|
|
Post by Portto on Dec 29, 2012 10:47:46 GMT -5
I hope it means "World Taekwondo Federation"  |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Dec 29, 2012 10:48:44 GMT -5
It all appears in 'your self' as 'your self.' More like All, in All, as All. OK, as long as All is One  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 29, 2012 11:02:26 GMT -5
More like All, in All, as All. OK, as long as All is One How many more Alls would there be?  |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Dec 29, 2012 11:06:14 GMT -5
OK, as long as All is One How many more Alls would there be? In truth, one. In imagination, there are many, and each "all" is made of many things. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 29, 2012 11:07:51 GMT -5
How CAN one know that they exist? Doesn't that imply twoness--a knower and a known? Yes, and this is why sages point beyond this kind of knowing. They also point beyond allowing, accepting, releasing, and all other kinds of doing.
I think Niz said something somewhere about staying with the I AM only as a temporary means to an end. Sooner of later that is also left behind.
A silent mind is like blue sky for ten-thousand miles.
Ordinary everyday life is the way.
*blinks eyes, hits "post reply" button* "In seeing One there are two" -- Albert Low "Except-from-the-view-atop-Mt.-Woo-Woo!" -- Laughter |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2012 12:40:37 GMT -5
Exactly. That's what I call jumping the gun, hehe. I guess if we can call duality illusion, we never have to notice how we're not seeing it as it is.  You know, sometimes when I'm reading the posts you two chuckleheads serve up it becomes clear you must be trying to achieve some sort of immortality through posting. ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2012 12:53:53 GMT -5
The gap is only there in minding. These questions can only arise in minding. You are still sitting in the village and are imagining how the view would be from Mt. Woowoo. Your concept ciggies are clouding the view. I agree those questions only arise in minding, and the gap is only there in minding (but again the distinction between truthing and minding is not a true one). To go with your distinction though, what you said is is exactly why, in truthing, there is no sense of knowing that we exist, because there is no gap between knower and known. If we ARE existence itself, who or what would know that we exist? Only when the experience is of being separate from existence is there a sense of knowing that we exist. All that's required to know that you exist is a sense of being, which is present when consciousness is present. The experience of being separate is not required for existence to be. This is assumed in minding and that assumption should be questioned rather than the self evident knowing of existence. The questioning of existence already presupposes existence, but it does not presuppose separation. Separation is an illusion, existence is not. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 29, 2012 13:07:02 GMT -5
I agree those questions only arise in minding, and the gap is only there in minding (but again the distinction between truthing and minding is not a true one). To go with your distinction though, what you said is is exactly why, in truthing, there is no sense of knowing that we exist, because there is no gap between knower and known. If we ARE existence itself, who or what would know that we exist? Only when the experience is of being separate from existence is there a sense of knowing that we exist. All that's required to know that you exist is a sense of being, which is present when consciousness is present. The experience of being separate is not required for existence to be. This is assumed in minding and that assumption should be questioned rather than the self evident knowing of existence. The questioning of existence already presupposes existence, but it does not presuppose separation. Separation is an illusion, existence is not. Some word twisting here. I have not said that the experience of being separate is required for existence to be. I said the experience of being separate is required in order for the sense of knowing that you exist to be. I'm not even sure that I would say there is a sense of 'being' here. If I completely stop right now, and drop all thoughts and be still, there is a sense that I can only describe as lightness, ease and joy. I have no reference for sense of 'being' anymore. I AM being. The questioning of existence would prove existence if the questioning itself could be proved to be happening. There is no proof available, and the very idea of proof is a misnomer, left over from the days in which the observer was believed to be separate from the observed. So there is no sense of that knowing here. Who or what would know that you exist if you ARE existence itself? What is observing your existence as existence itself? Again, I could put up a ton of Niz quotes to illustrate the point, but I see no point because you just. can't. accept. the. truth. of. this. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2012 14:22:21 GMT -5
