Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 21:54:04 GMT -5
Yes. To exist is to come forth from, but come forth from what? From that which is nameless and unimaginable--pure being. I agree that Niz, like most non-duality teachers is often messing with people by pulling the rug out from under their intellects. According to the doctrine of non-duality, there is no 'Niz', and there is no 'their' in your description of " their intellects".. To exist is to exist.. it is the Zen 'way', to fondle riddles in pursuit of a 'Zen' identity.. simplify.. Poor phrasing there. No one is "fondling riddles". The point of the koan is to break ones reliance on conceptual thinking. As a result, simplicity often emerges. You might benefit from some Zen training. It might help you see through the arrogance of your still mind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 23, 2014 7:28:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 23, 2014 21:26:05 GMT -5
Jeet Sweezus!! so existence is a grammar lesson??? as has been posted many times: "Be still and know".. stillness includes stillness of the mind that is generating the 'non-duality dogma' that suggests that it is useful to pretend the person you are doesn't exist, and that is just more minding telling itself stories.. What part of 'Be still and know' chooses storytelling over stillness?.. once experienced, however achieved, the clarity of stillness inspires the experiencers to constantly and consistently refine their understanding of the experience.. once experienced the stillness experience is self-perpetuating, meaning every opportunity for experiencing existence with the clarity of a still mind's awareness is realized and chosen as the experiencer's 'way' of existing.. 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.. You keep stumbling over the cure, telling others to not see you the way you see them.. just put it all down.. describe your experiences as if there are no 'others', no beliefs, no special words.. tell yourself what you experienced without reference to anything but the experience, as if you had amnesia.. this quickly reveals an understanding much closer to essence/clarity.. |
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Jul 24, 2014 6:45:57 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.. dude, you still follow that same routine from 700 years ago, invented by some great guru, you following it?
tai chi chuan...?
just to alert the newcomers here ....
practice what you preach maybe?
drop the dance routine
be here now
you live in a small beautiful canyon, carved out by 700 years of dedicated followers doing the same steps over and over again
nice place, i´ve been there, remember?
A bit Spartan but yes, i liked it.
gilded, impassable cliffs on all sides, reaching up to a strip of clearblue sky, where even a sun could be seen every now and then...
i flew in from up there and payed you a visit.
i told you about the world out there, but you wouldnt listen...
´´why not´´
i wondered
´´because it wont get you in here,´´
ahhh...the old dilema...we found a bridge that got us across the river, and now build our house on the bridge...yeah...great bridge...
i have to follow you(r guru)
and i am NOT allowed to follow another one,
or continue my journey
because the idea of another entire world ´´out there´´ is just illusion.´´stories´´
because it wont get you to the exact place where mr Tzu lives
well, TZU
have a nice life down there, i am on my way again...(flapping wings)
whooosh!!!
hello world !!
how´s everybody doin´??
almost forgot:
be well
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 24, 2014 19:35:45 GMT -5
quote author=" tzujanli" source="/post/205107/thread" timestamp="1406168765"]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.. dude, you still follow that same routine from 700 years ago, invented by some great guru, you following it?
tai chi chuan...?
just to alert the newcomers here ....
practice what you preach maybe?
drop the dance routine
be here now
you live in a small beautiful canyon, carved out by 700 years of dedicated followers doing the same steps over and over again
nice place, i´ve been there, remember?
A bit Spartan but yes, i liked it.
gilded, impassable cliffs on all sides, reaching up to a strip of clearblue sky, where even a sun could be seen every now and then...
i flew in from up there and payed you a visit.
i told you about the world out there, but you wouldnt listen...
´´why not´´
i wondered
´´because it wont get you in here,´´
ahhh...the old dilema...we found a bridge that got us across the river, and now build our house on the bridge...yeah...great bridge...
i have to follow you(r guru)
and i am NOT allowed to follow another one,
or continue my journey
because the idea of another entire world ´´out there´´ is just illusion.´´stories´´
because it wont get you to the exact place where mr Tzu lives
well, TZU
have a nice life down there, i am on my way again...(flapping wings)
whooosh!!!
hello world !!
how´s everybody doin´??
