|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 14, 2014 9:45:21 GMT -5
And what book was she in? In Zenophon's Symposium, Socrates says she's the hardest to get along with of all the women there are. Plato mentions her only once, nothing bad. (Wikipedia) sdp If Adam had said to Eve "be a good girl and put that apple back" it would have remained a perfect world  But what fun would that have been? The tension in the man/woman relationship thing seems to be of major importance for many in coming to Self Understanding. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 9:52:47 GMT -5
I was looking at that crazy diagram of self knowledge this morning (sorry can't find a link) and it shows 'I AM' as being the border between 'The Great Illusion' and 'The Natural State.' So it is the foundation of all illusion (personal self) and also the point at which form meets formlessness. Bingo. Niz calls it the door. Niz: "Tirelessly I draw your attention to the one incontrovertible factor – that of being. Being needs no proofs – it proves itself. If only you go deep into the fact of being and discover the vastness and the glory, to which the ‘I am’ is the door, and cross the door and go beyond, your life will be full of happiness and light. Believe me; the effort needed is as nothing when compared with the discoveries arrived at." Oh boy, he used the "e" word there too  Sounds like the gateless gate again. Seems imposing on approach but disappears immediately upon crossing the threshold. What's with the axe then? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 14, 2014 9:55:10 GMT -5
She demanded the man in him. That's why he married her. Indubitably. "If you want to become a philosopher, marry a contentious woman". Frankly, hooking up with someone who's bat-sh!t crazy is not my prescription for any ills or weaknesses, period.  |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 14, 2014 10:11:14 GMT -5
Indubitably. "If you want to become a philosopher, marry a contentious woman". Frankly, hooking up with someone who's bat-sh!t crazy is not my prescription for any ills or weaknesses, period. Ah, but remember Silver, love is blind. It's only seen clearly for what it is the morning after the night before. But by then it may be too late. For this reason I strongly suggest long engagements without sex...perhaps 5 years or longer |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 14, 2014 10:29:05 GMT -5
Frankly, hooking up with someone who's bat-sh!t crazy is not my prescription for any ills or weaknesses, period. Ah, but remember Silver, love is blind. It's only seen clearly for what it is the morning after the night before. But by then it may be too late. For this reason I strongly suggest long engagements without sex...perhaps 5 years or longer
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 14, 2014 10:32:47 GMT -5
What's with the axe then? Max, what do you think the axe refers to? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 10:37:40 GMT -5
What's with the axe then? Max, what do you think the axe refers to? My guess is something like single pointed concentration. Sitting under the bodhi tree. It's the final commitment. Come what may. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2014 10:54:07 GMT -5
If 'I am' means 'I exist', I'd say no. If it means 'I am this or that', then yes. I used to be clear it meant the former until Niz came along, and apparently we don't argue with Niz. Right, he seems to be good with an axe. It used to be just flying cigarette buts we had to look out for.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2014 10:57:37 GMT -5
I was looking at that crazy diagram of self knowledge this morning (sorry can't find a link) and it shows 'I AM' as being the border between 'The Great Illusion' and 'The Natural State.' So it is the foundation of all illusion (personal self) and also the point at which form meets formlessness. Bingo. Niz calls it the door. Niz: "Tirelessly I draw your attention to the one incontrovertible factor – that of being. Being needs no proofs – it proves itself. If only you go deep into the fact of being and discover the vastness and the glory, to which the ‘I am’ is the door, and cross the door and go beyond, your life will be full of happiness and light. Believe me; the effort needed is as nothing when compared with the discoveries arrived at." Oh boy, he used the "e" word there too So, to Niz, beingness is form but being is prior to form?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2014 11:26:36 GMT -5
Being conscious is a state of being rather than a successful ongoing practice. But that doesn't answer the question. This isn't necessarily related to practice, though it is common within my experiences with meditation. Maybe the question is unclear. In my experience, there is a recurring feeling or experience of 'now I am more conscious than I was just a second ago.' This might be the result of a "shift" in attention from thinking to 'the actual.' However, I'm not taking it for granted. 1. This appears to be true: sleep to waking is a good example of when the feeling arises, but also daydreaming to not daydreaming, from ideas to bodily sensations; 2. The appearance of this being a correct observation is itself just another appearance no more or less valuable than any other appearance; For example, profundity is a feeling, it isn't necessarily an indicator of a particular idea being actually profound or wise or insightful. As such, its best to let the feeling of profundity go before making any proclamations about the idea's inherent value. Likewise, this impression that 'right now I'm experiencing more consciousness than just before' might also be wise to distrust, as perhaps it's just an illusion as well. 3. There can be judgement, resistance as part and parcel to this observation. 