|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2014 2:38:03 GMT -5
"Identity remains, but identity is not a person, it is inherent in the reality itself." A critical, and somewhat unexpected, distinction.  Between identity and the person?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2014 9:57:16 GMT -5
"Identity remains, but identity is not a person, it is inherent in the reality itself." A critical, and somewhat unexpected, distinction. Between identity and the person? Yes. Identity is personal. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2014 18:01:24 GMT -5
Between identity and the person? Yes. Identity is personal. IMO, absence of identity is the most elegant statement of WIBIGO, but there is the obvious objection from the personal perspective that following the declaration of the self-evidence of existence, then there's something that exists that can be described. This is why I favor the idea that not two points to ineffability, or to "the ineffable". Niz is famous for speaking to seekers about the self-evident sense of being -- as you put it, the self-evidence of existence. My guess is that he resorted to the interderminisms in his pointing to circumvent that objection on the point that some thing exists, all the while pointing the seeker relentlessly back to the root of it and away from ideas about it. Another opinion I have is that this speaking he did was much better than silence. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2014 18:45:14 GMT -5
Yes. Identity is personal. IMO, absence of identity is the most elegant statement of WIBIGO, but there is the obvious objection from the personal perspective that following the declaration of the self-evidence of existence, then there's something that exists that can be described.
This is why I favor the idea that not two points to ineffability, or to "the ineffable". Niz is famous for speaking to seekers about the self-evident sense of being -- as you put it, the self-evidence of existence. My guess is that he resorted to the interderminisms in his pointing to circumvent that objection on the point that some thing exists, all the while pointing the seeker relentlessly back to the root of it and away from ideas about it. Another opinion I have is that this speaking he did was much better than silence. And maybe it's useful to see why the ineffable is ineffable. It's not because mind isn't powerful enough to wrap itself around it, but rather mind is too complex in it's fundamental functioning. It's simply because what it means to understand is to break it down into component parts that we can then relate to from past experience. Obviously, one cannot break oneness, which is wholeness/infinity, into any parts without losing the essence of that which we would understand. Mind cannot understand something without first breaking it. This is why all thoughts are limitation in expression. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2014 19:00:55 GMT -5
IMO, absence of identity is the most elegant statement of WIBIGO, but there is the obvious objection from the personal perspective that following the declaration of the self-evidence of existence, then there's something that exists that can be described.
This is why I favor the idea that not two points to ineffability, or to "the ineffable". Niz is famous for speaking to seekers about the self-evident sense of being -- as you put it, the self-evidence of existence. My guess is that he resorted to the interderminisms in his pointing to circumvent that objection on the point that some thing exists, all the while pointing the seeker relentlessly back to the root of it and away from ideas about it. Another opinion I have is that this speaking he did was much better than silence. And maybe it's useful to see why the ineffable is ineffable. It's not because mind isn't powerful enough to wrap itself around it, but rather mind is too complex in it's fundamental functioning. It's simply because what it means to understand is to break it down into component parts that we can then relate to from past experience. Obviously, one cannot break oneness, which is wholeness/infinity, into any parts without losing the essence of that which we would understand. Mind cannot understand something without first breaking it. This is why all thoughts are limitation in expression. This is what I'm referencing whenever I start writing fortune cookies about the inherently limiting and self-referential nature of information and how this inherent limitation is related to the point that there is no fact, knowledge or other piece of information that can describe what is prior-to or beyond the subject-object split: because all information is premised on that split to begin with. The cookies are the mind expressing the discovery of it's own limitations in the sort of detail the thinking process inevitably gravitates toward. Detail always involves complication, and what you can discern in the forum dialog as a whole is a rejection of a simplicity such as "all thoughts are limitation in expression" by picking it apart with analysis, while a counter-analysis in favor of the original simplicity is rejected as overthinking the issue. -- a great example of how the fortress of mind can't take itself down! edit: also, it's interesting to watch peeps like figandrew mistake the discussion of why the ineffable is ineffable, for reasoning about the ineffable. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2014 20:06:55 GMT -5
And maybe it's useful to see why the ineffable is ineffable. It's not because mind isn't powerful enough to wrap itself around it, but rather mind is too complex in it's fundamental functioning. It's simply because what it means to understand is to break it down into component parts that we can then relate to from past experience. Obviously, one cannot break oneness, which is wholeness/infinity, into any parts without losing the essence of that which we would understand. Mind cannot understand something without first breaking it. This is why all thoughts are limitation in expression. The cookies are the mind expressing the discovery of it's own limitations in the sort of detail the thinking process inevitably gravitates toward. Detail always involves complication, and what you can discern in the forum dialog as a whole is a rejection of a simplicity such as "all thoughts are limitation in expression" by picking it apart with analysis, while a counter-analysis in favor of the original simplicity is rejected as overthinking the issue. -- a great example of how the fortress of mind can't take itself down! Zactaduckily. Well, some peeps are just ineffable, though they can be very tasty in smores. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2014 20:12:07 GMT -5
This is what I'm referencing whenever I start writing fortune cookies about the inherently limiting and self-referential nature of information and how this inherent limitation is related to the point that there is no fact, knowledge or other piece of information that can describe what is prior-to or beyond the subject-object split: because all information is premised on that split to begin with.The cookies are the mind expressing the discovery of it's own limitations in the sort of detail the thinking process inevitably gravitates toward. Detail always involves complication, and what you can discern in the forum dialog as a whole is a rejection of a simplicity such as "all thoughts are limitation in expression" by picking it apart with analysis, while a counter-analysis in favor of the original simplicity is rejected as overthinking the issue. -- a great example of how the fortress of mind can't take itself down! Zactaduckily. Well, some peeps are just ineffable, though they can be very tasty in smores.  |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 11, 2015 14:21:57 GMT -5
Niz: "Even the experiencer is secondary. Primary is the infinite expanse of consciousness, the immeasurable potential of all that was, is, and will be. When you look at anything, it is the ultimate you see, but you imagine that you see a cloud or a tree. Stop attributing names and shapes to the essentially nameless and formless, realize that what is seen or heard, touched, or smelt, felt or thought, expected or imagined, is in the mind and not in reality. Be friendly with your undifferentiated state, it is your true Self."
