|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 28, 2019 23:59:26 GMT -5
There is another side to it, what you might call the bodhisattva principle. The desire for all beings to be liberated. I'm pretty sure if this would come up in a dialog with UG that he would put this into the 'poppycôck' category. But then again, people who actually spent some time with him reported that UG actually did care about others. Just to be clear, I think the desire for others to end suffering and be liberated is one aspect of bodhisattva I would agree with, but the other of delaying your own personal Enlightenment until everyone else is Enlightened is nonsense. Ramana thought it was nonsense too. When he heard of it he laughed and asked, what others? There are no others! This in itself of course is misleading and leads to the usual nondual arguments because of context mixing, but that's another story. Yeah I don't doubt that about UG. Apparently he was very close to his son. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 29, 2019 10:40:27 GMT -5
I agree you cannot teach someone the natural state. You can only point to something that may open one up to it. The first point to make is that a teaching cannot be seen in isolation. Any teaching depends on who is receiving it and if the student is not receptive then the teaching is indeed futile. That poses the question, why was UG receptive, willing and tolerant of those who came to him to ask questions if he felt so strongly that he had nothing to offer? Why did he tolerate the entourage of people around him if there was nothing to teach. What motivated him. Why didn't he just keep silent. Why did he speak about it and write books about it? Like Niz, UG never wrote a book as far as I know. Ramana did though. UG would probably say that replying to questions directed at him is something automatic, similar to when you throw a ball against the wall and it bounces back. The wall has no agenda and neither does UG. You throw questions at him, and they bounce back. And U.G. really wasn't all that tolerant of everyone he had a dialog with. Adya told a story about how he was listening to a woman ask a question this one time, and he thought to himself (paraphrasing from memory), "ok, oh boy .. (** sigh, eyeroll **) .. here we go again. Pretending." ... as in: isness pretending to be other than eternal limitlessness.  Niz constantly told people that his "world" was alive and infinite, with none of the problems they saw in "their world", which was constricted, 2nd-hand and dead. From casual reading I gather that Mooji got impatient with his whole flock at one point for their reliance and fixation on him as their guru. Tolle seems to me to insulate himself by various means from most of the people he speaks in front of. I've seen vids where Rupert Spira stops in his tracks and gets sort of flustered/frustrated in trying to find the right way to respond that won't mislead. So the words and actions of each of these guys illustrate reaching a point where their receptivity to the existential error hits some sort of limit, or at least some sort of turn where the questions that stem from the error aren't really all that much accepted and welcomed. The way I interpret what U.G. meant by that "he has nothing to offer", is that he had nothing that the people-peep-perpetuseekers wanted to hear. He says it very clearly in part 2: he has nothing to offer someone seeking to be the perfect man. And I'd extrapolate from that, or woman. He had nothing to offer people looking to become super-peeps. He had nothing to offer people seeking personal enlightenment as a contest prize or reward for hard work or return for good karma or meditating the right way for long enough or, well, fill in the blank. And that's a facet of the existential truth, which is what he was offering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 11:30:22 GMT -5
Do you think Ramana thought, I'm Self realized but I'll teach self inquiry because I'm bored sitting in this ashram all day long? I've always made fun of Zhuangzi! I have no idea what Ramana was thinking, but according to A-H, Ramana wanted to conform to so badly to the established standard behavior guidelines of a good guru that he eventually got cancer. They actually said that?
