|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 12:38:11 GMT -5
There is no 'belief' involved in seeing 'both.' The evidence of belief is in "seeing" the contradiction. Yup.  uhm ... well ... you saw the contradiction ... In 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. ... so the evidence is of your belief.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2014 12:51:57 GMT -5
..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. Zackly. The notion of cause is attributed to a personal 'causer' in this case, or to a method or action carried out on a personal level, all of which are impersonal movements. It may mean that if one is willing to look and to see, then seeing may occur, and in that sense pointers are not to be dismissed with the idea that nothing can bring about this seeing, but there is not a volitional person who can choose to do that. That 'seeing' remains in the realm of the impersonal and is an aspect of the movement of the totality. We could say it is uncaused, or that it is caused by everything, or that it is acausal. We cannot say that a person causes it. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 13:38:36 GMT -5
uhm ... well ... you saw the contradiction ... In 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. ... so the evidence is of your belief. I thought you were referring to seeing contradiction in 'both.' No, there's no 'belief' involved in my asking about an apparent contradiction. Just winging a few ideas around is all. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 13:43:36 GMT -5
..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. Yes, I've already agreed that "random" wasn't the best word to use. It just seems to me that if one is intent upon making the point that 'it all just happens', a focus upon behaviors, actions, or really anything at all, that can 'prevent' IT from happening, is a distraction from that point. But again, after reading this particular quote of his, I rest my case on the point I was making; "The saints, saviours, priests, gurus, bhagavans, seers, prophets and philosophers were all wrong, as far as I am concerned. As long as you harbour any hope or faith in these authorities, living or dead, so long this certainty cannot be transmitted to you. This certainty somehow dawns on you when you see for yourself that all of them are wrong. When you see all this for yourself for the first time, you explode. The explosion hits life at a point that has never been touched before. It is absolutely unique. So whatever I may be saying cannot be true for you. The moment you see it for yourself you make what I am saying obsolete and false. All that came before is negated in that fire. You can't come into your own uniqueness unless the whole of human experience is thrown out of your system. It cannot be done through any volition or the help of anything. They you are on you own." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3761/daily-discussion?page=2#ixzz3CencLxgR |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 13:48:20 GMT -5
uhm ... well ... you saw the contradiction ... ... so the evidence is of your belief. I thought you were referring to seeing contradiction in 'both.' No, there's no 'belief' involved in my asking about an apparent contradiction. Just winging a few ideas around is all. A contradiction involves two different ideas in opposition to one another, so if a contradiction is perceived, there is some orientation of truth/falsity toward those ideas, and a belief is nothing more than an idea taken to be true. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 13:50:47 GMT -5
I thought you were referring to seeing contradiction in 'both.' No, there's no 'belief' involved in my asking about an apparent contradiction. Just winging a few ideas around is all. A contradiction involves two different ideas in opposition to one another, so if a contradiction is perceived, there is some orientation of truth/falsity toward those ideas, and a belief is nothing more than an idea taken to be true. Okay. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 13:52:36 GMT -5
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. Yes, I've already agreed that "random" wasn't the best word to use. It just seems to me that if one is intent upon making the point that 'it all just happens', a focus upon behaviors, actions, or really anything at all, that can 'prevent' IT from happening, is a distraction from that point. But again, after reading this particular quote of his, I rest my case on the point I was making; "The saints, saviours, priests, gurus, bhagavans, seers, prophets and philosophers were all wrong, as far as I am concerned. As long as you harbour any hope or faith in these authorities, living or dead, so long this certainty cannot be transmitted to you. This certainty somehow dawns on you when you see for yourself that all of them are wrong. When you see all this for yourself for the first time, you explode. The explosion hits life at a point that has never been touched before. It is absolutely unique. So whatever I may be saying cannot be true for you. The moment you see it for yourself you make what I am saying obsolete and false. All that came before is negated in that fire. You can't come into your own uniqueness unless the whole of human experience is thrown out of your system. It cannot be done through any volition or the help of anything. They you are on you own." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3761/daily-discussion?page=2#ixzz3CencLxgRU.G. spoke, and there was no reason for him to speak other than whatever story a mind would construct involving a series of events that led up to the speaking. If what U.G. is quoted as saying in that paragraph is understood the way U.G. understood it, there would be no question as to why he said it. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 13:56:04 GMT -5
