Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 11:24:52 GMT -5
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!  By the word "Thought" I meant to say perception, it could be inner thought or outer world perception(I know there is no difference between inner thought and outer world perception but to differentiate) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 11:26:06 GMT -5
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? 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'? Realization isn't something that the seeker has done. The little greasy spot has no trace of him any longer. U.G. calls "I see this __" as illusion ... the statement "the seeker is no more" can be made, but no seeker makes it. This is why it's referred to often here as only "Realization" and not "self-realization". |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2014 11:27:39 GMT -5
That proves nothing. As we've seen, the ALICE bot could say (and actually did to some extent) exactly the same. And we all know that this is just not true - even if that's what ALICE experiences at face value. A machine doesn't experience a sense of being free to act. Humans do experience a sense of being free to act, unless that sense of being free to act is compromised in some way. That makes separate people volitionary in nature. I guess it may be theoretically possible to create a robot with this, but then the line would be getting very thin between machine and person. Basically, a person is machine-like or bot-like. The vantage point of a person is the vantage point of the intellect. And the intellect is bot-like / machine-like. There's nothing volitional about it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 11:28:20 GMT -5
Yes, depending on whats meant by "thought" this can be true, and thinking about what is meant by "thought" is thinking far too much! By the word "Thought" I meant to say perception, it could be inner thought or outer world perception(I know there is no difference between inner thought and outer world perception but to differentiate) Yes, that's what I took you to mean and we're both indulging in TMT ("too much thought"). Welcome to the st.org forum btw.  You're raj from realizinghappiness, right? Have you considered an introduction? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2014 11:36:49 GMT -5
Right. The face value dogma (as the still mind dogma) are attempts to sell self-deception as clarity, attachment as freedom and hyperminding as wisdom. Yup. Face value really means one's own unquestioned stories. Zackly. Brave new spirituality. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 11:49:48 GMT -5
A machine doesn't experience a sense of being free to act. Humans do experience a sense of being free to act, unless that sense of being free to act is compromised in some way. That makes separate people volitionary in nature. I guess it may be theoretically possible to create a robot with this, but then the line would be getting very thin between machine and person. Basically, a person is machine-like or bot-like. The vantage point of a person is the vantage point of the intellect. And the intellect is bot-like / machine-like. There's nothing volitional about it. I guess you are distinguishing between individuals and persons. That's fine, but I'm not doing that there, I'm distinguishing people from dogs and cats, and I'm also distinguishing them from robots. In the context I'm speaking in, individuals and people are basically the same thing. In the context in which you are speaking, I pretty much agree with what you said. Osho also describes the mind/intellect as a machine in a very similar way. In the context I am speaking in, the key difference between people and Alice bots can be described in different ways....I would say 'volition' is one of those ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2014 12:04:10 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. A question is presented and spontaneously an answer comes forth. What's ludicrous about that? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2014 12:09:17 GMT -5
The way I read it is that anger happens because we love something and fear losing it. That kind of love is actually need, and is also illusion. Need is also born out of love. What? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2014 12:12:55 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. In perspective oriented toward U.G.s words the way he was, the question of "why say them?" doesn't arise. Exactly! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 12:16:40 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. A question is presented and spontaneously an answer comes forth. What's ludicrous about that? Given the rigid position UG takes on the acausal nature of 'the happening', it would makes more sense to say 'I see no point in answering your questions on this subject because nothing I say is of any value and will make any difference, how about we talk about cooking instead and I might have something useful to offer you'. Its no wonder he was tetchy.. yes its all happening spontaneously, but words are spoken meaningfully and with purpose, so he was expending a level of energy on something, that in his eyes, was completely pointless. Personally, I wouldn't offer something on spirituality/non-duality subjects unless I thought it had a modicum of use/value. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 12:18:00 GMT -5
Need is also born out of love. What? what what? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2014 12:35:57 GMT -5
