|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 23, 2013 0:16:54 GMT -5
- Niz taken from "I AM THAT" That "take you in" bit is a reference to Samadhi How so? I'd rather say it suggests that it is not the result of a doer (i.e. person) doing something. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 0:24:11 GMT -5
For the most part, Niz was talking to westerners who were there seeking answers to their philosophical questions....if he had been talking to Sanyasíns here might have just given out that bit in RED....but as he was talking to philosophical inquiries, he offered a method couched in just enough philosophy to get those westerners to keep their attention concentrated after they returned to Europe and the US...  He talks to the witness/consciousness, not to the person/seeker. With all due respect, you are taking a cake recipe and blowing it up to an abstraction. When I am posting to you right now, in this moment, this to is God talking to God... Yesterday I was meeting a client in his office, and it was in some buildings set way back off the street, I called him for directions....that too was God talking to God....but his directions still guided me in ;-) Niz is giving you logistics, and you are seeing philosophy |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 23, 2013 0:24:22 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. "Before the mind", there is no process that has the capacity for words/meanings.. these are "I AM" 'stories' that sound cool to people that want to sound cool.. Stop looking for 'stories' to explain what 'is', there is no story or explanation more valid than living it.. Niz has nothing to offer that is more complete or accurate than your own experience.. attachments to the words of others are self-imposed limitations..Be well.. That's what Niz is saying all along. Did you actually read the quotes or did you just see 'Niz' and immediately got into full gear? Jes sayin'...  I read Niz, i understand his message, and i find it distorted with his own deluded self-image.. then, i see his disciples distort that message even further by adding their own deluded beliefs 'about' Niz's messages.. find your authenticity, Niz's blunders need not be your's too.. Be well.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 0:27:54 GMT -5
That "take you in" bit is a reference to Samadhi How so? I'd rather say it suggests that it is not the result of a doer (i.e. person) doing something. When one steadfastly concentrates attention on an experience, one loses the sense of doing and enters meditation, when one continues meditation; as Niz has prescribed, the doer falls away as one is absorbed, or merges with the reality behind the "I Am" that Niz pointed to in that quote. Meditation is the merging of "doing" with "Doer"....doing and doer merge into Being prior to doing. Samadhi is the falling away of Being, or I Am, as one merges, or is "taken in" to the absolute. The existence, or appearence of Differentiated Self disappears into the Undifferentiated. Read the part in RED, he is being very plain spoken and clear in his instructions....the rest is just to get the attention of the western philosophers that came to see him, and to earn their trust as he spoke about in other quotes. They came seeking a answers about the divine, and so he gave them a little shiny thing to hold their attention and meditate upon, so that they may Gnosis the reality reality behind the I Am.... The I Am is irrelevant, he could have told them to steadfastly hold their concentration on a bowl or an apple, because it is the concentration of attention on one experience that is the value...but he gave them the I Am, partly because that is a central practice or Dharana in his Yogic Lineage, but also because they were seeking answers about their divine nature. One side affect of Samadhi, is that you gain great insight into the nature of whatever it is that you are concentrating your attention on on the way to Samadhi....in Samadhi, these insights are meaningless, but before and after they answer your questions.... In one "practice" , he gave them a means to get their own insights about the nature of their Beingness to satisfy their minds, and also gave them a gateway to Samadhi, or a merging with the divine.....he gave a very specific "practice" that they could use to acquire their own Knowing AND Gnosis. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 23, 2013 0:37:30 GMT -5
How so? I'd rather say it suggests that it is not the result of a doer (i.e. person) doing something. When one concentrates attention on an experience, one loses the since of doing and enters meditation, when one continues meditation as Niz has prescribed, the doer falls away as one is absorbed, or merges with the reality behind the "I Am" that Niz pointed to in that quote. Samadhi is the falling away of the doer as one merges, or is "taken in" to the absolute. In Niz ontology, behind the 'I am' is only pure awareness. No witness witnessing anything, the witness not even being aware of itself, i.e. dreamless deep sleep. The doer falling away just means the person falling away. So who is that 'one' you are talking about? Certainly not the person since the 'one' still there when the sense of doership is gone and can report back. It's the witness that is doing all sadhanas. It can't be the person because somewhere along the way the person bites the dust which is evidenced by the loss of sense of doership. But the sense of 'I am' still remains, only the concept of 'I am doing this/that' is gone. When you lose the sense of 'I am' in meditation, does the entire world go with it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 0:54:52 GMT -5
