|
Post by quinn on Sept 21, 2014 16:30:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 21, 2014 17:35:31 GMT -5
But unlike the Unlimited, we exist here and now in both the limitations of duality AND unlimited non-duality, whereas the Unlimited is at all limited. That appears to make us different in some distinct ways from the Unlimited, no? The distinctions within 'the unlimited' are arbitrary. There can't actually be 'the unlimited' and then 'the limited' which is somehow other than that. The "us" to which you refer is "the unlimited" itself 'in motion', or if you like, in expression. You wouldn't say a car in motion is in some ways distinct from a car. I also would not say that this personal expression 'exists', but that may be a different discussion. OK, since you bring it up. Here is a Niz quote: "The person merges into the witness, the witness into awareness, awareness into pure being, yet identity is not lost. He seems to be saying that something of the individuated personality is not lost in all that merging. He seems to be suggesting that the personal expression somehow survives the Merge. I can only speculate as to what that could suggest. A continuing journey of sorts as the eyes and ears of Source in ways that can not be imagined?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2014 18:36:13 GMT -5
The distinctions within 'the unlimited' are arbitrary. There can't actually be 'the unlimited' and then 'the limited' which is somehow other than that. The "us" to which you refer is "the unlimited" itself 'in motion', or if you like, in expression. You wouldn't say a car in motion is in some ways distinct from a car. I also would not say that this personal expression 'exists', but that may be a different discussion. OK, since you bring it up. Here is a Niz quote: "The person merges into the witness, the witness into awareness, awareness into pure being, yet identity is not lost. He seems to be saying that something of the individuated personality is not lost in all that merging. He seems to be suggesting that the personal expression somehow survives the Merge. I can only speculate as to what that could suggest. A continuing journey of sorts as the eyes and ears of Source in ways that can not be imagined? In this quote I think Niz is saying that even though one's conventional identity is seen through, it is not forgotten or totally ignored. Niz obviously responded to his name, and he knew the usual vocabulary of common distinctions, but his attachment to identity as a person, as a witness, and as awareness was eventually left behind in the pure activity of being. IOW, when self-referential reflectiveness disappears, what remains is a moment-to-moment attentiveness and response to whatever is happening. One does not become stupid or insensitive, but one no longer identifies as something separate from the action, and one becomes free from the dominance of mind.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 21, 2014 18:47:49 GMT -5
OK, since you bring it up. Here is a Niz quote: "The person merges into the witness, the witness into awareness, awareness into pure being, yet identity is not lost. He seems to be saying that something of the individuated personality is not lost in all that merging. He seems to be suggesting that the personal expression somehow survives the Merge. I can only speculate as to what that could suggest. A continuing journey of sorts as the eyes and ears of Source in ways that can not be imagined? In this quote I think Niz is saying that even though one's conventional identity is seen through, it is not forgotten or totally ignored. Niz obviously responded to his name, and he knew the usual vocabulary of common distinctions, but his attachment to identity as a person, as a witness, and as awareness was eventually left behind in the pure activity of being. IOW, when self-referential reflectiveness disappears, what remains is a moment-to-moment attentiveness and response to whatever is happening. One does not become stupid or insensitive, but one no longer identifies as something separate from the action, and one becomes free from the dominance of mind. Yes, thanks ZD, I get that, but I also read eternity into what Niz is saying, not just this temporary appearance but also post death of this form.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 21, 2014 22:43:41 GMT -5
Well, part of infinity cannot be other than infinity itself. Not just constitutionally identical. The metaphor of the drop separate from the ocean is not a metaphor for the infinite because the drop is physically separate from the ocean, and the metaphor is a physical one. Though perhaps the wave is a good metaphor. The wave is not other than the ocean in motion. The physical distinction is arbitrary as there's no place where the ocean ends and the wave begins, so there's no real temptation to say the wave is not the ocean itself. Agreed. The wave/ocean metaphor is much easier to grasp than the droplet/ocean. That's why I often use the hand/wrist/arm metaphor. People can see that the idea of separation is just an idea much more easily when "things" do not appear to be physically separate. Alan Watts had a lot of good examples of this, and I always liked the question he posed to students, "Where does your fist GO when you open your hand?" Ha ha. Or the pointer of taking a jar and scooping up some ocean water, and then slowly pooring it back in, asking if the water ever stopped being the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 21, 2014 23:10:04 GMT -5
