|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2014 8:26:59 GMT -5
Copyright
"My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody." - U.G.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2014 8:41:56 GMT -5
Acasual - it just happens
UG: You see, I maintain that -- I don't know, whatever you call this; I don't like to use the words 'enlightenment,' 'freedom,' 'moksha' or 'liberation'; all these words are loaded words, they have a connotation of their own -- 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.
Q: So, it happened to you?
UG: It happened to me.
Q: When, Sir?
UG: In my forty-ninth year. But 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. It's not something you can acquire, attain or accomplish as a result of your effort -- that is why I use the word `acausal'. It has no cause, but somehow the search come to an end.
Q: You think, Sir, that it is not the result of the search? I ask because I have heard that you studied philosophy, that you were associated with religious people ...
UG: You see, the search takes you away from yourself -- it is in the opposite direction -- it has absolutely no relation.
Q: In spite of it, it has happened, not because of it?
UG: In spite of it -- yes, that's the word. All that you do makes it impossible for what already is there to express itself. That is why I call this 'your natural state'. You're always in that state. What prevents what is there from expressing itself in its own way is the search. The search is always in the wrong direction, so all that you consider very profound, all that you consider sacred, is a contamination in that consciousness. You may not like the word 'contamination', but all that you consider sacred, holy and profound is a contamination. So, there's nothing that you can do. It's not in your hands. I don't like to use the word 'grace', because if you use the word 'grace', the grace of whom? You are not a specially chosen individual; you deserve this, I don't know why. If it were possible for me, I would be able to help somebody. This is something which I can't give, because you have it. Why should I give it to you? It is ridiculous to ask for a thing which you already have.
Q: But I don't feel it, and you do.
UG: No, it is not a question of feeling it, it is not a question of knowing it; you will never know. You have no way of knowing that at all for yourself; it begins to express itself. There is no conscious.... You see, I don't know how to put it. Never does the thought that I am different from anybody come into my consciousness.
Q: Has it been so from the beginning, ever since you became conscious of yourself?
UG: No, I can't say that. I was after something -- like anybody else brought up in the religious atmosphere -- searching for something, pursuing something. So, to answer that question is not easy, because I'll have to go into the whole background. Maybe it comes, I don't know. (Laughs)
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2014 8:49:52 GMT -5
Beautifully said!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 6, 2014 8:59:34 GMT -5
Beautifully said! Describing the sacred as contamination might be read as provocative, but it's a great example of duality. A great example of how a focus on one end of a spectrum inevitably leads to the other extreme. ... and while noone who is on a search is going to like the idea that every step is in the wrong direction, the inescapable fact is that the purpose of a search is to find, and what it is that the seeker is looking for?  It seems so reductive, but it really is no more complicated than that!  |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 6, 2014 9:07:02 GMT -5
U.G.: "An enlightened man can never have sex because he cannot reproduce another one like him. Once an interviewer on television asked me, Can't we take your sperm and make a woman pregnant? I answered, There is no sperm anymore. Anandamayi stopped having her periods when she was twenty-one, after whatever had happened to her. She was a nice lady. She was a genuine article."
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2014 9:07:35 GMT -5
Beautifully said! Describing the sacred as contamination might be read as provocative, but it's a great example of duality. A great example of how a focus on one end of a spectrum inevitably leads to the other extreme. ... and while noone who is on a search is going to like the idea that every step is in the wrong direction, the inescapable fact is that the purpose of a search is to find, and what it is that the seeker is looking for? It seems so reductive, but it really is no more complicated than that! Seekers genuinely hate practice curmudgeons like U.G. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 6, 2014 9:08:49 GMT -5
Describing the sacred as contamination might be read as provocative, but it's a great example of duality. A great example of how a focus on one end of a spectrum inevitably leads to the other extreme. ... and while noone who is on a search is going to like the idea that every step is in the wrong direction, the inescapable fact is that the purpose of a search is to find, and what it is that the seeker is looking for? It seems so reductive, but it really is no more complicated than that! Seekers genuinely hate practice curmudgeons like U.G. (** walks off to meditate **) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 6, 2014 10:47:02 GMT -5
Beautifully said! Thanks for the sane focus here.  The typical reaction to such ideas is no doubt to lose interest in it because it doesn't taste the slightest bit carroty, but this is what needs to be seen. It's true that it 'just happens' because it's not about cause/effect at all, and yet if there's the willingness to look and to see, it will happen. Peeps can't manufacture that willingness, which is why it's not in the realm of cause/effect. It's about clarity and the understanding that informs mind through that clarity, it's just not about finding what one is seeking but rather returning to what UG calls the natural state. It's about ending the seeking, which has been happening in various forms since childhood. One cannot choose to end the seeking, which is another attempt to cause, and another form of seeking. UG gets pretty radical, and I've accused him of overstating, not because what he says isn't true, but only because misunderstanding seems inevitable. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 6, 2014 11:34:47 GMT -5