All that's required to know that you exist is a sense of being, which is present when consciousness is present. The experience of being separate is not required for existence to be. This is assumed in minding and that assumption should be questioned rather than the self evident knowing of existence. The questioning of existence already presupposes existence, but it does not presuppose separation. Separation is an illusion, existence is not. Some word twisting here. I have not said that the experience of being separate is required for existence to be. I said the experience of being separate is required in order for the sense of knowing that you exist to be. I'm not even sure that I would say there is a sense of 'being' here. If I completely stop right now, and drop all thoughts and be still, there is a sense that I can only describe as lightness, ease and joy. I have no reference for sense of 'being' anymore. I AM being. The questioning of existence would prove existence if the questioning itself could be proved to be happening. There is no proof available, and the very idea of proof is a misnomer, left over from the days in which the observer was believed to be separate from the observed. So there is no sense of that knowing here. Who or what would know that you exist if you ARE existence itself? What is observing your existence as existence itself? Again, I could put up a ton of Niz quotes to illustrate the point, but I see no point because you just. can't. accept. the. truth. of. this. Yes, please don't start quoting Niz again. Lets just talk, shall we? The experience of being separate is not required in order for the sense of knowing that you exist to be. The experience of being separate is merely implied, and this implication is a minding process; a conclusion derived from the sense of existing. The conclusion is, if I exist, then i must exist as something, and I must be separate from something else. This conclusion does not follow from the sense of existing. That sense tells you nothing about being a thing or being separate. It says only that you exist, it doesn't say anything about what exists. The idea that there must be something separate from existence to know of existence is a misconception and misapplication of the notion 'that which knows cannot be the known'. That pointer refers to 'mind objects' that appear to you, which cannot be that to which they appear. The sense of existence is not a mind object. Existence knows of itself, which is why it is self evident. I've also talked about going beyond the sense of I Am, but I have not talked to you about that because of the above confusion about that sense of existence. Not knowing that I Am is simply a turning away from that idea out of lack of interest because I Am is not meaningful to somebody. To momentarily stop thoughts and notice that no thought of I Am happens is just a mind game. Back up a bit and notice that the sense 'I Am' tells you only that you exist. It says nothing about what, if anything, exists. Consider it an exercise for mind in learning when to STFU. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 29, 2012 14:50:38 GMT -5
Some word twisting here. I have not said that the experience of being separate is required for existence to be. I said the experience of being separate is required in order for the sense of knowing that you exist to be. I'm not even sure that I would say there is a sense of 'being' here. If I completely stop right now, and drop all thoughts and be still, there is a sense that I can only describe as lightness, ease and joy. I have no reference for sense of 'being' anymore. I AM being. The questioning of existence would prove existence if the questioning itself could be proved to be happening. There is no proof available, and the very idea of proof is a misnomer, left over from the days in which the observer was believed to be separate from the observed. So there is no sense of that knowing here. Who or what would know that you exist if you ARE existence itself? What is observing your existence as existence itself? Again, I could put up a ton of Niz quotes to illustrate the point, but I see no point because you just. can't. accept. the. truth. of. this. Yes, please don't start quoting Niz again. Lets just talk, shall we? The experience of being separate is not required in order for the sense of knowing that you exist to be. The experience of being separate is merely implied, and this implication is a minding process; a conclusion derived from the sense of existing. The conclusion is, if I exist, then i must exist as something, and I must be separate from something else. This conclusion does not follow from the sense of existing. That sense tells you nothing about being a thing or being separate. It says only that you exist, it doesn't say anything about what exists. The idea that there must be something separate from existence to know of existence is a misconception and misapplication of the notion 'that which knows cannot be the known'. That pointer refers to 'mind objects' that appear to you, which cannot be that to which they appear. The sense of existence is not a mind object. Existence knows of itself, which is why it is self evident. I've also talked about going beyond the sense of I Am, but I have not talked to you about that because of the above