|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2013 6:57:59 GMT -5
The message UG is conveying is that Spiritualism and all it's musings, including 'knowing and not knowing' is just another form of materialism... It's just another tool you uses to perpetuate the illusory you who seeks to collapse the you... Thats way to complicated for me or UG my friend.....Reefs has a valid point about 'not knowing' being an ends and not a means though... its just that in my personal experience....the means and the ends are the same.Then you are talking about a dualistic experience. But that's not what U.G. was referring to.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2013 7:04:18 GMT -5
Thats way to complicated for me or UG my friend.....Reefs has a valid point about 'not knowing' being an ends and not a means though...its just that in my personal experience....the means and the ends are the same. Well, this might not seem complicated to us given our interest in the topic, but if you set the familiarity incumbent with that interest aside and look at it with fresh eyes, seems to me that, objectively speaking, it's rather complicated: U.G.: What is there is not not-knowing but knowing projecting the state of freeing yourself from the known. Your demand to be free from the known is the one that is creating the problem. ... but it cuts through to the idea of trying to not-know as something that's clearly futile.It's the notion of trying to become what you already are or trying to accomplish what is already the case that has to be seen for what it is. Which brings us back to the topic of realization.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2013 7:11:01 GMT -5
There's no way to avoid 'knowing', but knowing can be set aside by allowing the natural stillness of the mind to emerge.. There's the flaw. Read what U.G. actually said. Not knowing and not doing go hand in hand. Not knowing has nothing to do with what's happening with the mind, still or not still. If it requires stillness of the mind then it's conditional and dualistic. You are referring to a dualistic experience which can be achieved at will. But that's not what U.G. was referring to. The reason why they can't let go of beliefs at will is because the beliefs are not really under the control of their will, although it may appear otherwise, or else letting go of beliefs would be a piece of cake for everyone who intents to do so.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 7, 2013 7:17:54 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. That UG cannot experience the natural stillness inherent with the mind's processes, is further evidence of his 'knowing' while imagining that 'believing' in 'not knowing' is the same as not knowing.. not knowing is an imagined fantasy, the experiencer cannot empty the contents of their existence.. what the experiencer can do is understand the interconnected relevance of their existence, the experiencer can cultivate a conscious awareness of the relevance of clarity.. There's no way to avoid 'knowing', but knowing can be set aside by allowing the natural stillness of the mind to emerge.. with the alert clarity of a still mind's perception, the incessant talking about beliefs and gurus ceases and mind is free to experience what is actually happening, rather than the 'talk about' what people 'think' is happening.. there seems to be a willingness to 'talk' about beliefs, rather than allowing stillness to reveal what is actually happening.. A still mind's clarity reveals the illusory nature of so much that is bantered relentlessly on this forum.. to the meaning taken from Peter's relevant and timely post, opposing beliefs presented in relentless variations of the same right/wrong theme, reveal the co-dependent nature of the participants, each deriving their self-image from the other.. in the same way, conflicting beliefs like non-duality/duality and oneness/manyness represent co-dependent relationships that vanish when it is realized that the dependency is what feeds the illusion.. when the experiencer lets go of the dependence on the belief for their identity, the illusion and the belief vanish.. It is possible to to discuss what is actually happening, without depending on a particular belief to create the illusion that one experiencer's experience is superior to another's.. in the absence of trying to fit the discussion about an experience into a particular belief structure, there is the much more likely opportunity for agreement, but.. in agreement, there is the fear that the co-dependency will dissolve and the believer's claim of superiority will be neutralized.. Like 'Schrodinger's Cat', the believer's imagined superiority is still valid in their own mind as long as there is a disagreement.. so, great conflicts are created to ensure the survival of a belief in the believer's superiority.. absurd claims will be made, with intricate mind-play and word-games that create the illusion of a misunderstanding to be 'mentored', but.. what is mentored is the conflict itself, carefully cultivated to the believer's advantage.. That is why, at the most fundamental level, the believers cannot let go.. they will consistently find something to cling to that ensures controversy and conflict, without it they are lost.. liberation means being equal with existence, rather than superior to it.. hence the belief models of 'truth' vs not agreeing with the believer's 'truth'.. Be well.. Tzu I'm there with you on the meat of what your saying, but the side dish served with the meat seems to be this kind of odd insecurity about folks you perceive to be trying to force their truths down your throat....let that go, you don't have to fix anyone or teach them 'whats right', nor do you have to eat what they are dishing out....you can just politely share your experience while choosing not to engage in heated adviserial dialogue....the muslims have it right when they forbid spiritual arguments and debates, but encourage spiritual dialogue....Muslims believe that