U.G. for Dummies (1) - The Natural State

[Reefs]

3) The Natural State is a state of not-knowing

First off, what UG calls not-knowing has nothing to do with what the (metaphysical) solipsists call not-knowing. What UG calls not-knowing is intimately related to the previous point of the natural state not being an experience. Because when the objectifying stops, the conceptualizing and labeling stops. And when the labeling stops, i.e. when you look at a rose without it immediately registering as 'rose', direct perception happens and the narrowing down of perception has stopped. When that happens, we can actually see. We can take it all in, in its fullness, in its suchness.

Most people, however, look at a rose and it registers immediately as 'rose' and then they go with the 'rose' label and may even comment on it - internally or to others - "Hey, look at that rose!" That's looking without actually seeing. Even though you would know exactly what you are looking at, you can describe it and explain it to others, remember it, take pictures of it - you are not actually seeing what is in front of you but merely an abstraction of what is in front of you.

In the first case, however, direct perception, you don't actually know what you are looking at, which means you can't describe it or explain it to others, you also cannot remember it and you cannot capture it with a camera either because what you are looking at is something living (for lack of a better word), and capturing it would take the life out of it and then it wouldn't be IT anymore...

So, when you know exactly what you are looking at, then you are basically looking at something dead. And by 'dead' I don't mean dead in the sense of animate vs. inanimate, because when true seeing happens, a dead carcass or a rock will look infinitely more alive than a human being sitting right next to you and talking to you from the perspective of labeling everything. What I mean by 'dead' is an abstraction, a mere shadow of the real, the living thing right there in front of you, which you have no way of taking in when you obsessively have to objectify everything.

Anyway, this is impossible to explain. But those with a reference for it will understand.

Now, here's how UG tries to explain it:

UG: You are always in a natural state. There is no question of going in and out of it, you are always there. This state is a state of not knowing. You really don't know what you are looking at. All there is inside is wonderment. It is a state of wonder because I just do not know what I am looking at. The knowledge about it, all that I have learned, is held in the background unless there is a demand. When required it comes quickly like an arrow, then I am back in the state of not knowing, of wonder.

There are no images here. There is no room for them. The sensory apparatus is completely occupied with the things I am looking at now. And so, if you are totally tuned in to the sensory activity, there is no room for fears about who will feed you tomorrow or for speculation about God, truth and reality.

This is not a state of omniscience wherein all of man's eternal questions are answered, rather a state in which the questioning has stopped. It has stopped because those questions have no relation to the way the organism is functioning, and the way the organism is functioning leaves no room for those questions.

There are no levels of consciousness. Awareness is no different in the waking state than in the sleeping state. Even while you are sitting here you are dreaming. There cannot be dreaming without images. When you are lying in bed you call it dreaming, when sitting with the eyes open you call it something else, that is all.

For me these images are absent, whether I am in a "waking" or a "sleeping" state. I cannot form any image at any time. It does not matter here whether the eyes are open or closed. The only thing that is there in that individualized consciousness is the sure reflection of what is presented to it. You do not name it. The movement or desire to know what it is simply is not there. I have no way of knowing or experiencing this so-called wakeful state. I can mechanically explain the wakeful state, but this does NOT imply that there is someone there who KNOWS THAT HE IS AWAKE. The explanations don't mean a thing. That is why I maintain that your natural state is one of "not knowing".

When I am looking at something I really don't know what I'm looking at. That is why I say it is a state of not knowing. I really don't know. Once you are there through some luck, some strange chance, from then on everything happens in its own way.

I may look at you as you are talking. The eyes will focus on your mouth because that is what is moving, and the ears will receive the sound vibrations. There is nothing inside which links up the two and says that it is you talking. I may be looking at a spring bubbling out of the earth and hear the water, but there is nothing to say that the noise being heard is the sound of water, or that that sound is in any way connected with what I am seeing. I may be looking at my foot, but nothing says that this is my foot. When I am walking, I see my feet moving -- it is such a funny thing: "What is that which is moving?"

I say there is no translator who is translating the sensations; they stay pure and simple sensations; there is not even the knowledge that they are sensations. Seeing, tasting, touching, smelling, hearing -- these are all the sensations -- these five senses are functioning. What happens when these sensations remain as sensations without the translating, you will never know. You are translating all these sensations. So, "How to stop doing it"? You are lost if you ask "How am I going to stop the translation?" You can't stop the translation; you are the product of translation.

I do not look upon the world as a separate thing as you do. The knowledge I have about the world--whether within or without--comes into operation only when there is a demand for it. Otherwise I simply don't know. Your natural state is one of not knowing.

