|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 17, 2021 2:26:03 GMT -5
There's been a lot of talk on the forum about the natural state. It is a term U.G. used often to describe his predominant state of being after 'the calamity'. But it seems only few people seem to be able to grasp the true meaning of that term. Seekers certainly don't, because by definition already, the seeker mind is incompatible with realizing the natural state. And, interestingly, a rather large number of individuals who many would consider self-realized, don't seem to have any reference for it either, because apparently, a realization has happened, but they don't own it yet, they don't know it in their bones yet. And so their understanding remains a bit too theoretical or half-baked.
By that I don't mean that their understanding is faulty. They are usually correct in their conceptualization of 'the Truth' and very articulate. What I mean is that their arguments are lacking oomph, because they don't own it with their entire being, they don't embody it, and so their being doesn't ooze ease and peace and joy. They don't live by example because they can't. They had a realization but it didn't come fully thru. It remains somewhat conceptual. The visceral component, the embodying, is missing. And without that visceral component, unfortunately, the natural state will remain a mystery as we shall see.
So this is where I think some exposure to U.G.'s 'teaching' (he actually says he has nothing to teach) can bring things into balance again, because U.G. almost exclusively talks about SR from a biological perspective. And so he usually functions as a good counterpoint to the mostly very abstract and theoretical non-dual speak we see these days. And although I think U.G. goes a bit overboard with his focus on the biological component of SR, he nevertheless is exceptionally clear on this topic, almost like the famous Zen masters of the past.
So instead of writing an essay about the natural state according to U.G., I think it's better to compile some quotes and let U.G. do the explaining in his own words. Because he is so remarkably clear that there's not much to add, really (at least from my perspective).
The natural state, according to U.G., while impossible to describe, could be (roughly) conceptualized by these 4 main features: 1) acausal 2) not an experience 3) pure functioning 4) not knowing.
I am going to post a quote wall on each feature in one separate post for each feature. These quotes will be taken from random talks that happened over several decades, which I will edit into a more coherent text. So keep that in mind when reading those quotes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2021 3:48:19 GMT -5
There's been a lot of talk on the forum about the natural state. It is a term U.G. used often to describe his predominant state of being after 'the calamity'. But it seems only few people seem to be able to grasp the true meaning of that term. Seekers certainly don't, because by definition already, the seeker mind is incompatible with realizing the natural state. And, interestingly, a rather large number of individuals who many would consider self-realized, don't seem to have any reference for it either, because apparently, a realization has happened, but they don't own it yet, they don't know it in their bones yet. And so their understanding remains a bit too theoretical or half-baked. By that I don't mean that their understanding is faulty. They are usually correct in their conceptualization of 'the Truth' and very articulate. What I mean is that their arguments are lacking oomph, because they don't own it with their entire being, they don't embody it, and so their being doesn't ooze ease and peace and joy. They don't live by example because they can't. They had a realization but it didn't come fully thru. It remains somewhat conceptual. The visceral component, the embodying, is missing. And without that visceral component, unfortunately, the natural state will remain a mystery as we shall see. So this is where I think some exposure to U.G.'s 'teaching' (he actually says he has nothing to teach) can bring things into balance again, because U.G. almost exclusively talks about SR from a biological perspective. And so he usually functions as a good counterpoint to the mostly very abstract and theoretical non-dual speak we see these days. And although I think U.G. goes a bit overboard with his focus on the biological component of SR, he nevertheless is exceptionally clear on this topic, almost like the famous Zen masters of the past. So instead of writing an essay about the natural state according to U.G., I think it's better to compile some quotes and let U.G. do the explaining in his own words. Because he is so remarkably clear that there's not much to add, really (at least from my perspective). The natural state, according to U.G., while impossible to describe, could be (roughly) conceptualized by these 4 main features: 1) acausal 2) not an experience 3) pure functioning 4) not knowing. I am going to post a quote wall on each feature in one separate post for each feature. These quotes will be taken from random talks that happened over several decades, which I will edit into a more coherent text. So keep that in mind when reading those quotes. 'acausal,' not governed or operating by the laws of cause and effect. ie No Mind.
Did this fellow playfully engage in life with children as well as their parents an others in society? Dummy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 17, 2021 7:25:53 GMT -5
'acausal,' not governed or operating by the laws of cause and effect. ie No Mind. Did this fellow playfully engage in life with children as well as their parents an others in society? Dummy.