Beautifully said! Thanks for the sane focus here. The typical reaction to such ideas is no doubt to lose interest in it because it doesn't taste the slightest bit carroty, but this is what needs to be seen. It's true that it 'just happens' because it's not about cause/effect at all, and yet if there's the willingness to look and to see, it will happen. Peeps can't manufacture that willingness, which is why it's not in the realm of cause/effect. It's about clarity and the understanding that informs mind through that clarity, it's just not about finding what one is seeking but rather returning to what UG calls the natural state. It's about ending the seeking, which has been happening in various forms since childhood. One cannot choose to end the seeking, which is another attempt to cause, and another form of seeking. UG gets pretty radical, and I've accused him of overstating, not because what he says isn't true, but only because misunderstanding seems inevitable. If it's all 'just happening' then my questions is, why even mention the futility of the search and that the search has no relation to your very own natural state? I mean, it's not like someone can read that and then go, "Oh, okay, I"m gonna stop searching and seeking then," and as a result, have that happen. I find it interesting how he separates out "the searching" from that which he deems to be 'yourself.' ("the pursuit or search for truth or reality...takes you away from your own very natural state, in which you always are....the search takes you away from yourself...in the opposite direction..it has no relation") interesting too, that he believes there is anything under the sun that could occur that has no "relation to self." If the search has absolutely nothing to do with enlightenment and there is no cause to that, I find it interesting that there is something in his estimation that can actually 'prevent' or detract away from it. If the search takes one in the opposite direction of Self, then essentially he is saying that there is something that can impact enlightenment (albeit negatively). His stance on this seems to me to be very 'dualistic.' If it's all 'just happening' and all is One, then the searching and seeking does not fall outside of that. A sleeping person then, could stumble upon awakening searching for it, just as easily as he could stumble upon it by not searching for it. If it's truly just a random 'crap shoot' then nothing (not even seeking) detracts from the possiblity. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 6, 2014 11:58:49 GMT -5
Beautifully said! ..continuing on the tangent of my last post; Do you see any contradiction in the fact that he says "enlightenment has no cause," but then seems on the other hand to say that there is something that can prevent it? Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3760/daily-quotes#ixzz3CYU9tmPiIn this quote, he actually uses the terms 'in spite of' which clearly indicates he sees seeking as a deterrent. He then goes even further though, to state that seeking/practice 'makes it impossible.' Again, if an occurrence is a total and complete crap shoot, then there is neither something that can cause it, nor something that can prevent it. In the context of 'it's all just happening', isn't seeking also part and parcel of that happening? Seems He's separating out, 'seeking' from 'it's all just happening.' |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 6, 2014 12:35:47 GMT -5
Thanks for the sane focus here. The typical reaction to such ideas is no doubt to lose interest in it because it doesn't taste the slightest bit carroty, but this is what needs to be seen. It's true that it 'just happens' because it's not about cause/effect at all, and yet if there's the willingness to look and to see, it will happen. Peeps can't manufacture that willingness, which is why it's not in the realm of cause/effect. It's about clarity and the understanding that informs mind through that clarity, it's just not about finding what one is seeking but rather returning to what UG calls the natural state. It's about ending the seeking, which has been happening in various forms since childhood. One cannot choose to end the seeking, which is another attempt to cause, and another form of seeking. UG gets pretty radical, and I've accused him of overstating, not because what he says isn't true, but only because misunderstanding seems inevitable. If it's all 'just happening' then my questions is, why even mention the futility of the search and that the search has no relation to your very own natural state? I mean, it's not like someone can read that and then go, "Oh, okay, I"m gonna stop searching and seeking then," and as a result, have that happen. I can say from personal subjective experience that hearing this expressed about practice can put the practices into a completely new light. If your practice can't survive hearing someone call it futile, especially without a negative reaction to what they wrote or said, then really, what is the practice all about to begin with? I find it interesting how he separates out "the searching" from that which he deems to be 'yourself.' ("the pursuit or search for truth or reality...takes you away from your own very natural state, in which you always are....the search takes you away from yourself...in the opposite direction..it has no relation") interesting too, that he believes there is anything under the sun that could occur that has no "relation to self." If the search has absolutely nothing to do with enlightenment and there is no cause to that, I find it interesting that there is something in his estimation that can actually 'prevent' or detract away from it. If the search takes one in the opposite direction of Self, then essentially he is saying that there is something that can impact enlightenment (albeit negatively). "Enlightenment" is only subject to "negative impact" if you've associated it with an individual and set it up as some sort of personal achievement. His stance on this seems to me to be very 'dualistic.' If it's all 'just happening' and all is One, then the searching and seeking does not fall outside of that. A sleeping person then, could stumble upon awakening searching for it, just as easily as he could stumble upon it by not searching for it. If it's truly just a random 'crap shoot' then nothing (not even seeking) detracts from the possiblity. Randomness is a conceptual overlay, a conclusion you're reading into what's written there. What he's referring to is neither random nor predetermined ... that dichotomy doesn't apply, but if you consider life in the context of the division of the world and the person, then life is both pre-determined AND chaotic (random). You're hearing "random" from U.G. because that's your filter. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 6, 2014 12:45:23 GMT -5