Yes, I've already agreed that "random" wasn't the best word to use. It just seems to me that if one is intent upon making the point that 'it all just happens', a focus upon behaviors, actions, or really anything at all, that can 'prevent' IT from happening, is a distraction from that point. But again, after reading this particular quote of his, I rest my case on the point I was making; "The saints, saviours, priests, gurus, bhagavans, seers, prophets and philosophers were all wrong, as far as I am concerned. As long as you harbour any hope or faith in these authorities, living or dead, so long this certainty cannot be transmitted to you. This certainty somehow dawns on you when you see for yourself that all of them are wrong. When you see all this for yourself for the first time, you explode. The explosion hits life at a point that has never been touched before. It is absolutely unique. So whatever I may be saying cannot be true for you. The moment you see it for yourself you make what I am saying obsolete and false. All that came before is negated in that fire. You can't come into your own uniqueness unless the whole of human experience is thrown out of your system. It cannot be done through any volition or the help of anything. They you are on you own." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3761/daily-discussion?page=2#ixzz3CencLxgRU.G. spoke, and there was no reason for him to speak other than whatever story a mind would construct involving a series of events that led up to the speaking. If what U.G. is quoted as saying in that paragraph is understood the way U.G. understood it, there would be no question as to why he said it.I resonate deeply with that quote..no question as to why he said it. That's why I say, "I rest my case." |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 14:09:00 GMT -5
U.G. spoke, and there was no reason for him to speak other than whatever story a mind would construct involving a series of events that led up to the speaking. If what U.G. is quoted as saying in that paragraph is understood the way U.G. understood it, there would be no question as to why he said it.I resonate deeply with that quote..no question as to why he said it. That's why I say, "I rest my case." That's what "it just happens" or "there is no volition" is pointing to. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 14:12:20 GMT -5
I resonate deeply with that quote..no question as to why he said it. That's why I say, "I rest my case." That's what "it just happens" or "there is no volition" is pointing to. Right. And for me, an assertion that certain behaviors or occurrences can actually stop or prevent "IT" from happening, is an unnecessary detraction from that pointing. Just the way I see things at this moment.  btw....'drop' my case, would be more accurate than saying I 'rest' my case. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 14:16:54 GMT -5
That's what "it just happens" or "there is no volition" is pointing to. Right. And for me, an assertion that certain behaviors or occurrences can actually stop or prevent "IT" from happening, is an unnecessary detraction from that pointing. Just the way I see things at this moment. btw....'drop' my case, would be more accurate than saying I 'rest' my case.  we'll see  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 14:27:34 GMT -5
Right. And for me, an assertion that certain behaviors or occurrences can actually stop or prevent "IT" from happening, is an unnecessary detraction from that pointing. Just the way I see things at this moment. btw....'drop' my case, would be more accurate than saying I 'rest' my case. we'll see Try letting go of waiting to see if your suspicions are true..the ride's a lot more fun that way.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2014 14:28:59 GMT -5
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. Yes, I've already agreed that "random" wasn't the best word to use. It just seems to me that if one is intent upon making the point that 'it all just happens', a focus upon behaviors, actions, or really anything at all, that can 'prevent' IT from happening, is a distraction from that point. But again, after reading this particular quote of his, I rest my case on the point I was making; "The saints, saviours, priests, gurus, bhagavans, seers, prophets and philosophers were all wrong, as far as I am concerned. As long as you harbour any hope or faith in these authorities, living or dead, so long this certainty cannot be transmitted to you. This certainty somehow dawns on you when you see for yourself that all of them are wrong. When you see all this for yourself for the first time, you explode. The explosion hits life at a point that has never been touched before. It is absolutely unique. So whatever I may be saying cannot be true for you. The moment you see it for yourself you make what I am saying obsolete and false. All that came before is negated in that fire. You can't come into your own uniqueness unless the whole of human experience is thrown out of your system. It cannot be done through any volition or the help of anything. They you are on you own." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3761/daily-discussion?page=2#ixzz3CencLxgRCertainly you see how a happening can just happen that prevents another happening from just happening? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 14:32:48 GMT -5
Yes, I've already agreed that "random" wasn't the best word to use. It just seems to me that if one is intent upon making the point that 'it all just happens', a focus upon behaviors, actions, or really anything at all, that can 'prevent' IT from happening, is a distraction from that point. But again, after reading this particular quote of his, I rest my case on the point I was making; "The saints, saviours, priests, gurus, bhagavans, seers, prophets and philosophers were all wrong, as far as I am concerned. As long as you harbour any hope or faith in these authorities, living or dead, so long this certainty cannot be transmitted to you. This certainty somehow dawns on you when you see for yourself that all of them are wrong. When you see all this for yourself for the first time, you explode. The explosion hits life at a point that has never been touched before. It is absolutely unique. So whatever I may be saying cannot be true for you. The moment you see it for yourself you make what I am saying obsolete and false. All that came before is negated in that fire. You can't come into your own uniqueness unless the whole of human experience is thrown out of your system. It cannot be done through any volition or the help of anything. They you are on you own." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3761/daily-discussion?page=2#ixzz3CencLxgRCertainly you see how a happening can just happen that prevents another happening from just happening? 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? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 14:38:48 GMT -5
Certainly you see how a happening can just happen that prevents another happening from just happening? 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. |
|
we'll see