Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 3:40:58 GMT -5
We are all Nutz in here pretending we dont know. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 23, 2014 5:27:57 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. Jeet Sweezus!! so existence is a grammar lesson??? as has been posted many times: "Be still and know".. stillness includes stillness of the mind that is generating the 'non-duality dogma' that suggests that it is useful to pretend the person you are doesn't exist, and that is just more minding telling itself stories.. What part of 'Be still and know' chooses storytelling over stillness?.. once experienced, however achieved, the clarity of stillness inspires the experiencers to constantly and consistently refine their understanding of the experience.. once experienced the stillness experience is self-perpetuating, meaning every opportunity for experiencing existence with the clarity of a still mind's awareness is realized and chosen as the experiencer's 'way' of existing..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 23, 2014 6:48:05 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 . Yes, I think this summarizes what Niz was saying in the quote that was posted.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 23, 2014 7:00:34 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. Jeet Sweezus!! so existence is a grammar lesson??? as has been posted many times: "Be still and know".. stillness includes stillness of the mind that is generating the 'non-duality dogma' that suggests that it is useful to pretend the person you are doesn't exist, and that is just more minding telling itself stories.. What part of 'Be still and know' chooses storytelling over stillness?.. once experienced, however achieved, the clarity of stillness inspires the experiencers to constantly and consistently refine their understanding of the experience.. once experienced the stillness experience is self-perpetuating, meaning every opportunity for experiencing existence with the clarity of a still mind's awareness is realized and chosen as the experiencer's 'way' of existing.. I doubt that your use of the term "still mind" is what most of us mean by that term. A still mind, as most of us use the term, is a mind in which the intellect is quiescent and the distinction of states--any state-- is not occurring. If you don't like the words, then throw them away and just be still. As an old sage used to say to people who got upset about words and definitions, "Put it all down."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 23, 2014 7:22:08 GMT -5
according to Niz himself, indeed, "there is no Niz".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 23, 2014 7:41:22 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. It occurs to me to think about this in the terms of who the pointing is directed toward. I'd theorize that there are two polarities of seeking that give rise to this artifact of language. One group never really questions the nature of their existence, and of course, to them, non-existence is simply a non-issue. From my limited experience observing these polarities, that group tends toward common-sense, literalism and material realism. For that group, the distinction between existence and being, between form and emptiness, just might be useful. The opposite number to that are the hyperminders who have trouble answering "yes" to "do you exist?". This is of course a gross generalization, and from personal experience I can say that any given individual need not necessarily stay in one group and perhaps even might oscillate between the two.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 23, 2014 8:20:31 GMT -5
according to Niz himself, indeed, "there is no Niz". 'Who's' Niz?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 8:56:21 GMT -5
according to Niz himself, indeed, "there is no Niz". 'Who's' Niz?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 23, 2014 9:07:43 GMT -5
Thanks for adding the pic of niz . My question (Who's Niz) .. was in jest as Niz doesn't exist ... (in reference to laughters quote) .. Niz 'Who' in other words
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 10:48:49 GMT -5
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. If he's saying no thing exists until it is imagined, and when it's no longer imagined, it ceases to exist, then he's saying existence comes and goes. I define existence as that which neither comes nor goes; that from which every thing emerges as impermanent appearances only. I'm the one violating the dictionary definition, but then traditional thinking is that physicality is the only reality.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 10:55:53 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 . Then existence is imaginary and whatever you are at your core cannot exist, and therefore you are not. You are not Being or Isness or formless or THIS. How do you explain how you are conscious and aware if you don't even exist and there is no such thing as existing? How can you deny your own existence? What is doing the denying?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 11:03:51 GMT -5
according to Niz himself, indeed, "there is no Niz". But what knows that? Why must we deny the existence of THAT?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 11:30:59 GMT -5
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. It occurs to me to think about this in the terms of who the pointing is directed toward. I'd theorize that there are two polarities of seeking that give rise to this artifact of language. One group never really questions the nature of their existence, and of course, to them, non-existence is simply a non-issue. From my limited experience observing these polarities, that group tends toward common-sense, literalism and material realism. For that group, the distinction between existence and being, between form and emptiness, just might be useful. The opposite number to that are the hyperminders who have trouble answering "yes" to "do you exist?". This is of course a gross generalization, and from personal experience I can say that any given individual need not necessarily stay in one group and perhaps even might oscillate between the two. I see it as a context issue, and the only problem I'm having is that contexts are being mixed. In one context, the person exists, physical objects exist, and then they don't. In a larger context (the one in which the question 'Do you exist?' is asked}, existence is a non-conceptual given. 'I am' is part of the content of the larger context, and one cannot take an ax to a non-conceptual given. It says that one can put an end to one's Amness; one's Isness, one's Being. There CAN be an end to 'I am this' or 'I am that', as 'this' and 'that' are impermanent appearances within the larger context.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 11:33:34 GMT -5
'Who's' Niz? I wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 23, 2014 11:47:58 GMT -5
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. If he's saying no thing exists until it is imagined, and when it's no longer imagined, it ceases to exist, then he's saying existence comes and goes. I define existence as that which neither comes nor goes; that from which every thing emerges as impermanent appearances only. I'm the one violating the dictionary definition, but then traditional thinking is that physicality is the only reality. Your use of the term "existence" is what others might call Consciousness or Being, That in which everything else arises and disappears. Niz uses the word "existence" in the following quote in a way that points away from that usage of the word: "Pure being, filling all and beyond all, is not existence, which is limited. All limitation is imaginary, only the unlimited is real. Nothing wrong here, just a matter of word usage which you explained, but it perhaps helps in understanding what Niz is putting an axe to...
|
|