|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 13:05:08 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. Yes that works for me, and of course the ending of the seeking requires that acausal happening to happen. I also find a little comedic value in the fact that UG was somewhat 'against' teachers/gurus, but it was inevitable that he would be taken to be one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 13:10:35 GMT -5
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? Brian: You don't need to follow me...You are all individuals!Followers: We are all individuals!Individual: I'm not. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 13:29:25 GMT -5
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? ah yes, good question. It reminds me of something I noticed in the O.P initially, in which UG said something like 'you move away from yourself'. Its an odd thing to say given that he also specifically states that there is no 'you'. I would like to think that if he is able to hear this conversation, he is now laughing rather than grumbling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 13:40:42 GMT -5
what does here and now have to do with it? does the seeker even exist, like at all .. or not? ah yes, good question. It reminds me of something I noticed in the O.P initially, in which UG said something like 'you move away from yourself'. Its an odd thing to say given that he also specifically states that there is no 'you'. I would like to think that if he is able to hear this conversation, he is now laughing rather than grumbling. He might think we are all IN DANGER for even having a thread about what he said. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2014 13:43:36 GMT -5
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? My statement is in one context, your question is in another. The way that the seeker views himself is a mind construct. What the seeker is, what we are all, has no description in words, and that's what's always here and now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 13:46:32 GMT -5
what does here and now have to do with it? does the seeker even exist, like at all .. or not? ah yes, good question. It reminds me of something I noticed in the O.P initially, in which UG said something like 'you move away from yourself'. Its an odd thing to say given that he also specifically states that there is no 'you'. I would like to think that if he is able to hear this conversation, he is now laughing rather than grumbling. 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. if it's true that the seeker doesn't actually exist... who are these volitional people? .. the ones with access to something..? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 14:00:19 GMT -5
ah yes, good question. It reminds me of something I noticed in the O.P initially, in which UG said something like 'you move away from yourself'. Its an odd thing to say given that he also specifically states that there is no 'you'. I would like to think that if he is able to hear this conversation, he is now laughing rather than grumbling. He might think we are all IN DANGER for even having a thread about what he said. LOL! The real danger for me here is getting sucked into forum time for the next week. Already my wife is going...'Hellooooo, are you listening?' |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 14:02:21 GMT -5
ah yes, good question. It reminds me of something I noticed in the O.P initially, in which UG said something like 'you move away from yourself'. Its an odd thing to say given that he also specifically states that there is no 'you'. I would like to think that if he is able to hear this conversation, he is now laughing rather than grumbling. 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. if it is true that the seeker doesn't actually exist... who are these volitional people? .. the ones with access to something..? They're just good old fashioned human beings. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 11, 2014 14:08:41 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? The point has been made here often, that realization results in a shift. ie; When the oasis is seen to be just a mirage, we no longer go there, empty canteen in hand, and, when the snake is seen to be just a rope, we stop screaming at it. In the same way, If one realizes that words are totally without value, and yet the words continue despite that realization, isn't that akin to someone seeing a rope for a snake & still screaming 'snake'..or someone seeing the mirage for a mirage and still trekking out there to quench his thirst, and when he's asked about the fact that that is still happening,he just says, "it just happens"? Seems to me he'd be demonstrating what it means to go unconscious. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 14:52:52 GMT -5
if it is true that the seeker doesn't actually exist... who are these volitional people? .. the ones with access to something..? They're just good old fashioned human beings. old fashioned seems an apt description go walk the dogs .. change the litter box  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 11, 2014 14:53:28 GMT -5
A question is presented and spontaneously an answer comes forth. What's ludicrous about that? The point has been made here often, that realization results in a shift. ie; When the oasis is seen to be just a mirage, we no longer go there, empty canteen in hand, and, when the snake is seen to be just a rope, we stop screaming at it. In the same way, If one realizes that words are totally without value, and yet the words continue despite that realization, isn't that akin to someone seeing a rope for a snake & still screaming 'snake'..or someone seeing the mirage for a mirage and still trekking out there to quench his thirst, and when he's asked about the fact that that is still happening,he just says, "it just happens"? Seems to me he'd be demonstrating what it means to go unconscious. He's providing a pointer, so it's not 'in the same way' because this pointer is aside from the fact of his state of realization. The pointer is of value, having been created by that particular example. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 11, 2014 15:37:27 GMT -5
The point has been made here often, that realization results in a shift. ie; When the oasis is seen to be just a mirage, we no longer go there, empty canteen in hand, and, when the snake is seen to be just a rope, we stop screaming at it. In the same way, If one realizes that words are totally without value, and yet the words continue despite that realization, isn't that akin to someone seeing a rope for a snake & still screaming 'snake'..or someone seeing the mirage for a mirage and still trekking out there to quench his thirst, and when he's asked about the fact that that is still happening,he just says, "it just happens"? Seems to me he'd be demonstrating what it means to go unconscious. He's providing a pointer, so it's not 'in the same way' because this pointer is aside from the fact of his state of realization. The pointer is of value, having been created by that particular example. The realization that has one saying, 'words have no value' stems from the realization of no separation, but the seeing of 'no cause' goes hand in hand with that. As such, I'd say it's more than just a pointer, and it's not 'aside' from the fact of his realization, but rather, it's part and parcel of it. If the seeing of no volition has the propensity to quell blaming, then it follows that seeing no cause might put a stop to answering seekers questions....? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 11, 2014 15:47:17 GMT -5
He's providing a pointer, so it's not 'in the same way' because this pointer is aside from the fact of his state of realization. The pointer is of value, having been created by that particular example. The realization that has one saying, 'words have no value' stems from the realization of no separation, but the seeing of 'no cause' goes hand in hand with that. As such, I'd say it's more than just a pointer, and it's not 'aside' from the fact of his realization, but rather, it's part and parcel of it. If the seeing of no volition has the propensity to quell blaming, then it follows that seeing no cause might put a stop to answering seekers questions....? All I can say about that is that after he said that words 'have no value' -- it certainly didn't stop him from continuing to talk in his life, so that's a clue right there, for me anyway. When you say 'The realization' -- I thought he was talking about the 'big' Realization in spiritual life, not that he 'realizes' words 'have no value' or some such. It gets more complicated than what I can intellectually deal with quite a bit here. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 15:51:16 GMT -5
The seeker refers to himself as preserved in the seeing, while in the seeing E' references, the seer doesn't remain.
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". Also because realization can be the realization of many other things as well. The common denominator is that it is self evident, and that it is 'destructive'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 15:57:28 GMT -5
Yup. Face value really means one's own unquestioned stories. Zackly. Brave new spirituality. It's really a means of avoidance of negativity, which is why that gets projected so much. |
|
