|
Post by zendancer on Jul 23, 2014 11:55:12 GMT -5
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. I think Niz was pointing the seeker away from this kind of conversation altogether, and away from any attempt to define anything via the mind. I think he would have said, "Forget all contexts." As Laughter pointed out, he was dealing with specific seekers, and most of them were probably attached to some sort of intellectual understanding. First, he told people to stay with the "I am" in order to break the habit of thinking one is a body, etc. Then, he told folks to throw away the "I am." In his own way I suspect that he was just saying the same thing as, "Put it all down." All I know is that today in the hot sun four of us construction workers poured three yards of concrete into block cores using 5 gallon buckets, and after two hours, we were all wasted. Ha ha. Even Niz was wasted!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 23, 2014 11:56:22 GMT -5
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... My thoughts exactly!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 23, 2014 13:05:23 GMT -5
according to Niz himself, indeed, "there is no Niz". But what knows that? That's a question every seeker has to answer for themselves. Why must we deny the existence of THAT? It can be useful to point away from attachment to a false idea of what THAT is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 23, 2014 13:10:51 GMT -5
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. I see what you mean and don't disagree. I don't recall offhand whether he actually flipped the contexts in a single given dialog, but perhaps the mind's cleverness of finding identity in a straddle of personalizing the impersonal sometimes calls for such deliberate confusion in counterpoint.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 13:49:55 GMT -5
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...It doesn't really help because he's putting the ax to mind's identification with form, but he's calling it the sense 'I am' which comes automatically with consciousness and does not imply an identification with form. Elsewhere he says stay with the sense 'i am' and stay away from 'I am this or that'. I agree with that and I'd say it's a good time to put away the ax and stop acting like a homicidal maniac.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 13:59:15 GMT -5
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. I think Niz was pointing the seeker away from this kind of conversation altogether, and away from any attempt to define anything via the mind. I think he would have said, "Forget all contexts." As Laughter pointed out, he was dealing with specific seekers, and most of them were probably attached to some sort of intellectual understanding. First, he told people to stay with the "I am" in order to break the habit of thinking one is a body, etc. Then, he told folks to throw away the "I am." In his own way I suspect that he was just saying the same thing as, "Put it all down." All I know is that today in the hot sun four of us construction workers poured three yards of concrete into block cores using 5 gallon buckets, and after two hours, we were all wasted. Ha ha. Even Niz was wasted! This conversation is happening only because Niz instigated it with his ax murderer scenario. Why throw away the I am? What problem is it causing?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 14:02:38 GMT -5
That's a question every seeker has to answer for themselves. Why must we deny the existence of THAT? It can be useful to point away from attachment to a false idea of what THAT is. I don't think so. I think it's necessary to see the false idea as false.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 23, 2014 14:03:45 GMT -5
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...It doesn't really help because he's putting the ax to mind's identification with form, but he's calling it the sense 'I am' which comes automatically with consciousness and does not imply an identification with form. Elsewhere he says stay with the sense 'i am' and stay away from 'I am this or that'. I agree with that and I'd say it's a good time to put away the ax and stop acting like a homicidal maniac. As I read the OP it's pretty clear he's putting the axe to the "conceptual" I Am, not the sense of Being which you refer to. Check the first sentence in his quote again and see where he uses the word "concept" in front of "I Am". That's how I read in anyway.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 14:11:38 GMT -5
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. I see what you mean and don't disagree. I don't recall offhand whether he actually flipped the contexts in a single given dialog, but perhaps the mind's cleverness of finding identity in a straddle of personalizing the impersonal sometimes calls for such deliberate confusion in counterpoint. I can easily see how he may have directed that comment to a particular seeker, though that's not the impression I get with his parabrahman talk. If one has become attached to the sense 'I am', I would rather ask him to explore the impersonal nature of what he has personalized and see if it really serves as a useful identity.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 14:41:38 GMT -5
It doesn't really help because he's putting the ax to mind's identification with form, but he's calling it the sense 'I am' which comes automatically with consciousness and does not imply an identification with form. Elsewhere he says stay with the sense 'i am' and stay away from 'I am this or that'. I agree with that and I'd say it's a good time to put away the ax and stop acting like a homicidal maniac. As I read the OP it's pretty clear he's putting the axe to the "conceptual" I Am, not the sense of Being which you refer to. Check the first sentence in his quote again and see where he uses the word "concept" in front of "I Am". That's how I read in anyway. Well, naturally it's a concept, but he seems to have objectified 'I am' for us repeatedly in the Niz Gita. He refers to it as "the I am" and then insists that you are not that I am thingy that he objectified. Again, I am is just a sense of existence. It's not a thing that can be objectified so that we can then take an ax to it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 23, 2014 16:17:48 GMT -5
Well, any thought of "I am" involves some amount of reflectiveness, doesn't it? Where is the "I am" in the flow of being when the intellect is totally quiescent? Is there a sense of existence if there is no reflection whatsoever? When the body is pouring concrete with total attentiveness, for example, the mind is silent, and there is no sense of someone pouring concrete because there is no reflection; everything is empty. Afterwards, attention may shift back to some idea of what "I" was doing, but while it was happening, that kind of idea is absent.
