|
|
Post by berlake on May 13, 2013 19:02:51 GMT -5
Topology,
I'm going to ignore the first paragraph and a bit of your message because there's no point in trying to justify myself or try to prove that I already get all that. Thanks for trying not to sound patronising, though :-)
You final question is warmly welcomed, however - thank you. And I would answer it thus: you're missing my point entirely if you are asking it! UGK is NOT talking from a perspective of non-duality and so people who presume he is might try to imitate the non-state he ended up not living; which would result in the worst kind of three kinds of suicide. He doesn't attempt to disguise the fact that what happened to him was not "Enlightenment." And he did not say this to be disingenuous. What happened was something else; something horrid. If people try to annihilate their deepest sense of being, then they will end up in the same place - which is to say no place.
If he were speaking from a place of non-dual perspective, then there would be nothing to fear and no point for me to make. There would be no danger; and this is my point entirely. Vulnerable, guileless and credulous people will be drawn to his sophisticated interpretations of his non-state and will assume that what he says carries authority. I disagree. Call me arrogant, call me naive - call me anything; but I assure I am sincere and I have been picking at this for some years. I am only now trying to articulate my concern because I am finally convinced. This you will either accept or reject, but there it is. The "evidence" for my case, however, remains available for all to see if they are prepared to follow you own suggestion and look again at his (and BR and SS's) "teachings."
Please - in spite of my tone, try to understand that I am simply concerned because I see a problem which seems to go unnoticed by most people. I do not say this out of conceit: I would be a peculiar kind of sado-masochist to take pride in this discovery! Hence my assertion that I am simply trying to clarify something which I believe needs clarifying; and this forum is the place where I imagined people would be prepared to discuss these teachers in particular since Shawn Nevins has decided to grant them all some level of kudos. I question that decision, but I can only do so here, since the ratings are inviolable ;-)
With my best wishes,
berlake (Tim)
|
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 13, 2013 19:04:59 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 21:36:16 GMT -5
Topology, I'm going to ignore the first paragraph and a bit of your message because there's no point in trying to justify myself or try to prove that I already get all that. Thanks for trying not to sound patronising, though :-) You final question is warmly welcomed, however - thank you. And I would answer it thus: you're missing my point entirely if you are asking it! UGK is NOT talking from a perspective of non-duality and so people who presume he is might try to imitate the non-state he ended up not living; which would result in the worst kind of three kinds of suicide. He doesn't attempt to disguise the fact that what happened to him was not "Enlightenment." And he did not say this to be disingenuous. What happened was something else; something horrid. If people try to annihilate their deepest sense of being, then they will end up in the same place - which is to say no place. If he were speaking from a place of non-dual perspective, then there would be nothing to fear and no point for me to make. There would be no danger; and this is my point entirely. Vulnerable, guileless and credulous people will be drawn to his sophisticated interpretations of his non-state and will assume that what he says carries authority. I disagree. Call me arrogant, call me naive - call me anything; but I assure I am sincere and I have been picking at Thais for some years. I am only now trying to articulate my concern because I am finally convinced. This you will either accept or reject, but there it is. The "evidence" for my case, however, remains available for all to see if they are prepared to follow you own suggestion and look again at his (and BR and SS's) "teachings." Please - in spite of my tone, try to understand that I am simply concerned because I see a problem which seems to go unnoticed by most people. I do not say this out of conceit: I would be a peculiar kind of sado-masochist to take pride in this discovery! Hence I disagreeertion that I am simply trying to clarify something which I believe needs clarifying; and this forum is the place where I imagined people would be prepared to discuss these teachers in particular since Shawn Nevins has decided to grant them all some level of kudos. I question that decision, but I can only do so here, since the ratings are inviolable ;-) With my best wishes, berlake (Tim) Not that this is meaningful, but I had a dream where ugk was looking me dead in the eye, telling me he wanted to commit suicide. May have just been my own projection, though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 2:12:03 GMT -5
One man's horrid, is another man's empty.
