|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 30, 2014 2:20:55 GMT -5
Nobody ... but there is a bingo card??  In the natural state, the body should go unnoticed. Dunno about nobody's bingo cards though. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 30, 2014 15:14:27 GMT -5
Nobody ... but there is a bingo card?? In the natural state, the body should go unnoticed. Dunno about nobody's bingo cards though.  " ... not even THIS!!" |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 31, 2014 8:07:58 GMT -5
In the natural state, the body should go unnoticed. Dunno about nobody's bingo cards though. " ... not even THIS!!" I know you love that, hehe.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 12:40:52 GMT -5
UG: Your constant utilisation of thought to give continuity to your separate self is 'you'. There is nothing there inside you other than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 5, 2015 7:09:51 GMT -5
The living thing vs. preservation
UG: What is here, this natural state, is a living thing. It cannot be captured by me, let alone by you. It's like a flower. (This simile is all I can give.) It just blooms. It's there. As long as it is there, it has a fragrance which is different and distinct from that of every other flower. You may not recognize it. You may or may not write odes or sonnets about it. A wandering cow might eat it, or it may be chopped down by a haycutter, or it fades and is finished - that's the end of it. It's of no importance. You can't preserve its perfume, whatever you preserve of this is only a synthetic, a chemical perfume, not the living thing. Preserving the expressions, teachings or words of such a man has no meaning. This state has only contemporary value, contemporary expression.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 7, 2015 23:50:05 GMT -5
Your thoughts are not your own
UG: We are all living in a 'thought sphere'. Your thoughts are not your own, they belong to everybody. There are only thoughts, but you create a counter-thought, the thinker, with which you read every thought. Your effort to control life has created a secondary movement of thought within you, which you call the 'I'. This movement of thought within you is parallel to the movement of life, but isolated from it, it can never touch life. You are a living creature, yet you lead your entire life within the realm of this isolated, parallel movement of thought. You cut yourself off from life - that is something very unnatural.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 22, 2015 1:49:51 GMT -5
Natural state vs. thoughtless state
UG: The natural state is not a 'thoughtless state' - that is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated for thousands of years on poor, helpless Hindus. You will never be without thought until the body is a corpse, a very dead corpse. Being able to think is necessary to survive. But in this state thought stops choking you; it falls into its natural rhythm. There is no longer a 'you' who reads the thoughts and thinks that they are 'his'.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2015 6:49:48 GMT -5
"a very dead corpse". Seriously, how can ya' not love this guy? Really. There is no longer a 'you' who reads the thoughts and thinks that they are 'his'. And that is the crux of the matter, that question, right there: "what is the source of these thoughts?". It's one anyone can turn inward to answer for themselves, anytime, anywhere. It's also the ego-villain that peeps like Tolle have been demonized for chasing around the speawitchual circus for the last decade. Adya defines ego this way: Everything is just arising spontaneously, and if there is any ego at all, it is just this particular movement of mind that says, "It's mine". From "Emptiness Dancing", Chapter 11 "Ego", para's 3-5
Very simple. Ego is a thought that comes and goes, but in terms of one's own thoughts ("these thoughts are mine"), it mostly stays, and takes up residence in the mind as a form of false identity. Ego is not and never is a problem, per se, but if someone's interested in the living truth, it's sure as hell is one elephant sized opportunity.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 8:38:35 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. 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. No, That's NOT what he meant, He is pretty clear with his words. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2015 22:00:34 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. 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. No, That's NOT what he meant, He is pretty clear with his words. I agree, he's pretty clear with his words. It wasn't my intention to paraphrase what he said. Do you want to discuss it or do you just want to tell me I'm wrong? 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. It's not something you can acquire, attain or accomplish as a result of your effort -- that is why I use the word `acausal'. It has no cause, but somehow the search come to an end... the search takes you away from yourself -- it is in the opposite direction -- it has absolutely no relation...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... it is not a question of feeling it, it is not a question of knowing it; you will never know. You have no way of knowing that at all for yourself; it begins to express itself. There is no conscious.... You see, I don't know how to put it. Never does the thought that I am different from anybody come into my consciousness..." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 22:29:29 GMT -5
No, That's NOT what he meant, He is pretty clear with his words. I agree, he's pretty clear with his words. It wasn't my intention to paraphrase what he said. Do you want to discuss it or do you just want to tell me I'm wrong? 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. It's not something you can acquire, attain or accomplish as a result of your effort -- that is why I use the word `acausal'. It has no cause, but somehow the search come to an end... the search takes you away from yourself -- it is in the opposite direction -- it has absolutely no relation...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... it is not a question of feeling it, it is not a question of knowing it; you will never know. You have no way of knowing that at all for yourself; it begins to express itself. There is no conscious.... You see, I don't know how to put it. Never does the thought that I am different from anybody come into my consciousness..." Why would I make you wrong? I don't have that intention. I am saying that he is not meaning what you mean. Seeing doesn't even have a place in impersonal movement as well. His words are very clear, 'whatever you do in the direction of whatever you are after'. The same happened to me, That's what I would like to call that incident as grace. If you read the entire paragraph, he understood that that incident is not because of human, but he also doesn't want to call them a grace because it involves someone, So he dismisses. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 5:13:00 GMT -5
volition or non volition a non discussion, really who cares, what difference does it make? zero If you can see yourself as non-volitional, you might let go of the need to control and to judge yourself and others for their misbehavior. You might also begin to question what makes your particular sock puppet separate from other sock puppets. Actually all your ideas arises from God has fallen into his dream, If you know the truth 'nothing can be done' then universe re-orchestrate in such a way that situation would not make you angry, but you are not giving the power to appearance unfortunately. You can't separate yourself from what's happening. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 5:32:06 GMT -5
Truth to me is basically a totally philosophical notion. Actual to me, means events that physically happen. I have no idea what 'objectivist material realism' means -- never herd of it. Oh, well taking events that physically happen as "actual" (which is just another way of saying that they are true), is a worldview that is based on an assumption of an objective reality outside of you that you are a part of. Let's say you go for a walk in the park, pick up a rock and hold it in your hands for a sec, put it back down and walk away. Later on in the evening, as you're lying in bed, is the rock still where you left it? Does the rock have an existence that's independent and separate from your interaction with it? The second paragraph is the beautiful way of telling people about Objective reality. All right, So you say the rock doesn't exist when you are not looking it? Isn't it Laughter? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 5:35:23 GMT -5
If living breathing creatures are given senses then there must be stuff to sense. We are making an impact on one another here, and in the 'audience', and by the time any of us gets the right answer (if there is one), we'll all be dead, our solid parts anyway. Plus we're all given such a passionate push to live and keep on living, I'd say that's pretty impossible to ignore. When you sense something in a nightly dream, is there really something there to sense or is it just an assumption you make when dreaming? Good question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 5:36:48 GMT -5
When you sense something in a nightly dream, is there really something there to sense or is it just an assumption you make when dreaming? I think most people know the diff between being awake and sensing/smelling spaghetti cooking on the stove and some weird stuff that goes on in our sleep. I don't think anyone interprets dreams at night as 'real' and they know that dreams may be symbolic or just nonsense. But this can't be known when you are in dream. |
|
" ... not even THIS!!"
