|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 21, 2013 18:06:04 GMT -8
Escape from what? There is no escape. Says who? "Because I am unreal everything is unreal" said who to who? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 21, 2013 18:08:04 GMT -8
Niz: If you continue in the realm of intellect you will become entangled and lost in more and more concepts. Yup. Using intellect to paint a "dead end" sign to intellect is hardly a continuance of intellect! Thanks for posting that particular bit about the name Reefs, that's quite poignant ... I wonder if he actually still thought that those words were his when he was speaking to his guru? ... I'd have to infer that he did.  ... and where's his poems? I bet they sucked so bad as to never have seen the light of day! (<-- deliberate sardonic/ironic negative provocation) |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 21, 2013 18:36:08 GMT -8
Escape from what? There is no escape. Says who? "Because I am unreal everything is unreal" said who to who? Those are great questions Reefs ... answers over here came immediately. Tell ya' what, make ya' a deal: you answer one first and I'll answer the other first, you get to pick which one's which. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 21, 2013 18:39:30 GMT -8
Says who? "Because I am unreal everything is unreal" said who to who? Those are great questions Reefs ... answers over here came immediately. Tell ya' what, make ya' a deal: you answer one first and I'll answer the other first, you get to pick which one's which. I'll let the body answer one: * farts loudly * |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 21, 2013 19:12:48 GMT -8
Escape from what? There is no escape. Says who? Me. One deep breath helps, but the answer is me. I'm not being sardonic or evasive, what I'm saying is that I am the inescapable truth, that I am the home I could never leave nor want to leave because this home is not a home but is rather the unbounded freedom of the infinite road. The answer is me and this can be said, although not without error: because, I am ... the error being of course, that there is no "because". Because I am unreal everything is unreal" said who to who? This references a realization and is an exercise in self-inquiry, it's the same thing as asking "who am I?" There was a delusion that could be stated as: "I am my mind". The following was read and allowed to be investigated: "You are not your mind" Once the truth of that was seen for what it was, then it could be said that the truth of: "I am unreal" was seen. Since then it seems that that realizing the corollary: "everything is unreal" is a moment-to-moment continual realization. |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 21, 2013 19:13:29 GMT -8
Those are great questions Reefs ... answers over here came immediately. Tell ya' what, make ya' a deal: you answer one first and I'll answer the other first, you get to pick which one's which. I'll let the body answer one: * farts loudly *Niz had the benefit of the smell of ciggy smoke. You don't. You should really start eating better. It smells of cowardice in here now. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 21, 2013 21:00:27 GMT -8
I'll let the body answer one: * farts loudly *Niz had the benefit of the smell of ciggy smoke. You don't. You should really start eating better. It smells of cowardice in here now.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 21, 2013 21:33:10 GMT -8
Me. One deep breath helps, but the answer is me. I'm not being sardonic or evasive, what I'm saying is that I am the inescapable truth, that I am the home I could never leave nor want to leave because this home is not a home but is rather the unbounded freedom of the infinite road. The answer is me and this can be said, although not without error: because, I am ... the error being of course, that there is no "because". Because I am unreal everything is unreal" said who to who? This references a realization and is an exercise in self-inquiry, it's the same thing as asking "who am I?" There was a delusion that could be stated as: "I am my mind". The following was read and allowed to be investigated: "You are not your mind" Once the truth of that was seen for what it was, then it could be said that the truth of: "I am unreal" was seen. Since then it seems that that realizing the corollary: "everything is unreal" is a moment-to-moment continual realization. Look who's talking! Me 1), me 2) or me 3)? How about asking "What is talking?" instead of "Who is talking?" There's a wonderful Niz quote about that, I guess I'll stumble over it again soon and then I'll put it into the Niz quotes thread. 1) the Burt login 'me' 2) the 'me' behind or 'prior' to the Burt login 'me' 3) the 'me' behind or 'prior' to the the 'me' behind the Burt login 'me' |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 21, 2013 22:47:47 GMT -8
Yes I see your point there ... the word "embrace" conjures visions of a circle of hippies wearing flower-rings on their heads all linking arms around some sacred tree ... or worse yet, raises the spectre of losing the vector between what is delusion and what isn't delusion.
Mr. 2.0 ... who indeed! ... he would of course disclaim such a label ... he made the point twice ... once with a reference to the pounding of the hooves of the Pegasus -- the sound happens and is neither good nor bad, it just happens -- the other was a straight-out delineation: recognizing the dream is not dismissing the dream.
I got the quote from Niz 1.0 layin' around somewhere: if you dismiss everything as a dream you wind up with a dream ... a few chapter's later he seems to contradict himself by stating the dream/dreamer model, but it's only a contradiction if you miss the "dismiss/not-dismiss" distinction.
Replace "embrace" with "not-dismiss" ... probably a better word to fit in there but whatever.Yup, new escape plans is what we need!  I guess based on this: seeker: If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, where will it lead me?
