|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 23, 2013 10:15:02 GMT -5
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. I'm not arguing that. But he knows that 'I am' is before the mind because it is felt and sensed and known to be 'prior to mind'. If we go a but further though, the fact that it is felt, sensed, known, means that, in your terms, it would have to be 'actuality', not 'Reality'. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 23, 2013 10:21:59 GMT -5
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. But he knows that 'I am' is before the mind because it is felt and sensed and known to be 'prior to mind'. If we go a but further though, the fact that it is felt, sensed, known, means that, in your terms, it would have to be 'actuality', not 'Reality'. Good. We can leave it at that, then.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 23, 2013 10:29:25 GMT -5
I'm not arguing that. But he knows that 'I am' is before the mind because it is felt and sensed and known to be 'prior to mind'. If we go a but further though, the fact that it is felt, sensed, known, means that, in your terms, it would have to be 'actuality', not 'Reality'. Good. We can leave it at that, then. I want to try and put it in words you use first. What Niz calls Parabrahman is what you call Reality, and 'I am/Being' is Brahman, which you call actuality. In this context, Reality is 'non-Being', not 'Being'. To paraphrase Niz, it is in abidance in Being that Being is eventually surrendered. Its then that we see 'Brahman' as illusion too. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 23, 2013 10:32:23 GMT -5
Good. We can leave it at that, then. I want to try and put it in words you use first. What Niz calls Parabrahman is what you call Reality, and 'I am/Being' is Brahman, which you call actuality. In this context, Reality is 'non-Being', not 'Being'. To paraphrase Niz, it is in abidance in Being that Being is eventually surrendered. Its then that we see 'Brahman' as illusion too. You're interpreting Niz here, and since you're an admitted (NLPer), I must ignore this. Not even going to try to make sense of it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 23, 2013 17:10:26 GMT -5
Niz is recommending a practice, and recommending that you do this practice with such earnestness that you let all else go in a concentration on this practice, this experience: "I Am" This is A Dh?rana, or a focussing of one's concentration, or attention, on one experience, the original experience from which all other experiences blossom forth. Steady Alert Concentration of the Attention on an experience leads to Dhyana, or meditation, where the effort of concentration falls away, and all that is left is the object of the attention, (in this case the I Am), and the observer, all else falls away, there is no effort, no doing. Later, in other talks, Niz Talks about transcending the "I Am"...With sustained alert attention on the I am, concentration becomes a kind of "non-doing" in meditation, or an effortless concentration of attention....continue meditation on the I Am, and one is undone into Samadhi, wherein the I Am is transcended, or let go of as the awareness of self falls away to an openess of of pure experience, with no "I Am" filtering your direct experience. This is the Primal State of our being, unfiltered by an "I" or "I Am". Niz is not telling you how things really are, he is giving you a method, a path to direct experience....and making it perfectly clear how much concentration is needed to open that "gate". "Stay with it, and reject everything else"....do this for a part of everyday and Niz will no longer be a sage to you, he will just be a guy that passed you the instruction book that was previously passed to him. True enough on the point of practice, but Niz is just as likely to say in the same breath that there is nothing to be done and nothing that can be done to realize that were are "both, neither, and beyond both", as the doer is a only a movement of mind. The practice advice is for the person, and Niz is quite clear on the nature of the person. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 23, 2013 17:11:30 GMT -5
I want to try and put it in words you use first. What Niz calls Parabrahman is what you call Reality, and 'I am/Being' is Brahman, which you call actuality. In this context, Reality is 'non-Being', not 'Being'. To paraphrase Niz, it is in abidance in Being that Being is eventually surrendered. Its then that we see 'Brahman' as illusion too. You're interpreting Niz here, and since you're an admitted (NLPer), I must ignore this. Not even going to try to make sense of it. My guess is that Niz would have had even less patience for Andrews TMT on his words than you do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 17:14:49 GMT -5
