|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 5, 2017 15:50:19 GMT -5
I wonder why and what for even companiero Niz called it the unborn.  Sorry. I was just laughing about a joke that just popped in. "You're the son/daughter of a barren woman". (Niz) A curious ~parallel story~ in the Old Testament. In Genesis Abraham came across this curious character Mel-chi-zadek (Melchizedek). He is described as, having neither father nor mother, didn't die, wasn't born. (He is also spoken of in the Psalms and the NT book Hebrews, where it is said: Jesus(Messiah/Christ/Annointed) is a Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek). I would love to throw in why I think these two pointers are related and how they are related. But I fear me bro would spank me with his stick when I do it. I learned, the hard way, to keep me yap shap. But yeah...there is Jesus and there is Jesus. And there is Krishna and that other Krishna....etc. "You keep your mouth shut!"
"Sir, yes, bro."
"Make me a sandwich!"
"No."
"Make me a sandwich!!!"
"You're my younger brother. Why would I?"
"You see this?"
"Yes. So?"
"Make me a sandwich."
"No."
"Okay." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 16:00:53 GMT -5
Thank you sdp do you know of any books that have his writings? Yes. The Unborn by Norman Waddell is very good. (I also bought the Peter Haskell book (see in link below), but have not gotten through it, yet. It covers the same territory (I think I remember correctly). Zen Master Bankei was the Zen Master's Zen Master. He didn't mind telling people: You are just ****ing wrong (my words). Or, I'm sorry dude, you are not enlightened. And he was the people's Zen Master also, preached to anybody and everybody. Felt almost anyone was a hairs breadth from discovering the unborn. He traveled a lot and in the process discovered a lot of sham Zen "Masters". He is my favorite Zen Master. Basically, he kicked a$$. www.amazon.com/Unborn-Teachings-Master-Bankei-1622-1693/dp/0865475954good to know, thanks a bunch, sounds like my kind of guy |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 5, 2017 16:12:16 GMT -5
A curious ~parallel story~ in the Old Testament. In Genesis Abraham came across this curious character Mel-chi-zadek (Melchizedek). He is described as, having neither father nor mother, didn't die, wasn't born. (He is also spoken of in the Psalms and the NT book Hebrews, where it is said: Jesus(Messiah/Christ/Annointed) is a Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek). I would love to throw in why I think these two pointers are related and how they are related. But I fear me bro would spank me with his stick when I do it. I learned, the hard way, to keep me yap shap.
But yeah...there is Jesus and there is Jesus. And there is Krishna and that other Krishna....etc. "You keep your mouth shut!"
"Sir, yes, bro."
"Make me a sandwich!"
"No."
"Make me a sandwich!!!"
"You're my younger brother. Why would I?"
"You see this?"
"Yes. So?"
"Make me a sandwich."
"No."
"Okay."What did the Zen student say to the hot dog vendor? Make me one with everything.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 6, 2017 13:50:09 GMT -5
I consider your (Conradg's) middle paragraph simply wrong. Please supply a quote. (Any thought is a mere copy, an abstraction or a representation. For Niz I Am is a living 'real' something). Conradg is 100% correct. OK, this was driving me "bananas", so I had to go home and get my book. I did not think my recollection was incorrect. A few quotes, I Am That, very beginning of the book: Q: (already into dialogue) I am always someone with memories and habits. I know no other I am. Niz: ....maybe something prevents you from knowing....Don't you see that all your problems are your body's problems-food, clothing...etc...-all these lose their meaning the moment you realize that you may not be a mere body. Q: What benefit there is in knowing that I am not the body? Niz: ....In a way you are all bodies. Go deep into the sense of 'I am' and you will find. How do you find a thing you have mislaid or forgotten? You keep it in your mind until you recall it. The sense of being, of 'I am' is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the 'I am', without moving, you enter a state which cannot be verbalized but which can be experienced. All you need to do is try and try again. After all the sense 'I am' is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it - body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not. Q: Then what am I? Niz: It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what you are. .......... pgs 1, 2 I Am That ......................... Conradq said that I Am is the I - thought. I already defined what a thought is, and you still rejected me, so we're past explaining that again, except Niz elaborates. I said that I Am is a real living thing. Niz says I am is the sense of being. Niz says: When the mind stays in the 'I am'... So mind must be different from the 'I am' (to stay in it, Niz says go deep into the sense of 'I am'). And then the clincher, Niz says the 'I am' is always with you, but you have attached all kinds of other things to it - body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, etc... For me, all that references the I-thought, thought = thought, yes? no?. Therefore the 'I am' cannot possibly equal the I-thought. Niz then says, All these identifications are misleading, meaning, again, misleading means 'I am' cannot possibly = I-thought, IOW, it is misleading to do so (says Niz). And he goes on to say, (because you do this) you take yourself to be what you are not (IOW, you take yourself to be the I- thought, when you are not). And then comes the next Q: Then what am I? And Niz gives the precise answer Gurdjieff gives (below, in signature, "a man is unable to explain what he himself really is"): It is enough to know what you are not. You need not know what you are. Any thought is never 'I am'. 'I am' is deeper that any thought, 'I am' is the ground of thought.
