|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 20:41:57 GMT -5
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." Yeah. Nice. That ties the absence of separation in with acausality, purrrrfectly.  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 7, 2014 20:50:47 GMT -5
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." Hmm...that's the most sense I've heard from a guru around here especially considering it's medium to long in length, hah. *shrug* -- doesn't mean it's the trufe. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 20:50:57 GMT -5
Apparently, you only understand the ideas if you "see" (objectify) them both. What ideas do you think I'm 'objectifying' in order to understand, in this case, and how so? Perspective is, literally, an objectification, as perspective regards what it is on and so encapsulates it. "Oneness" is an objectification, as is "manyness", as are each of the individuations that comprise the "manyness". Each of those individuations is a perspective. You can claim that your "Oneness" isn't a thing, and thereby doesn't reference an object, but if there is a perspective on that "Oneness" that sees "Oneness" and itself, objectification comes along for the ride. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 20:59:04 GMT -5
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. You've missed the point I was trying make, I think...which is: Once the 'natural state' is no longer being obscured, it matters not what terms are used to talk about that. There is a difference in the way life is experienced from one to the other, and beyond that, who cares whether it is said that something happened or didn't happened. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 21:04:11 GMT -5
Volition is nothing more than an interpretation. The absence of volition is the absence of that interpretation. The moment you've said, "volition is not" you've also made an interpretation. When the entire issue of volition is no longer an issue, and there's nothing to say about it either way, then you'll know there's no longer an interpretation happening. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 21:09:04 GMT -5
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. You've missed the pointing I was trying making, I think...which is: Once the 'natural state' is no longer being obscured, it matters not what terms are used to talk about that. There is a difference in the way life is experienced from one to the other, and beyond that, who cares whether it is said that something happened or didn't happened.  you tell me ... it's your rodeo! edit: also, what does U.G. say, if anything, about this "difference in experience"? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 21:14:21 GMT -5
Volition is nothing more than an interpretation. The absence of volition is the absence of that interpretation. The moment you've said, "volition is not" you've also made an interpretation. You're interpreting an absence as the presence of absence, and I didn't write anything of the form "volition is not". When the entire issue of volition is no longer an issue, and there's nothing to say about it either way, then you'll know there's no longer an interpretation happening. no need to lecture me on the absence of interpretation ... I'm not the one that brought the topic of volition into the conversation. You did that.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 21:38:25 GMT -5
You're interpreting an absence as the presence of absence, and I didn't write anything of the form "volition is not". Your words were 'absence of volition.' The very use of the word volition in that case, indicates the presence of the idea of volition. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 21:41:08 GMT -5
you tell me ... it's your rodeo! Apparently YOU care, as you're the one quibbling over the idea of something happening or not. Who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 22:11:22 GMT -5
*My mission, if there is any, should be, from now on, to debunk every statement I have made. If you take seriously and try to use or apply what I have said, you will be in danger.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 22:17:05 GMT -5
*My mission, if there is any, should be, from now on, to debunk every statement I have made. If you take seriously and try to use or apply what I have said, you will be in danger. This is definitely directed toward a person. There is no ambiguity about the context in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 22:35:52 GMT -5
That's why (usually) Niz wasn't addressing the person. 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. 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? While there will be still a sense of something not being quite right, the mere conceptual understanding should at least follow a loss of interest in the spiritual circus (levels and layers and degrees). So if there's still an interest in enhancing one's spiritual resume, I'd say it hasn't even been understood conceptually. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 22:46:42 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. 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. Right, it's not a personal (i.e. partial) perspective, which means it's forever out of reach for the person. It's not in your hands, as U.G. says. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 22:48:29 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#ixzz3CencLxgRAlrighty. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 22:50:18 GMT -5
That's what "it just happens" or "there is no volition" is pointing to. Just the way I see things at this moment.  btw....'drop' my case, would be more accurate than saying I 'rest' my case. There you come with your case again.  |
|
you tell me ... it's your rodeo!
