|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 16, 2019 23:31:54 GMT -5
I'm about 1/3 thru the book 'I Am That' and I have to say it's been fascinating to read it again after so many years, especially in light of recent discussions. Based on what I've read so far, I think that Niz has been grossly misrepresented by some members here, especially recently in these endless debates re: the nature of appearances. I had to revise some of my own opinions about Niz as well. Just a few notes on the quotes posted so far: 1) The Niz in 'I Am That' is actually quite the neo-advaitist already. He isn't showing much interest in discussing paths to SR and he rather prefers to look at every topic from the largest context only. What distinguishes him from the typical neo-advaitist is the fact that he is willing to engage the seeker on their own level of understanding for a while and quite often even answers questions on that level. But he usually steers the conversation back to the largest context, and rather quickly. 2) The argument has been made that Niz isn't really all that consistent with his vocabulary and contradicting himself a lot, to the degree that one could use his quotes from one and the same book to support exactly opposite points of view. I don't really find that to be the case. He is rather consistent and also exceptionally clear, especially when we translate his vocabulary (which at times is not so elegant) into our established vocabulary here on the forum. I think the confusion to what Niz is actually saying mostly comes from posting out of context quotes by people who search his dialogs for certain key words only, instead of actually reading the entire dialog or the entire book. 3) And based on those numerous out of context quotes floating around on the forum, it even seemed at times that Niz might have been the original solipsist in the advaita tradition. That is definitely not the case. In no way could the Niz in 'I Am That' pass as a solipsist or his teaching supporting solipsism. Quite the opposite. And as for the infamous aliveness debate, Niz, too, sees everything as being conscious and alive, even rocks. To me, he always seemed to imply that somehow, but I didn't remember him saying that outright. So that was actually a nice surprise. Right: in literal terms, folks can put up pairs of Niz quotes that contradict each other, but anyone who perceives a semantic contradiction isn't accounting for the existential context of whether he was pointing to the absolute vs. meeting the seeker in their dream. A clue to people who find Niz self-contradictory is that the different quotes that contradict are almost always (if not, always) in completely different dialogs, ie: they have to be taken out of context. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2019 8:55:54 GMT -5
Right: in literal terms, folks can put up pairs of Niz quotes that contradict each other, but anyone who perceives a semantic contradiction isn't accounting for the existential context of whether he was pointing to the absolute vs. meeting the seeker in their dream. A clue to people who find Niz self-contradictory is that the different quotes that contradict are almost always (if not, always) in completely different dialogs, ie: they have to be taken out of context. Eksilent point! Also, the range in terms of understanding level of those who seek guidance from the Maharaj is enormous. I guess that's one of the reasons why 'I Am That' has been and still is so popular. There's something in that book for seekers with all levels of understanding. Not sure if you have noticed but Niz has two different definitions for a whole bunch of key words like 'appearance', 'dream', 'perception' etc. I think this is adding to the confusion about out of context quotes. Because an important point to consider when reading and quoting Niz is that Niz doesn't see SR as the end of the road, but NS (quite to the contrary to what ZD has said). So when Niz talks about 'his world' (or the perspective of the 'realized man'), which is referring to prior/beyond the mind, he is adopting either one or the other perspective. And he is switching between these two perspectives thru-out the book. Ultimately, he seems to prefer the NS perspective with the SR perspective implied. And SR here means kensho plus satori. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2019 9:35:51 GMT -5
