|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 22:53:59 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". From the personal perspective we have a (profound) transformation. From the impersonal perspective nothing (really) happened. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 23:02:21 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". From the personal perspective we have a (profound) transformation. From the impersonal perspective nothing (really) happened. This strikes me as TMT, but imo the source of it is the call that figgles made for your no-brainer explanation on context: .. strictly speaking, doesn't "the impersonal" implicate the absence of perspective? So, I'm taking a lick here at the pointer of "impersonal perspective".  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 23:15:35 GMT -5
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.. Sounds like circular reasoning: the fact that the expereincer can exercise volition proves that the experiencer can exercise volition.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 23:18:24 GMT -5
Volition is nothing more than an interpretation. The absence of volition is the absence of that interpretation. Yeah, but to Tzu, there is no absence of volition, there is only absence of recognition of volition, i.e. volition is truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 7, 2014 23:27:24 GMT -5
From the personal perspective we have a (profound) transformation. From the impersonal perspective nothing (really) happened. This strikes me as TMT, but imo the source of it is the call that figgles made for your no-brainer explanation on context: .. strictly speaking, doesn't "the impersonal" implicate the absence of perspective? So, I'm taking a lick here at the pointer of "impersonal perspective". Maybe I've missed the recent dwaddling contest. But I think I've always used the word perspective or vantage point. How else are you going to describe it? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 7, 2014 23:37:23 GMT -5
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. Maybe the problemo is that it's not believed that the natural state is the most desirable. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 8, 2014 0:14:46 GMT -5
My background worthless
UG: My life story goes up to a point, and then it stops -- there is no more biography after that.
The two biographers who are interested in writing my biography have two different approaches. One says that what I did -- the sadhana (spiritual exercises), education, the whole background -- put me there. I say it was in spite of all that. The other biographer isn't much interested in my statement 'in spite of', because there isn't much material for him to write a big volume. They are more interested in that. The publishers too are interested in that kind of thing. That is very natural because you are operating in a field where the cause and effect relationship always operates -- that is why you are interested in finding out the cause, how this kind of thing happened. So, we are back where we started, square number one: we are still concerned with 'how'.
My background is worthless: it can't be a model for anybody, because your background is unique. Every event in your life is something unique in its own way. Your conditions, your environment, your background -- the whole thing is different. Every event in your life is different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 8, 2014 1:02:21 GMT -5
U.G. visits Ramana Maharshi
UG: Can one be free sometimes and not free sometimes?
Ramana: Either you are free, or you are not free at all.
UG: (thinking to himself: You are supposed to be a liberated man!) Can you give me what you have?
Ramana: *stare*
UG: I am asking, whatever you have, can you give it to me?
Ramana: I can give you, but can you take it?
UG: *stare*
(thinking to himself: If there is any individual in this world who can take it, it is me, because I have done so much sadhana, seven years of sadhana. He can think that I can't take it, but I can take it. If I can't take it, who can take it? How arrogant he is! Why can't I take it, whatever it is? What is it that he has? What is that state that all those people - - Buddha, Jesus and the whole gang -- were in? Ramana is in that state -- supposed to be, I don't know -- but that chap is like me, a human being. How is he different from me? What others say or what he is saying is of no importance to me; anybody can do what he is doing. What is there? He can't be very much different from me. He was also born from parents. He has his own particular ideas about the whole business. Some people say something happened to him, but how is he different from me? What is there: What is that state? I must find out what that state is. Nobody can give that state; I am on my own. I have to go on this uncharted sea without a compass, without a boat, with not even a raft to take me. I am going to find out for myself what the state is in which that man is.)
