The Daily U.G.

[Reefs]

UG: Nature cannot be captured by thought. The important thing to see is the false separation between you and nature... 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.

Bingo!

[Reefs]

The Natural State is not an experience (1)

Q: Can you describe and communicate your state?

UG: The moment I try to communicate something, it is gone; it is only a shadow of it; that's not it.

Q: Is it an incommunicable experience?

UG: No, it cannot be experienced. You cannot communicate what you cannot experience. I can only put it this way: whatever is there cannot be experienced… You don't accumulate experiences. That is not an experience at all. You are interested in experiencing the ultimate reality, truth, God, God knows what; but it's futile for you to attempt to experience a thing which you cannot experience. It doesn't mean that it is beyond the experiencing structure… the experiencing structure comes to an end. If you don't recognize what you are looking at—that flower as a flower, that rose as a rose—it means you are not there. What are you? You are nothing but a bundle of all these experiences, the knowledge you have about them.

[Reefs]

The Natural State is not an experience (2)

UG: Your natural state is one of not knowing. The knowledge that you are this, that you are that, that you are happy, that you are unhappy, that you are a realized man, that you are not a realized man, is completely absent here. We have no way of knowing if we are free. Nothing tells me that I am free. In your case, the naming process, the wanting something, the questioning, goes on and on no matter what.

Here thought functions only from a stimulus from the outside. Even then, the response of knowledge is instantaneous and I am back again like a big question mark. Your constant demand to experience the same thing over and over again results in compulsive, repetitive thinking. I don't see any need or reason for the repetitive process to go on and on.

It is a very simple thing—so simple that the complex structure does not want to leave it alone. There is no such thing as experience here. You seem to know. You imagine. Imagination must come to an end. I don't know how to put it. The absence of imagination, the absence of will, the absence of effort, the absence of all movement in any direction, on any level, in any dimension —that is the thing. That is a thing that cannot be experienced at all—it is not an experience.

To be free from knowledge is not an easy thing. You are that knowledge—not only the knowledge that you have acquired in this life, but the knowledge of millions and millions of years, everybody's experiences. People have some experiences, you see, and on that they build a tremendous superstructure.

[tenka]

This is why I spoke about qualities beyond mind previously ..

When you hear about the dream world being realized and all that jazz it's a load of baloney ..

If the natural state can be compared with what I call the realization itself then it is impossible to conclude this or that about it, especially in the name of Truthiness lol ..

[Reefs]

The Now is not an experience

UG: Thought has also invented the opposite of time, the now, the eternal now. The present exists only as an idea. The moment you attempt to look at the present it has already been brought into the framework of the past. Thought will use any trick under the sun to give momentum to its own continuity. Its essential technique is to repeat the same thing over and over again. This gives it an illusion of permanency. This permanency is shattered the moment the falseness of the past-present-future continuum is seen. The future can be nothing but the modified continuity of the past.

There is no present to the structure of the 'you'; all that is there is the past, which is trying to project itself into the future. You can think about past, present, and future, but there is no future, there is no present; there is only the past. Your future is only a projection of the past. If there is a present, that present can never be experienced by you, because you experience only your knowledge about the present, and that knowledge is the past. So what is the point in trying to experience that moment which you call 'now'? The now can never be experienced by you; whatever you experience is not the now. So the now is a thing which can never become part of your conscious existence, and which you cannot give expression to. The now does not exist, as far as you are concerned, except as a concept.

How can you expect to experience a thing that is beyond, if you can't experience a simple thing like that bench there, which you have handled and used all your life. Even a simple thing like that bench, you can't experience. What you experience is only the knowledge you have about it.

[Reefs]

Oct 15, 2019 6:30:56 GMT -5 tenka said:

This is why I spoke about qualities beyond mind previously ..

When you hear about the dream world being realized and all that jazz it's a load of baloney ..

If the natural state can be compared with what I call the realization itself then it is impossible to conclude this or that about it, especially in the name of Truthiness lol ..

Yeah, to UG the natural state and SR are more or less synonymous.

Also interesting, what he calls 'the separate experiencing structure' is what we here call 'the separate volitional person' (SVP). And what he calls 'nature' is what we call 'THAT'. And he explains the dilemma of the seeker quite well. When THAT is objectified via the intellect, you get things (objects) and experiences (knowledge). So knowledge, experiences, things, the intellect and the SVP go together. But nature/THAT is something 'living, vital' as UG says, the SVP, however, which is just a thought structure, is dead in comparison. And everything this thought structure touches is dead as well, because the process of objectifying THAT sucks the life out of everything, because immediacy is lost. That's why UG often says, "you see nothing!" or "you can't even experience something simple like that bench there..."

Nature cannot be captured by thought, as UG says. Nature/THAT cannot be objectified. Which means the SVP can't touch THAT. That's why the SVP cannot experience the NOW and why the NOW cannot be an experience and why the natural state is necessarily a state of not knowing and not an experience, aka prior to mind/intellect (the process of objectifying).

So the SVP world of things/objects/knowledge is indeed akin to a dream that lacks any real substance. In that sense, the dream metaphor has it's place. That's why I don't see it as a 'load of baloney' per se. It's basically Mckenna's first step, aka awakening. But awakening is not to be mistaken for SR or enlightenment, as McKenna pointed out - that's further down the road. So it's more like half-circle. Ramana said, that both the sage and the ignorant say 'I am the body'. But to get from the ignorant version of 'I am the body' to the sage version of 'I am the body' an intermediary step of 'I am not the body' might be necessary. Niz also tends to talk on these 3 levels.