Post by Figgles on Apr 17, 2021 20:36:49 GMT
"All perceivables are a stain." Nisargadatta
If ever a Niz quote deserved it's own thread, this is it.
In saying "I am beyond God and Consciousness" and "All perceivables are a stain," what he's saying is that that which abides is beyond all appearance, beyond all identification with/conceptualization, thus, beyond anything and all things 'perceivable.' He is not denoting the pointer of God/Consciousness as a stain, but rather, the concepts of God/Consciousness. It's confusing if you have no reference for God/consciousness as a pointer...which I don't think Reefs does. Rather, like Gopal, he thinks he's alluding to some-thing non-conceptual, but his posts belie the truth....he's still conceptualizing the ineffable.
What Niz is pointing to is that "That which fundamentally abides" is not known via 'perception.' Rather, it's fundamental to all that is perceived...the ground of all that appears. The knowing of that ground is not itself 'a perception.' That which is aware is not something that appears in the dream...it's not experiential....it's not a perceivable. To call it 'a stain' is to denote the distinction between that which exists in it's own right, and is not a perceivable, and that which does not and is a perceivable.
Even in seeing there is only One...it's all God/Godding, that distinction remains important as to have it fall away, means, once again, to fall back into dreaming about being an SVP that actually does and causes stuff to happen in the dream. In saying "I am all of it," the guru is not saying that he identifies with/as the appearing body/mind. He's saying that there no-thing at all anymore to identify with because all appearance has now been seen to be an empty arising within/to that which abides...that nothing that appears has any inherent existence in it's own right...it depends upon that which fundamentally abides for it's imminent appearance. Appearances come and go whereas, fundamental to them, is always the ground from which they arise.
Perceivables are 'stains' in the sense that they are 'different/distinct' from (but that does not mean separate from) that which fundamentally abides.
The difference/distinction is; Perceivables do not give rise to Being, they arise within/to Being. So long as experience/appearance is appearing, that distinction remains...what it really is at that point though, is an absence of identification with the appearing body/mind/character.
Reefs: The highest should be identifying as parabrahman, beyond being and non-being, that even trumps "I am consciousness". Just hafta ask Andrew, hehe. In that identity poker sense, Niz did everyone a great disservice when he said he is even beyond God and consciousness and how the world is akin to a stain. Or maybe it was just a mistranslation, because that is an odd statement. But people peeps are going to take that literally and run with it, no doubt.
If ever a Niz quote deserved it's own thread, this is it.
In saying "I am beyond God and Consciousness" and "All perceivables are a stain," what he's saying is that that which abides is beyond all appearance, beyond all identification with/conceptualization, thus, beyond anything and all things 'perceivable.' He is not denoting the pointer of God/Consciousness as a stain, but rather, the concepts of God/Consciousness. It's confusing if you have no reference for God/consciousness as a pointer...which I don't think Reefs does. Rather, like Gopal, he thinks he's alluding to some-thing non-conceptual, but his posts belie the truth....he's still conceptualizing the ineffable.
What Niz is pointing to is that "That which fundamentally abides" is not known via 'perception.' Rather, it's fundamental to all that is perceived...the ground of all that appears. The knowing of that ground is not itself 'a perception.' That which is aware is not something that appears in the dream...it's not experiential....it's not a perceivable. To call it 'a stain' is to denote the distinction between that which exists in it's own right, and is not a perceivable, and that which does not and is a perceivable.
Even in seeing there is only One...it's all God/Godding, that distinction remains important as to have it fall away, means, once again, to fall back into dreaming about being an SVP that actually does and causes stuff to happen in the dream. In saying "I am all of it," the guru is not saying that he identifies with/as the appearing body/mind. He's saying that there no-thing at all anymore to identify with because all appearance has now been seen to be an empty arising within/to that which abides...that nothing that appears has any inherent existence in it's own right...it depends upon that which fundamentally abides for it's imminent appearance. Appearances come and go whereas, fundamental to them, is always the ground from which they arise.
Perceivables are 'stains' in the sense that they are 'different/distinct' from (but that does not mean separate from) that which fundamentally abides.
The difference/distinction is; Perceivables do not give rise to Being, they arise within/to Being. So long as experience/appearance is appearing, that distinction remains...what it really is at that point though, is an absence of identification with the appearing body/mind/character.