Right: in literal terms, folks can put up pairs of Niz quotes that contradict each other, but anyone who perceives a semantic contradiction isn't accounting for the existential context of whether he was pointing to the absolute vs. meeting the seeker in their dream. A clue to people who find Niz self-contradictory is that the different quotes that contradict are almost always (if not, always) in completely different dialogs, ie: they have to be taken out of context. Eksilent point! Also, the range in terms of understanding level of those who seek guidance from the Maharaj is enormous. I guess that's one of the reasons why 'I Am That' has been and still is so popular. There's something in that book for seekers with all levels of understanding. Not sure if you have noticed but Niz has two different definitions for a whole bunch of key words like 'appearance', 'dream', 'perception' etc. I think this is adding to the confusion about out of context quotes. Because an important point to consider when reading and quoting Niz is that Niz doesn't see SR as the end of the road, but NS (quite to the contrary to what ZD has said). So when Niz talks about 'his world' (or the perspective of the 'realized man'), which is referring to prior/beyond the mind, he is adopting either one or the other perspective. And he is switching between these two perspectives thru-out the book. Ultimately, he seems to prefer the NS perspective with the SR perspective implied. And SR here means kensho plus satori. I did notice at least two specific dialogs where Niz talked about NS, yes, and in those he did make clear how important it was .. but it seems to me that the points he keeps coming back to again and again, and that you can find covered in most of the dialogs are (1) the natural state -- how it differs from the the various states of trance he is confronted with by his visitors, (2) what a seeker interested in attaining that state should do, and (3) how no effort is really necessary in the doing, and that liberation is always possible right now, but if time and effort appears in the doing, then that's just what happens. ps: also, he was quite willing to point out the limitations of directly seeking samadhi as a goal .. searching on the word reveals those pretty quick. pps: relating the "samadhi" scan to my memory, in the two dialogs I'm thinking of, he describes NS quite vividly and clearly, but I guess he didn't use the term in those. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2019 12:05:03 GMT -5
I did notice at least two specific dialogs where Niz talked about NS, yes, and in those he did make clear how important it was .. but it seems to me that the points he keeps coming back to again and again, and that you can find covered in most of the dialogs are (1) the natural state -- how it differs from the the various states of trance he is confronted with by his visitors, (2) what a seeker interested in attaining that state should do, and (3) how no effort is really necessary in the doing, and that liberation is always possible right now, but if time and effort appears in the doing, then that's just what happens. ps: also, he was quite willing to point out the limitations of directly seeking samadhi as a goal .. searching on the word reveals those pretty quick. pps: relating the "samadhi" scan to my memory, in the two dialogs I'm thinking of, he describes NS quite vividly and clearly, but I guess he didn't use the term in those. I think you are correct in the sense that he rarely refers to it as NS directly. But he refers to it indirectly all the time, almost in every dialog. What you are describing (points 1-3) is the SR level of discourse which is what we are talking about here most of the time. But there's also another level of discourse, which I would call the NS level of discourse and that is basically the parts of Niz' message the solipsists got so interested in. In essence, it is the dream metaphor applied in the most radical sense. The difference though is that Niz does this from the perspective of the 'universal witness' or 'pure awareness' (as he tends to call it) which is fine because that way he integrates the SR perspective. Unlike the solipsists who do this from the the personal perspective which naturally puts them at odds with the SR perspective. I'll explain that in more detail when I'm done with the book. I've made some notes while reading and I am planning to post a synopsis of Niz' ontology. But that'll probably take a while given my current rate of progress, hehe.  ETA: Ramakrishna, too, sees NS as the ultimate goal. So this could actually be some yoga tradition thingy, dunno. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2019 12:30:37 GMT -5
I did notice at least two specific dialogs where Niz talked about NS, yes, and in those he did make clear how important it was .. but it seems to me that the points he keeps coming back to again and again, and that you can find covered in most of the dialogs are (1) the natural state -- how it differs from the the various states of trance he is confronted with by his visitors, (2) what a seeker interested in attaining that state should do, and (3) how no effort is really necessary in the doing, and that liberation is always possible right now, but if time and effort appears in the doing, then that's just what happens. ps: also, he was quite willing to point out the limitations of directly seeking samadhi as a goal .. searching on the word reveals those pretty quick. pps: relating the "samadhi" scan to my memory, in the two dialogs I'm thinking of, he describes NS quite vividly and clearly, but I guess he didn't use the term in those. I think you are correct in