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 12, 2015 7:26:13 GMT -5
"Whenever a thought or emotion of desire or fear comes to your mind, just turn away from it......just refuse attention......just turn away.....look between the thoughts....when you do not resist, you meet with no resistance......turn away from your desires and fears and from the thoughts they create and you are at once in your natural state."
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 5, 2015 15:57:55 GMT -5
As long as you are a beginner certain formalised meditations, or prayers may be good for you. But for a seeker for reality there is only one meditation - the rigorous refusal to harbour thoughts. To be free from thoughts is itself meditation....You begin by letting thoughts flow and watching them. The very observation slows down the mind till it stops altogether. Once the mind is quiet, keep it quiet. Don't get bored with peace, be in it, go deeper into it....Watch your thoughts and watch yourself watching the thoughts. The state of freedom from all thoughts will happen suddenly and by the bliss of it you shall recognise it." Reminds me of what I've been reading on Shikan Taza. The Zen sources concentrate on sense perception, on what comes to the forefront. Of course, if one keeps their eyes open when doing what Niz suggests here (as opposed to directing attention inward), the world in raw form will of course rush in. A particular woo-woo effect I've noticed in these instances is a sort of personification of my surroundings, as if the room is staring back at me. Only happens indoors. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2015 16:18:22 GMT -5
As long as you are a beginner certain formalised meditations, or prayers may be good for you. But for a seeker for reality there is only one meditation - the rigorous refusal to harbour thoughts. To be free from thoughts is itself meditation....You begin by letting thoughts flow and watching them. The very observation slows down the mind till it stops altogether. Once the mind is quiet, keep it quiet. Don't get bored with peace, be in it, go deeper into it....Watch your thoughts and watch yourself watching the thoughts. The state of freedom from all thoughts will happen suddenly and by the bliss of it you shall recognise it." Reminds me of what I've been reading on Shikan Taza. The Zen sources concentrate on sense perception, on what comes to the forefront. Of course, if one keeps their eyes open when doing what Niz suggests here (as opposed to directing attention inward), the world in raw form will of course rush in. A particular woo-woo effect I've noticed in these instances is a sort of personification of my surroundings, as if the room is staring back at me. Only happens indoors.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 5, 2015 17:11:40 GMT -5
Reminds me of what I've been reading on Shikan Taza. The Zen sources concentrate on sense perception, on what comes to the forefront. Of course, if one keeps their eyes open when doing what Niz suggests here (as opposed to directing attention inward), the world in raw form will of course rush in. A particular woo-woo effect I've noticed in these instances is a sort of personification of my surroundings, as if the room is staring back at me. Only happens indoors.  |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 5, 2015 19:14:33 GMT -5
As long as you are a beginner certain formalised meditations, or prayers may be good for you. But for a seeker for reality there is only one meditation - the rigorous refusal to harbour thoughts. To be free from thoughts is itself meditation....You begin by letting thoughts flow and watching them. The very observation slows down the mind till it stops altogether. Once the mind is quiet, keep it quiet. Don't get bored with peace, be in it, go deeper into it....Watch your thoughts and watch yourself watching the thoughts. The state of freedom from all thoughts will happen suddenly and by the bliss of it you shall recognise it." Reminds me of what I've been reading on Shikan Taza. The Zen sources concentrate on sense perception, on what comes to the forefront. Of course, if one keeps their eyes open when doing what Niz suggests here (as opposed to directing attention inward), the world in raw form will of course rush in. A particular woo-woo effect I've noticed in these instances is a sort of personification of my surroundings, as if the room is staring back at me. Only happens indoors. That's a very interesting effect. Are you reading anything in particular or just general internet research? |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 5, 2015 20:15:35 GMT -5
As long as you are a beginner certain formalised meditations, or prayers may be good for you. But for a seeker for reality there is only one meditation - the rigorous refusal to harbour thoughts. To be free from thoughts is itself meditation....You begin by letting thoughts flow and watching them. The very observation slows down the mind till it stops altogether. Once the mind is quiet, keep it quiet. Don't get bored with peace, be in it, go deeper into it....Watch your thoughts and watch yourself watching the thoughts. The state of freedom from all thoughts will happen suddenly and by the bliss of it you shall recognise it." Reminds me of what I've been reading on Shikan Taza. The Zen sources concentrate on sense perception, on what comes to the forefront. Of course, if one keeps their eyes open when doing what Niz suggests here (as opposed to directing attention inward), the world in raw form will of course rush in. A particular woo-woo effect I've noticed in these instances is a sort of personification of my surroundings, as if the room is staring back at me. Only happens indoors. I've experienced my surroundings morphing into different changing shapes and patterns. My guess is that mind jumps in to try and make some sort of sense of things (hence my patterns and perhaps your personification). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2015 5:17:28 GMT -5
Reminds me of what I've been reading on Shikan Taza. The Zen sources concentrate on sense perception, on what comes to the forefront. Of course, if one keeps their eyes open when doing what Niz suggests here (as opposed to directing attention inward), the world in raw form will of course rush in. A particular woo-woo effect I've noticed in these instances is a sort of personification of my surroundings, as if the room is staring back at me. Only happens indoors. That's a very interesting effect. Are you reading anything in particular or just general internet research? Just casual from what comes up on google. There are also overlapping elements between what I've been reading and Adya's "True Meditation". |
|