Niz is recommending a practice, and recommending that you do this practice with such earnestness that you let all else go in a concentration on this practice, this experience: "I Am" This is A Dh?rana, or a focussing of one's concentration, or attention, on one experience, the original experience from which all other experiences blossom forth. Steady Alert Concentration of the Attention on an experience leads to Dhyana, or meditation, where the effort of concentration falls away, and all that is left is the object of the attention, (in this case the I Am), and the observer, all else falls away, there is no effort, no doing. Later, in other talks, Niz Talks about transcending the "I Am"...With sustained alert attention on the I am, concentration becomes a kind of "non-doing" in meditation, or an effortless concentration of attention....continue meditation on the I Am, and one is undone into Samadhi, wherein the I Am is transcended, or let go of as the awareness of self falls away to an openess of of pure experience, with no "I Am" filtering your direct experience. This is the Primal State of our being, unfiltered by an "I" or "I Am". Niz is not telling you how things really are, he is giving you a method, a path to direct experience....and making it perfectly clear how much concentration is needed to open that "gate". "Stay with it, and reject everything else"....do this for a part of everyday and Niz will no longer be a sage to you, he will just be a guy that passed you the instruction book that was previously passed to him. True enough on the point of practice, but Niz is just as likely to say in the same breath that there is nothing to be done and nothing that can be done to realize that were are "both, neither, and beyond both", as the doer is a only a movement of mind. The practice advice is for the person, and Niz is quite clear on the nature of the person. yes, Niz's advice is for the person, but in a way, his advice is a kind of oushing "the person" over a cliff into non-personhood. |
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Jul 23, 2013 17:18:25 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'...  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.. Above is the difference between understanding a message and hearing a message beyond mind..... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 23, 2013 17:21:22 GMT -5
True enough on the point of practice, but Niz is just as likely to say in the same breath that there is nothing to be done and nothing that can be done to realize that were are "both, neither, and beyond both", as the doer is a only a movement of mind. The practice advice is for the person, and Niz is quite clear on the nature of the person. yes, Niz's advice is for the person, but in a way, his advice is a kind of oushing "the person" over a cliff into non-personhood. Since shedding the skin of the person sorta' has to be an accident of a sort, maybe the metaphor of planting banana peels applies ...  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 23, 2013 17:25:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. Above is the difference between understanding a message and hearing a message beyond mind..... Yeah, Niz makes it pretty clear that he's not inviting rational analysis or providing fodder for the rational thought process of his listener. He often tells the listener to stop imagining or extrapolating or thinking about what's being said to him. When Niz said "just look and see", he meant it. |
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Jul 23, 2013 17:35:20 GMT -5
Above is the difference between understanding a message and hearing a message beyond mind..... Yeah, Niz makes it pretty clear that he's not inviting rational analysis or providing fodder for the rational thought process of his listener. He often tells the listener to stop imagining or extrapolating or thinking about what's being said to him. When Niz said "just look and see", he meant it. You can only take a horse to water, you can't make it drink....... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 17:37:43 GMT -5
yes, Niz's advice is for the person, but in a way, his advice is a kind of oushing "the person" over a cliff into non-personhood. Since shedding the skin of the person sorta' has to be an accident of a sort, maybe the metaphor of planting banana peels applies ... I dunno whether its an accident or not....but if so...he is definately giving instructions on how to be more accident prone lol |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 23, 2013 20:26:21 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'? 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’.''Mind f*cker!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 20:29:50 GMT -5
One more time, Mind f*cker! Sniveling a s s wipe |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 23, 2013 20:48:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. 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.. Above is the difference between understanding a message and hearing a message beyond mind..... Your post is a good example of using mind to pretend you hear something 'beyond mind', you don't.. mind is the medium upon which 'that' which 'is' is revealed.. whatever might be "beyond mind" is unknown, and you/me/we/us/Life are the occasion through which the unknown is made known through the experience of 'it', and.. 'it' is the experience itself, revealed to and through 'mind'.. there's nothing you can say, express, do, or be, that is not sourced from, to, and through mind.. try it, even the still mind is the clear and clean window through which the unknown is revealed and made known.. when the insight happens, it wasn't known then is is, and.. even the urge to deny the actuality is revealed through the mind's inspiration to reject the threat, to conjure a contrary challenge.. mind is the interface between 'you' and what 'you are'.. Be well.. |
|