the sense that he rarely refers to it as NS directly. But he refers to it indirectly all the time, almost in every dialog. What you are describing (points 1-3) is the SR level of discourse which is what we are talking about here most of the time. But there's also another level of discourse, which I would call the NS level of discourse and that is basically the parts of Niz' message the solipsists got so interested in. In essence, it is the dream metaphor applied in the most radical sense. The difference though is that Niz does this from the perspective of the 'universal witness' or 'pure awareness' (as he tends to call it) which is fine because that way he integrates the SR perspective. Unlike the solipsists who do this from the the personal perspective which naturally puts them at odds with the SR perspective. I'll explain that in more detail when I'm done with the book. I've made some notes while reading and I am planning to post a synopsis of Niz' ontology. But that'll probably take a while given my current rate of progress, hehe. ETA: Ramakrishna, too, sees NS as the ultimate goal. So this could actually be some yoga tradition thingy, dunno. O.k. this what I'm gonna' write is negative, but if I wasn't grateful to you and didn't feel affection toward you I'd just STFU and not write it, as it wouldn't be worth the negativity, but here goes. Using your understandings and Niz' writings to win a philosophical debate is waaay beneath either, and I hope that you've got better motives to re-read the material than that. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2019 21:29:00 GMT -5
O.k. this what I'm gonna' write is negative, but if I wasn't grateful to you and didn't feel affection toward you I'd just STFU and not write it, as it wouldn't be worth the negativity, but here goes. Using your understandings and Niz' writings to win a philosophical debate is waaay beneath either, and I hope that you've got better motives to re-read the material than that. The goal of this thread is to represent Niz' message as accurately as possible. Which will also be the goal of the upcoming synopsis. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2019 21:32:25 GMT -5
Living is Life’s only Purpose (1)
Q: What does it mean to fail in Yoga?
M: It is only a question of incompletion. He who could not complete his Yoga for some reason is called failed in Yoga. Such failure is only temporary, for there can be no defeat in Yoga. This battle is always won, for it is a battle between the true and the false. The false has no chance.
Q: Who fails? The person or the self?
M: The question is wrongly put. There is no question of failure, neither in the short run nor in the long. It is like traveling a long and arduous road in an unknown country. Of all the innumerable steps there is only the last which brings you to your destination. Yet you will not consider all previous steps as failures. Each brought you nearer to your goal, even when you had to turn back to bypass an obstacle.
Nobody ever fails in Yoga. It is all a matter of the rate of progress. It is slow in the beginning and rapid in the end. When one is fully matured, realization is explosive. It takes place spontaneously, or at the slightest hint. The quick is not better than the slow. Slow ripening and rapid flowering alternate. Both are natural and right. Yet, all this is so in the mind only. As I see it, there is really nothing of the kind. In the great mirror of consciousness images arise and disappear and only memory gives them continuity. And memory is material — destructible, perishable, transient. On such flimsy foundations we build a sense of personal existence — vague, intermittent, dreamlike. This vague persuasion: ‘I-am-so-and-so’ obscures the changeless state of pure awareness and makes us believe that we are born to suffer and to die.
In due course a Guru appears to teach and inspires us to practice Yoga and a ripening takes place as a result of which the immemorial night of ignorance dissolves before the rising sun of wisdom. But in reality nothing happened. The sun is always there, there is no night to it; the mind blinded by the ‘I-am-the-body’ idea spins out endlessly its thread of illusion.
I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 29
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2019 21:38:07 GMT -5
Living is Life’s only Purpose (2)
Q: Your reduction of everything to a dream disregards the difference between the dream of an insect and the dream of a poet. All is dream, granted. But not all are equal.
M: The dreams are not equal, but the dreamer is one. I am the insect. I am the poet — in dream. But in reality I am neither. I am beyond all dreams. I am the light in which all dreams appear and disappear. I am both inside and outside the dream. Just as a man having headache knows the ache and also knows that he is not the ache, so do I know the dream, myself dreaming and myself not dreaming — all at the same time. I am what I am before, during and after the dream. But what I see in dream, I am not.
