|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 10, 2014 19:58:31 GMT -5
Attacking a teaching is just the opposite of defending it. Simples.  Sure, but, Resonance or lack thereof can happen absent attachment. fwiw, "Attacking" is in the eye of the beholder and seeing attack in challenge, may itself indicate the presence of attachment. We tend to regard a challenge of the ideas we hold to tightly and dearly as being more extreme and violent in nature than we see a challenge of ideas that we hold less dear. If a civil, direct challenge of the ideas I resonate with, begin to feel like an 'attack'...that might be something I'd do well to look at. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 20:12:33 GMT -5
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.'' Exactly, the crux of his point is nonseperation. Not two. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 20:14:53 GMT -5
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. Meaningfulness and cause/purpose are two different characteristics of the speaking. Just because there's no reason to either speak or to remain silent, it doesn't follow that the acausal speaking is meaningless. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 10, 2014 20:20:32 GMT -5
Speaking is meaningful though, I hope you agree. It happens with at least a modicum of consideration as to what we want to convey. Meaningfulness and cause/purpose are two different characteristics of the speaking. Just because there's no reason to either speak or to remain silent, it doesn't follow that the acausal speaking is meaningless. Im not saying that acausal speaking would have to be meaningless, I'm saying that I find it odd to convey something (meaningfully and therefore purposefully) on a happening that is stated firmly to be acausal. It makes more sense to me to convey something (meaningfully and purposefully) on a happening that will be talked about in terms of cause and effect e.g. cooking food. Having said that, although I find it odd, I like a lot of what he says. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 20:24:13 GMT -5
Attacking a teaching is just the opposite of defending it. Simples. Sure, but, Resonance or lack thereof can happen absent attachment. fwiw, "Attacking" is in the eye of the beholder and seeing attack in challenge, may itself indicate the presence of attachment. We tend to regard a challenge of the ideas we hold to tightly and dearly as being more extreme and violent in nature than we see a challenge of ideas that we hold less dear. If a civil, direct challenge of the ideas I resonate with, begin to feel like an 'attack'...that might be something I'd do well to look at. Quite a bit of focus and extrapolation here based on a single word, "attack".  Attachment can be inferred from an unwillingness to let certain recurring topics of conversation fade away so that others can emerge in their place. If pointing out when projection occurs, if noticing when reading in concepts that aren't in the words happens and if commenting on endlessly raising distinctions without differences in order to support opinions and images are seen as "defense", then what has been seen is a straw man.  Civility is often an overrated veneer. What's the point of defending the words of those who advise their readers to throw the words away? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 20:28:49 GMT -5
Meaningfulness and cause/purpose are two different characteristics of the speaking. Just because there's no reason to either speak or to remain silent, it doesn't follow that the acausal speaking is meaningless. Im not saying that acausal speaking would have to be meaningless, I'm saying that I find it odd to convey something (meaningfully and therefore purposefully) on a happening that is stated firmly to be acausal. It makes more sense to me to convey something (meaningfully and purposefully) on a happening that will be talked about in terms of cause and effect e.g. cooking food. Having said that, although I find it odd, I like a lot of what he says. Here again, meaning and purpose are two different characteristics and making sense of acausality just won't ever happen. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 10, 2014 20:57:50 GMT -5
Concern and discourse about ideologies, delusions/illusions, egos, persons, etc... presupposes another for whom the concern and discourse is believed to have meaning and effect, or.. the 'First Rule' applies..
|
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 10, 2014 20:58:16 GMT -5
Civility is often an overrated veneer. hehe..an opinion that is likely widely held by those who lack the ability to remain civil.  Civility in debate is more than just a value in the one demonstrating it, but also a by-product of not taking things so seriously. It could be said, that civility is an indicator of non-attachment and even to a certain extent, evidence of clarity itself. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 21:31:37 GMT -5
Civility is often an overrated veneer. hehe..an opinion that is likely widely held by those who lack the ability to remain civil. Civility in debate is more than just a value in the one demonstrating it, but also a by-product of not taking things so seriously. It could be said, that civility is an indicator of non-attachment and even to a certain extent, evidence of clarity itself. Hard opinions can be cloaked with soft words, and the tenacity with which one clings to an opinion is always a dead giveaway. When that's combined with excessive imagination and the prolific generation of unflattering projected images, how can it still be considered civil? At that point, humorless formality is obviously just a veneer. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2014 21:37:35 GMT -5
Confusing participation in discourse with concern seems to suggest more about the one so confused than it does about the imprecise image resulting from the confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 10, 2014 22:04:36 GMT -5
hehe..an opinion that is likely widely held by those who lack the ability to remain civil. Civility in debate is more than just a value in the one demonstrating it, but also a by-product of not taking things so seriously. It could be said, that civility is an indicator of non-attachment and even to a certain extent, evidence of clarity itself. opinions can be cloaked with soft words, and the tenacity with which one clings to an opinion is always a dead giveaway. When that's combined with excessive imagination and the prolific generation of unflattering projected images, how can it still be considered civil? At that point, humorless formality is obviously just a veneer. An example there of some 'hard' opinions? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 22:13:16 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. 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. That's pretty much what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 22:22:47 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. And if that becomes clear, the trap is sprung? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 22:27:54 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'. 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. But you said anger happens because WE love. That which expresses anger is not that which is the source of love. The source of love is impersonal. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 22:35:32 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. In the sense that a seer is doing the seeing, yes. I wouldn't say seeing through an illusion, is illusion. If that's what he's saying, then it must be an illusion. |
|
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.