Please don't try to talk your way out of this (either satch or Conradq), just say, OK, I was wrong. Upon reading Niz I Am That for the first time (not all but part) there was much immediate recognition. I got a sense that Gurdjieff's use of I Am is very near if not the same as 'I am' of Niz. [And while we're here, the use of the word identification (self-identifications) by Niz fits perfectly with the use by Gurdjieff]. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Feb 6, 2017 14:24:53 GMT -5
And this is what is referred to as I Am? Is I Am possible without some object? Even I Am That, where That is nothing distinct from anything else...isn't this a form of identification? this is a semantic issue. "I Am That" is shorthand for "I Am Brahman", with Brahman referring to the objectless infinite source from which all things arise, that has no "identity" of its own, no form, name, substance, or point of view. Of course, to speak of Brahman one must give it a name, but it's understood that is just a placemarker for That which is unnameable. However, the "I Am" is a common reference to the "I"-thought, the illusion of separate, independent existence brought about by identification with form, name, substance, and point of view. As for objects, the "I"-thought cannot exist in the absence of objects. When objects are removed, the "I"-thought collapses back into the heart, it's source. The "I"-thought is a dependent process, therefore, requiring objects to identify with. When identification fails to occur, the "I" thought vanishes. What remains is not an "I" at all. I've heard a few different interpretations of "I Am." Here are two: 1. it's just the sense of existence 2. it's a sense of being separate, in contrast to otherness Whereas I can see the sense of existence being necessary for feeling separate, the other way around is not necessary -- feeling separate in contrast to otherness is not fundamental to noticing being/existing. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 6, 2017 17:27:44 GMT -5
this is a semantic issue. "I Am That" is shorthand for "I Am Brahman", with Brahman referring to the objectless infinite source from which all things arise, that has no "identity" of its own, no form, name, substance, or point of view. Of course, to speak of Brahman one must give it a name, but it's understood that is just a placemarker for That which is unnameable. However, the "I Am" is a common reference to the "I"-thought, the illusion of separate, independent existence brought about by identification with form, name, substance, and point of view. As for objects, the "I"-thought cannot exist in the absence of objects. When objects are removed, the "I"-thought collapses back into the heart, it's source. The "I"-thought is a dependent process, therefore, requiring objects to identify with. When identification fails to occur, the "I" thought vanishes. What remains is not an "I" at all. I've heard a few different interpretations of "I Am." Here are two: 1. it's just the sense of existence 2. it's a sense of being separate, in contrast to otherness Whereas I can see the sense of existence being necessary for feeling separate, the other way around is not necessary -- feeling separate in contrast to otherness is not fundamental to noticing being/existing. Take take on the "I AM" thingy, as a simpleton, is this: Being ON. Meaning: One knows ones purpose and is acting upon it. It's not just (mere) being(ness) or "alive(ness)". It's knowing, at every second of the day, what needs to be done in a given situation, and doing it without even thinking about it. It's natural and effortless. Just my two cent. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 6, 2017 19:05:28 GMT -5
this is a semantic issue. "I Am That" is shorthand for "I Am Brahman", with Brahman referring to the objectless infinite source from which all things arise, that has no "identity" of its own, no form, name, substance, or point of view. Of course, to speak of Brahman one must give it a name, but it's understood that is just a placemarker for That which is unnameable. However, the "I Am" is a common reference to the "I"-thought, the illusion of separate, independent existence brought about by identification with form, name, substance, and point of view. As for objects, the "I"-thought cannot exist in the absence of objects. When objects are removed, the "I"-thought collapses back into the heart, it's source. The "I"-thought is a dependent process, therefore, requiring objects to identify with. When identification fails to occur, the "I" thought vanishes. What remains is not an "I" at all. I've heard a few different interpretations of "I Am." Here are two: 1. it's just the sense of existence 2. it's a sense of being separate, in contrast to otherness Whereas I can see the sense of existence being necessary for feeling separate, the other way around is not necessary -- feeling separate in contrast to otherness is not fundamental to noticing being/existing. #1 is the sense Niz uses it (I think the quotes demonstrate this), I Am in the sense of being. When we say "I" to a thought (and in the quote Niz calls this self-identification), this negates 'I am' in the sense of being, the two are mutually exclusive. (Yea, I am a bad "sport", I will keep rubbing this in). IOW, saying "I" and saying 'I am' are two different things. If 'I am' is what you already take yourself to-be, then why would the teacher of Niz tell him to stay in the 'I am'? (IOW, he would already be there). |
|
|
|
Post by slyman on Feb 7, 2017 2:00:45 GMT -5
A curious ~parallel story~ in the Old Testament. In Genesis Abraham came across this curious character Mel-chi-zadek (Melchizedek). He is described as, having neither father nor mother, didn't die, wasn't born. (He is also spoken of in the Psalms and the NT book Hebrews, where it is said: Jesus(Messiah/Christ/Annointed) is a Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek). I would love to throw in why I think these two pointers are related and how they are related. But I fear me bro would spank me with his stick when I do it. I learned, the hard way, to keep me yap shap. But yeah...there is Jesus and there is Jesus. And there is Krishna and that other Krishna....etc. "You keep your mouth shut!"
