|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 19:00:03 GMT -5
Teachings involving witnessing typically prescribe something similar to "watch the thinker". The question of "who or what is it that witnesses?" is direct self inquiry, and if your answer is "the thinker" then you have identified yourself as the thinker. Noone can do self-inquiry for someone else, but if someone reported that the result of theirs was that they were a flying bunny rabbit, I'd suggest to them to go back and try another round.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 19:09:10 GMT -5
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. Might be wrong but I think its more than disabusing the questioner of identification with the witness, though that may be part of it. I think UG is also challenging the idea that 'seeing through illusions' is useful. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 19:10:32 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. I stumbled on the "You see nothing!" video without any ken of who he was during a time I was in a "wtf??" daze hip-deep into trying to fit the disorientating results of self-inquiry into a conceptual structure. So, needless to say, I love this fu.cking guy! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 19:12:11 GMT -5
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. toward U.G.s words the way he was, the question of "why say them?" doesn't arise. Not sure what the bolded bit means, but UG himself seems to question the wisdom of saying something on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 19:14:55 GMT -5
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. Might be wrong but I think its more than disabusing the questioner of identification with the witness, though that may be part of it. I think UG is also challenging the idea that 'seeing through illusions' is useful. While I can't disagree with you, the fact is that the conversation has a context, and you're leaving out the fact that he denies seer and seen. He mumbled that he shouldn't talk about it because he made a direct statement of paradox: there is no seeing through illusion to ending because that which would see illusion is illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 19:17:08 GMT -5
In perspective oriented toward U.G.s words the way he was, the question of "why say them?" doesn't arise. Not sure what the bolded bit means, but UG himself seems to question the wisdom of saying something on the subject. You think U.G. is talking about wisdom??  You can also ask the question "why not say it?". Assuming the speaking is acausal, really, a silent smile to either question is the only answer that fits. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 19:21:24 GMT -5
Might be wrong but I think its more than disabusing the questioner of identification with the witness, though that may be part of it. I think UG is also challenging the idea that 'seeing through illusions' is useful. While I can't disagree with you, the fact is that the conversation has a context, and you're leaving out the fact that he denies seer and seen. He mumbled that he shouldn't talk about it because he made a direct statement of paradox: there is no seeing illusion because that which would see illusion is illusion. What I intepret is that the questioner thinks that seeing through illusions is going to get him somewhere. I see UG challenging this, partly by denying seer and seen, but more importantly by saying that seeing through illusions perpetuates the 'you'. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 19:24:39 GMT -5
While I can't disagree with you, the fact is that the conversation has a context, and you're leaving out the fact that he denies seer and seen. He mumbled that he shouldn't talk about it because he made a direct statement of paradox: there is no seeing illusion because that which would see illusion is illusion. What I intepret is that the questioner thinks that seeing through illusions is going to get him somewhere. I see UG challenging this, partly by denying seer and seen, but more importantly by saying that seeing through illusions perpetuates the 'you'. The quote that you're basing that phrasing on is actually quite different. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 10, 2014 19:29:47 GMT -5
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. negative/positive attachment?? Can you explain how attachments can be positive or negative? And, are you equating 'trap' with 'attachment'? If so, can there also be negative or positive 'traps'? I don't really see how negative or positive applies, particularly in this context. As I see it, IN terms of valuing freedom, a trap is a trap...something that impinges that. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 19:29:53 GMT -5
While I can't disagree with you, the fact is that the conversation has a context, and you're leaving out the fact that he denies seer and seen. He mumbled that he shouldn't talk about it because he made a direct statement of paradox: there is no seeing through illusion to ending because that which would see illusion is illusion. What I intepret is that the questioner thinks that seeing through illusions is going to get him somewhere. I see UG challenging this, partly by denying seer and seen, but more importantly by saying that seeing through illusions perpetuates the 'you'. ... also, on re-read, I had to edit what you replied to .. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 19:33:16 GMT -5
A negative attachment to a particular teaching or class of teachings is just the other side of the coin of a positive attachment. negative/positive attachment?? Can you explain how attachments can be positive or negative? Attacking a teaching is just the opposite of defending it. Simples.  And, are you equating 'trap' with 'attachment'? If so, can there also be negative or positive 'traps'? I don't really see how negative or positive applies, particularly in this context. As I see it, IN terms of valuing freedom, a trap is a trap...something that impinges that. If the "freedom" is for a supposedly separate individual, it's a delusion anyway, and if delusion isn't a jail, then nothing is. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 19:38:58 GMT -5
Not sure what the bolded bit means, but UG himself seems to question the wisdom of saying something on the subject. You think U.G. is talking about wisdom?? You can also ask the question "why not say it?". Assuming the speaking is acausal, really, a silent smile to either question is the only answer that fits. 'wisdom' was the best word I had, I paused before I said it because its not a great word given that this is UG we are talking about. But he used the word 'better' so I assumed that he was discerning something, hence I went with 'wisdom'. The reason not to say it is obvious to me within the context of UG's position. 'The happening' is acausal therefore anything said or not said won't make the blindest bit of difference to whether the happening happens. He is extremely rigid on this point. Speaking may also be acausal, but it happens with purpose, and takes at least a modicum of energy. Given that, it seems like a bit of an odd thing to do to talk about the happening. It makes sense to me when he talks about cooking. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 19:43:41 GMT -5
You think U.G. is talking about wisdom?? You can also ask the question "why not say it?". Assuming the speaking is acausal, really, a silent smile to either question is the only answer that fits. 'wisdom' was the best word I had, I paused before I said it because its not a great word given that this is UG we are talking about. But he used the word 'better' so I assumed that he was discerning something, hence I went with 'wisdom'. The reason not to say it is obvious to me within the context of UG's position. 'The happening' is acausal therefore anything said or not said won't make the blindest bit of difference to whether the happening happens. He is extremely rigid on this point. Speaking may also be acausal, but it happens with purpose, and takes at least a modicum of energy. Given that, it seems like a bit of an odd thing to do to talk about the happening. It makes sense to me when he talks about cooking. Not if it's acausal. Cause/purpose is a dwad. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 19:44:06 GMT -5
What I intepret is that the questioner thinks that seeing through illusions is going to get him somewhere. I see UG challenging this, partly by denying seer and seen, but more importantly by saying that seeing through illusions perpetuates the 'you'. The quote that you're basing that phrasing on is actually quite different. I see this bit as crucial ''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.'' |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 19:45:32 GMT -5
'wisdom' was the best word I had, I paused before I said it because its not a great word given that this is UG we are talking about. But he used the word 'better' so I assumed that he was discerning something, hence I went with 'wisdom'. The reason not to say it is obvious to me within the context of UG's position. 'The happening' is acausal therefore anything said or not said won't make the blindest bit of difference to whether the happening happens. He is extremely rigid on this point. Speaking may also be acausal, but it happens with purpose, and takes at least a modicum of energy. Given that, it seems like a bit of an odd thing to do to talk about the happening. It makes sense to me when he talks about cooking. Not if it's acausal. Cause/purpose is a dwad. Speaking is meaningful though, I hope you agree. It happens with at least a modicum of consideration as to what we want to convey. |
|
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.