Q: It is all a matter of imagination. One imagines that one is dreaming, another imagines one is not dreaming. Are not both the same?
M: The same and not the same. Not dreaming, as an interval between two dreams, is of course, a part of dreaming. Not dreaming as a steady hold on, and timeless abidance in reality has nothing to do with dreaming. In that sense I never dream, nor ever shall.
Q: If both dream and escape from dream are imaginings, what is the way out?
M: There is no need of a way out! Don’t you see that a way out is also a part of the dream? All you have to do is to see the dream as dream.
Q: If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, where will it lead me?
M: Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of going beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that you are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking for ways out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you like one part of your dream and not another. Love all, or none of it, and stop complaining. When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs be done.
Q: Is dreaming caused by thinking?
M: Everything is a play of ideas. In the state free from ideation (nirvikalpa samadhi) nothing is perceived. The root idea is: ‘I am’. It shatters the state of pure consciousness and is followed by the innumerable sensations and perceptions, feeling and ideas which in their totality constitute God and His world. The ‘I am’ remains as the witness, but it is by the will of God that everything happens.
I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 29
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2019 21:43:16 GMT -5
You are Free NOW
Q: There are so many theories about the nature of man and universe. The creation theory, the illusion theory, the dream theory — any number of them. Which is true?
M: All are true, all are false. You can pick up whichever you like best.
Q: You seem to favor the dream theory.
M: These are all ways of putting words together. Some favor one way, some favor another. Theories are neither right nor wrong. They are attempts at explaining the inexplicable. It is not the theory that matters, but the way it is being tested. It is the testing of the theory that makes it fruitful. Experiment with any theory you like — if you are truly earnest and honest, the attainment of reality will be yours. As a living being you are caught in an untenable and painful situation and you are seeking a way out. You are being offered several plans of your prison, none quite true. But they all are of some value, only if you are in dead earnest. It is the earnestness that liberates and not the theory. Your sincerity will guide you. Devotion to the goal of freedom and perfection will make you abandon all theories and systems and live by wisdom, intelligence and active love. Theories may be good as starting points, but must be abandoned, the sooner — the better.
I Am That: Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Chapter 30
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 18, 2019 6:53:10 GMT -5
The questioner was right to point out that niz in his own way promotes the dream idea even though by his own admission it’s just an idea that is neither right or wrong, it’s just an attempt to explain the inexplicable.
So with one knowing that the reality lived is just an idea that self favours, one in my humble option shouldn’t in that respect be adamant about anything per se .
Everything said should be taken with a pinch of salt in this regard but the way he speaks he is on one hand sure of what he is saying .
Niz say’s that we are slaves to what we do not know and yet what we do know is neither right or wrong lol .
To then go on to say The Self stands beyond the mind, aware, but unconcerned this is neither right or wrong .
It is just what is favoured ..
Everything said, like I appear to hear and see is just an idea in the favoured dream ..
I don’t resonate with promoting how things are and then in the same breath saying that what is made sense of is just a favoured idea ..
This is why I have always put forward my idea that if we want to play the dream game with an illusory self dream character at the helm then anything that is said to be true or True or right so to speak isn’t necessarily .. and to argue and defend one's ideas by their own admission is futile .