I can say from personal subjective experience that hearing this expressed about practice can put the practices into a completely new light. Yeah, that's not my quibble. Not what I meant. I'm referring to the fact that he says seeking 'prevents' enlightenment..makes it "impossible." [/quote]Randomness is a conceptual overlay, a conclusion you're reading into what's written there. What he's referring to is neither random nor predetermined ... that dichotomy doesn't apply, but if you consider life in the context of the division of the world and the person, then life is both pre-determined AND chaotic (random). You're hearing "random" from U.G. because that's your filter.[/quote] Don't get hung up on my use of the word 'random'..i'm simply referring to his idea that it's all just happening...no cause & effect. And fwiw, I'm only invoking my own veiwpoint here to say I see a contradiction in what he's saying, I've not made any comment on whether I see life as being either pre-determined or chaotic, or something else. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 6, 2014 13:02:49 GMT -5
I can say from personal subjective experience that hearing this expressed about practice can put the practices into a completely new light. Yeah, that's not my quibble. You asked this: why even mention the futility of the search and that the search has no relation to your very own natural state? And the answer is, to get the attention of the seeker and get him to see the nature of the search. That's why. And the answer was from direct personal experience. Do you see some contradiction in this? Not what I meant. I'm referring to the fact that he says seeking 'prevents' enlightenment..makes it "impossible." No, that's what you wrote, not what U.G. is quoted as saying. Randomness is a conceptual overlay, a conclusion you're reading into what's written there. What he's referring to is neither random nor predetermined ... that dichotomy doesn't apply, but if you consider life in the context of the division of the world and the person, then life is both pre-determined AND chaotic (random). You're hearing "random" from U.G. because that's your filter. Don't get hung up on my use of the word 'random'..i'm simply referring to his idea that it's all just happening...no cause & effect. And fwiw, I'm only invoking my own veiwpoint here to say I see a contradiction in what he's saying, I've not made any comment on whether I see life as being either pre-determined or chaotic, or something else. The distinction between the words "random" and "acausal" might seem subtle to you but it's one with a very very big difference, and yes, I understand that you didn't write about the dichotomy in a general sense -- I introduced that idea into the conversation and I did so for very good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 6, 2014 13:44:41 GMT -5
And the answer is, to get the attention of the seeker and get him to see the nature of the search. That's why. And the answer was from direct personal experience. OKay, but so what if the seeker sees the nature of the search? According to UG, that would have no impact (because nothing does) upon whether enlightenment happens or not. From the vantage point of "there is no cause...everything just happens," why even talk about it? Yes, I know, but i was not referring to 'negative' in the sense of a value judgment that says enlightenment is good or bad, I was referring to negative in the sense of something being an 'obstacle' or 'preventing' enlightenment, which he seems to be saying, seeking is. No, if I chose to, I could go well into that distinction, however, as I said, I simply used the word there (perhaps wrongly) to equate, "it all just happens." That's why I said, 'don't get hung up on it.'  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 6, 2014 13:53:13 GMT -5
And the answer is, to get the attention of the seeker and get him to see the nature of the search. That's why. And the answer was from direct personal experience. OKay, but so what if the seeker sees the nature of the search? According to UG, that would have no impact (because nothing does) upon whether enlightenment happens or not. From the vantage point of "there is no cause...everything just happens," why even talk about it? It seems to make a big difference to the seeker (my answer, not U.G.'s), but as U.G. says, there's no reason to talk about it, the talking just happens. You see a contradiction in this? Yes, I know, but i was not referring to 'negative' in the sense of a value judgment that says enlightenment is good or bad, I was referring to negative in the sense of something being an 'obstacle' or 'preventing' enlightenment, which he seems to be saying, seeking is. U.G. is not quoted as saying that seeking is an obstacle to enlightenment. That's your re-wording of the quote, and it's not trivial, because it re-casts it into a personal perspective. The meaning is completely lost, completely different. U.G. didn't say that. No, if I chose to, I could go well into that distinction, however, as I said, I simply used the word there (perhaps wrongly) to equate, "it all just happens." That's why I said, 'don't get hung up on it.' Well, you also used the term "crap shoot". What was written doesn't seem to me to account for that distinction in the slightest. |
|
