|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 2:44:25 GMT -5
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? Again, to me, seeing is realization. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 2:45:57 GMT -5
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? Because he said so. Or are there exceptions? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 2:57:39 GMT -5
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? Again, to me, seeing is realization. You are waiting for the truth to be realized through these 'seeing',isn't it? You initiated your focus to look into what's happening in your mind,isn't it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 3:02:18 GMT -5
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? Because he said so. Or are there exceptions? It's not what he said, it's what he realized, So do mine. I went through the same situation, at last I happened noticed that mind kept on pushing me to look, Once I realize this, that 'seeing' is no more in me, especially the need of seeing is not in me. I told you before about this out of my own experience, but you denied, now I am showing you the lines of UG as well. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 11, 2014 5:26:52 GMT -5
Confusing cleverness at creating illusions about what words mean, or about what is seen, with clarity and actuality is an attachment to the cleverness..
Be still.. and the seer/seen vanishes.. lament the seer/seen duality, and you have created seer, seen, duality and nonduality with the ideas you are lamenting..
The practice of endlessly talking about ideas and beliefs rather than what is actually happening is a way to create the illusion that the ideas and beliefs take precedence over the actuality..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 5:35:03 GMT -5
Confusing cleverness at creating illusions about what words mean, or about what is seen, with clarity and actuality is an attachment to the cleverness.. Be still.. and the seer/seen vanishes.. lament the seer/seen duality, and you have created seer, seen, duality and nonduality with the ideas you are lamenting.. The practice of endlessly talking about ideas and beliefs rather than what is actually happening is a way to create the illusion that the ideas and beliefs take precedence over the actuality.. What do you mean by 'be still'? 'Be still' is another creation to mind. you can't even do a single thing to come out of anything becasue whatever you do would be a new creation to mind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 5:39:18 GMT -5
The practice of endlessly talking about ideas and beliefs rather than what is actually happening is a way to create the illusion that the ideas and beliefs take precedence over the actuality.. yes. Like, who is serving who back in the shop and why isn't the cash-till as full as it used to to get? So important to recognize the difference between fantasy and reality. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 11, 2014 6:00:57 GMT -5
Confusing cleverness at creating illusions about what words mean, or about what is seen, with clarity and actuality is an attachment to the cleverness.. Be still.. and the seer/seen vanishes.. lament the seer/seen duality, and you have created seer, seen, duality and nonduality with the ideas you are lamenting.. The practice of endlessly talking about ideas and beliefs rather than what is actually happening is a way to create the illusion that the ideas and beliefs take precedence over the actuality.. 'Be still' is another creation to mind. you can't even do a single thing to come out of anything becasue whatever you do would be a new creation to mind. Stop thinking.. stop thinking that what you 'think' is more important than what is actually happening.. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 6:48:24 GMT -5
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. Anger does happen because we love. Without love, there would be no anger. Love is the 'driving force' of all behaviour, though how that love specifically manifests, and what that behaviour will look like, does depend on our understandings. If our understandings create an illusion of being separate from the whole, it is likely that love will manifest as fear. The love is still there though. So, for example, when I tell you that volition is The Truth, and that all this stuff about personal/impersonal is just another gimmick, that little spark of irritation that you feel is born out of love  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 7:00:25 GMT -5
What do you mean by 'be still'? 'Be still' is another creation to mind. you can't even do a single thing to come out of anything becasue whatever you do would be a new creation to mind. Stop thinking.. stop thinking that what you 'think' is more important than what is actually happening.. Thinking can't be stopped, Perceiver can't stop perceiving. If you stop thinking,then that is another type of thinking, thought is very much there. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 7:16:04 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. He is saying that, and I have to agree that it too must be an illusion. Which is also why I think he says something along the lines of...'maybe it would be better to say nothing'. He probably recognizes that in pointing out the illusionary nature of seeing through illusions, that he is basically doing the same thing as every other guru This dilemma may have been why he was a bit tetchy... ''I AM NOT A GURU'' |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 8:42:07 GMT -5
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. An example there of some 'hard' opinions? And not cloaked.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 8:51:51 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. Do you recall our correspondence the other day about spinning on a self-reference? This is one of those forms: 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. ... the form can be recognized instead of followed around in a circle, or recognized instead of embracing one side of the paradox over the other. The form has some interesting characteristics, and it was a challenge for me for awhile with respect to the point that mind can't escape itself, because in this instance, one conceptual form can be used to gain perspective on another, and it's all intellectual. Essentially, mind can be used to elaborate the expression of it's own limits. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 9:12:40 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. late edit: gopal, think of " destructive seeing" as not something that is initiated or done by the seer. The destructive "seeing" that E' referenced here is not the same self-perpetuating seeing that the seeker questioning U.G. mentions here. The seeker refers to himself as preserved in the seeing, while in the seeing E' references, the seer doesn't remain. So now, in my estimation, the real question is, does Enigma do this in his statement? Through the invention of what is called "the seeing of the illusion is the ending," Did E' "invent" this ending? There's an ambiguity here, because, what is it that ends? If the search ends with the seeker intact, this is what U.G. was referring to as illusion. E' wasn't referring to that. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 9:29:25 GMT -5
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?  that's an st classic right there! |
|
that's an st classic right there!