your spiritual views are given to you by God as a part of your evolution and as a part of knowing God in endless variations and ways....that seems like a pretty good system lol In any case, I hope you come to realize that this 'conflict' with other aspects of yourself that you perceive as trying to force feed you 'their' truths, is really a conflict with yourself on every level, macro and micro. There is no need for you to bend your perceptions to other's, nor is there a need for you to make people understand your realizations....its ALL God, and all of it is pervaded by the Grace of God....folks that will benefit from the wisdom you have to offer will hear and receive you, while other aspects of God that are on a different unfolding path of God will not....either way, its all God doing God's thang so to speak ;-) Hi Steve: It's interesting to notice that you are also trying to 'teach' me " whats right", in your value system.. i have no use for the concept of 'God' other than to relate with others using terms they understand, but.. there is no cosmic puppeteer that dispenses beliefs or grace or salvation.. that process is imagined into belief.. If the mind is still, it doesn't see or experience 'God', or 'truth', or Muslims, or oneness, the still mind experiences what is actually happening, then.. as the mind activates it assigns meanings that fit its understandings and beliefs, those meanings are not 'real', they are references for what is actually happening.. it is 'the happening' that that is 'real', and far too many are attached to the illusion that what they believe 'about' the happening is what is 'real'.. The 'conflict' is between real and illusion, where one group claims the 'beliefs' are true, and another group says, let's keep paying attention, history is littered with dead 'truths'.. what you are suggesting, in a politely pointed way, is that people should refrain from challenging those that would impose their beliefs on others, where a visitor might arrive at ST.org and be assaulted by a team of practiced manipulative belief preachers, and those with differing understandings should refrain from balancing the equation.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2013 7:25:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. That UG cannot experience the natural stillness inherent with the mind's processes, is further evidence of his 'knowing' while imagining that 'believing' in 'not knowing' is the same as not knowing.. not knowing is an imagined fantasy, the experiencer cannot empty the contents of their existence.. what the experiencer can do is understand the interconnected relevance of their existence, the experiencer can cultivate a conscious awareness of the relevance of clarity.. There's no way to avoid 'knowing', but knowing can be set aside by allowing the natural stillness of the mind to emerge.. with the alert clarity of a still mind's perception, the incessant talking about beliefs and gurus ceases and mind is free to experience what is actually happening, rather than the 'talk about' what people 'think' is happening.. there seems to be a willingness to 'talk' about beliefs, rather than allowing stillness to reveal what is actually happening.. A still mind's clarity reveals the illusory nature of so much that is bantered relentlessly on this forum.. to the meaning taken from Peter's relevant and timely post, opposing beliefs presented in relentless variations of the same right/wrong theme, reveal the co-dependent nature of the participants, each deriving their self-image from the other.. in the same way, conflicting beliefs like non-duality/duality and oneness/manyness represent co-dependent relationships that vanish when it is realized that the dependency is what feeds the illusion.. when the experiencer lets go of the dependence on the belief for their identity, the illusion and the belief vanish.. It is possible to to discuss what is actually happening, without depending on a particular belief to create the illusion that one experiencer's experience is superior to another's.. in the absence of trying to fit the discussion about an experience into a particular belief structure, there is the much more likely opportunity for agreement, but.. in agreement, there is the fear that the co-dependency will dissolve and the believer's claim of superiority will be neutralized.. Like 'Schrodinger's Cat', the believer's imagined superiority is still valid in their own mind as long as there is a disagreement.. so, great conflicts are created to ensure the survival of a belief in the believer's superiority.. absurd claims will be made, with intricate mind-play and word-games that create the illusion of a misunderstanding to be 'mentored', but.. what is mentored is the conflict itself, carefully cultivated to the believer's advantage.. That is why, at the most fundamental level, the believers cannot let go.. they will consistently find something to cling to that ensures controversy and conflict, without it they are lost.. liberation means being equal with existence, rather than superior to it.. hence the belief models of 'truth' vs not agreeing with the believer's 'truth'.. Be well.. Tzu I'm there with you on the meat of what your saying, but the side dish served with the meat seems to be this kind of odd insecurity about folks you perceive to be trying to force their truths down your throat....let that go, you don't have to fix anyone or teach them 'whats right', nor do you have to eat what they are dishing out....you can just politely share your experience while choosing not to engage in heated adviserial dialogue....the muslims have it right when they forbid spiritual arguments and debates, but encourage spiritual dialogue....Muslims believe that your spiritual views are given to you by God as a part of your evolution and as a part of knowing God in endless variations and ways....that seems like a pretty good system lol In any case, I hope you come to realize that this 'conflict' with other aspects of yourself