almost forgot:
be well
Oh, okay.. off your meds, again, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 24, 2014 20:37:09 GMT -5
(** shakes head sadly **)
|
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 24, 2014 22:33:00 GMT -5
According to the doctrine of non-duality, there is no 'Niz', and there is no 'their' in your description of " their intellects".. To exist is to exist.. it is the Zen 'way', to fondle riddles in pursuit of a 'Zen' identity.. simplify.. Poor phrasing there. No one is "fondling riddles". The point of the koan is to break ones reliance on conceptual thinking. As a result, simplicity often emerges. You might benefit from some Zen training. It might help you see through the arrogance of your still mind. Tzu is basically just battling with specific wording. |
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Jul 25, 2014 5:54:07 GMT -5
explore your current experience of existence, rather than someone else's past experiences..Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3702/niz-put-ax?page=9#ixzz38TbAZDnIbut when i do that, you only ask me if i am off my meds againehh, meds...you mean ,like, grass??yeah, superclean and lovin it i never ever take meds they are government sponsored suicide oh xcept b12 tablets,since half a year or so...stats... just so i dont end up in the Alzheimer bin... take air 
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 25, 2014 9:23:38 GMT -5
Perhaps. Or then again, perhaps what Niz and ZD point to is beyond your current level of experience and understanding. Nothing wrong with that. People who had never been to the Ocean couldn't be expected to understand that the world was actually round. Keep an open mind is all I can say. As far as I know, ZD doesn't objectify 'I am'. He also seems to be warning against that. Do you think there is an I am? ZD and I are not disagreeing. He's trying to find a way of making sense out of Niz's comment based on the assumption that there's some sense to it, and I'm questioning it. What JLU wrote was what Andy spent months, if not years, trying to convince you of.  On the other hand, I don't think that ZD was trying to "make sense" out of "neither existence or nonexistence".  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 23:41:33 GMT -5
"i AM".. the acknowledgment that that which makes the claim exists, and what follows 'I am' is a description of how the experiencer interprets existing.. to stand in opposition to 'i am' is to affirm its actuality.. I'll bet Niz had more still mind clarity than you. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 25, 2014 23:45:07 GMT -5
? Blowin' through the jasmine in my miiii-yi-iind ?
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 26, 2014 5:37:58 GMT -5
The Witness was clearly present prior to my first conscious wordless memory of existence. How do I know? Because I recall it. How could it be recalled if some witnessing consciousness were not there prior to the arising of sudden existence to witness it? I recall the moment in vivid detail. In the moment I suddenly Was, out of nowhere it seems, and it was observed that I suddenly Was. Beingness, Isness, AMness, in my case and as I use the words, arose up before a Witnessing Consciousness and therefore, also as I see it, is/was an Object arising within that Witnessing Consciousness. And as It has arisen as an object, it must one day disappear as all objects do. Now that's my view of it, and its perfectly OK that we disagree about it. There is no 'witness', no 'prior'.. you've hyperminded a belief-story to explain what you 'think' is/was/will be happening.. imagining beyond what 'is' happening.. The whole "there is no 'person', no 'me'" story, is by its own telling an embellishment of the separate 'person', separate 'me'.. it's a 'look at me, see what my mind can do' sort of embellishment.. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 26, 2014 5:46:22 GMT -5
"i AM".. the acknowledgment that that which makes the claim exists, and what follows 'I am' is a description of how the experiencer interprets existing.. to stand in opposition to 'i am' is to affirm its actuality.. I'll bet Niz had more still mind clarity than you. As always, trying too hard.. yeah, that Niz must bu the best guru evah.. take an ax to your dependence on others for your self-awareness.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 8:22:45 GMT -5
The Witness was clearly present prior to my first conscious wordless memory of existence. How do I know? Because I recall it. How could it be recalled if some witnessing consciousness were not there prior to the arising of sudden existence to witness it? I recall the moment in vivid detail. In the moment I suddenly Was, out of nowhere it seems, and it was observed that I suddenly Was. Beingness, Isness, AMness, in my case and as I use the words, arose up before a Witnessing Consciousness and therefore, also as I see it, is/was an Object arising within that Witnessing Consciousness. And as It has arisen as an object, it must one day disappear as all objects do. Now that's my view of it, and its perfectly OK that we disagree about it. There is no 'witness', no 'prior'.. you've hyperminded a belief-story to explain what you 'think' is/was/will be happening.. imagining beyond what 'is' happening.. The whole "there is no 'person', no 'me'" story, is by its own telling an embellishment of the separate 'person', separate 'me'.. it's a 'look at me, see what my mind can do' sort of embellishment.. You say there is no witness, then say the denial of the seperate self is wrong. Sounds like you just won't give anyone any quarter at all. It's you against the world in a never-ending battle against other minds. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 26, 2014 11:34:01 GMT -5
There is no 'witness', no 'prior'.. you've hyperminded a belief-story to explain what you 'think' is/was/will be happening.. imagining beyond what 'is' happening.. The whole "there is no 'person', no 'me'" story, is by its own telling an embellishment of the separate 'person', separate 'me'.. it's a 'look at me, see what my mind can do' sort of embellishment.. You say there is no witness, then say the denial of the seperate self is wrong. Sounds like you just won't give anyone any quarter at all. It's you against the world in a never-ending battle against other minds. If you were actually interested in the message, rather than defeating 'Tzu', what you 'think' is conflicted message would make sense.. try to 'listen' to the post you quoted, as it relates to the post of yours it quoted.. try to do this with an open mind.. |
|
