|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 11:00:09 GMT -5
Zackly. The notion of cause is attributed to a personal 'causer' in this case, or to a method or action carried out on a personal level, all of which are impersonal movements. It may mean that if one is willing to look and to see, then seeing may occur, and in that sense pointers are not to be dismissed with the idea that nothing can bring about this seeing, but there is not a volitional person who can choose to do that. That 'seeing' remains in the realm of the impersonal and is an aspect of the movement of the totality. We could say it is uncaused, or that it is caused by everything, or that it is acausal. We cannot say that a person causes it. hi Enigma, We have already had a discussion in this, You are right when you say this 'seeing' is included in impersonal movement. But UG correctly finds the problem here when one uses this 'seeing' to uncover the truth, Please refer the UG's lines below. --------------------- Q; In a smaller and minor way, I can see through an illusion.... UG's answer:A: That is another illusion. The illusion is that "the seeing is the ending." There is no way you can separate yourself and the seeing. Seeing is the illusion; the seer is the illusion. The seer tells himself that "seeing is ending," but it does not end. So the seer does not want to come to an end. The seer is the illusion. I don't know; it is better not to discuss these things. The seer is the illusion. Through the invention of what is called "the seeing of the illusion is the ending," the seer is gathering momentum and continuing. The moment you want to 'see' something you have separated yourself from that and the seer has come into being, and through that seeing he is maintaining his continuity. That is why seeing has not helped us; it has ended nothing there. ---------------------- So what do you say now? Seeing is also another illusion. So UG is right when he says 'just happening' without the intervention of us though what we do is also impersonal movement. UG warns about the reinforcing of the seer and the idea that seeing will end something for the seer. The seer is one of the illusions that ends in the seeing. That seeing is utterly destructive. (greasy spot) I think that's all he's trying to say in his typical overstated way. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 11:10:06 GMT -5
Will you look for where your description relies on ideas and imagery for its meaning, compared to an actual experience? Where you prefer the reference to 'Love', i see the 'word' love as unnecessary.. i can, you can, anyone can describe what they mean when they use the word 'love', and it is the 'many' nuanced individualized attempts to describe the experience called 'love' that adds meaning and understanding to the collective idea of 'love'.. those 'many' descriptions stand on their own merit, and have no need of a consensus 'word' that reduces the rich depth of personal experiences to an overused shorthand 'word' of convenience.. To say, "Love is all that is Real" is dependent on the mind's holding a particular set of values to be true.. there is liberation when the mind is freed from ideas like 'love', oneness, awareness (as stuff things are made of), duality/nonduality, etc.. umbrella words used as meaningless shorthand in place of organic interaction and interconnectedness.. umbrella words buffer people from engaging each other in sincere interactions to understand their experiences, umbrella wordsmiths create illusions that distract people from discovering who/what they actually are.. Convincing people that the word 'Love' has mystical meaning is useful in inspiring them to say things like "Love is all that is Real", rather than explore what 'it' is that IS 'real'.. philosophical discussions about how to best describe the experiences, misses the opportunity to share the experiences in favor of word-lawyering.. What exists after the experiencer has exhausted all efforts to disprove its existence?.. a more likely description of the actuality than the descriptions that did not survive all efforts to disprove the actuality.. A still mind's awareness is not distracted by ideas and wordsmiths.. it is still, alert, and present, the experiencer is engaged with the existence it is experiencing through the vehicle of its awareness, the ability to be informed by its experiences.. That was a good read and I understand what you are saying. You reveal much about your values I feel, and those are values that are easy for me to relate to. To you, it seems that what is experienced without mind-play/interpretation, is real/actual. I don't have a problem with that and there are many times when I would say that myself. From my perspective, the idea that 'love is all that is Real' can mean different things, but what I take it to mean this morning is this. Basically, its that the cause of all behaviour is love. Yes people behave selfishly, hurtfully, angrily, fearfully and many other ways that don't seem as if love is at the cause, but on close inspection, it can be seen that every behaviour and every action is born out of love, though our specific understandings about life and self etc will determine the particular way in which love manifests. So anger happens because we love. We hurt because we love. We are scared because we love. In this sense, I like the idea that Love is all that is Real, I think its a shift in focus that has a harmonizing and unifying quality to it. Its a destroyer of judgement. Anger, hurt and fear are born out of illusion (not love), and in that way we can say they are not 'real'. Love is a term given to the spontaneous movement that happens in the absence of illusion, and so we could say that is what is 'real'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 11:15:33 GMT -5