|
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 14, 2013 5:01:40 GMT -5
One man's horrid, is another man's empty. Does this not raise any alarm bells for anyone; the fact that some people seem to find "emptiness" to be literally empty while others report it to be utter fullness? PLEASE don't bombard me with Nagarjunaesque infinite denials of definition: this is a forum where things are discussed and concepts must be used. I am trying to point out - simply - that it might just be the case that UG et al were not speaking from a non-dual perspective. (I'm not singling you out here, wren, so sorry if this seems a little reactionary...). Anyone? Is anyone going to question their assumptions on this point? Or am I simply not speaking the right language to be heard here? I actually tried to unsubscribe, but can't seem to manage it. Any help?! b |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 14, 2013 5:06:39 GMT -5
No, you're not. No, you're not. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 14, 2013 5:14:08 GMT -5
Not that this is meaningful, but I had a dream where ugk was looking me dead in the eye, telling me he wanted to commit suicide. May have just been my own projection, though. I had two dreams involving UG. In the first he enumerated all my psychological defects, the funniest part was when he said "Even Jiddu would be ashamed!" In the second he saved my life by taking the bullets from fascist cops/soldiers/samething. |
|
|
|
Post by berlake on May 14, 2013 7:49:47 GMT -5
No, you're not. No, you're not. You're a genius. You've got me figured right out! Thanks for your help; I appreciate every morsel of conceited pseudo-psychoanalysis I've received to date - especially these little nuggets. If you want to end up like UG, go right ahead then. Just don't say I didn't warn you... b |
|
|
|
Post by gooseone on May 14, 2013 9:41:29 GMT -5
No, you're not. No, you're not. You're a genius. You've got me figured right out! Thanks for your help; I appreciate every morsel of conceited pseudo-psychoanalysis I've received to date - especially these little nuggets. If you want to end up like UG, go right ahead then. Just don't say I didn't warn you... b Well , sincerity is open for interpretation , where my view is that if one acts on the highest truth perceptible to his own experience , one is being sincere. There can be a discussion about the meaning of sincerity and how anything that is expressed has nothing to do with reality and so forth. About being convinced , i have read something which said something like : 'If you are truly convinced of something , defending or propagating your conviction shows a lack of confidence'. I think it was wise remark. About your OP , you do seem under the impression that there is some end to seeking which would then have distinct observable traits which would testify for such an accomplishment. Also , you presume that if such an experience really exists , it should be a nice one. Also you mention somewhere that what these people describe might be a form of suicide , it might be obvious to you , but it is not obvious to me why the end of a human life is automatically something which should not happen. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 14, 2013 9:52:35 GMT -5
Topology, I'm going to ignore the first paragraph and a bit of your message because there's no point in trying to justify myself or try to prove that I already get all that. Thanks for trying not to sound patronising, though :-) Without covering the basics and getting a common ground in place, I'd only be assuming and guessing at where you're at. You final question is warmly welcomed, however - thank you. And I would answer it thus: you're missing my point entirely if you are asking it! UGK is NOT talking from a perspective of non-duality and so people who presume he is might try to imitate the non-state he ended up not living; which would result in the worst kind of three kinds of suicide. He doesn't attempt to disguise the fact that what happened to him was not "Enlightenment." And he did not say this to be disingenuous. What happened was something else; something horrid. If people try to annihilate their deepest sense of being, then they will end up in the same place - which is to say no place. I think the real issue here is with people trying to imitate. Why do you think people will try to annihilate their deepest sense of being? If there is a sickness here, is the sickness in UG or is the sickness in the person that is trying to imitate what they think their projection of an authority is saying? If he were speaking from a place of non-dual perspective, then there would be nothing to fear and no point for me to make. There would be no danger; and this is my point entirely. Vulnerable, guileless and credulous people will be drawn to his sophisticated interpretations of his non-state and will assume that what he says carries authority. I disagree. Call me arrogant, call me naive - call me anything; but I assure I am sincere and I have been picking at this for some years. I am only now trying to articulate my concern because I am finally convinced. This you will either accept or reject, but there it is. The "evidence" for my case, however, remains available for all to see if they are prepared to follow you own suggestion and look again at his (and BR and SS's) "teachings." I'm not calling you anything. But I have to point out that the real problem is less with UG and more with these vulnerable, guileless, credulous people who are prone to imitation, indulgent imagination, etc. The real problem is with people giving over authority to a guru, turning off their critical thinking, and not investigating beyond the words of a few people. The real problem is people imagining some glorified state of being to achieve and living in fantastical pursuit of something other than what they have already. Please - in spite of my tone, try to understand that I am simply concerned because I see a problem which seems to go unnoticed by most people. I do not say this out of conceit: I would be a peculiar kind of sado-masochist to take pride in this discovery! Hence I disagreeertion that I am simply trying to clarify something which I believe needs clarifying; and this forum is the place where I imagined people would be prepared to discuss these teachers in particular since Shawn Nevins has decided to grant them all some level of kudos. I question that decision, but I can only do so here, since the ratings are inviolable ;-) With my best wishes, berlake (Tim) Shawn (the site owner) doesn't spend much time on the forum in discussion. If you are open to it, then I'd recommend that the best use of the forum