Interestingly enough, but probably not too surprising, regarding Jerry Hicks's cancer, the odd time it's actually addressed, quite a different explanation ensues. His and his subsequent death was apparently all about his intense interest/desire to expand, move on....further explore all his spiritual questions....and the appearing cancer itself, in one instance was even explained as Esther's fault...her own resistance in trying so hard to keep him in her experience. Odd, considering they say over and over that you cannot create in another's experience. What they are very, very clear upon stressing with all of it; Jerry was joyous and not at all suffering during his experience with cancer.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 1, 2019 1:44:58 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure if this would come up in a dialog with UG that he would put this into the 'poppycôck' category. But then again, people who actually spent some time with him reported that UG actually did care about others. I would agree with, but the other of delaying your own personal Enlightenment until everyone else is Enlightened is nonsense. Ramana thought it was nonsense too. When he heard of it he laughed and asked, what others? There are no others! This in itself of course is misleading and leads to the usual nondual arguments because of context mixing, but that's another story. Yeah I don't doubt that about UG. Apparently he was very close to his son. I don't think there is any master out there that is beyond the desire of the ending of sufferings of other's. They understand the nature of their own suffering, the suffering that led them to the moment of their liberation .. All this, there is 'no other's' b.s is just floaty talk, because when these masters stand on the platform and address their devotees, they know full well there are other's listening to their every word .. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Oct 1, 2019 2:00:24 GMT -5
All this, there is 'no other's' b.s is just floaty talk, because when these masters stand on the platform and address their devotees, they know full well there are other's listening to their every word .. Yes I agree and I felt reluctant to quote that phrase because it's usually misunderstood. "There are no others" is strictly from the perspective of the unchanging transcendent witness, but from the perspective of the individual, there are others. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 1, 2019 7:36:02 GMT -5
Just to be clear, I think the desire for others to end suffering and be liberated is one aspect of bodhisattva I would agree with, but the other of delaying your own personal Enlightenment until everyone else is Enlightened is nonsense. Hard to imagine that this goes back to the Buddha himself. Must be some later development. Ramana thought it was nonsense too. When he heard of it he laughed and asked, what others? There are no others! This in itself of course is misleading and leads to the usual nondual arguments because of context mixing, but that's another story. Yes, realizing that there are no others takes care of a whole bunch of existential questions/dilemmas. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 1, 2019 7:42:06 GMT -5
The way I interpret what U.G. meant by that "he has nothing to offer", is that he had nothing that the people-peep-perpetuseekers wanted to hear. He says it very clearly in part 2: he has nothing to offer someone seeking to be the perfect man. And I'd extrapolate from that, or woman. He had nothing to offer people looking to become super-peeps. He had nothing to offer people seeking personal enlightenment as a contest prize or reward for hard work or return for good karma or meditating the right way for long enough or, well, fill in the blank. And that's a facet of the existential truth, which is what he was offering. Yes, that's my take as well. He used to say "You don't really want this!" The statement "There's no such thing as enlightenment or an enlightened being" has to be seen in this context as well. And that's what Tano definitely misunderstood, and Jed too, to some degree. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 1, 2019 7:48:38 GMT -5
Finished
Q: Have you any interest in the question of reincarnation?
UG: I am more interested in the question "Are you born?" Can you tell me? You yourself -- can you be sure that you are born? Can you experience your own birth? You cannot. You can experience the births of others and the deaths of others, and you think that some day you will experience your own death. But there is no guarantee you will experience your own death. Your structure which is interested in understanding your own death and your own birth won't be there. So life as such has no beginning and no end; it is a beginningless and endless movement, and you are only an expression of it. You are only an expression of life, like a bird or a worm or a cloud.
Q: But with the singular difference that I am conscious of myself, and the worm is not.
UG: You are conscious of yourself through thought (by which I mean not just conscious thought, but that conditioning which transforms the life that passes through you into feelings, into pleasure and pain). And this thought is not yours; it is what you have learned from others, it is second-hand, it belongs to everybody. You belong to everybody. So why don't you accept the natural thing? If you accept the natural thing, all falls into its own rhythm: there is nothing to do, there is nothing to control, there is nothing to ask. You don't have to do a thing. You are finished.
|
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Oct 1, 2019 7:57:52 GMT -5
Just to be clear, I think the desire for others to end suffering and be liberated is one aspect of bodhisattva I would agree with, but the other of delaying your own personal Enlightenment until everyone else is Enlightened is nonsense. Hard to imagine that this goes back to the Buddha himself. Must be some later development. The bodhisattva principle comes from Mahayana Buddhism and didn't appear in the original Pali canon. You won't hear a Therevada Buddhist ever speak of it. They believe in personal individual nirvana. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 1, 2019 9:30:00 GMT -5
Hard to imagine that this goes back to the Buddha himself. Must be some later development. The bodhisattva principle comes from Mahayana Buddhism and didn't appear in the original Pali canon. You won't hear a Therevada Buddhist ever speak of it. They believe in personal individual nirvana. Isn't 'personal individual nirvana' some kind of oxymoron? |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Oct 1, 2019 10:30:35 GMT -5
The bodhisattva principle comes from Mahayana Buddhism and didn't appear in the original Pali canon. You won't hear a Therevada Buddhist ever speak of it. They believe in personal individual nirvana. Isn't 'personal individual nirvana' some kind of oxymoron? There isn't a yes or no answer to that question. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 7, 2019 8:35:28 GMT -5
Truth vs. Truthin’
UG: You will never know the truth because it's a movement. You cannot contain it. You cannot express it. It's not a logically ascertained premise. It has to be your discovery. What good is my experience? We have thousands of experiences recorded. They haven't helped you. It's the hope that keeps you going because hope is the structure.