When one concentrates attention on an experience, one loses the since of doing and enters meditation, when one continues meditation as Niz has prescribed, the doer falls away as one is absorbed, or merges with the reality behind the "I Am" that Niz pointed to in that quote. Samadhi is the falling away of the doer as one merges, or is "taken in" to the absolute. In Niz ontology, behind the 'I am' is only pure awareness. No witness witnessing anything, the witness not even being aware of itself, i.e. dreamless deep sleep. The doer falling away just means the person falling away. So who is that 'one' you are talking about? Certainly not the person since the 'one' still there when the sense of doership is gone and can report back. It's the witness that is doing all sadhanas. It can't be the person because somewhere along the way the person bites the dust which is evidenced by the loss of sense of doership. But the sense of 'I am' still remains, only the concept of 'I am doing this/that' is gone. When you lose the sense of 'I am' in meditation, does the entire world go with it? Firstly, you are right about nearly everything there, but Samadhi is NOT a deep sleep....in deep sleep there is no consciousness, in Samadhi, there is consciousness absent the differentiation of "Self"...incredibly intense and alive consciousness, and sometimes, phenomena appear but not to a "self", there is no witness, or witnessing. This cannot really be described, which is why Niz gave a means to gnosis instead of describing it. In Samadhi, or the merging that Niz speaks of, the witness is there right up to the moment of merging into that which is "behind the I Am"....but in that merge, which is Samadhi, the witness becomes no more. To complicate the issue, sometimes Samadhi also has no phenomena occurring, but even in this deep deep Samadhi, it is not the same as deep sleep....there is no Awareness or consciousness in deep sleep, in Samadhi there is absolute, raw, primal, utterly undifferentiated consciousness. as an aside, I like using the word One in that way, because it could be pointing to the apearence of a self individuation, or the "One" Conciousness prior to the apearence of differentiatuon of Self.....at some point, all persoectives merge into the undifferentiated One ;-) I let the reader decide if they see the One as a person, or THE One lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 1:05:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 23, 2013 3:11:29 GMT -5
Ya hear that, Andrew? One more time, I haven't said otherwise actually. What I have said is that 'I am' is in Mind. I have also said that it is in consciousness. I agree with Niz that it is the primary knowledge/principle/ignorance. As such it is prior to the 'mind' that is being spoken of there. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 23, 2013 4:58:14 GMT -5
Ya hear that, Andrew? One more time, I haven't said otherwise actually. What I have said is that 'I am' is in Mind. I have also said that it is in consciousness. I agree with Niz that it is the primary knowledge/principle/ignorance. As such it is prior to the ' mind' that is being spoken of there. Where does Niz distinguish between 'Mind' and 'mind'? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 23, 2013 5:56:45 GMT -5
Niz doesn't use the word 'Mind', I do. Its a way of pointing away from 'individual mind' and which includes anything sensed, known, experienced that might be said to be prior to 'individual mind'. Another word for 'Mind' might be 'the manifested'. 'I am' would be the primary manifestation out of which all other manifestations are manifest.
''With the transcendence of the knowledge ‘I am’, the Absolute prevails. The state is called ‘Parabrahman’, while the knowledge ‘I am’ is termed Brahman. This knowledge ‘I am’ or the beingness is illusion only. Therefore, when Brahman is transcended, only the ‘Parabrahman’ is, in which there is not even a trace of the knowledge ‘I am’.''
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 23, 2013 8:26:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. "Before the mind", there is no process that has the capacity for words/meanings.. these are "I AM" 'stories' that sound cool to people that want to sound cool.. Stop looking for 'stories' to explain what 'is', there is no story or explanation more valid than living it.. Niz has nothing to offer that is more complete or accurate than your own experience.. attachments to the words of others are self-imposed limitations..Be well.. That's what Niz is saying all along. Did you actually read the quotes or did you just see 'Niz' and immediately got into full gear? Jes sayin'... It's the use of the word "person".  ... the both/and lecture will follow soon if it hasn't come already ... |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 23, 2013 9:10:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. That's what Niz is saying all along. Did you actually read the quotes or did you just see 'Niz' and immediately got into full gear? Jes sayin'... It's the use of the word "person". ... the both/and lecture will follow soon if it hasn't come already ... LOL.. starting' to get it, eh.. now you see how it applies.. stay with it, Bill.. there may be hope for you, yet.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 23, 2013 9:51:16 GMT -5
Ya hear that, Andrew? One more time, I haven't said otherwise actually. What I have said is that 'I am' is in Mind. I have also said that it is in consciousness. I agree with Niz that it is the primary knowledge/principle/ignorance. As such it is prior to the 'mind' that is being spoken of there. Okay, so, you're talking about the concept (or even 'sense') I am being in mind -- correct? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 23, 2013 10:02:14 GMT -5
I haven't said otherwise actually. What I have said is that 'I am' is in Mind. I have also said that it is in consciousness. I agree with Niz that it is the primary knowledge/principle/ignorance. As such it is prior to the 'mind' that is being spoken of there. Okay, so, you're talking about the concept (or even 'sense') I am being in mind -- correct? There is the actual concept of 'I am' which is in mind but then because Niz wants to distinguish between the actual concept and the felt sense, he says the felt primary sense of 'I am' is prior to mind. I see value in making this distinction. But in the end, whether its the concept or the felt sense, its still something experienced, known, manifest. As such, whether its the concept or felt sense, they are both 'illusion'. The felt sense is the primary illusion, the concept the secondary illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 23, 2013 10:10:34 GMT -5
Okay, so, you're talking about the concept (or even 'sense') I am being in mind -- correct? There is the actual concept of 'I am' which is in mind but then because Niz wants to distinguish between the actual concept and the felt sense, he says the felt primary sense of 'I am' is prior to mind. I see value in making this distinction. But in the end, whether its the concept or the felt sense, its still something experienced, known, manifest. As such, whether its the concept or felt sense, they are both 'illusion'. The felt sense is the primary illusion, the concept the secondary illusion. I think you're misinterpreting Niz. He's not saying the 'felt primary sense of 'I am' is prior to mind, he's saying, Before the mind -- I am.. Therefore, I am before the mind. |
|
