Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 12:14:32 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. I think he enjoyed putting seekers and sycophants and spiritual namby pambies on edge. You can see a smile as he relates his kicking grandmother story. Wish Oprah could have interviewed him. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 12:19:48 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. He had to emphasise it given the hardline position he took, his position being that there is nothing that can be done, practised, seen, understood or realized that will make the happening happen. It either happens or it doesn't. Therefore he had to say that his words were to be debunked, because he doesn't want people thinking that understanding them would do them any good lol. The whole thing strikes me as just a wee bit ludicrous for some of the reasons that Fig stated earlier in the thread i.e. why say anything at all if he thinks the words are totally without value. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 12:20:47 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. 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. hi, Yes seeing through illusion is not really seeing through illusion, it's another illusion, it's another creation to mind, seeing is nothing but one thought is watching another thought. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 12:20:59 GMT -5
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. I read it more like enigma's read. The questioner says "I can see through an illusion." UG is saying no, if you are seeing anything then it's still illusion (because there is a seer). Pretty simple. If there is a claim of 'seeing' something than there is still a seer. It's just rad as usual. But maybe he's commenting on the perceptual activity called seeing. How it's also just 'illusion,' really. It's why he kicked his trembling grandmother afterall. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 12:21:17 GMT -5
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. Need is also born out of love. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 12:23:41 GMT -5
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. Need is also born out of love. andrewtemp has this tune going on: hadn't thought of the pun of 'all you need is love' til now. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 12:29:09 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. hi, Yes seeing through illusion is not really seeing through illusion, it's another illusion, it's another creation to mind, seeing is nothing but one thought is watching another thought. yes, 'one thought is watching another thought' sums it up well. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 12:31:52 GMT -5
I read it as UG also saying that 'seeing' is also the illusion. I read it more like enigma's read. The questioner says "I can see through an illusion." UG is saying no, if you are seeing anything then it's still illusion (because there is a seer). Pretty simple. If there is a claim of 'seeing' something than there is still a seer. It's just rad as usual. Talking about this stuff isn't exactly my forte, but my take is that without a 'you' that sees illusions, there are no illusions to be seen. Therefore any illusions that are seen, are seen by 'you'. So the whole thing about seeing illusions is just another mind game that reinforces the continuity of 'you'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 12:34:27 GMT -5
I read it more like enigma's read. The questioner says "I can see through an illusion." UG is saying no, if you are seeing anything then it's still illusion (because there is a seer). Pretty simple. If there is a claim of 'seeing' something than there is still a seer. It's just rad as usual. Talking about this stuff isn't exactly my forte, but my take is that without a 'you' that sees illusions, there are no illusions to be seen. Therefore any illusions that are seen, are seen by 'you'. So the whole thing about seeing illusions is just another mind game that reinforces the continuity of 'you'. Right. But also he was a stickler about the illusory nature of seeing -- kicking grandma. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 12:37:08 GMT -5
Talking about this stuff isn't exactly my forte, but my take is that without a 'you' that sees illusions, there are no illusions to be seen. Therefore any illusions that are seen, are seen by 'you'. So the whole thing about seeing illusions is just another mind game that reinforces the continuity of 'you'. Right. But also he was a stickler about the illusory nature of seeing -- kicking grandma. I couldn't put it on loud, didn't want to make the cat jump. Is he saying that he kicked his grandma because she said the sky was blue? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 12:43:53 GMT -5
Right. But also he was a stickler about the illusory nature of seeing -- kicking grandma. I couldn't put it on loud, didn't want to make the cat jump. Is he saying that he kicked his grandma because she said the sky was blue? Yep. "BEETCH!' Such a rascal. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 12:59:42 GMT -5
I couldn't put it on loud, didn't want to make the cat jump. Is he saying that he kicked his grandma because she said the sky was blue? Yep. "BEETCH!' Such a rascal. lol the grumpy old git! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 18:38:14 GMT -5
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". That simply means that in seeing the seer engages (and thereby perpetuates) the illusion of seer and seen, and what I wrote was that there is no seer and seen.  Just because it's a contrived mental construct doesn't mean that the notion of the witness isn't cool and useful for many different reasons.  U.G. wanted to disabuse the questioner of identification with the witness. It's a pretty common pointing from what I can tell. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 18:42:25 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. 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. A negative attachment to a particular teaching or class of teachings is just the other side of the coin of a positive attachment. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 18:50:33 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. He had to emphasise it given the hardline position he took, his position being that there is nothing that can be done, practised, seen, understood or realized that will make the happening happen. It either happens or it doesn't. Therefore he had to say that his words were to be debunked, because he doesn't want people thinking that understanding them would do them any good lol. The whole thing strikes me as just a wee bit ludicrous for some of the reasons that Fig stated earlier in the thread i.e. why say anything at all if he thinks the words are totally without value. In perspective oriented toward U.G.s words the way he was, the question of "why say them?" doesn't arise. |
|
U.G. wanted to disabuse the questioner of identification with the witness. It's a pretty common pointing from what I can tell.
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.