quote author=" tzujanli" source="/post/211294/thread" timestamp="1411307829"] The still, deep ocean is one manifestation but contains, surface disturbances like waves, drops and spray that are small, time-bound, unique expressions of the one ocean, even as they are constitutionally identical with the ocean, while the ocean, in its absolute depth and wholeness, can not be said to be a limited expression. So, it can be said that the drop is ocean while it can not be said that the ocean is the drop, even if compositionally identical. Same but different, no? And if not, why not? Yes.. both conditions,oneness/manyness, exist simultaneously, either and/or both manifesting by virtue of the experiencer's attention/intention.. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2014 1:25:57 GMT -5
That can be questioned. You got one of those still minds I keep hearing about? Maybe...until the questioning starts.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2014 1:34:32 GMT -5
The distinctions within 'the unlimited' are arbitrary. There can't actually be 'the unlimited' and then 'the limited' which is somehow other than that. The "us" to which you refer is "the unlimited" itself 'in motion', or if you like, in expression. You wouldn't say a car in motion is in some ways distinct from a car. I also would not say that this personal expression 'exists', but that may be a different discussion. OK, since you bring it up. Here is a Niz quote: "The person merges into the witness, the witness into awareness, awareness into pure being, yet identity is not lost. He seems to be saying that something of the individuated personality is not lost in all that merging. He seems to be suggesting that the personal expression somehow survives the Merge. I can only speculate as to what that could suggest. A continuing journey of sorts as the eyes and ears of Source in ways that can not be imagined? And elsewhere, he says existence doesn't even know it exists.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 22, 2014 6:13:22 GMT -5
You got one of those still minds I keep hearing about? Maybe...until the questioning starts. It's a conundrum!! On a more serious note (stifled giggle...ahem), it's become clear to me that the qualitative difference between questioning strictly from the 'head' vs letting the question drop into the body is a pretty big one. I suppose there's a time for ruminating on an intellectual level, but for full digestion - the body knows better. Or, probably what's really happening there, a doer in the form of a 'figure-outer' is circumvented.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2014 10:59:56 GMT -5
Maybe...until the questioning starts. It's a conundrum!! On a more serious note (stifled giggle...ahem), it's become clear to me that the qualitative difference between questioning strictly from the 'head' vs letting the question drop into the body is a pretty big one. I suppose there's a time for ruminating on an intellectual level, but for full digestion - the body knows better. Or, probably what's really happening there, a doer in the form of a 'figure-outer' is circumvented. Letting go of the comfort provided by the intellect can be as scary and leave one as naked and afraid as any other falling away, especially if it was particularly relied on previously. To recognize that there were no real answers there was interesting, and not free of accompanying emotional movement.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2014 11:20:53 GMT -5
Maybe...until the questioning starts. It's a conundrum!! On a more serious note (stifled giggle...ahem), it's become clear to me that the qualitative difference between questioning strictly from the 'head' vs letting the question drop into the body is a pretty big one. I suppose there's a time for ruminating on an intellectual level, but for full digestion - the body knows better. Or, probably what's really happening there, a doer in the form of a 'figure-outer' is circumvented. I agree, though I don't talk about it that way. Some talk about dropping into the heart, or body wisdom, or gnosis, which may be the same as what yer saying? The way I like to talk about it is, you can provide a focal point for consciousness by using mind to contemplate such questions, and then simply let go of the mental activity, which naturally results in an expansion of that focal point of attention beyond the boundaries set by mind. Clarity may result, and it will be clarity regarding that prior focus of attention.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2014 12:34:55 GMT -5