that you perceive as trying to force feed you 'their' truths, is really a conflict with yourself on every level, macro and micro. There is no need for you to bend your perceptions to other's, nor is there a need for you to make people understand your realizations....its ALL God, and all of it is pervaded by the Grace of God....folks that will benefit from the wisdom you have to offer will hear and receive you, while other aspects of God that are on a different unfolding path of God will not....either way, its all God doing God's thang so to speak ;-) Tzu is a very strong willed and disciplined character and still he can't let go of such minor attachments you've mentioned in your post. Laughter showed him a trillion times his contradictions and where he isn't walking his talk but to no effect. Which, assuming that Tzu is for real about letting go and such, begs the question about the person's actual control of its beliefs again. The appearance of control is there, of course. 'It can be observed'. So, is it really just an appearance of control or is it also actual control? That's a question worth asking before diving into what and how to release beliefs and which tools TM to apply.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 7, 2013 7:48:00 GMT -5
Sure... The 'truth tellers' and the 'messages' are really an imposition of belief, but people don't realize they're doing it. It's very common in spiritual communities.
Mostly, 'truth tellers' speak and other's listen, like a Mooji Satsang, Gangaji Lecture or a Krishnamurti fest... the performer and his audience, but st.org is a forum where people can say whatever they think.
It doesn't matter to me if Andrew has a bent on Joy or the message 'no-Lolly' thing, but it's important to them, so I can Jiggy wit dat, and there's no reason for me to take these beliefs away from people. I can say what I think just as easily.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 7, 2013 7:50:12 GMT -5
Tzu is a very strong willed and disciplined character and still he can't let go of such minor attachments you've mentioned in your post. Laughter showed him a trillion times his contradictions and where he isn't walking his talk but to no effect. Which, assuming that Tzu is for real about letting go and such, begs the question about the person's actual control of its beliefs again. The appearance of control is there, of course. 'It can be observed'. So, is it really just an appearance of control or is it also actual control? That's a question worth asking before diving into what and how to release beliefs and which tools TM to apply. Yes, it really comes down to volition doesn't it. The belief in personal will is like a scaffolding - once it's there, all sorts of construction gets built on it. I can see where it's hard to let go of, because the building of beliefs just collapses. Then, where do you go to figure out what to do? Quite unsettling. Be that as it may, there's a practical side, too. Choices are made and experience influences choices. Part of experience is the relationship between people and our influences on each other. That's all happening, too. I don't see 'no volition' as an excuse for negative or destructive behavior. It can be pointed out, but with a light touch and the understanding that a body's gonna do what a body's gonna do.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 7, 2013 8:20:04 GMT -5
Tzu is a very strong willed and disciplined character and still he can't let go of such minor attachments you've mentioned in your post. Laughter showed him a trillion times his contradictions and where he isn't walking his talk but to no effect. Which, assuming that Tzu is for real about letting go and such, begs the question about the person's actual control of its beliefs again. The appearance of control is there, of course. 'It can be observed'. So, is it really just an appearance of control or is it also actual control? That's a question worth asking before diving into what and how to release beliefs and which tools TM to apply. Yes, it really comes down to volition doesn't it. The belief in personal will is like a scaffolding - once it's there, all sorts of construction gets built on it. I can see where it's hard to let go of, because the building of beliefs just collapses. Then, where do you go to figure out what to do? ??? Quite unsettling. Be that as it may, there's a practical side, too. Choices are made and experience influences choices. Part of experience is the relationship between people and our influences on each other. That's all happening, too. I don't see 'no volition' as an excuse for negative or destructive behavior. It can be pointed out, but with a light touch and the understanding that a body's gonna do what a body's gonna do. I'm pretty sure everyone has beliefs anyway, and volition and intent are like kin.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 7, 2013 8:45:41 GMT -5
Yes, it really comes down to volition doesn't it. The belief in personal will is like a scaffolding - once it's there, all sorts of construction gets built on it. I can see where it's hard to let go of, because the building of beliefs just collapses. Then, where do you go to figure out what to do? Quite unsettling. Be that as it may, there's a practical side, too. Choices are made and experience influences choices. Part of experience is the relationship between people and our influences on each other. That's all happening, too. I don't see 'no volition' as an excuse for negative or destructive behavior. It can be pointed out, but with a light touch and the understanding that a body's gonna do what a body's gonna do. I'm pretty sure everyone has beliefs anyway, and volition and intent are like kin. I have no sense of where intent comes from or how it got there. If it's strictly conditioning, then I'd be intending to go to a bar right now. I think choices and intent are like kin. Volition...I've yet to see where I made a choice that wasn't a product of experience, influences, beliefs and personality. I haven't seen anything working independently of that making a choice, which is what volition would be.