That was a good read and I understand what you are saying. You reveal much about your values I feel, and those are values that are easy for me to relate to. To you, it seems that what is experienced without mind-play/interpretation, is real/actual. I don't have a problem with that and there are many times when I would say that myself. From my perspective, the idea that 'love is all that is Real' can mean different things, but what I take it to mean this morning is this. Basically, its that the cause of all behaviour is love. Yes people behave selfishly, hurtfully, angrily, fearfully and many other ways that don't seem as if love is at the cause, but on close inspection, it can be seen that every behaviour and every action is born out of love, though our specific understandings about life and self etc will determine the particular way in which love manifests. So anger happens because we love. We hurt because we love. We are scared because we love. In this sense, I like the idea that Love is all that is Real, I think its a shift in focus that has a harmonizing and unifying quality to it. Its a destroyer of judgement. Anger, hurt and fear are born out of illusion (not love), and in that way we can say they are not 'real'. Love is a term given to the spontaneous movement that happens in the absence of illusion, and so we could say that is what is 'real'. Perhaps anger, hurt, and fear are born from illusion but it was love that initiated conception and gestation? I read Andrew's thing as more of a movement of energy? What filters that energy, what shapes it, and how it is expressed is something else. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 11:21:38 GMT -5
love with cadence love somehow that brings the other here and now don't love slowly give it all just at once and don't be small love with with power embrace the shame set free the other lost as tame rip off the veil rend down the lid knowing see and hear Gods bid the rolling echo void of sound see the walls come crashing down love with speed and love with weight the love I speak of knows no hate can you see it? can you hear? that all some nothing oh so near love thy neighbor don't hold back! love grave as a heart attack! open up there ain't no way to keep love secret for ere a day love so gently that you move the mountain true along that groove look inside can't fail to see love erases imposter me |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 11:35:43 GMT -5
Yeah UG clearly points out the limit of 'seeing' there, and I resonate with it. He would have to include the seeing that ''the seer is the illusion''. Hence why he also tells us to throw away all his words, to debunk them all, and that perhaps 'it is better not to discuss these things'. Interesting use of the word 'better' though. No need to debunk the words if they're not analyzed and used to build structure. No need to blow down a house of cards if you keep the deck neatly undealt. I think UG put too much emphasis on teachings as a trap, as though no teaching was some sort of solution. Peeps create their own traps out of whatever they experience in their lives, and if he thought there was a way he could keep the seeker from falling into the same trap he did, he was mistaken. A clear teaching is at least an opportunity, or as some would say, an invitation. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 10, 2014 11:37:26 GMT -5
No need to debunk the words if they're not analyzed and used to build structure. No need to blow down a house of cards if you keep the deck neatly undealt. I think UG put too much emphasis on teachings as a trap, as though no teaching was some sort of solution. Peeps create their own traps out of whatever they experience in their lives, and if he thought there was a way he could keep the seeker from falling into the same trap he did, he was mistaken. A clear teaching is at least an opportunity, or as some would say, an invitation. Sounds like UG was a bit fanatical from time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 11:40:54 GMT -5
Anger, hurt and fear are born out of illusion (not love), and in that way we can say they are not 'real'. Love is a term given to the spontaneous movement that happens in the absence of illusion, and so we could say that is what is 'real'. Perhaps anger, hurt, and fear are born from illusion but it was love that initiated conception and gestation? I read Andrew's thing as more of a movement of energy? What filters that energy, what shapes it, and how it is expressed is something else. The way I read it is that anger happens because we love something and fear losing it. That kind of love is actually need, and is also illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 11:47:18 GMT -5
I think UG put too much emphasis on teachings as a trap, as though no teaching was some sort of solution. Peeps create their own traps out of whatever they experience in their lives, and if he thought there was a way he could keep the seeker from falling into the same trap he did, he was mistaken. A clear teaching is at least an opportunity, or as some would say, an invitation. Sounds like UG was a bit fanatical from time to time. Yeah, I might go along with that. Hehe. At the same time, there's a need for 'teachers' who won't call themselves teachers and are willing to get to the heart of the matter without any carrot dangling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 12:01:09 GMT -5