confusion about that sense of existence. Not knowing that I Am is simply a turning away from that idea out of lack of interest because I Am is not meaningful to somebody. To momentarily stop thoughts and notice that no thought of I Am happens is just a mind game. Back up a bit and notice that the sense 'I Am' tells you only that you exist. It says nothing about what, if anything, exists. Consider it an exercise for mind in learning when to STFU. The experience of being separate IS required for the sense of knowing that you exist. The 'I' of the mind is experienced as separate FROM the 'Self/existence'. This illusionary gap allows us to experience a knowing that we exist. When this gap is closed, the 'I' of the mind is no longer experienced as separate from 'Self/existence'. There is literally no-one left that could sense a knowing that I exist. There is no sense 'I am'. I am the existence, I am the amness, I am That I am. As I said, when I stop and become totally still, there is what I would describe as lightness, ease, joy. That is all. What you are suggesting in 'backing up a bit' is still creating a separation. What could or would back off from what? It is a useful exercise for beginners but does not apply to my experience. I'm sorry dude, but there is further for you to go. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2012 17:30:18 GMT -5
Yes, please don't start quoting Niz again. Lets just talk, shall we? The experience of being separate is not required in order for the sense of knowing that you exist to be. The experience of being separate is merely implied, and this implication is a minding process; a conclusion derived from the sense of existing. The conclusion is, if I exist, then i must exist as something, and I must be separate from something else. This conclusion does not follow from the sense of existing. That sense tells you nothing about being a thing or being separate. It says only that you exist, it doesn't say anything about what exists. The idea that there must be something separate from existence to know of existence is a misconception and misapplication of the notion 'that which knows cannot be the known'. That pointer refers to 'mind objects' that appear to you, which cannot be that to which they appear. The sense of existence is not a mind object. Existence knows of itself, which is why it is self evident. I've also talked about going beyond the sense of I Am, but I have not talked to you about that because of the above confusion about that sense of existence. Not knowing that I Am is simply a turning away from that idea out of lack of interest because I Am is not meaningful to somebody. To momentarily stop thoughts and notice that no thought of I Am happens is just a mind game. Back up a bit and notice that the sense 'I Am' tells you only that you exist. It says nothing about what, if anything, exists. Consider it an exercise for mind in learning when to STFU. The experience of being separate IS required for the sense of knowing that you exist. The 'I' of the mind is experienced as separate FROM the 'Self/existence'. The "I of the mind" is already mind identification. This is not required for a sense of existence. The appearance of a gap is the result of mind identification. It is not what allows for the sense of existence. All that is required for that is consciousness. All sentient creatures have a sense of existence, whether or not they identify themselves as separate, or as anything. There doesn't need to be someone there in order to have the sense of existence. That's a mental conclusion born out of the idea of identification. From within that identification, the 'I' assumes 'I' need to be here in order to know 'I' exist, and if 'I' disappear, there won't be anybody who senses that. There was never anybody here, and yet it is clearly sensed, so obviously nobody needs to be here. It is the 'I' that is imagined, not the sense of existence. When that sense is there all the time, whether 'you' stop or not, then you'll understand that 'amness' has nothing to do with 'you'. Arrogance is a deceitful master. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 29, 2012 17:50:06 GMT -5
The experience of being separate IS required for the sense of knowing that you exist. The 'I' of the mind is experienced as separate FROM the 'Self/existence'. The "I of the mind" is already mind identification. This is not required for a sense of existence. The appearance of a gap is the result of mind identification. It is not what allows for the sense of existence. All that is required for that is consciousness. All sentient creatures have a sense of existence, whether or not they identify themselves as separate, or as anything. There doesn't need to be someone there in order to have the sense of existence. That's a mental conclusion born out of the idea of identification. From within that identification, the 'I' assumes 'I' need to be here in order to know 'I' exist, and if 'I' disappear, there won't be anybody who senses that. There was never anybody here, and yet it is clearly sensed, so obviously nobody needs to be here. It is the 'I' that is imagined, not the sense of existence. When that sense is there all the time, whether 'you' stop or not, then