|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 21:52:42 GMT -5
You're interpreting an absence as the presence of absence, and I didn't write anything of the form "volition is not". Your words were 'absence of volition.' The very use of the word volition in that case, indicates the presence of the idea of volition. First of all, this is convoluted TMT pretzel logic. Second of all, even if I follow along with it, where was the topic introduced in the conversation? Not by me. While you technically didn't introduce the word, you introduced the idea. All I did was note that the idea was an interpretation, and that the pointer of the "absence of volition" is, literally, the absence of an interpretation. You're licking a pointer. You do that, like, all the time.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 22:07:25 GMT -5
 you tell me ... it's your rodeo! Apparently YOU care, as you're the one quibbling over the idea of something happening or not. Wow, project much? The entire conversation is, in your words: The entire dialog is based on you asking "why did he say this?", expressing perception of contradiction and offering an alternative interpretation of the ideas that you find more correct. You're the one with the argument(s). I'm just playin' along. Unbelievable. Who cares? the one who brought it up: Once the 'natural state' is no longer being obscured, it matters not what terms are used to talk about that. There is a difference in the way life is experienced from one to the other, and beyond that, who cares whether it is said that something happened or didn't happened. And you brought it up in the context of a discussion about a U.G. quote ... so I guess, uhm ... you do!!  This is that ridiculous "interestless interest" again. This is the part of the conversation where I note your annoyance, which you deny. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 22:22:28 GMT -5
Wow, project much? The entire dialog is based on you asking "why did he say this?", expressing perception of contradiction and offering an alternative interpretation of the ideas that you find more correct. You're the one with the argument(s). I'm just playin' along. No, not the entire dialogue. IT shifted at the point I posted this quote that as I explained, resonated, and thus, quelled my questions re: the contradiction I saw: "The saints, saviours, priests, gurus, bhagavans, seers, prophets and philosophers were all wrong, as far as I am concerned. As long as you harbour any hope or faith in these authorities, living or dead, so long this certainty cannot be transmitted to you. This certainty somehow dawns on you when you see for yourself that all of them are wrong. When you see all this for yourself for the first time, you explode. The explosion hits life at a point that has never been touched before. It is absolutely unique. So whatever I may be saying cannot be true for you. The moment you see it for yourself you make what I am saying obsolete and false. All that came before is negated in that fire. You can't come into your own uniqueness unless the whole of human experience is thrown out of your system. It cannot be done through any volition or the help of anything. They you are on you own." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3761/daily-discussion?page=2#ixzz3CgrlJvKQMy last 'who cares'? Was addressed to your question to me about 'what does UG say about......'? I'm no longer interested in what UG says....he says himself, in so many words, it's all just a bunch of crap...that everything he says should be questioned and debunked. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2014 22:23:22 GMT -5
*My mission, if there is any, should be, from now on, to debunk every statement I have made. If you take seriously and try to use or apply what I have said, you will be in danger. *what kind of danger are you threatening me with?* would be my response to UG. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2014 22:33:58 GMT -5
Wow, project much? The entire dialog is based on you asking "why did he say this?", expressing perception of contradiction and offering an alternative interpretation of the ideas that you find more correct. You're the one with the argument(s). I'm just playin' along. No, not the entire dialogue. IT shifted at the point I posted this quote that as I explained, resonated, and thus, quelled my questions re: the contradiction I saw: "The saints, saviours, priests, gurus, bhagavans, seers, prophets and philosophers were all wrong, as far as I am concerned. As long as you harbour any hope or faith in these authorities, living or dead, so long this certainty cannot be transmitted to you. This certainty somehow dawns on you when you see for yourself that all of them are wrong. When you see all this for yourself for the first time, you explode. The explosion hits life at a point that has never been touched before. It is absolutely unique. So whatever I may be saying cannot be true for you. The moment you see it for yourself you make what I am saying obsolete and false. All that came before is negated in that fire. You can't come into your own uniqueness unless the whole of human experience is thrown out of your system. It cannot be done through any volition or the help of anything. They you are on you own." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3761/daily-discussion?page=2#ixzz3CgrlJvKQMy last 'who cares'? Was addressed to your question to me about 'what does UG say about......'? I'm no longer interested in what UG says....he says himself, in so many words, it's all just a bunch of crap...that everything he says should be questioned and debunked. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 22:39:08 GMT -5
