|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 14:42:01 GMT -5
In context of 'it all just happens' though, did the happening that 'just happened' really 'prevent' another thing from just happening? Or is that idea of 'preventing' an unnecessary diversion? The natural state isn't a happening. I"m speaking of 'the happening' UG is referring to here: UG: this cannot be brought about through any effort of yours; it just happens. And why it happens to one individual and not another, I don't know... It happened to me... whatever you do in the direction of whatever you are after -- the pursuit or search for truth or reality -- takes you away from your own very natural state, in which you always are. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3761/daily-discussion#ixzz3Cf17rKXJ |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 14:43:53 GMT -5
Try letting go of waiting to see if your suspicions are true..the ride's a lot more fun that way.  awwww, so cute ...  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 14:50:05 GMT -5
The natural state isn't a happening. I"m speaking of 'the happening' UG is referring to here: UG: this cannot be brought about through any effort of yours; it just happens. And why it happens to one individual and not another, I don't know... It happened to me... whatever you do in the direction of whatever you are after -- the pursuit or search for truth or reality -- takes you away from your own very natural state, in which you always are. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3761/daily-discussion#ixzz3Cf17rKXJRight, read on ... what is it that "just happened"? He's describing a cessation, a falling away of the resistance of the search. He's describing an absence. It only appears that something happened to U.G. to people who see U.G. as one of themselves. To equate the presence of what he calls the "contamination" with the absence of "the happening" is to make the mistake of taking that appearance for what it's not. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 14:54:32 GMT -5
Right, read on ... what is it that "just happened"? He's describing a cessation, a falling away of the resistance of the search. He's describing an absence. Yes. that laziness I resonated with in E's post in unmoderated, just reared it's wobbly little, pillow-creased head.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 15:00:08 GMT -5
Right, read on ... what is it that "just happened"? He's describing a cessation, a falling away of the resistance of the search. He's describing an absence. Yes. that laziness I resonated with in E's post in unmoderated, just reared it's wobbly little, pillow-creased head.  what I'm trying to get at is very subtle. U.G. was humoring his audience by saying that something happened to him. Nothing happened to him, but to the questioners, it seemed as though it did, so he went along with their characterization. Something happened to U.G., but nothing happened to U.G. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 15:05:48 GMT -5
Yes. that laziness I resonated with in E's post in unmoderated, just reared it's wobbly little, pillow-creased head. what I'm trying to get at is very subtle. U.G. was humoring his audience by saying that something happened to him. Nothing happened to him, but to the questioners, it seemed as though it did, so he went along with their characterization. Something happened to U.G., but nothing happened to U.G. I don't get why it matters whether we day something did happen or nothing happened. Fact is, there's an important difference. (If freedom is valued). Something fell away, thus something shifted/changed. I see no problem in equating change (an idea that was there, falling away), with "happening". |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2014 16:41:44 GMT -5
Certainly you see how a happening can just happen that prevents another happening from just happening? Or is that idea of 'preventing' an unnecessary diversion? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 17:33:49 GMT -5
In context of 'it all just happens' though, did the happening that 'just happened' really 'prevent' another thing from just happening? Or is that idea of 'preventing' an unnecessary diversion? Yes. So then, you do believe in cause and effect? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2014 18:08:21 GMT -5
So then, you do believe in cause and effect? Ultimately, no, as cause/effect merge into one movement without such divisions, and nothing is really happening, but when we're talking about happenings, it seems appropriate to talk about cause/effect in relation to those happenings. We're straddling contexts here and there are various ways to talk about it. I don't think the idea that seeking is preventing, is a diversion because the point is that what one is seeking is already one's natural state without any seeking. I wouldn't have used the word 'preventing', and maybe diverting or distracting is betterer. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 7, 2014 18:14:02 GMT -5
So then, you do believe in cause and effect? Ultimately, no, as cause/effect merge into one movement without such divisions, and nothing is really happening, but when we're talking about happenings, it seems appropriate to talk about cause/effect in relation to those happenings. We're straddling contexts here and there are various ways to talk about it. I don't think the idea that seeking is preventing, is a diversion because the point is that what one is seeking is already one's natural state without any seeking. I wouldn't have used the word 'preventing', and maybe diverting or distracting is betterer. Niz: "Causation means succession in time of events in space, the space being physical or mental. Time, space, causation are mental categories, arising and subsiding with the mind. Nothing in existence has a particular cause. The entire universe contributes to the existence of even the smallest thing, and nothing could be as it is without the universe being what it is. When the source and ground of everything is the only cause of everything, to speak of causality as a universal law is incorrect. The universe is not bound by its content, because its potentialities are infinite, and it is a manifestation, or expression, of a principle fundamentally and totally free." |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 7, 2014 19:06:03 GMT -5
1-The contradiction you give substance to is a projection of the same substance you assign to separate self.. .and then believe to be something of substance...and then claim is part of "both". There is no 'belief' involved in seeing 'both.' & with regards to the above, you're "way off."  Gettin' a little flowery there.  So "both" are of the same substance to you? Apparently, you only understand the ideas if you "see" (objectify) them both. Let me guess, that's not what you meant and need to re-validate yet something else. Yes, you paint flowers and see what you want to see. The view is limited by one's boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 20:11:30 GMT -5
So "both" are of the same substance to you? When I say 'both', I'm referring to seeing and experiencing BOTH manyness and Oneness. The questions of 'substance' does not enter into that. Should it? And if so, why? ...not sure what you're getting at here...?? What ideas do you think I'm 'objectifying' in order to understand, in this case, and how so? Nope, in the case of saying there is manyness and Oneness, without need to slap labels of 'actual' or 'illusive' on either, there's no sense there of 'wanting' to see things a particular way...kinda the opposite actually. I'd say the overlay of 'illusion' or 'actual' added onto "Many" or "One", is more about 'wanting' to see things a certain way...perhaps it could be better said, 'needing' to see things a certain way. Yes. Keep in mind, that applies equally to you as it does to me. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 7, 2014 20:15:36 GMT -5
The natural state isn't a happening. I"m speaking of 'the happening' UG is referring to here: UG: this cannot be brought about through any effort of yours; it just happens. And why it happens to one individual and not another, I don't know... It happened to me... whatever you do in the direction of whatever you are after -- the pursuit or search for truth or reality -- takes you away from your own very natural state, in which you always are. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3761/daily-discussion#ixzz3Cf17rKXJIf the experiencer chooses to interpret the happening differently than UG and is intent on living that belief, the effort of the choosing being lived will take effort to change.. if the experiencer exercises volition and 'lets go' of interpretations, volition is the catalyst of change.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 20:31:05 GMT -5
what I'm trying to get at is very subtle. U.G. was humoring his audience by saying that something happened to him. Nothing happened to him, but to the questioners, it seemed as though it did, so he went along with their characterization. Something happened to U.G., but nothing happened to U.G. I don't get why it matters whether we day something did happen or nothing happened. Fact is, there's an important difference. (If freedom is valued). Something fell away, thus something shifted/changed. I see no problem in equating change (an idea that was there, falling away), with "happening". It's the same point from the beginning of the thread: the natural state is, and anything from the perspective of or expressed relative to an individuation just obscures that. You keep interpreting U.G.'s quotes from a personal perspective and that completely rearranges them. The falling away is only an appearance to a perspective, while the natural state always simply is, regardless of the appearance of the perspective or any qualities of that appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 20:37:15 GMT -5
Volition is nothing more than an interpretation.
The absence of volition is the absence of that interpretation.
|
|
we'll see 
what I'm trying to get at is very subtle.
