|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 11, 2014 16:07:51 GMT -5
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. hehe...as you likely know by now, I don't see UG, or any so called guru as being beyond reproach. It's the 'trickle-down' effect....The Big O realization changes the way everything is seen, kinda thing. Yeah, me too at times.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 16:11:16 GMT -5
Need is not born out of love. A more betterer way to look at is Love is the essence of the creative principle in action, and is either blocked from recognition by the formation of dualistic illusion, or it is not. Love does not get transformed into fear. That principle 'knows' nothing about illusions. You can say that this creative principle is the source of the illusion, and therefore Love is the source of illusion, but Love is in a non-dual context, and illusion is in a dualistic context, so you are mixing contexts when you say illusion is born of Love. If you want to say that we need because we love something, then the love referred to is as dualistic and illusory as the need, and nothing is really being said at all. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 16:16:24 GMT -5
Need is not born out of love. A more betterer way to look at is Love is the essence of the creative principle in action, and is either blocked from recognition by the formation of dualistic illusion, or it is not. Love does not get transformed into fear. That principle 'knows' nothing about illusions. You can say that this creative principle is the source of the illusion, and therefore Love is the source of illusion, but Love is in a non-dual context, and illusion is in a dualistic context, so you are mixing contexts when you say illusion is born of Love. If you want to say that we need because we love something, then the love referred to is as dualistic and illusory as the need, and nothing is really being said at all. Its all much simpler than that. I am saying that all behaviour is born out of love, that love is the driving force of all behaviour i.e without love, there would be no need. It is fundamental to all manifestation. We can love without need, but we cannot need without love. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 16:16:55 GMT -5
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 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. "inspired thought" and "spontaneous intelligence" don't imply volition. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2014 16:20:43 GMT -5
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. I think you complicate and intellectualize quite well actually  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 16:23:26 GMT -5
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. "inspired thought" and "spontaneous intelligence" don't imply volition. Yes they do. It tells us that humans have connection to something that is prior to or beyond programming/conditioning. This means that choices are not necessarily informed by programming/conditioning in the same way that Alice's are. I am arguing for volition in a specific context. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 16:24:24 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? I think he means that which is actually seeking, and which is actually sought, which is not a separate identity, and which is always here now. I agree that the seeker person doesn't even exist and therefore cannot be found. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 11, 2014 17:07:26 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. You are mistaken. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 11, 2014 17:10:00 GMT -5
Why does the nondualist become concerned with nonexistent others?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 17:10:39 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. Volitional human beings who are not seekers? Why aren't they? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 17:28:19 GMT -5
They're just good old fashioned human beings. Volitional human beings who are not seekers? Why aren't they? I'm not suggesting that human beings don't seek, but given that 'the seeker' was being talked about as being a thought (and therefore doesn't exist) it didn't make sense to me to then say that seekers have volition, it made sense to me to say that human beings have volition. Funny you should enquire, because I was also going to enquire what you meant when you said that something is 'actually' seeking. What are you suggesting 'actually' seeks? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 17:32:03 GMT -5
Need is not born out of love. A more betterer way to look at is Love is the essence of the creative principle in action, and is either blocked from recognition by the formation of dualistic illusion, or it is not. Love does not get transformed into fear. That principle 'knows' nothing about illusions. You can say that this creative principle is the source of the illusion, and therefore Love is the source of illusion, but Love is in a non-dual context, and illusion is in a dualistic context, so you are mixing contexts when you say illusion is born of Love. If you want to say that we need because we love something, then the love referred to is as dualistic and illusory as the need, and nothing is really being said at all. Its all much simpler than that. I am saying that all behaviour is born out of love, that love is the driving force of all behaviour i.e without love, there would be no need. It is fundamental to all manifestation. We can love without need, but we cannot need without love. As I said, they're both dualistic feelings and nothing is really being said. Basically, you're saying we do stuff because we want to and then we struggle when we don't get what we want, which most peeps have figured out already. In this context, love is more like want. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 11, 2014 17:37:56 GMT -5
Its all much simpler than that. I am saying that all behaviour is born out of love, that love is the driving force of all behaviour i.e without love, there would be no need. It is fundamental to all manifestation. We can love without need, but we cannot need without love. As I said, they're both dualistic feelings and nothing is really being said. Basically, you're saying we do stuff because we want to and then we struggle when we don't get what we want, which most peeps have figured out already. In this context, love is more like want. How on earth have you extrapolated that from what I said?! There seem to be some major leaps there. What I am saying is really straightforward. At the core of all behaviour is love. Its the driving force of everything. The energy of creation. We can love without fear, but we cannot fear without love. We can love without anger or need, but we cannot be angry or need without love. Without love, nothing would happen. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 17:42:51 GMT -5
"inspired thought" and "spontaneous intelligence" don't imply volition. Yes they do. It tells us that humans have connection to something that is prior to or beyond programming/conditioning. This means that choices are not necessarily informed by programming/conditioning in the same way that Alice's are. I am arguing for volition in a specific context. Informed by conditioning or informed by something prior to or beyond conditioning. Neither implies volition on the part of that which is informed. It's true that something more 'expansive' is involved in human behavior that is not involved in machine behavior, but this still doesn't mean the human has volition. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2014 17:50:24 GMT -5
Volitional human beings who are not seekers? Why aren't they? I'm not suggesting that human beings don't seek, but given that 'the seeker' was being talked about as being a thought (and therefore doesn't exist) it didn't make sense to me to then say that seekers have volition, it made sense to me to say that human beings have volition. Okay. Intelligence (singular) seeks through the illusion of personhood. Nothing else exists but that Intelligence, so it is the source of all movement. |
|