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 21, 2019 8:25:42 GMT -5
The questioner was right to point out that niz in his own way promotes the dream idea even though by his own admission it’s just an idea that is neither right or wrong, it’s just an attempt to explain the inexplicable. So with one knowing that the reality lived is just an idea that self favours, one in my humble option shouldn’t in that respect be adamant about anything per se . Everything said should be taken with a pinch of salt in this regard but the way he speaks he is on one hand sure of what he is saying . Niz say’s that we are slaves to what we do not know and yet what we do know is neither right or wrong lol . To then go on to say The Self stands beyond the mind, aware, but unconcerned this is neither right or wrong . It is just what is favoured .. Everything said, like I appear to hear and see is just an idea in the favoured dream .. I don’t resonate with promoting how things are and then in the same breath saying that what is made sense of is just a favoured idea .. This is why I have always put forward my idea that if we want to play the dream game with an illusory self dream character at the helm then anything that is said to be true or True or right so to speak isn’t necessarily .. and to argue and defend one's ideas by their own admission is futile . You have to pay attention to context when reading Niz. As a rule of thumb, there are basically 3 different standard contexts he tends to engage everyone: 1) the mind 2) consciousness (prior to mind) 3) awareness (prior to consciousness). Mind here means the intellect, objectified perception. Consciousness here is the dictionary meaning and refers to perception beyond mind. Awareness here means no perception at all. He also distinguishes between 'the Known' (consciousness) and 'the Unknown' (pure awareness). According to Niz, what he calls home is 'the Unknown', which means he positions himself not just prior to mind but prior to consciousness, which means prior to the world and even prior to God. That's his native perspective thru-out the book. Now, when seekers use the dream metaphor in conversations, they usually do this from perspective #1. When Niz uses the dream metaphor, he almost always does this from perspective #3, in some cases also from perspective #2. So the dream metaphor can mean different things in different contexts. From perspective #1 what is meant is the nightly dream. From perspective #2 what is meant is the SVP world (both waking and dream state). From perspective #3 what is meant is the entire known world. That's why Niz can say that he is the dream, that he is in the dream and that he is beyond the dream all at the same time. So while Niz does play the dream game, he plays it a bit differently than how it is usually played. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 21, 2019 13:36:29 GMT -5
The questioner was right to point out that niz in his own way promotes the dream idea even though by his own admission it’s just an idea that is neither right or wrong, it’s just an attempt to explain the inexplicable. So with one knowing that the reality lived is just an idea that self favours, one in my humble option shouldn’t in that respect be adamant about anything per se . Everything said should be taken with a pinch of salt in this regard but the way he speaks he is on one hand sure of what he is saying . Niz say’s that we are slaves to what we do not know and yet what we do know is neither right or wrong lol . To then go on to say The Self stands beyond the mind, aware, but unconcerned this is neither right or wrong . It is just what is favoured .. Everything said, like I appear to hear and see is just an idea in the favoured dream .. I don’t resonate with promoting how things are and then in the same breath saying that what is made sense of is just a favoured idea .. This is why I have always put forward my idea that if we want to play the dream game with an illusory self dream character at the helm then anything that is said to be true or True or right so to speak isn’t necessarily .. and to argue and defend one's ideas by their own admission is futile . You have to pay attention to context when reading Niz. As a rule of thumb, there are basically 3 different standard contexts he tends to engage everyone: 1) the mind 2) consciousness (prior to mind) 3) awareness (prior to consciousness). Mind here means the intellect, objectified perception. Consciousness here is the dictionary meaning and refers to perception beyond mind. Awareness here means no perception at all. He also distinguishes between 'the Known' (consciousness) and 'the Unknown' (pure awareness). According to Niz, what he calls home is 'the Unknown', which means he positions himself not just prior to mind but prior to consciousness, which means prior to the world and even prior to God. That's his native perspective thru-out the book. Now, when seekers use the dream metaphor in conversations, they usually do this from perspective #1. When Niz uses the dream metaphor, he almost always does this from perspective #3, in some cases also from perspective #2. So the dream metaphor can mean different things in different contexts. From perspective #1 what is meant is the nightly dream. From perspective #2 what is meant is the SVP world (both waking and dream state). From perspective #3 what