hi Enigma, We have already had a discussion in this, You are right when you say this 'seeing' is included in impersonal movement. But UG correctly finds the problem here when one uses this 'seeing' to uncover the truth, Please refer the UG's lines below. --------------------- Q; In a smaller and minor way, I can see through an illusion.... UG's answer:A: That is another illusion. The illusion is that "the seeing is the ending." There is no way you can separate yourself and the seeing. Seeing is the illusion; the seer is the illusion. The seer tells himself that "seeing is ending," but it does not end. So the seer does not want to come to an end. The seer is the illusion. I don't know; it is better not to discuss these things. The seer is the illusion. Through the invention of what is called "the seeing of the illusion is the ending," the seer is gathering momentum and continuing. The moment you want to 'see' something you have separated yourself from that and the seer has come into being, and through that seeing he is maintaining his continuity. That is why seeing has not helped us; it has ended nothing there. ---------------------- So what do you say now? Seeing is also another illusion. So UG is right when he says 'just happening' without the intervention of us though what we do is also impersonal movement. UG warns about the reinforcing of the seer and the idea that seeing will end something for the seer. The seer is one of the illusions that ends in the seeing. That seeing is utterly destructive. (greasy spot) I think that's all he's trying to say in his typical overstated way. hi, NO no, absolutely not, He is very clear in his statement, please consider the question as well, the questioner asked him 'Can I see through an illusion'? UG deny with the answer "no", this seeing is also another creation to the mind like controlling,directing or whatever mind technique we use. See this line " the seer has come into being, and through that seeing he is maintaining his continuity." How clearly he states that through that seeing he is maintaining his continuity of seeing, That's the reason he says that this only just happens, it can't be brought forth from the individual level, So as you explained in the first page individual willingness can't cause the realization. UG clearly tells that anything you do to achieve anything only would perpetuate which includes controlling,directing as well as your seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 10, 2014 12:02:20 GMT -5
No need to debunk the words if they're not analyzed and used to build structure. No need to blow down a house of cards if you keep the deck neatly undealt. I think UG put too much emphasis on teachings as a trap, as though no teaching was some sort of solution. Peeps create their own traps out of whatever they experience in their lives, and if he thought there was a way he could keep the seeker from falling into the same trap he did, he was mistaken. A clear teaching is at least an opportunity, or as some would say, an invitation. The moment we see a particular teaching as being 'clear', you could say the trap has been set.  I don't see that there could ever be too much emphasis on the importance of remaining aware of the potential of the trap, as certain ideas presented by a teaching, begin to resonate deeply as 'truth.' Abiding Awareness of that resonance with certain ideas is what keeps those 'clear teachings' from becoming a trap. The trap is an incredibly subtle one, therefore, the admonishment to be aware of it, in my estimation cannot be overstated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 12:05:35 GMT -5
hi Enigma, We have already had a discussion in this, You are right when you say this 'seeing' is included in impersonal movement. But UG correctly finds the problem here when one uses this 'seeing' to uncover the truth, Please refer the UG's lines below. --------------------- Q; In a smaller and minor way, I can see through an illusion.... UG's answer:A: That is another illusion. The illusion is that "the seeing is the ending." There is no way you can separate yourself and the seeing. Seeing is the illusion; the seer is the illusion. The seer tells himself that "seeing is ending," but it does not end. So the seer does not want to come to an end. The seer is the illusion. I don't know; it is better not to discuss these things. The seer is the illusion. Through the invention of what is called "the seeing of the illusion is the ending," the seer is gathering momentum and continuing. The moment you want to 'see' something you have separated yourself from that and the seer has come into being, and through that seeing he is maintaining his continuity. That is why seeing has not helped us; it has ended nothing there. ---------------------- So what do you say now? Seeing is also another illusion. So UG is right when he says 'just happening' without the intervention of us though what we do is also impersonal movement. U.G.'s mumble that it's best not to discuss these things is exemplified by the fact that in an "impersonal movement" there is no seer, no seen, and not even really any movement, only the appearance of movement from perspective, and any perspective embodies duality. In that sense appearance is illusion. He had that thought because to the mind nonduality embodies a paradox. In seeing/saying "One" there are two. So if these things are discussed, they're discussed using words that serve as pointers, such as, in this case, "impersonal". There's no conceptual resolution of the apparent contradiction. hi please read once again, you did not understand what UG is speaking there, please put your close attention when you come across line "through that seeing he is maintaining his continuity". |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 12:06:32 GMT -5