So-called self-realization is the discovery for yourself and by yourself that there is no self to discover. That will be a very shocking thing, I tell you. It's not going to be an easy thing. It's not going to be handed over to you on a gold platter. You have to become completely disillusioned then the truth begins to express itself in its own way. It is useless to try to discover the truth. The search for truth is absurd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2019 10:36:43 GMT -5
Truth vs. Truthin’
UG: You will never know the truth because it's a movement. You cannot contain it. You cannot express it. It's not a logically ascertained premise. It has to be your discovery. What good is my experience? We have thousands of experiences recorded. They haven't helped you. It's the hope that keeps you going because hope is the structure. So-called self-realization is the discovery for yourself and by yourself that there is no self to discover. That will be a very shocking thing, I tell you. It's not going to be an easy thing. It's not going to be handed over to you on a gold platter. You have to become completely disillusioned then the truth begins to express itself in its own way. It is useless to try to discover the truth. The search for truth is absurd. very nice quote. Thanks for posting this. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 11, 2019 6:44:48 GMT -5
The separate experiencing structure of ‘You’ (1)
UG: Nature cannot be captured by thought. The important thing to see is the false separation between you and nature. Thought has created all these divisions, making what you call experience possible. The man who has freed himself from all divisions in consciousness has no experiences. He does not have loving relationships, does not question anything, has no notions about being a self-realized man and is not stuck on wanting to help somebody else.
The individual who is able through luck to be free from this self-consciousness is no longer experiencing an independent existence. He is, even to himself, like any other thing out there. What happens in the environment repeats itself within such an individual without the knowledge. Once thought has burnt itself out, nothing that creates division can remain there. It is the movement of thought that is constantly taking you away from your natural state and creating this division.
Your search for happiness is prolonging your unhappiness. What is there inside you is only the movement of knowledge wanting to know more and more. The you, the separative structure, can continue only as long as there is a demand to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2019 4:15:58 GMT -5
The separate experiencing structure of ‘You’ (2)
Q: You have shattered all my young dreams.
UG: No, no, you cannot be so sure; they are still there. There is a very powerful plaster — if there is a little crack in your structure, you will plaster it over. It is very powerful — it has millions and millions of years of momentum. It knows all the tricks — it can invent any trick to gain momentum. That is its nature. There isn't anything you can do about it. You can discuss it for forty years, but I promise you, you will not get anywhere. If anyone makes you believe you can get somewhere, he's taking you for a ride. He may be honest. Distrust all honest fellows! Throw them out! There is no one who is honest in this field. No outside agency can help you.
Q: There's no power outside of me, here and now?
UG: You don't let that power express itself, because that's a thing that you cannot experience. You want to experience it. How is that possible? That power is something living, vital — it's the throb, the pulse, the beat of life — you are one expression of that life, that's all. How can you experience that? This structure of thought, through which you experience, is dead; it cannot experience that life at all, because the one is something living and the other is dead, and there can't be any relationship between the two. You can only experience dead things, not a living thing. Life has to express itself. This is a thing which nobody can teach you. You don't have to get it from somebody; what you have is there.
|
|
Niz constantly told people that his "world" was alive and infinite, with none of the problems they saw in "their world", which was constricted, 2nd-hand and dead. From casual reading I gather that Mooji got impatient with his whole flock at one point for their reliance and fixation on him as their guru. Tolle seems to me to insulate himself by various means from most of the people he speaks in front of. I've seen vids where Rupert Spira stops in his tracks and gets sort of flustered/frustrated in trying to find the right way to respond that won't mislead.