is meant is the entire known world. That's why Niz can say that he is the dream, that he is in the dream and that he is beyond the dream all at the same time. So while Niz does play the dream game, he plays it a bit differently than how it is usually played. I get the different contexts and I get what he is saying .. I see that it is right / true / correct in that which I bolded but when niz speaks about the dream being an idea and by his own admission it’s just an idea that is neither right or wrong it makes no sense to carry on with this foundation when it is not necessarily right / correct / true . There has to be an element of what is right / correct and true for one to live their life by such a conceptual theory . For myself or anyone to say that life is not a dream would be equally an idea that is not right or wrong, correct or incorrect, false or true . It's basically what one favours (apparently) . This in itself doesn't seem to be a solid foundation to live as a realised being . To see Self in everything would be equally a favoured idea that is not right or wrong .. butt yet many masters will speak about it as if it is correct / right and true . |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2019 2:59:06 GMT -5
You have to pay attention to context when reading Niz. As a rule of thumb, there are basically 3 different standard contexts he tends to engage everyone: 1) the mind 2) consciousness (prior to mind) 3) awareness (prior to consciousness). Mind here means the intellect, objectified perception. Consciousness here is the dictionary meaning and refers to perception beyond mind. Awareness here means no perception at all. He also distinguishes between 'the Known' (consciousness) and 'the Unknown' (pure awareness). According to Niz, what he calls home is 'the Unknown', which means he positions himself not just prior to mind but prior to consciousness, which means prior to the world and even prior to God. That's his native perspective thru-out the book. Now, when seekers use the dream metaphor in conversations, they usually do this from perspective #1. When Niz uses the dream metaphor, he almost always does this from perspective #3, in some cases also from perspective #2. So the dream metaphor can mean different things in different contexts. From perspective #1 what is meant is the nightly dream. From perspective #2 what is meant is the SVP world (both waking and dream state). From perspective #3 what is meant is the entire known world. That's why Niz can say that he is the dream, that he is in the dream and that he is beyond the dream all at the same time. So while Niz does play the dream game, he plays it a bit differently than how it is usually played. I get the different contexts and I get what he is saying .. I see that it is right / true / correct in that which I bolded but when niz speaks about the dream being an idea and by his own admission it’s just an idea that is neither right or wrong it makes no sense to carry on with this foundation when it is not necessarily right / correct / true . There has to be an element of what is right / correct and true for one to live their life by such a conceptual theory . For myself or anyone to say that life is not a dream would be equally an idea that is not right or wrong, correct or incorrect, false or true . It's basically what one favours (apparently) . This in itself doesn't seem to be a solid foundation to live as a realised being . To see Self in everything would be equally a favoured idea that is not right or wrong .. butt yet many masters will speak about it as if it is correct / right and true . In the book 'I Am That' you'll see Niz consistently arguing that the world is not real, as well as that the world is real, because these are just two sides of one and the same coin. And depending on which side of that coin the seeker is stuck, he'll offer either the dream metaphor or the gold metaphor in order to get him unstuck. And since 99% of seekers are stuck on the 'the world is real' side of that coin, you'll see Niz 99% of the time explaining the dream idea. So here's a similarity to Ramana. Ramakrishna has been alternating between these two ideas/perspecctives as well, although he seems prefer the gold metaphor. But since both perspectives are equally true, I guess you are right in the sense that in the end it comes down to preference and what perpective the nature of the dialog is calling for. In either case, from Niz perspective, acknowledging both and preferring one over the other would be fine. Only acknowledging one, only sticking with one and dismissing the other, wouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 25, 2019 5:35:33 GMT -5