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 7, 2013 9:12:41 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure everyone has beliefs anyway, and volition and intent are like kin. I have no sense of where intent comes from or how it got there. If it's strictly conditioning, then I'd be intending to go to a bar right now. I think choices and intent are like kin. Volition...I've yet to see where I made a choice that wasn't a product of experience, influences, beliefs and personality. I haven't seen anything working independently of that making a choice, which is what volition would be. Intent is like a matter of purity and virtue and karma, people often say that they have good intentions, but I wonder if that's the same as pure intention. The volition is like, one can visualize something, chant or otherwise induce a desired experience, that's the whole LOA thang innit. Choice is like a selection between options. What this gets to or what it's about is empowerment... for example a dude is homeless and because of that unstable life, there's no real means of securing a job, having a reasonable relationship and lots of other things, so his intention might be pure and volition is pretty fine, but choices are very limited compared with most people. Now we get to the concept of empowerment. If the guy was given a place to sleep, shower, keep some stuff and make a home base, the realm of possibility opens up for him. Having that foundation then enables employment of whatever it is he wants. Now that intent and volition is also complimented with more choices... the feller is empowered to make his money improve his health deal with aaddiction, reconcile with family... or deal with what ever it is that put the cat on the street and move forward. We do get guys who are pretty comfortable there on their meditation cushions and the sweet smell of nag champa preaching no will no volition, but... intent, volition and choice and also belief, are the key's to empowerment... it's really a matter of how it applies, and the existence or non existence of it is dogma.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 7, 2013 10:12:28 GMT -5
I have no sense of where intent comes from or how it got there. If it's strictly conditioning, then I'd be intending to go to a bar right now. I think choices and intent are like kin. Volition...I've yet to see where I made a choice that wasn't a product of experience, influences, beliefs and personality. I haven't seen anything working independently of that making a choice, which is what volition would be. Intent is like a matter of purity and virtue and karma, people often say that they have good intentions, but I wonder if that's the same as pure intention. The volition is like, one can visualize something, chant or otherwise induce a desired experience, that's the whole LOA thang innit. Choice is like a selection between options. What this gets to or what it's about is empowerment... for example a dude is homeless and because of that unstable life, there's no real means of securing a job, having a reasonable relationship and lots of other things, so his intention might be pure and volition is pretty fine, but choices are very limited compared with most people. Now we get to the concept of empowerment. If the guy was given a place to sleep, shower, keep some stuff and make a home base, the realm of possibility opens up for him. Having that foundation then enables employment of whatever it is he wants. Now that intent and volition is also complimented with more choices... the feller is empowered to make his money improve his health deal with aaddiction, reconcile with family... or deal with what ever it is that put the cat on the street and move forward. We do get guys who are pretty comfortable there on their meditation cushions and the sweet smell of nag champa preaching no will no volition, but... intent, volition and choice and also belief, are the key's to empowerment... it's really a matter of how it applies, and the existence or non existence of it is dogma. In your example, "volition is pretty fine" - I don't see it. Volition is the ability, or power, to make choices. So if his intention is to have a home and get a job and he has the power to make that happen, why hasn't it happened? Your guy's given a place to sleep - that's circumstances, not volition, and the intention to better himself is driving the job hunting or whatever. If he has a bad break and no help, that's also circumstances. I haven't seen anywhere that volition is driving anything. I think he's going to do what he's conditioned to believe he can do. Lot of examples of lottery winners or people helped that slide right back to square one. What separates those from the ones who pull themselves up? Seems to me it's intention, circumstances and a thought-structure that sees it as possible. Where's volition in all of that? Dogma would be believing in something without questioning it. I'm talking about looking at what's happening and where it's coming from. Lotsa questioning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 10:37:12 GMT -5
Thats way to complicated for me or UG my friend.....Reefs has a valid point about 'not knowing' being an ends and not a means though... its just that in my personal experience....the means and the ends are the same.Then you are talking about a dualistic experience. But that's not what U.G. was referring to. Noper In any case, dualistic...non-dualistic...its all just some cool sounding stuff that makes you feel speerrutchally edgimicated and 'in the know'....your whole paradigm, everything you think you understand, its all useless gobbledygook ;-) Whatever you may hope that someone here may gain from this conversation is also utterly useless...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2013 10:37:57 GMT -5
I see dogma as the application of one idea to all contexts/situations.