That was a good read and I understand what you are saying. You reveal much about your values I feel, and those are values that are easy for me to relate to. To you, it seems that what is experienced without mind-play/interpretation, is real/actual. I don't have a problem with that and there are many times when I would say that myself. From my perspective, the idea that 'love is all that is Real' can mean different things, but what I take it to mean this morning is this. Basically, its that the cause of all behaviour is love. Yes people behave selfishly, hurtfully, angrily, fearfully and many other ways that don't seem as if love is at the cause, but on close inspection, it can be seen that every behaviour and every action is born out of love, though our specific understandings about life and self etc will determine the particular way in which love manifests. So anger happens because we love. We hurt because we love. We are scared because we love. In this sense, I like the idea that Love is all that is Real, I think its a shift in focus that has a harmonizing and unifying quality to it. Its a destroyer of judgement. Anger, hurt and fear are born out of illusion (not love), and in that way we can say they are not 'real'. Love is a term given to the spontaneous movement that happens in the absence of illusion, and so we could say that is what is 'real'. I don't mind the idea that anger, fear and hurt are born out of illusion (not love), but that's slightly different to what I was saying there. However, to go with what you said, I would say that illusion is also born out of love. It is our specific understandings that create illusion (and which create anger, fear and hurt), but the source of that is still love. In that sense, love is primary, illusion is secondary. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 12:07:18 GMT -5
Yeah UG clearly points out the limit of 'seeing' there, and I resonate with it. He would have to include the seeing that ''the seer is the illusion''. Hence why he also tells us to throw away all his words, to debunk them all, and that perhaps 'it is better not to discuss these things'. Interesting use of the word 'better' though. No need to debunk the words if they're not analyzed and used to build structure. No need to blow down a house of cards if you keep the deck neatly undealt. I think I'm just going to offer a non-committal 'hmmmm'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 12:08:13 GMT -5
hi Enigma, We have already had a discussion in this, You are right when you say this 'seeing' is included in impersonal movement. But UG correctly finds the problem here when one uses this 'seeing' to uncover the truth, Please refer the UG's lines below. --------------------- Q; In a smaller and minor way, I can see through an illusion.... UG's answer:A: That is another illusion. The illusion is that "the seeing is the ending." There is no way you can separate yourself and the seeing. Seeing is the illusion; the seer is the illusion. The seer tells himself that "seeing is ending," but it does not end. So the seer does not want to come to an end. The seer is the illusion. I don't know; it is better not to discuss these things. The seer is the illusion. Through the invention of what is called "the seeing of the illusion is the ending," the seer is gathering momentum and continuing. The moment you want to 'see' something you have separated yourself from that and the seer has come into being, and through that seeing he is maintaining his continuity. That is why seeing has not helped us; it has ended nothing there. ---------------------- So what do you say now? Seeing is also another illusion. So UG is right when he says 'just happening' without the intervention of us though what we do is also impersonal movement. UG warns about the reinforcing of the seer and the idea that seeing will end something for the seer. The seer is one of the illusions that ends in the seeing. That seeing is utterly destructive. (greasy spot) I think that's all he's trying to say in his typical overstated way. I read it as UG also saying that 'seeing' is also the illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 12:10:10 GMT -5
Anger, hurt and fear are born out of illusion (not love), and in that way we can say they are not 'real'. Love is a term given to the spontaneous movement that happens in the absence of illusion, and so we could say that is what is 'real'. Perhaps anger, hurt, and fear are born from illusion but it was love that initiated conception and gestation? I read Andrew's thing as more of a movement of energy? What filters that energy, what shapes it, and how it is expressed is something else. Yes, that's pretty much what I was getting at. I like the way you said it. |
|
I don't see that there could ever be too much emphasis on the importance of remaining aware of the potential of the trap, as certain ideas presented by a teaching, begin to resonate deeply as 'truth.' Abiding Awareness of that resonance with certain ideas is what keeps those 'clear teachings' from becoming a trap.