|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 4, 2014 4:39:44 GMT -5
This casts the expectation that someday everyone will have a perpetugasm together in some great mystical worldwide bunnyshift as rather silly. It's interesting to watch the correspondence in which pointers are taken as ideas to be either intellectualized or used as the basis for the description of a subjective feeling experience. The ones doing the thinking about and describing feelings based on the pointers are told to throw them away, and the dialog becomes about illuminating the false reasoning that is, sometimes, quite deftly applied in order to construct a plausible and seductive interpretation of what the pointers mean. The bottom line in every dialog is, however, that those interpretations that are the subject of dismantling, always assign some sort of definite meaning to what can only ever be indirectly expressed. That U.G. quote about the person reminds me of this Niz quote about teacher and student. Now if someone who is still really a student takes on the role of teacher, I wouldn't expect the exact same dynamic that Niz relates there, regardless of whatever characteristics might be ascribed to the one interacting with the false teacher. Both U.G. and Niz, describe someone still engaged in the effort to change themselves as a student. If someone is still engaged in an effort to change themselves, but disclaims that, what role have they taken on? You mean Ascension into the 5th dimension? yeah yeah, that's exactly what I meant to write, thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 11, 2014 10:28:27 GMT -5
Why do you dream?
UG: Why do you dream? You have the feeling that there is somebody, a self, who is running the show of your perceptions, translating what is seen, heard and felt, directing the eyes, saying "This is beautiful; that is ugly. I will look at this; I will not look at that." You cannot control like that -- you think that you can; but the camera is taking pictures all the time, and the tape recorder is recording all the time, whether you look at one thing for a longer time than you look at something else. Then, when the body is at rest or your thoughts are in a passive state, these things begin to come up - one bit of this, one bit of that - it creates some kind of a mosaic and you begin to dream. When that 'somebody' is not there, there is nothing which says "I was asleep, I was dreaming, and now I am awake."
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2014 20:28:20 GMT -5
You cannot be conscious of your helplessness
UG: It is the repetitive mechanism of thought that is wearing you out. So, what is it that you can do about it? -- that's all that you can ask. That's the one and the only question, and any answer that I or anybody gives adds momentum to that movement of thought. What is it that you can do about it? Not one thing. It's too strong: it has the momentum of millions of years. You are totally helpless, and you cannot be conscious of that helplessness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 26, 2014 20:29:50 GMT -5
You cannot be aware
UG: "If you practice any system of mind control, automatically the 'you' is there, and through this it is continuing. Have you ever meditated, really seriously meditated? Or do you know anyone who has? Nobody does. If you seriously meditate, you'll wind up in the loony bin. Nor can you practice mindfulness trying to be aware every moment of your life. You cannot be aware; you and awareness cannot co-exist. If you could be in a state of awareness for one second by the clock, once in your life, the continuity would be snapped, the illusion of the experiencing structure, the 'you', would collapse, and everything would fall into the natural rhythm. In this state you do not know what you are looking at -- that is awareness. If you recognize what you are looking at, you are there, again experiencing the old, what you know."
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 8, 2014 13:00:55 GMT -5
Spiritual experiences are of no value to the organism
UG: The body is not at all interested in psychological or spiritual matters. Your highly praised spiritual experiences are of no value to the organism. In fact they are painful to the body. Love, compassion, ahimsa, understanding, bliss, all these things which religion and psychology have placed before man, are only adding to the strain of the body. All cultures, whether of the Orient or of the Occident, have created this lopsided situation for mankind and turned man into a neurotic individual. Instead of being what you are -- unkind -- you pursue the fictitious opposite put before you -- kindness. To emphasize what we SHOULD be only causes strain, giving momentum to what we already in fact are. In nature we find the animals at one time violent and brutal, at others kind and generous. For them there is no contradiction. But man is told he must be always good, kind, loving, and never greedy or violent. We emphasize only one side of reality, thus distorting the whole picture. This trying to have one without the other is creating tremendous strain, sorrow, pain, and misery for man. Man must face the necessary violence in life; you must kill to live, one form of life thrives on another. And yet you have condemned killing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 30, 2014 9:00:31 GMT -5
Compassion
UG: The natural state is a state of great sensitivity - but this is a physical sensitivity of the senses, not some kind of emotional compassion or tenderness for others. There is compassion only in the sense that there are no 'others' for me, and so there is no separation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 11:52:47 GMT -5
CompassionUG: The natural state is a state of great sensitivity - but this is a physical sensitivity of the senses, not some kind of emotional compassion or tenderness for others. There is compassion only in the sense that there are no 'others' for me, and so there is no separation. huh? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 1, 2014 10:45:42 GMT -5
