Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 12:00:28 GMT -5
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. what, take a bite?  Its a fact that Men can learn from women just as Women can learn from men. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 12:02:55 GMT -5
She demanded the man in him. That's why he married her. Are you married? I have been through a marriage service with a man yes, back in 1990. And as we never got divorced officially, yes I am still married. Though I will probably never know if he is still alive. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 12:07:12 GMT -5
I'm not saying that Adam was afraid. Or that Eve was right. I said that he couldn't not do what she asked. what, take a bite? Its a fact that Men can learn from women just as Women can learn from men. It's a better fact that anyone can learn from anyone, if they are interested in learning. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2014 12:08:32 GMT -5
It's clear that effort should never be directed toward the effortless, which is why the distinction is being made. IOW, a practice aimed at any sort of realization is problematic from the start. Practice is in the realm of mind, and so if there is a practice for understanding mind then I'd say this is useful. However, I'm not sure that there is. In the realm of mind, change comes about through understanding. To use Quinn's example, allowing feelings rather than trying to escape them is useful, but it's not really the result of practice but rather understanding how futile and self destructive suppressing emotions is. When mind sees that clearly, it simply doesn't try to escape them, which is not a reconditioning practice. The understanding is what alters the conditioning without any further effort involved. (We could say there is effort involved in understanding) One may gain awareness and understanding through a practice aimed at reconditioning the mind, but it's important to see that changing conditioning is a function of mental clarity and not mental retraining. Mind is functioning far better than ego imagines it does and is always a few steps ahead. It's ego that positions itself as retrainer of mind. Mind isn't being retrained. At best, it is being educated. It's good to take the appearance of effort out of such processes because mind uses the idea in the way you talked about it; as cause for more and more practice, which can become a stalling tactic very quickly. "Understanding" seems to have a bad rap. "So and so demonstrates a mere intellectual understanding yada yada." Somehow putting 'intellectual' in front of 'understanding' changes it from the real mccoy to a fake, a mimic. But as James Schwartz repeatedly emphasizes much of this whole biz is exactly about understanding. How that understanding comes about is not via rote memorization though, and it almost never is. Honestly, I don't find the concept of Oneness or the idea of no separation to be possible to be intellectually understood. The terms can be bandied about, repeated verbally in different contexts, but fundamentally they can only be grokked, or understood. Yes, 'understanding' is a bad word in some spiritual contexts. There are two sides to that coin. On one hand, there is no need for understanding in the way that Tolle was already free when he first sat on his park bench and didn't understand what happened to him or how all this spiritual malarkey works. On the other hand, his thoughts tormented him until he came to the understanding that something was not tormented, and moved toward it. The problem is that, while nothing is required in order to be free, much has to be released, and all of it is in the realm of mind, and mind responds to understanding. As you imply, there are a couple of different forms of understanding. One is mental knowledge and the other is insight, but the insight also informs mind in the form of knowledge. (I've heard teachers refer to the latter as 'true knowledge', which is sufficiently paradoxical that it keeps me from using the term, but they're referring to the way the sage translates realization into conceptual form. It's this insight that mind needs in order to get out of the way, and while insight does not require effort, getting the mind to shut up long enough for insight to occur usually does. When mind is informed of insights such as oneness/no separation, it makes perfect sense because for mind it is the absence of an illusion rather than something new acquired. There is no 'oneness', just the absence of the illusion of separation. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 14, 2014 12:11:22 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?  No. Thats not right. The Witness is prior to beingness. Again, it cannot be grasped intellectually. It has to be seen. Niz gives an excellent prescription on how that can be accomplished. Be with your sense of being to the exclusion of everything else and it will become clear what he is going on about. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2014 12:12:33 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 Sounds like the gateless gate again. Seems imposing on approach but disappears immediately upon crossing the threshold. What's with the axe then? Maybe on approach, the gate is locked? |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 14, 2014 12:12:53 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. Seems, for most, he still can't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 12:19:43 GMT -5
Adam couldn't not do what Eve asked. Seems, for most, he still can't. I have no doubt that the education of women is fundamental to the education of men. Women that are free to raise their sons to be men, do everyone a great service. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2014 12:21:52 GMT -5
So, to Niz, beingness is form but being is prior to form? No. Thats not right. The Witness is prior to beingness. Again, it cannot be grasped intellectually. It has to be seen. Niz gives an excellent prescription on how that can be accomplished. Be with your sense of being to the exclusion of everything else and it will become clear what he is going on about. I'm just talking about the words. If witness is prior to beingness, then beingness is form? And he talks about being as transcendent, so being must be formlessness? It's a very confusing use of terminology. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 14, 2014 12:38:16 GMT -5
Seems, for most, he still can't. I have no doubt that the education of women is fundamental to the education of men. Women that are free to raise their sons to be men, do everyone a great service. So do men who are men. But I also see that you yourself are a pretty sharp cookie. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2014 12:42:19 GMT -5
I'm just talking about the words. If witness is prior to beingness, then beingness is form? And he talks about being as transcendent, so being must be formlessness? It's a very confusing use of terminology. When it is actually seen the words won't hang you up any longer. It IS actually seen, but the wording is a nightmare. Most teachers talk about Being and Beingness as transcendent. Many here have talked about it that way. Niz seems to split the two, making one form and the other formless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 12:55:12 GMT -5
I have no doubt that the education of women is fundamental to the education of men. Women that are free to raise their sons to be men, do everyone a great service. So do men who are men. But I also see that you yourself are a pretty sharp cookie. I am what I am. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 14, 2014 12:56:29 GMT -5
So do men who are men. But I also see that you yourself are a pretty sharp cookie. I am what I am. I've heard that before  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 12:59:44 GMT -5
When it is actually seen the words won't hang you up any longer. It IS actually seen, but the wording is a nightmare. Most teachers talk about Being and Beingness as transcendent. Many here have talked about it that way. Niz seems to split the two, making one form and the other formless. The thing is that without a chronological identification of these terms it can't be known when he modified his own language. As you have changed and adapted your own language over the last ten years. Niz would also have been doing that throughout the life of his recorded words.. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 14, 2014 13:29:05 GMT -5
When it is actually seen the words won't hang you up any longer. It IS actually seen, but the wording is a nightmare. Most teachers talk about Being and Beingness as transcendent. Many here have talked about it that way. Niz seems to split the two, making one form and the other formless. No, no split here. He is saying something else. Niz: "The primary ignorance is about our ‘I amness’; we have taken it as the Ultimate, which is ignorance. We presume that this consciousness (beingness, sense of beingness, I Am-ness, sentience, self evident aliveness) is the eternal, the Ultimate, which is the mistake. This ‘I am’ principle is there provided the waking state and deep sleep are there. I am not the waking state, I am not the deep sleep – therefore I, the Absolute, am not that ‘I am’. Niz: "My apparent dependence is on this consciousness which says ‘I am’. It is this sentience which enables me to perceive you. This concept I did not (originally) have but even then I existed. I was there before this consciousness appeared." |
|
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.