|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 9:32:32 GMT -5
Cleverness gets a bad rap.  It only seems confusing to the dull witted. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 9:37:07 GMT -5
Cleverness gets a bad rap. It only seems confusing to the dull witted. as opposed to the bet witted |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 11, 2014 9:43:56 GMT -5
An example there of some 'hard' opinions? And not cloaked.  fwiw, I actually found your presentation of those hard opinions to be delivered in a reasonably civil manner. Was that a veneer, or was anger actually absent? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 9:47:32 GMT -5
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. Like the "anti-guru" trap?  If the anti-guru has no conceptual structure of their own on offer then I guess they'd be genuine, right? But, what does it mean if they do have one on offer and don't acknowledge it?  Seems to me that it means one of two things: 1) They're not conscious of the conceptual structure that they're offering 2) They are conscious of it and are deliberately misleading/misdirecting their audience. And, it seems to me that, in U.G.'s experience, the anti-guru is the mindset of a seeker: U.G. visits Ramana MaharshiRamana: I can give you, but can you take it? UG: *stare* ( thinking to himself: Nobody can give that state; I am on my own. I have to go on this uncharted sea without a compass, without a boat, with not even a raft to take me. Now, perhaps a late-stage seeker to be sure, but why tip-toe around pointers as if they're traps unless there's a path on which the tip-toeing is happening?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 9:50:25 GMT -5
Cleverness gets a bad rap. It only seems confusing to the dull witted. as opposed to the bet witted  .. I think he was going for "bed wetter". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 9:51:46 GMT -5
And not cloaked. fwiw, I actually found your presentation of those hard opinions to be delivered in a reasonably civil manner. Was that a veneer, or was anger actually absent? Questions that suggest or presume negative emotions in others are a particularly toxic form of passive aggression. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 9:53:32 GMT -5
as opposed to the bet witted .. I think he was going for "bed wetter". Ya. Apparently people who pee in their beds bother him. I bet there are some pretty innocent bed wetters out there that are also raw plant foodies. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 11, 2014 9:55:22 GMT -5
I don't have any issue with the idea that seekers fall into traps. Of course they do. "Seeking" itself though, can be very subtle. For example, holding tightly to 'no mountain' territory happens due to a subtle seeking to maintain or keep suffering at bay. There's a sense there of seeking to have things all sewn up in terms of the nature of existence. Indeed, the seeking may not be so much to overtly get somewhere different, or attain something or see from a new, improved vantage point, that will make things fundamentally better than they are now, however, there's still a 'drive' present to maintain the present way of seeing when it comes to existential ideas. the moving further to 3rd no mountain/full circle is a result of the falling away of the fear of suffering....there's no longer 'seeking' to maintain any one perspective or position. There is nothing to avoid and no existential truths or falsities to insist upon. The seeing that when it comes to existential truths or falsities, 'it's all just stories' has been integrated into being. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 11, 2014 10:00:28 GMT -5
fwiw, I actually found your presentation of those hard opinions to be delivered in a reasonably civil manner. Was that a veneer, or was anger actually absent? Questions that suggest or presume negative emotions in others are a particularly toxic form of passive aggression. Yes -- it shocked even me -- just read that up there, and the thought "have you stopped beating your wife" popped into my head.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 10:05:24 GMT -5
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. Yes, depending on whats meant by "thought" this can be true, and thinking about what is meant by "thought" is thinking far too much! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 10:06:51 GMT -5
Questions that suggest or presume negative emotions in others are a particularly toxic form of passive aggression. Yes -- it shocked even me -- just read that up there, and the thought "have you stopped beating your wife" popped into my head. Yes, that's called the "double-bind". |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 10:46:33 GMT -5
I don't have any issue with the idea that seekers fall into traps. Of course they do. "Seeking" itself though, can be very subtle. For example, holding tightly to 'no mountain' territory happens due to a subtle seeking to maintain or keep suffering at bay. There's a sense there of seeking to have things all sewn up in terms of the nature of existence. Indeed, the seeking may not be so much to overtly get somewhere different, or attain something or see from a new, improved vantage point, that will make things fundamentally better than they are now, however, there's still a 'drive' present to maintain the present way of seeing when it comes to existential ideas. the moving further to 3rd no mountain/full circle is a result of the falling away of the fear of suffering....there's no longer 'seeking' to maintain any one perspective or position. There is nothing to avoid and no existential truths or falsities to insist upon. The seeing that when it comes to existential truths or falsities, 'it's all just stories' has been integrated into being. It's a pretty convoluted scenario, but it can happen, sure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 11:14:47 GMT -5
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.
I don't understand here, what are you saying by this line? Elaborate this please. E' means 'seeing'? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2014 11:17:25 GMT -5
Not knowing
UG: When I am looking at something, I really don't know what I'm looking at -- that is why I say it is a state of not knowing. I really don't know. That is why I say that once you are there, through some luck, some strange chance, from then on everything happens in its own way. You are always in a state of samadhi; there is no question of going in and out of it; you are always there. I don't want to use that word, so I say it is a state of not knowing. You really don't know what you are looking at.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 11:23:37 GMT -5
Not knowingUG: When I am looking at something, I really don't know what I'm looking at -- that is why I say it is a state of not knowing. I really don't know. That is why I say that once you are there, through some luck, some strange chance, from then on everything happens in its own way. You are always in a state of samadhi; there is no question of going in and out of it; you are always there. I don't want to use that word, so I say it is a state of not knowing. You really don't know what you are looking at. It's not just the taste of honey, there is no experience which is not ineffable. What it is that we do speak of, is not that. |
|
.. I think he was going for "bed wetter".
