Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 22:38:12 GMT -5
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. You are saying 'seeing' would removes the illusion, but UG is saying 'seeing' would add another illusion because 'seeing' is also another mind creation like controlling. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 22:40:04 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. Yeah, that's why I say he overstated everything.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 22:41:03 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. Well said, Absolutely correct. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 10, 2014 22:42:22 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. And if that becomes clear, the trap is sprung? All ideas that resonate have the potential to become a trap. A 'trap' in this case, means clinging to an idea, for the purpose of safety or a relative sense of well-being. My statement above (traps are subtle and admonishment of them is important) is not really the kind of idea that provides that. Existential ideas are what I was referring to (spiritual teachings), and are the ones most likely to become traps in this sense. (ex: there is no person, no volition, no doer, everything just happens, no separation, etc) The idea above you ask about, is concerned with the content of experience, an observation and not an idea/story 'about' the nature of existence itself. But, sure it's possible it too could become a trap of sorts. The belief that i've got the nature of existence all sewn up = a trap. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 22:42:20 GMT -5
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. What? Are you saying UG is wrong when he says 'seeing' is illusion? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 22:42:50 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. Illusions are creations of the mind. They can be seen for what they are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2014 22:52:53 GMT -5
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. Illusions are creations of the mind. They can be seen for what they are. Illusions are creations of mind, absolutely. But truth about the illusion can be revealed to you through realization(Here your effect is zero). But the 'you' can't initiate the realization by some means. 'seeing' bring the one who tries to see what that illusion is, it would bring that 'seer' into being. This 'seer' will never come to an end, it's the mind creation, mind exactly knows how to keep this 'seer' in existence. You can't decide to break the illusion through some means. If you do so, then that doing would perpetuate, that illusion never can be found. For an example, you are trekking through a mountain, now you accidentally finds a waterfall, Now in another example, you are trekking through a mountain with a intention of finding a waterfall, In the second one, you would never find a waterfall, because the intention of finding a waterfall has to be maintain in our mind. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 23:00:59 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. 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! Did it feel kinda like this? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 23:23:19 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. Yup, yup. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 23:28:17 GMT -5
That's pretty much what I said. You are saying 'seeing' would removes the illusion, but UG is saying 'seeing' would add another illusion because 'seeing' is also another mind creation like controlling. I don't think he's saying that. If he is, I'm disagreeing with it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 23:31:31 GMT -5
And if that becomes clear, the trap is sprung? All ideas that resonate have the potential to become a trap. A 'trap' in this case, means clinging to an idea, for the purpose of safety or a relative sense of well-being. My statement above (traps are subtle and admonishment of them is important) is not really the kind of idea that provides that. Existential ideas are what I was referring to (spiritual teachings), and are the ones most likely to become traps in this sense. (ex: there is no person, no volition, no doer, everything just happens, no separation, etc) The idea above you ask about, is concerned with the content of experience, an observation and not an idea/story 'about' the nature of existence itself. But, sure it's possible it too could become a trap of sorts. The belief that i've got the nature of existence all sewn up = a trap. I don't have any issue with the idea that seekers fall into traps. Of course they do. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 23:37:23 GMT -5
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. What? Are you saying UG is wrong when he says 'seeing' is illusion? Not in this post. Here I'm saying, if he sees that seeing through an illusion is an illusion, then his seeing must be an illusion too. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 10, 2014 23:42:52 GMT -5
Illusions are creations of the mind. They can be seen for what they are. Illusions are creations of mind, absolutely. But truth about the illusion can be revealed to you through realization(Here your effect is zero). But the 'you' can't initiate the realization by some means. 'seeing' bring the one who tries to see what that illusion is, it would bring that 'seer' into being. This 'seer' will never come to an end, it's the mind creation, mind exactly knows how to keep this 'seer' in existence. You can't decide to break the illusion through some means. If you do so, then that doing would perpetuate, that illusion never can be found. For an example, you are trekking through a mountain, now you accidentally finds a waterfall, Now in another example, you are trekking through a mountain with a intention of finding a waterfall, In the second one, you would never find a waterfall, because the intention of finding a waterfall has to be maintain in our mind. It sounds like you differentiate between realization and seeing, assigning a seer to the latter. I don't make that distinction or assignment, so I don't have a problem with the idea of seeing through an illusion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 0:27:38 GMT -5
Illusions are creations of mind, absolutely. But truth about the illusion can be revealed to you through realization(Here your effect is zero). But the 'you' can't initiate the realization by some means. 'seeing' bring the one who tries to see what that illusion is, it would bring that 'seer' into being. This 'seer' will never come to an end, it's the mind creation, mind exactly knows how to keep this 'seer' in existence. You can't decide to break the illusion through some means. If you do so, then that doing would perpetuate, that illusion never can be found. For an example, you are trekking through a mountain, now you accidentally finds a waterfall, Now in another example, you are trekking through a mountain with a intention of finding a waterfall, In the second one, you would never find a waterfall, because the intention of finding a waterfall has to be maintain in our mind. It sounds like you differentiate between realization and seeing, assigning a seer to the latter. I don't make that distinction or assignment, so I don't have a problem with the idea of seeing through an illusion. What is 'seeing' here? You are looking your own mind for realization or to look into the truth,isn't it? Is't this 'seeing' initiated by you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 0:29:44 GMT -5
What? Are you saying UG is wrong when he says 'seeing' is illusion? Not in this post. Here I'm saying, if he sees that seeing through an illusion is an illusion, then his seeing must be an illusion too. Wrong, he is absolutely correct here when he says 'seeing' is illusion. how do you know 'his seeing must be an illusion too' for sure? |
|
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.