"Sir, yes, bro."
"Make me a sandwich!"
"No."
"Make me a sandwich!!!"
"You're my younger brother. Why would I?"
"You see this?"
"Yes. So?"
"Make me a sandwich."
"No."
"Okay."Why do Women have to do as they're told by Men? There must be some men who could make themself a sandwich surely. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 7, 2017 2:50:16 GMT -5
I would love to throw in why I think these two pointers are related and how they are related. But I fear me bro would spank me with his stick when I do it. I learned, the hard way, to keep me yap shap. But yeah...there is Jesus and there is Jesus. And there is Krishna and that other Krishna....etc. "You keep your mouth shut!"
"Sir, yes, bro."
"Make me a sandwich!"
"No."
"Make me a sandwich!!!"
"You're my younger brother. Why would I?"
"You see this?"
"Yes. So?"
"Make me a sandwich."
"No."
"Okay."Why do Women have to do as they're told by Men? There must be some men who could make themself a sandwich surely.No doubt about it. |
|
|
|
Post by slyman on Feb 7, 2017 2:53:38 GMT -5
My fav is watercress on brown wholemeal, more grain the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 7, 2017 2:56:23 GMT -5
My fav is watercress on brown wholemeal, more grain the better. I haven't had a sandwich in years in a row. |
|
|
|
Post by slyman on Feb 7, 2017 2:58:16 GMT -5
My fav is watercress on brown wholemeal, more grain the better. I haven't had a sandwich in years in a row. Why NOT? |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 7, 2017 3:15:39 GMT -5
I haven't had a sandwich in years in a row. Why NOT? I'm not the sandwich type, I guess. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 3:23:33 GMT -5
I've heard a few different interpretations of "I Am." Here are two: 1. it's just the sense of existence 2. it's a sense of being separate, in contrast to otherness Whereas I can see the sense of existence being necessary for feeling separate, the other way around is not necessary -- feeling separate in contrast to otherness is not fundamental to noticing being/existing. #1 is the sense Niz uses it (I think the quotes demonstrate this), I Am in the sense of being. When we say "I" to a thought (and in the quote Niz calls this self-identification), this negates 'I am' in the sense of being, the two are mutually exclusive. (Yea, I am a bad "sport", I will keep rubbing this in). IOW, saying "I" and saying 'I am' are two different things. If 'I am' is what you already take yourself to-be, then why would the teacher of Niz tell him to stay in the 'I am'? (IOW, he would already be there). Sorry this had driven you bananas pilgrim! This is an important discussion. Conradg said: In many Advaitic teachings, such as Ramana's or Nisargadatta's, the "I Am" is a reference to the "I"-thought, so I am referring to that usage. You replied" I consider your middle paragraph simply wrong. Please supply a quote. (Any thought is a mere copy, an abstraction or a representation. For Niz I Am is a living 'real' something). You then say Niz says that I am is the sense of Being. So how is that different from conradg saying it is the I thought? I think the confusion is over the word thought. Thoughts can be many and varied so these thoughts cannot be I am. This is just semantics. I am can be described as the primary thought before anything is added to it such as I am hungry, I am going shopping. I say that I am is the sense of Being and I think that's what Conradg means too. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Feb 7, 2017 7:46:46 GMT -5
What "I AM" means isn't the same for all. Some are just "empty", then the "I AM" is not full. There is nothing else but what one could called (mere) being(ness).
Thoughts are expressed by the "I AM" by some via the mind, which is a receiver from that which is beyond (mere) mind.
For others there are no thoughts that come from this (beyond) "I AM". The only expression of thought that come from those are from what I call the hive-mind. In christian terms: it comes from satan, an-sat, not true.
|
|