Ramana: There are no steps leading you to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 8, 2014 5:16:13 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. Volition is a description of what is experienced, as in when you ask friends over for a celebration, and.. some choose to show-up, and some don't, volition/freewill sources the choices.. now, some people choose 'no volition' as their description because they don't get to keep this physical manifestation forever, thinking 'that' proves no volition because they don't get their way.. When people stop using the word volition, they will have used volition to make that choice.. the actuality being described with the word 'volition' still happens.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 8, 2014 9:59:00 GMT -5
This strikes me as TMT, but imo the source of it is the call that figgles made for your no-brainer explanation on context: .. strictly speaking, doesn't "the impersonal" implicate the absence of perspective? So, I'm taking a lick here at the pointer of "impersonal perspective". Maybe I've missed the recent dwaddling contest. But I think I've always used the word perspective or vantage point. How else are you going to describe it? The absence of perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 8, 2014 10:01:27 GMT -5
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. Maybe the problemo is that it's not believed that the natural state is the most desirable.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 8, 2014 10:13:34 GMT -5
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. Volition is a description of what is experienced, as in when you ask friends over for a celebration, and.. some choose to show-up, and some don't, volition/freewill sources the choices.. now, some people choose 'no volition' as their description because they don't get to keep this physical manifestation forever, thinking 'that' proves no volition because they don't get their way.. When people stop using the word volition, they will have used volition to make that choice.. the actuality being described with the word 'volition' still happens.. I can agree with all of that, but it's important to note that I think we are using the word to mean something different than many others here. for me, and I think you too, the word 'volition' simply means, the experience of 'choosing freely'....choosing absent a sense of being limited. We are not adding any other layers or levels of ideation to that...we are not adding on an assessment that asks, "Is the choice REALLY made freely..does the choice REALLY occur outside of or beyond the fundamental Isness that underscores and encompasses the totality of existence?" Whereas, when the term is used in nondual speak, there's a whole 'nother level of ideation involved beyond the present moment happening/experience of a choice, absent a sense of limitation. In nondual speak, 'volition' takes into account conditioning, a fundamental non-separation to all appearances and all happenings, and involves a mental division that hinges upon a sense of importance, between what is deemed to be illusion vs. what is deemed to be actual...what is fundamentally true vs. what is fundamentally false. Thus, the term "Voltion" as it's used in nondual speak, is laden with a meaning that goes far beyond a description of a present moment, face value happening or experience. There's a whole story that goes on behind it, and it's a story that is fueled by a sense of importance being assigned to knowing what is 'actually' happening vs. what is simply happening/being experienced at face value. And while I can don, (and have at one point in my life insisted upon donning) the perspective where I too can see volition from that vantage point where true and false, actual vs. illusion is of importance, there's no longer the propensity for that. (hehe..some will cringe as they read this..but) It's the difference between having feet firmly planted at 'no mountain' vs. coming full circle. AT full circle, both perspectives can be seen, and there is a fundamental seamless to the entirety of experience, but there's no longer any 'pull' to adhere to a perspective that takes us beyond the present moment of experience. Thus, the idea of no volition no longer has the essence of 'truthiness' or sense of importance that it once did. Am I correct Tzu, that like me, you also at one point in your life were seeing predominantly from the 'no mountain' vantage point? I seem to recall reading that at one time..? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 8, 2014 10:38:39 GMT -5
"Until you have the courage to blast me, all that I am saying, and all gurus, you will remain a cultist with photographs, rituals, birthday celebrations and the like." U.G.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 8, 2014 10:51:03 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.  No worries, dear figgles. You seem to want to validate realization from your mind and are perfectly free to do so. Figs wants to maintain individuation and to see things in any way the personal perspective wants to see them at the time (i.e., Fig's certain way), and doesn't seem willing/desirous to back up through the boundary and see the individuated perspective for what it is, a mere object in awareness. I dub thee Queen Wiggly Figgly of the Hook! |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 8, 2014 11:19:39 GMT -5
No worries, dear figgles. You seem to want to validate realization from your mind and are perfectly free to do so. Actually, there's an absence of a sense of 'wanting to' validate anything. And in terms of absences, it's one that makes a world of difference. Again, 'wanting to' maintain something or do something or see things in a particular way, is no longer the case. It was at one point, but that's dropped away. When it was there, I very much insisted (as you do) upon saying that the perspective of backing up through the boundary to see the individuated perspective for what it is, was 'truth'. When the wanting to see things a certain way falls away, there is JUST THIS. No need to say much 'about' it, because 'just this' at face value, is perfectly fine. You seem to think it's important to see from the 'backed up' vantage point where the individuated perspective is seen for what it is. What's behind that sense of importance? And can you see that there may be a point where that sense of importance falls away? & if so, can you see how within that falling away, there would be no sense of 'wanting' to see things in any particular way? I have seen that, and I can still see that. Perspectives can be donned, and then let go. But no, you are correct, there is no longer any 'Desire' to see solely from that perspective. When the desire goes, individuated perspective happens, or not, and there's no judgment anymore that arises regarding that.  |
|
what I'm trying to get at is very subtle.