Certainly. But he used to get a bit antagonistic with dogmatic people from time to time. And unlike Ramana, he moved around a lot, lived in many countries and always among regular people. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 17, 2021 8:14:05 GMT -5
1) The Natural State is acausal
This aspect of the natural state is probably the one that annoys seekers the most. Because it leaves them with a sense of futility and their hopes dashed, especially those who put much faith into practices. But from the SR perspective, it is seen clearly that it can't be any other way and that even statements like "practices may not be able to facilitate SR, but at least they can make you more accident prone" are nothing more than too much of a concession to the seeker mind. On the other hand, I usually like to point out that the fact that the seeker can't make SR happen also means that the seeker can't mess it up either. So, as with all things, there's a glass half empty and a glass half full perspective on this.  But let's hear it from UG:
|
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Oct 17, 2021 9:41:28 GMT -5
Not that it matters much: I love UG. A friend and me used to watch a lot of his talks. I had the feeling that my friend in the end got a bit depressed (in a colloquial not clinical sense) by his talks. I love to sit, but thinking about it more deeply I'm not practicing for anything: I should stop to call it practice. Looking forward to your following posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 17, 2021 13:20:12 GMT -5
1) The Natural State is acausal
This aspect of the natural state is probably the one that annoys seekers the most. Because it leaves them with a sense of futility and their hopes dashed, especially those who put much faith into practices. But from the SR perspective, it is seen clearly that it can't be any other way and that even statements like "practices may not be able to facilitate SR, but at least they can make you more accident prone" are nothing more than too much of a concession to the seeker mind. On the other hand, I usually like to point out that the fact that the seeker can't make SR happen also means that the seeker can't mess it up either. So, as with all things, there's a glass half empty and a glass half full perspective on this. But let's hear it from UG: UG was a long time seeker who spent quite a bit of time around long time seeker's. The pointing is clear, and perhaps finds some at just the right moment. But, then again, if someone intellectualizes it, they start questioning people's interest in seeker stories. (.. tee hee ..) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2021 20:39:00 GMT -5
'acausal,' not governed or operating by the laws of cause and effect. ie No Mind. Did this fellow playfully engage in life with children as well as their parents an others in society? Dummy.
Certainly. But he used to get a bit antagonistic with dogmatic people from time to time. And unlike Ramana, he moved around a lot, lived in many countries and always among regular people. Interesting; I irritable-phenomena seems to act on people who be surrounded by Minds in different degrees of clarity, some introducing Brain-washing to their Cult as a means to change the Landscape; moving about another means to spread the non-word via Presence. I like this K also. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2021 20:48:09 GMT -5
1) The Natural State is acausal
This aspect of the natural state is probably the one that annoys seekers the most. Because it leaves them with a sense of futility and their hopes dashed, especially those who put much faith into practices. But from the SR perspective, it is seen clearly that it can't be any other way and that even statements like "practices may not be able to facilitate SR, but at least they can make you more accident prone" are nothing more than too much of a concession to the seeker mind. On the other hand, I usually like to point out that the fact that the seeker can't make SR happen also means that the seeker can't mess it up either. So, as with all things, there's a glass half empty and a glass half full perspective on this. But let's hear it from UG: UG was a long time seeker who spent quite a bit of time around long time seeker's. The pointing is clear, and perhaps finds some at just the right moment. But, then again, if someone intellectualizes it, they start questioning people's interest in seeker stories. (.. tee hee ..)Ownership is a problem for the enlightened? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2021 0:49:12 GMT -5
Not that it matters much: I love UG. A friend and me used to watch a lot of his talks. I had the feeling that my friend in the end got a bit depressed (in a colloquial not clinical sense) by his talks. I love to sit, but thinking about it more deeply I'm not practicing for anything: I should stop to call it practice. Looking forward to your following posts. Mind arises.
Learning to balance the mind
is for people who have adopted
the subjective-stance in Nature.
Doing nothing deflates this same mind,
the spirit shooting it on-high, alerting these same ppls to information
they once had concealed from their awareness.