It's a conundrum!! On a more serious note (stifled giggle...ahem), it's become clear to me that the qualitative difference between questioning strictly from the 'head' vs letting the question drop into the body is a pretty big one. I suppose there's a time for ruminating on an intellectual level, but for full digestion - the body knows better. Or, probably what's really happening there, a doer in the form of a 'figure-outer' is circumvented. I agree, though I don't talk about it that way. Some talk about dropping into the heart, or body wisdom, or gnosis, which may be the same as what yer saying? The way I like to talk about it is, you can provide a focal point for consciousness by using mind to contemplate such questions, and then simply let go of the mental activity, which naturally results in an expansion of that focal point of attention beyond the boundaries set by mind. Clarity may result, and it will be clarity regarding that prior focus of attention. The split between intellect and feeling only happens in the absence of gnosis. Feeling and emotion don't provide any more of a basis in form for realization than the intellect, but the body is direct, while the mind is abstracted. Feeling lends perspective a more direct notice of the presence and degree of suffering, and often, intellect, by the process of rationalization, can obscure that.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Sept 22, 2014 14:07:02 GMT -5
I agree, though I don't talk about it that way. Some talk about dropping into the heart, or body wisdom, or gnosis, which may be the same as what yer saying? The way I like to talk about it is, you can provide a focal point for consciousness by using mind to contemplate such questions, and then simply let go of the mental activity, which naturally results in an expansion of that focal point of attention beyond the boundaries set by mind. Clarity may result, and it will be clarity regarding that prior focus of attention. The split between intellect and feeling only happens in the absence of gnosis. Feeling and emotion don't provide any more of a basis in form for realization than the intellect, but the body is direct, while the mind is abstracted. Feeling lends perspective a more direct notice of the presence and degree of suffering, and often, intellect, by the process of rationalization, can obscure that. I think more emphasis can be placed on gnosis , direct knowing with out intellect and emotion is a valid avenue of inquiry, one way to get a sense of this is consider what is obviously known with out intellect engaging. I would say if intellect accepts even a low level of gnosis as valid, then it can certainly imagine its true nature of all existential questions being realized as I am...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2014 14:12:44 GMT -5
The split between intellect and feeling only happens in the absence of gnosis. Feeling and emotion don't provide any more of a basis in form for realization than the intellect, but the body is direct, while the mind is abstracted. Feeling lends perspective a more direct notice of the presence and degree of suffering, and often, intellect, by the process of rationalization, can obscure that. I think more emphasis can be placed on gnosis , direct knowing with out intellect and emotion is a valid avenue of inquiry, one way to get a sense of this is consider what is obviously known with out intellect engaging. I would say if intellect accepts even a low level of gnosis as valid, then it can certainly imagine its true nature of all existential questions being realized as I am... Sometimes, quite robustly!
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 22, 2014 14:56:28 GMT -5
It's a conundrum!! On a more serious note (stifled giggle...ahem), it's become clear to me that the qualitative difference between questioning strictly from the 'head' vs letting the question drop into the body is a pretty big one. I suppose there's a time for ruminating on an intellectual level, but for full digestion - the body knows better. Or, probably what's really happening there, a doer in the form of a 'figure-outer' is circumvented. I agree, though I don't talk about it that way. Some talk about dropping into the heart, or body wisdom, or gnosis, which may be the same as what yer saying? The way I like to talk about it is, you can provide a focal point for consciousness by using mind to contemplate such questions, and then simply let go of the mental activity, which naturally results in an expansion of that focal point of attention beyond the boundaries set by mind. Clarity may result, and it will be clarity regarding that prior focus of attention. Yeah, you could call it any of those things. Although the heart is only part of it. It's also gut, which I think can be even more of a challenge. The key is the expansiveness you mentioned. For me, I could become very still and quiet (mentally) in meditation and in moments throughout the day, but there was no sense of expansiveness. Although the quiet was a relief at first (heh heh), it was kind of dead and one-dimensional. When I let that stillness drop into the body, that's when it became an alive and open stillness.
|
|