Basically, a person is machine-like or bot-like. The vantage point of a person is the vantage point of the intellect. And the intellect is bot-like / machine-like. There's nothing volitional about it. I guess you are distinguishing between individuals and persons. That's fine, but I'm not doing that there, I'm distinguishing people from dogs and cats, and I'm also distinguishing them from robots. In the context I'm speaking in, individuals and people are basically the same thing. In the context in which you are speaking, I pretty much agree with what you said. Osho also describes the mind/intellect as a machine in a very similar way. In the context I am speaking in, the key difference between people and Alice bots can be described in different ways....I would say 'volition' is one of those ways. Intellect is not the same as mind. Intellect is a very limited sub-function of mind. We've discussed this already in the bot thread: I'd say creativity/genius is an expansion of awareness beyond the confines of the individuated mind. If we must, maybe we could call it global mind. Just as with any realization, mind is then informed, and can express what is seen. Such expansion would of course be impossible for a machine since there is nothing for it to expand into.Exactly my point. The bot is going to hit a wall precisely at the point where the known (the realm of abstractions) end and the unknown (the realm prior/beyond abstractions) begins, i.e. the point where mere conceptual/intellectual understanding ends and real/true understanding begins. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 12:44:33 GMT -5
I guess you are distinguishing between individuals and persons. That's fine, but I'm not doing that there, I'm distinguishing people from dogs and cats, and I'm also distinguishing them from robots. In the context I'm speaking in, individuals and people are basically the same thing. In the context in which you are speaking, I pretty much agree with what you said. Osho also describes the mind/intellect as a machine in a very similar way. In the context I am speaking in, the key difference between people and Alice bots can be described in different ways....I would say 'volition' is one of those ways. Intellect is not the same as mind. Intellect is a very limited sub-function of mind. We've discussed this already in the bot thread: Exactly my point. The bot is going to hit a wall precisely at the point where the known (the realm of abstractions) end and the unknown (the realm prior/beyond abstractions) begins, i.e. the point where mere conceptual/intellectual understanding ends and real/true understanding begins. I got no problem with that though I probably wouldn't quite talk about it like that. I would say that humans/people are able to 'really or truly understand' whereas Alice can only form understandings based on the programming she was programmed with, even if the programming was such that allowed for artificial intelligence or some kind of 'growth in understanding'. Whereas, humans can have 'inspired thought', or 'spontaneous intelligence', and that's coz its True that people are volitionary. People have access to something that Alice doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 12:51:14 GMT -5
A question is presented and spontaneously an answer comes forth. What's ludicrous about that? Given the rigid position UG takes on the acausal nature of 'the happening', it would makes more sense to say 'I see no point in answering your questions on this subject because nothing I say is of any value and will make any difference, how about we talk about cooking instead and I might have something useful to offer you'. Its no wonder he was tetchy.. yes its all happening spontaneously, but words are spoken meaningfully and with purpose, so he was expending a level of energy on something, that in his eyes, was completely pointless.
Personally, I wouldn't offer something on spirituality/non-duality subjects unless I thought it had a modicum of use/value. In my opinion this comes close to expressing what that negative emotion was, but I'd say it was more frustration than anything else, because there's no way to express what he's saying without the potential for it being interpreted as paradoxical or meaningless, but it's not. The meaning is all very very simple, so simple as to be rejected. The seeker seeks himself, so any step in any direction is the wrong direction, because the seeker is never not right where he is, which is here and now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 13:01:27 GMT -5
Given the rigid position UG takes on the acausal nature of 'the happening', it would makes more sense to say 'I see no point in answering your questions on this subject because nothing I say is of any value and will make any difference, how about we talk about cooking instead and I might have something useful to offer you'. Its no wonder he was tetchy.. yes its all happening spontaneously, but words are spoken meaningfully and with purpose, so he was expending a level of energy on something, that in his eyes, was completely pointless.
Personally, I wouldn't offer something on spirituality/non-duality subjects unless I thought it had a modicum of use/value. In my opinion this comes close to expressing what that negative emotion was, but I'd say it was more frustration than anything else, because there's no way to express what he's saying without the potential for it being interpreted as paradoxical or meaningless, but it's not. The meaning is all very very simple, so simple as to be rejected. The seeker seeks himself, so any step in any direction is the wrong direction, because the seeker is never not right where he is, which is here and now. what does here and now have to do with it? does the seeker even exist, like at all .. or not? |
|