Niz: 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 to be done. I'd replace "embrace" with "see". Just realize that it's a dream and then. Stop. Thinking. edit: oh yeah ... and thanks for that ... |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 21, 2013 22:49:29 GMT -8
Me. One deep breath helps, but the answer is me. I'm not being sardonic or evasive, what I'm saying is that I am the inescapable truth, that I am the home I could never leave nor want to leave because this home is not a home but is rather the unbounded freedom of the infinite road. The answer is me and this can be said, although not without error: because, I am ... the error being of course, that there is no "because". This references a realization and is an exercise in self-inquiry, it's the same thing as asking "who am I?" There was a delusion that could be stated as: "I am my mind". The following was read and allowed to be investigated: "You are not your mind" Once the truth of that was seen for what it was, then it could be said that the truth of: "I am unreal" was seen. Since then it seems that that realizing the corollary: "everything is unreal" is a moment-to-moment continual realization. Look who's talking! Me 1), me 2) or me 3)? How about asking "What is talking?" instead of "Who is talking?" There's a wonderful Niz quote about that, I guess I'll stumble over it again soon and then I'll put it into the Niz quotes thread. 1) the Burt login 'me' 2) the 'me' behind or 'prior' to the Burt login 'me' 3) the 'me' behind or 'prior' to the the 'me' behind the Burt login 'me'Meaning is created by the reader, so you take your pick. I won't try to claim success, if I didn't make myself clear I'll take some blame ... but in the end, the assignment of semantics is yours. |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 21, 2013 22:59:47 GMT -8
edit: oh yeah ... and thanks for that ... IOW: Rejecting/embracing is a matter of focus. Seeing clearly has nothing to do with focus.
Yeah, you were right about that. ftr: Niz: It is not like this: Because I am real, you are unreal. It is like this: Because I am unreal, everything is unreal. The distinction that's come across from what I've read so far (and as specifically pointed out to me once by Niz 2.0), is that what is unreal is not dismissed as unreal, but seen to be, or even, I dare say, embraced as what it is (or... isn't). "seeing" is not "dismissing" ... shouldn't have taken that dare ... |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2013 2:57:12 GMT -8
Look who's talking! Me 1), me 2) or me 3)? How about asking "What is talking?" instead of "Who is talking?" There's a wonderful Niz quote about that, I guess I'll stumble over it again soon and then I'll put it into the Niz quotes thread. 1) the Burt login 'me' 2) the 'me' behind or 'prior' to the Burt login 'me' 3) the 'me' behind or 'prior' to the the 'me' behind the Burt login 'me'
I won't try to claim success, if I didn't make myself clear I'll take some blame ... but in the end, the assignment of semantics is yours. Actually, I'm not expecting you to answer this. You can think it thru for yourself if you want to and see where you get and where it ends. Partly it really is just semantics. What I've observed so far is that the 'What question' seems to create less confusion than the 'Who question'. And what I've read so far about Niz, he usually goes with the 'What question'. |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 22, 2013 9:39:38 GMT -8
yes, B said as much a few months back ... and I noticed Niz actually making that distinction in one of his dialogs ... the only reason I didn't put it up was out of respect for the "fair use doctrine" ;D (iow ... while I'd like to post the whole book, "I AM THAT", just wouldn't be right!) ... Us bunnies do like to share our carrots!
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2013 3:40:56 GMT -8
yes, B said as much a few months back ... and I noticed Niz actually making that distinction in one of his dialogs ... the only reason I didn't put it up was out of respect for the "fair use doctrine" ;D (iow ... while I'd like to post the whole book, "I AM THAT", just wouldn't be right!) ... Us bunnies do like to share our carrots! Hm. I'd say wanting to post the entire book would be a sign of confusion. Cherry-picking some of the above kindergarten level stuff sounds mucho betterer. I know you're working your way thru "I am that" now. Would you say that the quotes you were posting in the beginning are still relevant to you now? |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 23, 2013 8:15:58 GMT -8
life's been flowing between the two ever since I can remember if I try to remember ... long before I became aware of this whole conceptual structure revolving around "awakening" or "enlightenment" or whatever. I picked up Niz out of curiosity ... that provocative statement made by Andrew about "I AM" being a "belief". Not a curiosity about myself, not based on a question of who I am, but a question of how others see this expression ... "I AM". What I've taken away from the reading is a number of things (please don't be misled by the personal context here Reefs ... we could digress into what's meant by this if you want, but there really is no point to that ... I'll stipulate: no, no separate volitional person ... if you call that a "mind realization" I'll just grunt and nod in reply as that would be empty words chasing one another): The pointer "refuse all thoughts but 'I am'". The relentless expression of our being, stated as a paradox and disclaimed as non-paradoxical, projecting onto the prescription to practice this pointer even as it is known that there is no doer or doing and that this practice will seem to continue for as long as necessary which is until it is seen that there never was a practioner or a practice ... and I specifically refrain here from saying "to begin with". Wasn't anything new to me at the core, but the understanding of mind has deepened, words about this have a new filter which seems to add to clarity in both apparent directions. The illusory distance between the imagined points "A" and "B" is greatly reduce.  If his words are read with open and clear mind, how can the body not be filled with love? |
|