Wow, project much? The entire dialog is based on you asking "why did he say this?", expressing perception of contradiction and offering an alternative interpretation of the ideas that you find more correct. You're the one with the argument(s). I'm just playin' along. No, not the entire conversation. IT shifted at the point I posted this quote that as I explained, resonated, and thus, quelled my questions re: the contradiction I saw: "The saints, saviours, priests, gurus, bhagavans, seers, prophets and philosophers were all wrong, as far as I am concerned. As long as you harbour any hope or faith in these authorities, living or dead, so long this certainty cannot be transmitted to you. This certainty somehow dawns on you when you see for yourself that all of them are wrong. When you see all this for yourself for the first time, you explode. The explosion hits life at a point that has never been touched before. It is absolutely unique. So whatever I may be saying cannot be true for you. The moment you see it for yourself you make what I am saying obsolete and false. All that came before is negated in that fire. You can't come into your own uniqueness unless the whole of human experience is thrown out of your system. It cannot be done through any volition or the help of anything. They you are on you own." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3761/daily-discussion?page=2#ixzz3CgrlJvKQ Wow, you just won my "batsh!t-crazy-of-the-month-award"  ... read what you wrote between here and here. Self-denial much? My last 'who cares'? Was addressed to your question to me about 'what does UG say about......'? I'm no longer interested in what UG says....he says himself, in so many words, it's all just a bunch of crap...that everything he says should be questioned and debunked. I'm assuming you mean this, right? *My mission, if there is any, should be, from now on, to debunk every statement I have made. If you take seriously and try to use or apply what I have said, you will be in danger. And you're taking that seriously now, ain't ya! You don't do paradox very well, do ya' hun'?  And you're not paying attention to the words. He didn't say that you should debunk his words in that quote, but that this was his mission. Now, in that quote, he gives the reason for this, what is that? There's one very very important word in that sentence that you've obviously missed ... This entire dialog up until you stumbled onto his disclaimers and radical pointing away from ideation was you licking the pointer of "natural state". |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 23:09:28 GMT -5
Self-denial much? AT the point you indicate, the focus of my end of the discussion turned from 'why did UG say this' to a dialogue between you and I and how 'we' say things. Not really no, but I do resonate with the idea of debunking previously made statements. Fact is, I wasn't taking him all that seriously to start with, but the fact that I saw he doesn't take himself too seriously either, actually makes him more credible. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2014 23:18:27 GMT -5
Self-denial much? AT the point you indicate, the focus of my end of the discussion turned from 'why did UG say this' to a dialogue between you and I and how 'we' say things. You're just not being honest with yourself. Not really no, but I do resonate with the idea of debunking previously made statements. Fact is, I wasn't taking him all that seriously to start with, but the fact that I saw he doesn't take himself too seriously either, actually makes him more credible. Yeah, you wrote quite a bit from a position of negatively attaching to his quotes in the dialog and I'd call that taking someone seriously. You didn't answer that question: what was the reason for his mission? What is the specific nature of the danger? Are U.G.'s statements disclaiming his words something new to you? You've never heard or read something similar from other well-known sources of non-duality material? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 7, 2014 23:25:44 GMT -5
You're just not being honest with yourself. Or...we simply see things differently.  The perspective I'm sitting with at present, has me very aware of the silliness of reading quotes from supposed gurus and upholding them as something important to 'get' in a very specific way. So, please excuse me if I decline the invite to enter into this little game. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 8, 2014 10:56:34 GMT -5