When it comes to volition, in a certain situation there might be value in telling someone (or ourselves) that there is a free and independent choice available to us to change our lives, or to make something happen. So I wouldn't write volition off on the basis of seeing that there is none, or that its an illusion. All these things can be seen from different angles. For example, seeing that there is no volition can presuppose a kind of 'continuity' or 'unfolding' or 'linear time' effect, which is questionable in itself.
I'm not saying there IS volition, I spent a lot of time a few years ago on a forum arguing that there is none, and I wouldn't say that what I was arguing was wrong....but it was dogmatic and looking from a particular angle. I have new dogmas these days hehe
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 7, 2013 10:56:42 GMT -5
Intent is like a matter of purity and virtue and karma, people often say that they have good intentions, but I wonder if that's the same as pure intention. The volition is like, one can visualize something, chant or otherwise induce a desired experience, that's the whole LOA thang innit. Choice is like a selection between options. What this gets to or what it's about is empowerment... for example a dude is homeless and because of that unstable life, there's no real means of securing a job, having a reasonable relationship and lots of other things, so his intention might be pure and volition is pretty fine, but choices are very limited compared with most people. Now we get to the concept of empowerment. If the guy was given a place to sleep, shower, keep some stuff and make a home base, the realm of possibility opens up for him. Having that foundation then enables employment of whatever it is he wants. Now that intent and volition is also complimented with more choices... the feller is empowered to make his money improve his health deal with aaddiction, reconcile with family... or deal with what ever it is that put the cat on the street and move forward. We do get guys who are pretty comfortable there on their meditation cushions and the sweet smell of nag champa preaching no will no volition, but... intent, volition and choice and also belief, are the key's to empowerment... it's really a matter of how it applies, and the existence or non existence of it is dogma. In your example, "volition is pretty fine" - I don't see it. Volition is the ability, or power, to make choices. So if his intention is to have a home and get a job and he has the power to make that happen, why hasn't it happened? Your guy's given a place to sleep - that's circumstances, not volition, and the intention to better himself is driving the job hunting or whatever. If he has a bad break and no help, that's also circumstances. I haven't seen anywhere that volition is driving anything. I think he's going to do what he's conditioned to believe he can do. Lot of examples of lottery winners or people helped that slide right back to square one. What separates those from the ones who pull themselves up? Seems to me it's intention, circumstances and a thought-structure that sees it as possible. Where's volition in all of that? Dogma would be believing in something without questioning it. I'm talking about looking at what's happening and where it's coming from. Lotsa questioning. I guess we could reframe it and say, given the right circumstances, like somewhere to shower etc, there's better opportunity for employment and so on. It's a different conceptual framework but the same effect in application. We just use the conceptual framework of intention, circumstances and thought-structure instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 10:57:38 GMT -5
There's no way to avoid 'knowing', but knowing can be set aside by allowing the natural stillness of the mind to emerge.. There's the flaw. Read what U.G. actually said. Not knowing and not doing go hand in hand. Not knowing has nothing to do with what's happening with the mind, still or not still. If it requires stillness of the mind then it's conditional and dualistic. You are referring to a dualistic experience which can be achieved at will. But that's not what U.G. was referring to. The reason why they can't let go of beliefs at will is because the beliefs are not really under the control of their will, although it may appear otherwise, or else letting go of beliefs would be a piece of cake for everyone who intents to do so. Your scholarship of UG is flawed....erroneous....useless.
|
|