'Sh!t I've been out to lunch for the last two minutes.' So the question is if Awakening, Truth Realization, etc. leads to the cessation of this phenomena (no 1, 2, or 3) or if it continues to happen but is just witnessed or whatever or if it happens but without any judgement (no 3). ZD says it depends on the person. We could say witnessing is always the case whether or not attention is placed there. (I'm equating the witnessing position of attention to what we're calling 'being conscious') Awakening brings with it a movement of attention from within the thought streams to the witnessing position outside the thoughts such that the thoughts are also witnessed. Once 'awake' one remains permanently in that witnessing position as identification with the thoughts is all that can draw attention back into them. The witness is not real, as it is also being observed. I'm just talking about as an orientation to thought. Maybe it seems odd that thinking can happen without a thinker, but that's always the case. Thinking is always observed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 11:40:17 GMT -5
But that doesn't answer the question. This isn't necessarily related to practice, though it is common within my experiences with meditation. Maybe the question is unclear. In my experience, there is a recurring feeling or experience of 'now I am more conscious than I was just a second ago.' This might be the result of a "shift" in attention from thinking to 'the actual.' However, I'm not taking it for granted. 1. This appears to be true: sleep to waking is a good example of when the feeling arises, but also daydreaming to not daydreaming, from ideas to bodily sensations; 2. The appearance of this being a correct observation is itself just another appearance no more or less valuable than any other appearance; For example, profundity is a feeling, it isn't necessarily an indicator of a particular idea being actually profound or wise or insightful. As such, its best to let the feeling of profundity go before making any proclamations about the idea's inherent value. Likewise, this impression that 'right now I'm experiencing more consciousness than just before' might also be wise to distrust, as perhaps it's just an illusion as well. 3. There can be judgement, resistance as part and parcel to this observation. 'Sh!t I've been out to lunch for the last two minutes.' So the question is if Awakening, Truth Realization, etc. leads to the cessation of this phenomena (no 1, 2, or 3) or if it continues to happen but is just witnessed or whatever or if it happens but without any judgement (no 3). ZD says it depends on the person. We could say witnessing is always the case whether or not attention is placed there. (I'm equating the witnessing position of attention to what we're calling 'being conscious') Awakening brings with it a movement of attention from within the thought streams to the witnessing position outside the thoughts such that the thoughts are also witnessed. Once 'awake' one remains permanently in that witnessing position as identification with the thoughts is all that can draw attention back into them. The witness is not real, as it is also being observed. I'm just talking about as an orientation to thought. Maybe it seems odd that thinking can happen without a thinker, but that's always the case. Thinking is always observed. by a no body. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 11:46:18 GMT -5
Bingo. Niz calls it the door. Niz: "Tirelessly I draw your attention to the one incontrovertible factor – that of being. Being needs no proofs – it proves itself. If only you go deep into the fact of being and discover the vastness and the glory, to which the ‘I am’ is the door, and cross the door and go beyond, your life will be full of happiness and light. Believe me; the effort needed is as nothing when compared with the discoveries arrived at." Oh boy, he used the "e" word there too So, to Niz, beingness is form but being is prior to form? JustinMe, Like the wind called effortlessness touching and an upflooding of life bringing joy. Being is prior to thought. First we think about what we are wanting to achieve... then we practice alittle or alot dependant on past learning-uptake and experience and then, through trusting our minds we revert back to Being without thinking about Life and thus we activate our Being again, having been split earlier, thinker and thought Like.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 11:49:04 GMT -5
In Zenophon's Symposium, Socrates says she's the hardest to get along with of all the women there are. Plato mentions her only once, nothing bad. (Wikipedia) sdp If Adam had said to Eve "be a good girl and put that apple back" it would have remained a perfect world But what fun would that have been? The tension in the man/woman relationship thing seems to be of major importance for many in coming to Self Understanding. Adam couldn't not do what Eve asked. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 11:55:25 GMT -5
If Adam had said to Eve "be a good girl and put that apple back" it would have remained a perfect world But what fun would that have been? The tension in the man/woman relationship thing seems to be of major importance for many in coming to Self Understanding. Adam couldn't not do what Eve asked. sure thing... Adam was afraid. Shivering in his bare feet, icicles dripping off his nose, he couldn't raise it Himself, "Eve was right." Pass me that apple, said Adam, "I" isnt scared of God?"  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 11:59:33 GMT -5
Adam couldn't not do what Eve asked. sure thing... Adam was afraid. Shivering in his bare feet, icicles dripping off his nose, he couldn't raise it Himself, "Eve was right." I'm not saying that Adam was afraid. Or that Eve was right. I said that he couldn't not do what she asked. |
|
But what fun would that have been? The tension in the man/woman relationship thing seems to be of major importance for many in coming to Self Understanding.