For most people the sense of selfhood comes and goes throughout the day as attention shifts back and forth from whatever is happening to the idea or sense of a person involved in various activities. Selfhood isn't there, however, when the mind remains undivided and isn't "checking back." If this empty attentiveness and lack of reflectivity is extended indefinitely, where is there any sense of existence or any sense of "I am?"
As Rumi might say, "Existence and non-existence both blown off into emptiness."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 23, 2014 17:37:28 GMT -5
Well, any thought of "I am" involves some amount of reflectiveness, doesn't it? Where is the "I am" in the flow of being when the intellect is totally quiescent? Is there a sense of existence if there is no reflection whatsoever? When the body is pouring concrete with total attentiveness, for example, the mind is silent, and there is no sense of someone pouring concrete because there is no reflection; everything is empty. Afterwards, attention may shift back to some idea of what "I" was doing, but while it was happening, that kind of idea is absent. For most people the sense of selfhood comes and goes throughout the day as attention shifts back and forth from whatever is happening to the idea or sense of a person involved in various activities. Selfhood isn't there, however, when the mind remains undivided and isn't "checking back." If this empty attentiveness and lack of reflectivity is extended indefinitely, where is there any sense of existence or any sense of "I am?" As Rumi might say, "Existence and non-existence both blown off into emptiness." You're equating a sense of a person with the sense 'I am'. Do you know that you exist when you are pouring concrete, or when mind is not moving at all? I say yes. I say if you are conscious, there is a sense of existing, and I call this the sense 'I am'. It's not a sense of selfhood. Niz also talks about it that way, which is why I find his axing confusing.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 24, 2014 3:16:11 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? There is only one's perspective on what is imaginary in comparison to something that is not imaginary . Likewise in regards to being awake and being asleep, dreaming and not dreaming, what is at the core and what is not . Existence is perhaps mind imagination or conceptual just the same as what is regarded as real is . It could also be said imagination is real or that there is real imagination . Some will say that what you are beyond mind is real and everything else is imaginary, but what is beyond is also immediately present . So when it boils down to there being awareness of self or self being conscious of existing then it is only mind that allows conclusion that what is happening is that . If the self is all there is, then what is regarded as the core or the outer or the beyond or whatever is all the same . There is no-one beyond and yet there is someone within mind . If one has realized that what they are is no-one then when they are someone there is a sense that what I am is not what I am and yet I am that . I exist and I do not at the same time . Axe the 'I' and what you are that is not 'I' remains to be .
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 24, 2014 5:29:18 GMT -5
quote author=" tzujanli" source="/post/205107/thread" timestamp="1406168765"] 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." What most of you mean by a 'still mind' is the distinction of a state where 'most of you' agree to a consensus of thought.. What i mean by a 'still mind' is the state of experiencing with unconditional sincerity and genuine curiosity, the realization that engaging mind in actively thinking is a distraction that distorts the information revealed by the experience, and.. actively thinking also distorts the ability integrate with the experience, distinguishing or not between thoughts/imaginings/beliefs and direct experience/information.. the Zen story, the Advaita story, the Niz story, the Buddha story, the 'God' story, none of those exist while experiencing through the clarity of a still mind's awareness.. the 'stories' are self-perpetuating belief-systems, needing a story, a teller, a listener, and a contrasting story to create the illusion of relevance.. the still mind realizes the difference between story and experience.. An old sage used to provoke seekers, get their emotions into a 'state', then explain their deficiencies to them, and prescribe a cure.. he said they didn't realize they were confused and suffering, so he confused them and they suffered from it.. fortunately the sage had the cure, he said 'put it all down'.. of course, the only thing they had picked up was the confusion and suffering the sage had convinced them they were experiencing even if they weren't aware of it, so.. they put it down.. sages and gurus build great mountains, just to have a place to go.. Just put it all down.. describe the experiences as if there are no 'others', no beliefs, no special words.. consider what is experienced without reference to anything but the experience, as if the experiencer had amnesia.. this quickly reveals an understanding much closer to essence/clarity..
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Jul 24, 2014 6:27:16 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley. definately the Pinnacle of Human Evolution
|
|