|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2019 23:41:31 GMT
The knower comes and goes with the known, and is transient; but that which knows that it does not know, which is free of memory and anticipation, is timeless.
The known is but a shape and knowledge is but a name. The knower is but a state of mind. The real is beyond. All knowledge is in memory; it is only recognition, while reality is beyond the duality of the knower and the known. How misleading is your language! You assume, unconsciously, that reality also is approachable through knowledge. And then you bring in a knower of reality beyond reality! Do understand that to be, reality need not be known. Ignorance and knowledge are in the mind, not in the real."
These two quotes of Niz's, perfectly speak to the 'not knowing' that is at helm of the knowing vs. not knowing argument.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 19, 2019 23:45:47 GMT
Of all the times he uses the word "you" here, this one sort of straddles existential contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 19, 2019 23:54:17 GMT
Of all the times he uses the word "you" here, this one sort of straddles existential contexts. You think? " You are not of the world, you are not even in the world. The world is not, you alone are. You create the world in your imagination like a dream. As you cannot separate the dream from yourself, so you cannot have an outer world independent of yourself. You are independent, not the world. Don't be afraid of a world you yourself have created." Niz For me, the bolded puts to rest the idea he might be including the 'personal, appearing you.' |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 19, 2019 23:55:33 GMT
The way he is using that term in that context, it defies such capture. He's pointing in a very pointy way there, as he's not talking about a person who imagines stuff. He's speaking of the larger context of 'creation'. It's a hard one to make sense of, because presumably, he's using the word 'you/your', in contrast to 'I/mine'. So it sounds like he's saying, 'you are imagining a world and I am imagining a world'. To me, it basically sounds like the LOA idea of 'both you and I are creating our own realities'. Incorrect andy. There is no "you and I" in any conventional sense in what Niz said. Obviously there were two different body/minds there. The personal perspective lasts for as long as a body is drawing breath. The question you're asking about the shared commonality has no answer other than one that can be pointed toward. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 20, 2019 0:01:26 GMT
Of all the times he uses the word "you" here, this one sort of straddles existential contexts. You think? " You are not of the world, you are not even in the world. The world is not, you alone are. You create the world in your imagination like a dream. As you cannot separate the dream from yourself, so you cannot have an outer world independent of yourself. You are independent, not the world. Don't be afraid of a world you yourself have created." Niz For me, the bolded puts to rest the idea he might be including the 'personal, appearing you.' He's definitely trying to point the listener away from the delusion of "a person in the world", no doubt. But that delusion is a facet of the person's limited imagination. Reality, is neither subjective nor objective, and Niz did use the word "reality" more than once. In his use of it, he's not referring to imagination. This goes to his distinction between "consciousness" and "awareness". |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 20, 2019 17:22:05 GMT
You think? " You are not of the world, you are not even in the world. The world is not, you alone are. You create the world in your imagination like a dream. As you cannot separate the dream from yourself, so you cannot have an outer world independent of yourself. You are independent, not the world. Don't be afraid of a world you yourself have created." Niz For me, the bolded puts to rest the idea he might be including the 'personal, appearing you.' He's definitely trying to point the listener away from the delusion of "a person in the world", no doubt. But that delusion is a facet of the person's limited imagination. Reality, is neither subjective nor objective, and Niz did use the word "reality" more than once. In his use of it, he's not referring to imagination. This goes to his distinction between "consciousness" and "awareness". yes, I'm well aware that Niz makes a distinction between consciousness and awareness. Ah, so are you saying you think Niz differentiates between a phenomenal world that is real vs. one that is imagined? The way I take that quote is that he's denoting any and all perception of 'a world,' with A God who 'imagines' it all, which really then, is but one of those poetic pointers, (much like E's 'God falls into his own dream'). That said, I've read quotes where he is clearly speaking about 'dreaming/imagining' on a personal level as well. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 20, 2019 17:32:59 GMT
He's definitely trying to point the listener away from the delusion of "a person in the world", no doubt. But that delusion is a facet of the person's limited imagination. Reality, is neither subjective nor objective, and Niz did use the word "reality" more than once. In his use of it, he's not referring to imagination. This goes to his distinction between "consciousness" and "awareness". yes, I'm well aware that Niz makes a distinction between consciousness and awareness. Ah, so are you saying you think Niz differentiates between a phenomenal world that is real vs. one that is imagined? The way I take that quote is that he's denoting any and all perception of 'a world,' with A God who 'imagines' it all, which really then, is but one of those poetic pointers, (much like E's 'God falls into his own dream'). That said, I've read quotes where he is clearly speaking about 'dreaming/imagining' on a personal level as well. No: not a "world" that is real, but instead, reality as opposed to imagination. The way Niz uses the terms, Consciousness/imagination/world are references to the ephemeral, while Awareness/Supreme/Absolute/Reality are references to eternal, nondual being. The whole point of the distinction between personal and impersonal contexts is that "You" can be used in either. I'm not saying there is some objective, phenomenal, "real" world, but, nonetheless, there is a significant distinction in what Niz said when he used the word "reality", compared to when he used the word "imagination".
Right, "God falling into his own dream" and "God dancing in front of a mirror" are exactly the same sort of context straddle as Niz referring to "your imagination" when he was speaking to the listener in your original Niz quote. They're not a context mix, but they refer to both the personal and impersonal context in the same breath.
What I've seen E' do in dialogs sometimes, and what I sometimes find myself drawn to do as well these days, is to alternate between "you are God" and "there is no God", depending on the particular misconception the unconscious seeker is projecting onto the concepts. Those aren't context straddles though, those are context flips.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 20, 2019 17:47:23 GMT
No: not a "world" that is real, but instead, reality as opposed to imagination. yes. okay. Yup. Yes, I see Niz's reference to 'reality' to include the phenomenal world, but specifically 'seen as' an ephemeral arising...appearance only. Ah yes, okay. Yup. Fully get that. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 20, 2019 17:50:29 GMT
from hereSuspending what might be meant by "sage", it certainly seemed to me that the "I am not the body" notion was important at one point. But I'm not going to preclude the possibility that someone else can "get there" without ever having given it serious consideration. Realization though is different than mere 'consideration.' One does not get to the sages/third mountain, "I am the body," without seeing through/ending all identification with that which appears....all identification, period.
That's what "I am not the body" really is; the absence of/cessation of, identifying with anything ephemeral....anything conceptual, which means, the end of all identification.
I agree that any version of SR worth the term is the absence of all identification, and that afterward, the issue of "I am the body" and/or "I am not the body" would be clear. But someone saying "I am not the body", isn't necessarily SR, and someone SR might just want to shake them out of it by contradicting them. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 20, 2019 17:52:22 GMT
No: not a "world" that is real, but instead, reality as opposed to imagination. yes. okay. Yup. Yes, I see Niz's reference to 'reality' to include the phenomenal world, but specifically 'seen as' an ephemeral arising...appearance only. Ah yes, okay. Yup. Fully get that.  |
|
