to come forth from, but come forth from what? From that which is nameless and unimaginable--pure being. I agree that Niz, like most non-duality teachers is often messing with people by pulling the rug out from under their intellects. So would you say that from which existence comes forth does not exist?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 22, 2014 21:03:53 GMT -5
Yes. To exist is to come forth from, but come forth from what? From that which is nameless and unimaginable--pure being. I agree that Niz, like most non-duality teachers is often messing with people by pulling the rug out from under their intellects. So would you say that from which existence comes forth does not exist? No. THAT neither exists nor doesn't exist; it simply is. Existence seems to be a noun whereas "what is" seems to be a verb. It doesn't really matter to me, but I sort of grok how I think Niz is using language in this regard. If I'm not thinking, there is no thing (nothing) extant--there is only an alive emptiness. We can call it "being" or "isness" or something similar in order to point to it, but it remains undistinguished, so it hasn't been "brought forth" by the mind as a thing of any kind. It remains, like Schroedinger's cat, in a state of infinite superposition of potentiality. The cat is neither alive nor dead until an observer distinguishes its state, imaginatively. This makes sense to me, but I'm sure that there are other equally interesting ways to consider the issue.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 22, 2014 21:04:11 GMT -5
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: 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: 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. Yes. To exist is to come forth from, but come forth from what? From that which is nameless and unimaginable--pure being. I agree that Niz, like most non-duality teachers is often messing with people by pulling the rug out from under their intellects. According to the doctrine of non-duality, there is no 'Niz', and there is no 'their' in your description of " their intellects".. To exist is to exist.. it is the Zen 'way', to fondle riddles in pursuit of a 'Zen' identity.. simplify..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 22:19:05 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! opps, I missed out a word... ' difficult anti-social behaviour'
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 22, 2014 22:30:02 GMT -5
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: 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: 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. Niz defines existence differently than I. I don't see how we can say appearances exist. As he says, existence in that sense is imaginary. However, that which is prior to form and does not take form, can be said to be existence, and only that. To me, that's what 'I am' refers to. I perceive a parallel in how you express the idea that the unconditioned never becomes subject to conditioning on one hand, and the Niz parabrahman context where neither the concepts of existence nor non-existence apply, on the other ... and yet, he kept talking after making that point! .. when he did he often started to wax poetic.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 1:41:46 GMT -5
So would you say that from which existence comes forth does not exist? No. THAT neither exists nor doesn't exist; it simply is. Existence seems to be a noun whereas "what is" seems to be a verb. It doesn't really matter to me, but I sort of grok how I think Niz is using language in this regard. If I'm not thinking, there is no thing (nothing) extant--there is only an alive emptiness. We can call it "being" or "isness" or something similar in order to point to it, but it remains undistinguished, so it hasn't been "brought forth" by the mind as a thing of any kind. It remains, like Schroedinger's cat, in a state of infinite superposition of potentiality. The cat is neither alive nor dead until an observer distinguishes its state, imaginatively. This makes sense to me, but I'm sure that there are other equally interesting ways to consider the issue. To me, that what we're talking about "simply is" means that what we're talking about exists. "Alive emptiness" seems to imply existence. I don't insist that something has to be brought forth as a thing before there is existence. What I refer to as Intelligence seems to exist. What you actually are beyond form clearly exists. I also understand existence as physical stuff that you can touch, and Niz apparently talked about it that way too, but to me those appearances have only a surmised substance to them, and they come and go. Seems to me, existence shouldn't fade in and out of existence. It's fine, they're just words.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 23, 2014 2:15:15 GMT -5
Yes. To exist is to come forth from, but come forth from what? From that which is nameless and unimaginable--pure being. I agree that Niz, like most non-duality teachers is often messing with people by pulling the rug out from under their intellects. According to the doctrine of non-duality, there is no 'Niz', and there is no 'their' in your description of " their intellects".. To exist is to exist.. it is the Zen 'way', to fondle riddles in pursuit of a 'Zen' identity.. simplify.. I have no idea what "doctrine of non-duality" you are referring to, but it has nothing to do with what the rest of us are writing about.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 23, 2014 2:33:39 GMT -5
No. THAT neither exists nor doesn't exist; it simply is. Existence seems to be a noun whereas "what is" seems to be a verb. It doesn't really matter to me, but I sort of grok how I think Niz is using language in this regard. If I'm not thinking, there is no thing (nothing) extant--there is only an alive emptiness. We can call it "being" or "isness" or something similar in order to point to it, but it remains undistinguished, so it hasn't been "brought forth" by the mind as a thing of any kind. It remains, like Schroedinger's cat, in a state of infinite superposition of potentiality. The cat is neither alive nor dead until an observer distinguishes its state, imaginatively. This makes sense to me, but I'm sure that there are other equally interesting ways to consider the issue. To me, that what we're talking about "simply is" means that what we're talking about exists. "Alive emptiness" seems to imply existence. I don't insist that something has to be brought forth as a thing before there is existence. What I refer to as Intelligence seems to exist. What you actually are beyond form clearly exists. I also understand existence as physical stuff that you can touch, and Niz apparently talked about it that way too, but to me those appearances have only a surmised substance to them, and they come and go. Seems to me, existence shouldn't fade in and out of existence. It's fine, they're just words. Yes, I understand what you're saying, and that's okay with me, too. FWIW, existence doesn't fade in and out of existence the way I'm using the word, nor does it do so the way Niz seems to be using the word. I think he's saying that no thing exists until it is imagined as a thing. Prior to imagining, all we can do is point to the aliveness. I may be wrong about what Niz is saying, but that's my guess.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 23, 2014 2:45:44 GMT -5
There requires someone / something to exist .
No-one being someone is what is happening .
No-one being is no-one in existence .
Existence is of the mind .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 3:38:03 GMT -5
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. holy jesuitnuts verywhere (lol@auto-edit... much better thank you Lord)
|
|