You're just not being honest with yourself. Or...we simply see things differently. The perspective I'm sitting with at present, has me very aware of the silliness of reading quotes from supposed gurus and upholding them as something important to 'get' in a very specific way. So, please excuse me if I decline the invite to enter into this little game. So then you go and quote U.G. again. self-contradict much? The entire dialog between us was about you interpreting U.G.'s words to mean something. Tolle, Adya and Niz all say the same thing -- that the words are just pointers to be thrown away. U.G. is just a little more edgy and emphatic is all. U.G. just leaves zero room for any residual of devotion. If you use his words as a prescription to go to war with them, you're in the danger he warned you about. I can see and hear him laughing at the foolishness. If you really had come full circle you wouldn't be so confused by paradox like this. Now, in reply, I fully expect you to compose some intricate and flowery humanistic rant directed at the image of the nonduallie you've got in your hypermind. As you write it, try to notice the projections you're creating and the imagination machine that generates the scenes and the characters that it's all based on. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 8, 2014 11:37:00 GMT -5
So then you go and quote U.G. again. self-contradict much? There's no contradiction. Guru quotes can serve as interesting fodder for discussion. Some quotes resonate more than others, but I still take all guru quotes with a grain of salt...as they are individuated descriptions/prescriptions and perspectives that arose in another. Sure, It can be fun to share and compare, but at present, I have little interest in comparing interpretations with someone who assigns a greater sense of 'truthiness' to guru quotes than I do. Again, for me, the focus turned in a subtle way more towards what you and I were seeing and saying. I was no longer so focused upon asking 'why did he say that' or 'does anyone else see contradiction there,' but had shifted more to a discussion about the nature of 'happenings' and such. Sure, U.G. quote content underscored the discussion, but there was a distinct shift in my focus away from the question of his contradiction. Right. I'd never 'use' a gurus words to do anything. I do not take the words of others as prescriptions...just descriptions. Fact is, those words, resonated with my own words. I see great importance in being able to argue spiritual points and then turn around and just drop the ideas, often shrugging or even laughing it off and moving on. If that's not what's happening when each of us leaves the forum, that might be something good to look at. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 8, 2014 11:39:07 GMT -5
So then you go and quote U.G. again. self-contradict much? There's no contradiction. Guru quotes can serve as interesting fodder for discussion. Some quotes resonate more than others, but I still take all guru quotes with a grain of salt...as they are individuated descriptions/prescriptions and perspectives that arose in another. Sure, It can be fun to share and compare, but at present, I have little interest in comparing interpretations with someone who assigns a greater sense of 'truthiness' to guru quotes than I do. Again, for me, the focus turned in a subtle way more towards what you and I were seeing and saying. I was no longer so focused upon asking 'why did he say that' or 'does anyone else see contradiction there,' but had shifted more to a discussion about the nature of 'happenings' and such. Sure, U.G. quote content underscored the discussion, but there was a distinct shift in my focus away from the question of his contradiction. Right. I'd never 'use' a gurus words to do anything. I do not take the words of others as prescriptions...just descriptions. Fact is, those words, resonated with my own words. I see great importance in being able to argue spiritual points and then turn around and just drop the ideas, often shrugging or even laughing it off and moving on. If that's not what's happening when each of us leaves the forum, that might be something good to look at. do you want me to pull the hook out of your cheek for you? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 8, 2014 11:42:13 GMT -5
do you want me to pull the hook out of your cheek for you? You can if you want...the hook in my cheek only exists for you. You're the one imagining it.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 8, 2014 11:45:13 GMT -5
do you want me to pull the hook out of your cheek for you? You can if you want...the hook in my cheek only exists for you. You're the one imagining it. nope. All anyone's gotta do to see who's imagining what is to read your own self-contradictory mess in the dialog.  You've spend the last quarter of it denying your participation in the first 3/4.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 8, 2014 11:50:37 GMT -5
You can if you want...the hook in my cheek only exists for you. You're the one imagining it. nope. All anyone's gotta do to see who's imagining what is to read your own self-contradictory mess in the dialog. You've spend the last quarter of it denying your participation in the first 3/4. What exactly have I been denying? |
|
you tell me ... it's your rodeo!
... read what you wrote between 
