|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 6, 2014 14:02:43 GMT -5
but as U.G. says, there's no reason to talk about it, the talking just happens. Right. So according to what he says, he might as well just be saying 'blah-blah-blah' in terms of the impact upon enlightenment words might have. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3760/daily-quotes#ixzz3CYzkW5nwIn the quote on this thread he talks about seeking 'taking you away from Self' and in the quote above he talks about enlightenment happening in spite of seeking...also of 'the search is always in the wrong direction', and this: "What prevents what is there from expressing itself in its own way, is the search." Is it a stretch to equate 'that which prevents' with 'an obstacle to'? [/quote]Well, you also used the term "crap shoot". What was written doesn't seem to me to account for that distinction in the slightest.[/quote] The distinction is irrelevant to the conversation we're having. UG says there 'it just happens'...let's take crap shoot and random out then, and leave it that if the other words are muddling things. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 6, 2014 14:21:32 GMT -5
but as U.G. says, there's no reason to talk about it, the talking just happens. Right. So according to what he says, he might as well just be saying 'blah-blah-blah' in terms of enlightenment happening. He doesn't say anything about "enlightenment happening". What U.G. says is said. That's all. 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. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3760/daily-quotes#ixzz3CYzkW5nwIn the quote on this thread he talks about seeking 'taking you away from Self' and in the quote above he talks about enlightenment happening in spite of seeking...also of 'the search is always in the wrong direction', and this: "What prevents what is there from expressing itself in its own way, is the search." Is it a stretch to equate 'that which prevents' with 'an obstacle to'? He doesn't objectify a separate "Self" that can be discovered the way that you do, and he never refers to anything at all like "enlightenment" as you have. The "natural state" is, and the obstacle is to the expression of that. One is what one is and is never not here and now. There's no going in search of that. The distinction is irrelevant to the conversation we're having. I disagree. What distinction do you think that I'm referring to? Do you think that "random" and "acausal" refer to the same idea? UG says there 'it just happens'...let's take crap shoot and random out then, and leave it that if the other words are muddling things. Well fine then, if you want to abandon the whole point you were trying to make about "not even seeking detracts" as inapplicable after all, sure. Randomness has nothing to do with what U.G. was quoted as saying. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Sept 6, 2014 17:03:24 GMT -5
From the vantage point of "there is no cause...everything just happens," why even talk about it? You can find quotes from him that say that there's no such thing as enlightenment or that discussion isn't necessary at all. My understanding is that he's talking about it because people found him and proceeded to ask him questions. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Sept 6, 2014 17:17:14 GMT -5
"Each outlet has to be blocked to put you in a corner. You must be choked to death, as it were. Only a real teacher can find that out and tell you, nobody else. Not those people who interpret the texts; all that is totally unrelated. Only such a man can talk. And such a man never encourages you because he knows that if this kind of thing has to happen to somebody, that person will not need the help of anybody. In spite of everything it will happen."
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 7, 2014 10:11:36 GMT -5
Beautifully said!  ..continuing on the tangent of my last post; Do you see any 1-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 2- 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.' 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". 2-You're catching on. Only NOTHING is sacred, and that can only be realized, never understood, no matter how thinly you slice or redefine your words. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 10:27:09 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.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 10:57:06 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.' The evidence of belief is in "seeing" the contradiction. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 11:16:57 GMT -5
There is no 'belief' involved in seeing 'both.' The evidence of belief is in "seeing" the contradiction.[/quote] Yup. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 11:26:27 GMT -5
You can find quotes from him that say that there's no such thing as enlightenment or that discussion isn't necessary at all. My understanding is that he's talking about it because people found him and proceeded to ask him questions. yes, there's plenty of those. This one kinda renders everything he has to say as fodder for the nonsense bucket...which in my estimation, makes it as close to the mark as words can get  ; U.G. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 11:36:41 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. That's why (usually) Niz wasn't addressing the person. 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. The search can end even without the 'happening' having happened. Once it is really understood what the term 'natural state' means and implies (i.e. something you've never lost, something you can never lose no matter what), then the spiritual circus is over. 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. He talks differently to different people. My impression so far, he's more radical with his fellow Indian fellows than with his western fellows. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 11:42:00 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.' I don't think he's talking about 'random'. The 'happening' is neither predetermined nor random. To make sense of this you first have to understand volition. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 11:47:27 GMT -5
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. . 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.Bingo. We are back to volition 101. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 11:54:22 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. 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 certainly has an impact. While it's not necessarily the end of the person, it certainly is the end of the seeker. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2014 12:12:51 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. That's why (usually) Niz wasn't addressing the person. 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. He talks differently to different people. My impression so far, he's more radical with his fellow Indian fellows than with his western fellows. But that 'understanding' can't be merely conceptual, right? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 12:26:30 GMT -5
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. Bingo. We are back to volition 101. Now if only you could get one of these we could move on from groundhog day!  |
|
;