you'll understand that 'amness' has nothing to do with 'you'. Arrogance is a deceitful master. What we were talking about was the sense of KNOWING I exist. I have said that if I sit, drop, and be still, there is what I would describe as lightness, ease and joy. I have no idea if that's what you mean by 'sense of existence'. If I check whether there is a 'sense of existence' here, there is nothing... but maybe what you call a 'sense of existence', I call lightness, ease and joy. I doubt it though, because if I allow myself to remember, I get a vague sense of what you mean by it, and it is different to what I mean by 'lightness, ease and joy'. Its hard to comment on the rest of what you said, because you are talking about 'sense of existence' which I don't have a reference for. In the collapse of the gap between 'I' and 'Self/Existence', I don't see why there has to be a sense of existence. It seems to me that this sense of existence would still require an illusionary gap between existence and whatever. My opinion is that what I described as 'lightness, ease and joy' is an arising born out of an absence of gap. I also don't know how you know that animals and trees have this 'sense of existence'. I'm not sure they do. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2012 18:29:22 GMT -5
The "I of the mind" is already mind identification. This is not required for a sense of existence. The appearance of a gap is the result of mind identification. It is not what allows for the sense of existence. All that is required for that is consciousness. All sentient creatures have a sense of existence, whether or not they identify themselves as separate, or as anything. There doesn't need to be someone there in order to have the sense of existence. That's a mental conclusion born out of the idea of identification. From within that identification, the 'I' assumes 'I' need to be here in order to know 'I' exist, and if 'I' disappear, there won't be anybody who senses that. There was never anybody here, and yet it is clearly sensed, so obviously nobody needs to be here. It is the 'I' that is imagined, not the sense of existence. When that sense is there all the time, whether 'you' stop or not, then you'll understand that 'amness' has nothing to do with 'you'. Arrogance is a deceitful master. What we were talking about was the sense of KNOWING I exist. I have said that if I sit, drop, and be still, there is what I would describe as lightness, ease and joy. I have no idea if that's what you mean by 'sense of existence'. If I check whether there is a 'sense of existence' here, there is nothing... but maybe what you call a 'sense of existence', I call lightness, ease and joy. I doubt it though, because if I allow myself to remember, I get a vague sense of what you mean by it, and it is different to what I mean by 'lightness, ease and joy'. No that's just putting the minding on pause for a moment, and it's no doubt delightful. You're looking for the sense of existence in your mind or memory, and I'm saying you know you exist before you have any thought about it. (Afterwards....not so much) Of course you do. Conscious creatures have a sense of existence cuz it's consciousness that brings it about, and conceptualization is not required. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 29, 2012 18:55:40 GMT -5
What we were talking about was the sense of KNOWING I exist. I have said that if I sit, drop, and be still, there is what I would describe as lightness, ease and joy. I have no idea if that's what you mean by 'sense of existence'. If I check whether there is a 'sense of existence' here, there is nothing... but maybe what you call a 'sense of existence', I call lightness, ease and joy. I doubt it though, because if I allow myself to remember, I get a vague sense of what you mean by it, and it is different to what I mean by 'lightness, ease and joy'. No that's just putting the minding on pause for a moment, and it's no doubt delightful. You're looking for the sense of existence in your mind or memory, and I'm saying you know you exist before you have any thought about it. (Afterwards....not so much) Of course you do. Conscious creatures have a sense of existence cuz it's consciousness that brings it about, and conceptualization is not required. I'm not putting mind in pause, that would be stilling the mind (not saying there is anything wrong with doing that), neither am I looking in mind. Its stop, be still and feel what's there. I just did it again. Lightness, joy, and ease. No sense of existence, unless what I am giving label to is what you mean. I understand what you mean when you say 'you know you exist before you have any thought about it', which is why Niz recommends it to spiritual newbies i.e. because they experience being separate. It doesn't apply here. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Dec 29, 2012 19:10:36 GMT -5
I understand what you mean when you say 'you know you exist before you have any thought about it', which is why Niz recommends it to spiritual newbies i.e. because they experience being separate. It doesn't apply here. I guess you're just too darn advanced for us around these parts. When can we expect to buy tickets to your world tour? |
|