I get the different contexts and I get what he is saying .. I see that it is right / true / correct in that which I bolded but when niz speaks about the dream being an idea and by his own admission it’s just an idea that is neither right or wrong it makes no sense to carry on with this foundation when it is not necessarily right / correct / true . There has to be an element of what is right / correct and true for one to live their life by such a conceptual theory . For myself or anyone to say that life is not a dream would be equally an idea that is not right or wrong, correct or incorrect, false or true . It's basically what one favours (apparently) . This in itself doesn't seem to be a solid foundation to live as a realised being . To see Self in everything would be equally a favoured idea that is not right or wrong .. butt yet many masters will speak about it as if it is correct / right and true . In the book 'I Am That' you'll see Niz consistently arguing that the world is not real, as well as that the world is real, because these are just two sides of one and the same coin. And depending on which side of that coin the seeker is stuck, he'll offer either the dream metaphor or the gold metaphor in order to get him unstuck. And since 99% of seekers are stuck on the 'the world is real' side of that coin, you'll see Niz 99% of the time explaining the dream idea. So here's a similarity to Ramana. Ramakrishna has been alternating between these two ideas/perspecctives as well, although he seems prefer the gold metaphor. But since both perspectives are equally true, I guess you are right in the sense that in the end it comes down to preference and what perpective the nature of the dialog is calling for. In either case, from Niz perspective, acknowledging both and preferring one over the other would be fine. Only acknowledging one, only sticking with one and dismissing the other, wouldn't. Again, let me agree with you in regards to there being both sides of the coin in regards to context which will at times reveal and reflect contradiction .. My only main pointer however was referring to niz when he said it’s just an idea that is neither right or wrong when associating life to a dream .. So what in your opinion would be the other side of the coin in regards to this statement (within context or within a different context) .. Does niz therefore also believe that it’s also 'not just an idea' and it is a matter of fact that what he say’s is correct or right or true? I am all for understanding different contexts but I don’t resonate with peeps changing their mind from one minute to the next keeping within the same context, it doesn’t reflect a sound foundation in my eyes . I am at a disadvantage because I haven’t read niz’s books but from what you posted it does seem that all mindful concepts are just ideas that one favours and there is no other side to that coin .. Maybe there is tho .. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2019 11:22:33 GMT -5
In the book 'I Am That' you'll see Niz consistently arguing that the world is not real, as well as that the world is real, because these are just two sides of one and the same coin. And depending on which side of that coin the seeker is stuck, he'll offer either the dream metaphor or the gold metaphor in order to get him unstuck. And since 99% of seekers are stuck on the 'the world is real' side of that coin, you'll see Niz 99% of the time explaining the dream idea. So here's a similarity to Ramana. Ramakrishna has been alternating between these two ideas/perspecctives as well, although he seems prefer the gold metaphor. But since both perspectives are equally true, I guess you are right in the sense that in the end it comes down to preference and what perpective the nature of the dialog is calling for. In either case, from Niz perspective, acknowledging both and preferring one over the other would be fine. Only acknowledging one, only sticking with one and dismissing the other, wouldn't. Again, let me agree with you in regards to there being both sides of the coin in regards to context which will at times reveal and reflect contradiction .. My only main pointer however was referring to niz when he said it’s just an idea that is neither right or wrong when associating life to a dream .. So what in your opinion would be the other side of the coin in regards to this statement (within context or within a different context) .. Does niz therefore also believe that it’s also 'not just an idea' and it is a matter of fact that what he say’s is correct or right or true? I am all for understanding different contexts but I don’t resonate with peeps changing their mind from one minute to the next keeping within the same context, it doesn’t reflect a sound foundation in my eyes . I am at a disadvantage because I haven’t read niz’s books but from what you posted it does seem that all mindful concepts are just ideas that one favours and there is no other side to that coin .. Maybe there is tho .. To Niz, this belongs into the category of philosophizing. And as such it is irrelevant because what he cares about is actually living it. What he usually says is, see the way I see and all your questions will be taken care of. That's why the only practical advice he ever gives is focusing on the 'I am' because he sees it as the gateway to the Supreme. This is actually similar to ET's 'portals' to the Unmanifested. So in a sense, he is teaching presence or mindfulness like any other teacher of rank. Niz can be confusing if you don't understand how radical his position is and what the words he uses mean. To Niz, consciousness and dream are synonyms. Which means the ignorance of buying into the dream, trying to find a way out of the dream, even dismissing everything as a dream and awakening from the dream are all part of the dream! As he says about the path, the ripening process and awakening, nothing like that is actually happening. That's all how it appears to the mind only. In reality, the Self is the Self - always. The Sun is always there, the Sun knows no night. |
|