ETA:

Here's UG's legendary "You see NOTHING!!!" video where he explains exactly what I was trying to explain above, i.e. that people look but they usually don't see. They look at everything but they don't see anything:



"You see nothing, you don't even see THIS [hits table]! THIS will finish you!... How can you see THIS? You have never seen anything in your life, never! - Well, probably as a baby..."

Bingo! 

[zendancer]

Oct 19, 2021 1:52:53 GMT -5 Reefs said:

3) The Natural State is a state of not-knowing

First off, what UG calls not-knowing has nothing to do with what the (metaphysical) solipsists call not-knowing. What UG calls not-knowing is intimately related to the previous point of the natural state not being an experience. Because when the objectifying stops, the conceptualizing and labeling stops. And when the labeling stops, i.e. when you look at a rose without it immediately registering as 'rose', direct perception happens and the narrowing down of perception has stopped. When that happens, we can actually see. We can take it all in, in its fullness, in its suchness.

Most people, however, look at a rose and it registers immediately as 'rose' and then they go with the 'rose' label and may even comment on it - internally or to others - "Hey, look at that rose!" That's looking without actually seeing. Even though you would know exactly what you are looking at, you can describe it and explain it to others, remember it, take pictures of it - you are not actually seeing what is in front of you but merely an abstraction of what is in front of you.

In the first case, however, direct perception, you don't actually know what you are looking at, which means you can't describe it or explain it to others, you also cannot remember it and you cannot capture it with a camera either because what you are looking at is something living (for lack of a better word), and capturing it would take the life out of it and then it wouldn't be IT anymore...

So, when you know exactly what you are looking at, then you are basically looking at something dead. And by 'dead' I don't mean dead in the sense of animate vs. inanimate, because when true seeing happens, a dead carcass or a rock will look infinitely more alive than a human being sitting right next to you and talking to you from the perspective of labeling everything. What I mean by 'dead' is an abstraction, a mere shadow of the real, the living thing right there in front of you, which you have no way of taking in when you obsessively have to objectify everything.

Anyway, this is impossible to explain. But those with a reference for it will understand.

Now, here's how UG tries to explain it:

UG: You are always in a natural state. There is no question of going in and out of it, you are always there. This state is a state of not knowing. You really don't know what you are looking at. All there is inside is wonderment. It is a state of wonder because I just do not know what I am looking at. The knowledge about it, all that I have learned, is held in the background unless there is a demand. When required it comes quickly like an arrow, then I am back in the state of not knowing, of wonder.

There are no images here. There is no room for them. The sensory apparatus is completely occupied with the things I am looking at now. And so, if you are totally tuned in to the sensory activity, there is no room for fears about who will feed you tomorrow or for speculation about God, truth and reality.

This is not a state of omniscience wherein all of man's eternal questions are answered, rather a state in which the questioning has stopped. It has stopped because those questions have no relation to the way the organism is functioning, and the way the organism is functioning leaves no room for those questions.

There are no levels of consciousness. Awareness is no different in the waking state than in the sleeping state. Even while you are sitting here you are dreaming. There cannot be dreaming without images. When you are lying in bed you call it dreaming, when sitting with the eyes open you call it something else, that is all.

For me these images are absent, whether I am in a "waking" or a "sleeping" state. I cannot form any image at any time. It does not matter here whether the eyes are open or closed. The only thing that is there in that individualized consciousness is the sure reflection of what is presented to it. You do not name it. The movement or desire to know what it is simply is not there. I have no way of knowing or experiencing this so-called wakeful state. I can mechanically explain the wakeful state, but this does NOT imply that there is someone there who KNOWS THAT HE IS AWAKE. The explanations don't mean a thing. That is why I maintain that your natural state is one of "not knowing".

When I am looking at something I really don't know what I'm looking at. That is why I say it is a state of not knowing. I really don't know. Once you are there through some luck, some strange chance, from then on everything happens in its own way.

I may look at you as you are talking. The eyes will focus on your mouth because that is what is moving, and the ears will receive the sound vibrations. There is nothing inside which links up the two and says that it is you talking. I may be looking at a spring bubbling out of the earth and hear the water, but there is nothing to say that the noise being heard is the sound of water, or that that sound is in any way connected with what I am seeing. I may be looking at my foot, but nothing says that this is my foot. When I am walking, I see my feet moving -- it is such a funny thing: "What is that which is moving?"

I say there is no translator who is translating the sensations; they stay pure and simple sensations; there is not even the knowledge that they are sensations. Seeing, tasting, touching, smelling, hearing -- these are all the sensations -- these five senses are functioning. What happens when these sensations remain as sensations without the translating, you will never know. You are translating all these sensations. So, "How to stop doing it"? You are lost if you ask "How am I going to stop the translation?" You can't stop the translation; you are the product of translation.