might be to explore why and how you are concerned for these masses of people that you're afraid will flock to and follow UG, BR, SS, etc. UG is caustic and abrasive. I don't see many people willingly following him or listening to him without something in them guiding them to him, something within them wanting to awaken through that experience of him and digesting his message. If you're open to it, I would challenge you to look at the fear behind your concern and the fundamental lack of faith in whatever is running this picture show. It sounds like you're wanting to save people the trouble of learning certain lessons, save them from certain experiences. The operative agenda being saving people. Have you done a lot of your own attempts at self-annihilation? Repression and attacking your own sense of being because that is what you thought a guru was suggesting? Were you expecting an echo chamber in coming here? Were you expecting to convince people of your perspective? Or were you wanting to be challenged on it to see if it truly held merit? (Much of investigating whether or not a point-of-view has merit is investigating any possible sub-conscious biases at play.) Do you believe that Enlightenment is real? Do you see yourself as enlightened? I'm going to be honest, my focus and interest is going to be on you and not on some hypothetical masses which may or may not be led astray through exploring UG, BR, and SS. - Top (Edward) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 11:29:54 GMT -5
No, you're not. No, you're not. You're a genius. You've got me figured right out! Thanks for your help; I appreciate every morsel of conceited pseudo-psychoanalysis I've received to date - especially these little nuggets. If you want to end up like UG, go right ahead then. Just don't say I didn't warn you... b I don't think UG ended up in some existential hell, if that is your implication. He once equated his functioning to that of a cow in a field. I say if that is the end result of all this seeking, then Amen. Or mooooo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 11:30:13 GMT -5
No, you're not. No, you're not. You're a genius. You've got me figured right out! Thanks for your help; I appreciate every morsel of conceited pseudo-psychoanalysis I've received to date - especially these little nuggets. If you want to end up like UG, go right ahead then. Just don't say I didn't warn you... b I don't think UG ended up in some existential hell, if that is your implication. He once equated his functioning to that of a cow in a field. I say if that is the end result of all this seeking, then Amen. Or mooooo. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 14, 2013 11:38:32 GMT -5
You're a genius. You've got me figured right out! Thanks for your help; I appreciate every morsel of conceited pseudo-psychoanalysis I've received to date - especially these little nuggets. If you want to end up like UG, go right ahead then. Just don't say I didn't warn you... b I don't think UG ended up in some existential hell, if that is your implication. He once equated his functioning to that of a cow in a field. I say if that is the end result of all this seeking, then Amen. Or mooooo. I haven't read a lot of UG, but it sounds like he's coming from a very anti-flowery description of what is going on. Nothing wrong with that. Peeps be full of fanciful projections of the mystical state, when in reality it is quite ordinary. The difficulty many people have is accepting the ordinariness and non-specialness of life. BR talks about the falling away of the unitive state and any kind of sense of a personal God. The impersonalness of existence is very scary to the individuated person. But its in our acceptance of the ordinary and in being just a cow that we can find release from our expectations and need to be anything other than what we are already. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 12:04:08 GMT -5
I don't think UG ended up in some existential hell, if that is your implication. He once equated his functioning to that of a cow in a field. I say if that is the end result of all this seeking, then Amen. Or mooooo. I haven't read a lot of UG, but it sounds like he's coming from a very anti-flowery description of what is going on. Nothing wrong with that. Peeps be full of fanciful projections of the mystical state, when in reality it is quite ordinary. The difficulty many people have is accepting the ordinariness and non-specialness of life. BR talks about the falling away of the unitive state and any kind of sense of a personal God. The impersonalness of existence is very scary to the individuated person. But its in our acceptance of the ordinary and in being just a cow that we can find release from our expectations and need to be anything other than what we are already. One of the lessons I struggled with in the Course was the concept of specialness, and how it is a sort of enemy of peace. It is indeed, though. When I view myself as special, I am seperated and doomed to upholding a seperative existence that in truth I cannot uphold at all. Like Sysyfuss pushing that rock up the mountain. So much energy to maintain an illusion, to keep the strawman thinking he is real. But what is the alternative? Is there truly another way? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 12:04:36 GMT -5
I don't think UG ended up in some existential hell, if that is your implication. He once equated his functioning to that of a cow in a field. I say if that is the end result of all this seeking, then Amen. Or mooooo. I haven't read a lot of UG, but it sounds like he's coming from a very anti-flowery description of what is going on. Nothing wrong with that. Peeps be full of fanciful projections of the mystical state, when in reality it is quite ordinary. The difficulty many people have is accepting the ordinariness and non-specialness of life. BR talks about the falling away of the unitive state and any kind of sense of a personal God. The impersonalness of existence is very scary to the individuated person. But its in our acceptance of the ordinary and in being just a cow that we can find release from our expectations and need to be anything other than what we are already. One of the lessons I struggled with in the Course was the concept of specialness, and how it is a sort of enemy of peace. It is indeed, though. When I view myself as special, I am seperated and doomed to upholding a seperative existence that in truth I cannot uphold at all. Like Sysyfuss pushing that rock up the mountain. So much energy to maintain an illusion, to keep the strawman thinking he is real. But what is the alternative? Is there truly another way? |
|