CompassionUG: The natural state is a state of great sensitivity - but this is a physical sensitivity of the senses, not some kind of emotional compassion or tenderness for others. There is compassion only in the sense that there are no 'others' for me, and so there is no separation. huh? Okay, here's the full quote: |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 3, 2014 5:50:39 GMT -5
CompassionUG: The natural state is a state of great sensitivity - but this is a physical sensitivity of the senses, not some kind of emotional compassion or tenderness for others. There is compassion only in the sense that there are no 'others' for me, and so there is no separation. huh? U.G. relates the virtue of compassion to the absence of separation. He doesn't abandon the virtue altogether, he just suggests that it's something other than support for a victim story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2014 6:28:28 GMT -5
U.G. relates the virtue of compassion to the absence of separation. He doesn't abandon the virtue altogether, he just suggests that it's something other than support for a victim story. thanks, yes, and life has recently shown me examples of just that |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 9, 2014 9:43:56 GMT -5
The Co-coordinator (1)
UG: Is there in you an entity which you call the 'I' or the 'mind' or the 'self'? Is there a co- coordinator who is co-coordinating what you are looking at with what you are listening to, what you are smelling with what you are tasting, and so on? Or is there anything which links together the various sensations originating from a single sense - the flow of impulses from the eyes, for example? Actually, there is always a gap between any two sensations. The co-coordinator bridges that gap: he establishes himself as an illusion of continuity.
In the natural state there is no entity who is co-coordinating the messages from the different senses. Each sense is functioning independently in its own way. When there is a demand from outside which makes it necessary to co-ordinate one or two or all of the senses and come up with a response, still there is no co-coordinator, but there is a temporary state of co- ordination. There is no continuity; when the demand has been met, again there is only the uncoordinated, disconnected, disjointed functioning of the senses. This is always the case. Once the continuity is blown apart - not that it was ever there; but the illusory continuity - it's finished once and for all.
Can this make any sense to you? It cannot. All that you know lies within the framework of your experience, which is of thought. This state is not an experience. I am only trying to give you a 'feel' of it, which is, unfortunately, misleading.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 11, 2014 11:50:45 GMT -5
The Co-coordinator (2)
UG: When there is no co-coordinator, there is no linking of sensations, there is no translating of sensations; they stay pure and simple sensations. I do not even know that they are sensations. I may look at you as you are talking. The eyes will focus on your mouth because that is what is moving, and the ears will receive the sound vibrations. There is nothing inside which links up the two and says that it is you talking. I may be looking at a spring bubbling out of the earth and hear the water, but there is nothing to say that the noise being heard is the sound of water, or that that sound is in any way connected with what I am seeing. I may be looking at my foot, but nothing says that this is my foot. When I am walking, I see my feet moving - it is such a funny thing: "What is that which is moving?" What functions is a primordial consciousness, untouched by thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 29, 2014 22:50:54 GMT -5
No Body Consciousness
UG: Your movement of thought interferes with the process of touch, just as it does with the other senses. Anything you touch is always translated as 'hard', 'soft', 'warm', 'cold', 'wet', 'dry', and so on. You do not realize it, but it is your thinking that creates your own body. Without this thought process there is no body consciousness - which is to say there is no body at all. My body exists for other people; it does not exist for me; there are only isolated points of contact, impulses of touch which are not tied together by thought. So the body is not different from the objects around it; it is a set of sensations like any others. Your body does not belong to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 29, 2014 22:56:14 GMT -5
Your movement of thought interferes with the process of touch, just as it does with the other senses. Anything you touch is always translated as 'hard', 'soft', 'warm', 'cold', 'wet', 'dry', and so on. You do not realize it, but it is your thinking that creates your own body. Without this thought process there is no body consciousness - which is to say there is no body at all. My body exists for other people; it does not exist for me; there are only isolated points of contact, impulses of touch which are not tied together by thought. So the body is not different from the objects around it; it is a set of sensations like any others. Your body does not belong to you. Bingo. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 30, 2014 1:24:08 GMT -5
Your movement of thought interferes with the process of touch, just as it does with the other senses. Anything you touch is always translated as 'hard', 'soft', 'warm', 'cold', 'wet', 'dry', and so on. You do not realize it, but it is your thinking that creates your own body. Without this thought process there is no body consciousness - which is to say there is no body at all. My body exists for other people; it does not exist for me; there are only isolated points of contact, impulses of touch which are not tied together by thought. So the body is not different from the objects around it; it is a set of sensations like any others. Your body does not belong to you. Bingo. Nobody ... but there is a bingo card??  |
|