'Helping the 'blind' SEE was simplified
when I added a Blindfold to the experiment.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 18, 2021 1:32:25 GMT -5
Not that it matters much: I love UG. A friend and me used to watch a lot of his talks. I had the feeling that my friend in the end got a bit depressed (in a colloquial not clinical sense) by his talks. I love to sit, but thinking about it more deeply I'm not practicing for anything: I should stop to call it practice. Looking forward to your following posts. Well, the practice itself isn't the issue, it's the attitude while you practice that is the issue. This is where you have overlaps with flow, i.e. when you are completely immersed in an activity, the activity itself suddenly becomes so intrinsically rewarding that it is done for the sheer pleasure of doing it, instead of doing it to get somewhere else, as is usually the case. Those reasons/motivations/goals that made you pick up a certain activity then suddenly fall by the wayside at the point of complete immersion. And then there's just doing for the sake of doing, which some call non-doing, which in essence is just the natural functioning of the body or life flowing naturally. You'll see some of this in the later quotes. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 18, 2021 1:42:47 GMT -5
UG was a long time seeker who spent quite a bit of time around long time seeker's. The pointing is clear, and perhaps finds some at just the right moment. But, then again, if someone intellectualizes it, they start questioning people's interest in seeker stories. (.. tee hee ..)Some consider intellectualizing the ultimate truth a sin. And it certainly has been the road to hell for many on the path. But then again, as flow can be found in virtually any kind of activity, this would thinking as well. Just be sure that you don't nail yourself to the hamster wheel and let it have its way with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 18, 2021 1:47:08 GMT -5
Certainly. But he used to get a bit antagonistic with dogmatic people from time to time. And unlike Ramana, he moved around a lot, lived in many countries and always among regular people. Interesting; I irritable-phenomena seems to act on people who be surrounded by Minds in different degrees of clarity, some introducing Brain-washing to their Cult as a means to change the Landscape; moving about another means to spread the non-word via Presence. I like this K also. Yes, living by example. UG had no interest whatsoever in leaving some behind some kind of legacy. “My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.” — U.G. Krishnamurti Can you imagine Tolle or McKenna or Chopra saying something like that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2021 3:20:36 GMT -5
Interesting; I irritable-phenomena seems to act on people who be surrounded by Minds in different degrees of clarity, some introducing Brain-washing to their Cult as a means to change the Landscape; moving about another means to spread the non-word via Presence. I like this K also. Yes, living by example. UG had no interest whatsoever in leaving some behind some kind of legacy. “My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.” — U.G. Krishnamurti Can you imagine Tolle or McKenna or Chopra saying something like that? My imagination is strong but I cannot see Chopra or Mc or teller here Like you are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2021 3:26:28 GMT -5
I like UG...
he seems to have
what others forgot.
Mostly we don't know how the mind came to us after having been born.
I don't know how UG came free but I intuited a method which,
several years later was expounded-on in a Sufi Ashram in Delhi
where life took me, when I was trying to get into the Himalaya's
back in 1884.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 18, 2021 22:00:36 GMT -5
2) The Natural State is not an experience
This is another aspect of the natural state that is impossible to comprehend by the seeker. And it will especially give the more advanced seekers, who may think they've already achieved something, a sense of disillusionment.
Now, obviously, this all hinges upon how we define the term 'experience'. And in order to define it, we need to contrast it with 'direct perception'. And those who have a reference for direct perception might get a better idea of what UG is getting at here.
Quite simply, experiences require an experiencer, while direct perception does not. So with experiences, there's always an intermediary present that translates what would otherwise be direct perception if that intermediary wouldn't be present and translating all the time. Which makes perception distorted and somewhat after the fact, i.e. not immediate and so the translating process therefore sucks the life right out it.
And translating into what anyway? Concepts, by labeling and therefore objectifying everything and anything in the field of awareness. Which narrows down the field of awareness to whatever can be objectified or conceptualized. Anything else will be akin to non-existent. Which means the natural state, which is the absence of that intermediary, by definition cannot be an experience and also by definition cannot be objectified and therefore cannot be understood intellectually.
In fact, the natural state is the unthinkable from the intermediary perspective and therefore cannot and (in practical terms) does not exist from that perspective, and is therefore usually considered delusional talk, because from the intermediary perspective, everything is looked at in terms of an experience, the entire world of the intermediary perspective is the world of experiences, there's nothing beyond or prior to experience. From the intermediary perspective, experience(s) is all there is.
But that's exactly what the natural state is, it is prior to any and all experience(s). Which means it cannot be described using concepts or words, in fact, it can't even be pointed to directly. We can only say what it is not, but never what it actually is. And so, this is where the disillusionment factor comes into play, because it renders all spiritual experiences, high or low, as equal to the most ordinary experiences and therefore makes them somewhat irrelevant.
And experiences, spiritual or non-spiritual, all have one thing in common, they come and go, because the intermediary or experiencer comes and goes. The natural state, however, does not come or go. The natural state exists in its own right. It just is. So there's no way of attaining it or losing it. There's only recognizing it for what it is or missing to recognize it for what it is. Which brings us back to UG's first point, that the natural state is acausal and that there is nothing anyone can, could or even should do to achieve it.
Now, let's see how UG explain it:
|
|