I do not look upon the world as a separate thing as you do. The knowledge I have about the world--whether within or without--comes into operation only when there is a demand for it. Otherwise I simply don't know. Your natural state is one of not knowing.

ETA:

Here's UG's legendary "You see NOTHING!!!" video where he explains exactly what I was trying to explain above, i.e. that people look but they usually don't see. They look at everything but they don't see anything:



"You see nothing, you don't even see THIS [hits table]! THIS will finish you!... How can you see THIS? You have never seen anything in your life, never! - Well, probably as a baby..."

Bingo! 

Yes, in a recent zoom meeting with some seekers I suggested that if I asked one of the zoomers what is seen at that moment, s/he would probably say something like "I see a computer on a desk in front of me." My reply would be, "No, that's not what you see; that's what you imagine you see. Look again." S/he would be puzzled, but might then reply, "Okay, I see images of people on the screen of an electronic piece of equipment." My reply would be, "No, that's not what you see; that's what you imagine you see. Look again." I suggested that if that individual became truly curious, s/he might sit and stare at what is in front of the eyes and eventually that staring in a state of not-knowing might lead to a realization.

A week later someone who had been bothered by my previous comments wondered if people were accepting my claim because they had given up their own authority to know what was in front of their eyes. I explained that I was using that example to point to what Niz had been pointing to when he said, "You see the Ultimate but you imagine a cloud or a tree." It's the same thing UG is pointing to.

[laughter]

Oct 19, 2021 1:52:53 GMT -5 Reefs said:

UG: There cannot be dreaming without images.

Great quote, and great commentary as well, thanks.

The topic of dreaming comes up on this forum sometimes -- never interested me all that much until those dialogs. I think the more precise statement of what UG says here is "There cannot be dreaming without content".

Saw/read something once that suggests dreaming has two distinct modes (along a spectrum, of course). There are the dreams that tend toward lucidity, and those happen in relatively shallow states of sleep, right as you go under or come out. Then there are the dreams that happen in deeper states, which the scientists define by lower-frequency brain activity. Those dreams tend to be more abstract, and in my experience, most often involve no imagery, and for me, have always been the easier to remember. I've found those deeper dreams to be more ethereal, more fluid.

The one counterpoint I'd respond with is that there is a version of not-knowing which is a seekers not-knowing. To project what I mean onto content you've written before, this not-knowing would involve at least some measure of personal perspective, as the seeker is the one not-knowing, and can even actively engage with it. The engagement does have levels (unlike "what is engaged with"). Forgetting names (which is only one facet of description for what I mean) so that the field of perception comes into a more natural focus would be a deeper engagement than not-knowing as applied to concepts.

The meta-physical ideas would arise quite often and sometimes even forcefully when I was engaged as I describe (similar to as sifty advises, here), and that's because they were certainly central to my sense of reality. And, of course, the sense of identity is always complimentary to the sense of reality. Now, what I mean generally by that is that if you're someone - like me - who had a long time intellectualized interest in why the way the world seems to be the way it is, and who made sense of the world via some form of idealized realism, then there will be some conceptual framework deeply embedded in the subconscious, that forms that complimentary structure of identity/reality. Identity being what you are, reality being, what you are in.

These dialogs over the years have opened my mind to different ways of perceiving the world, so at this point I can certainly imagine an alternative sort of false-identity trance in which those metaphysical ideas are completely unimportant. But that's certainly outside of my direct experience.

[zendancer]

Oct 20, 2021 3:01:01 GMT -5 @wally said:

Oct 19, 2021 8:11:14 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Yes, in a recent zoom meeting with some seekers I suggested that if I asked one of the zoomers what is seen at that moment, s/he would probably say something like "I see a computer on a desk in front of me." My reply would be, "No, that's not what you see; that's what you imagine you see. Look again." S/he would be puzzled, but might then reply, "Okay, I see images of people on the screen of an electronic piece of equipment." My reply would be, "No, that's not what you see; that's what you imagine you see. Look again." I suggested that if that individual became truly curious, s/he might sit and stare at what is in front of the eyes and eventually that staring in a state of not-knowing might lead to a realization.

A week later someone who had been bothered by my previous comments wondered if people were accepting my claim because they had given up their own authority to know what was in front of their eyes. I explained that I was using that example to point to what Niz had been pointing to when he said, "You see the Ultimate but you imagine a cloud or a tree." It's the same thing UG is pointing to.

ZD...

Best time for realising SEEING

be when one has emptied-out.

My first realisation be like THAT, as mind was 'out of the Way'.

'Like Burning Bushes, the trees that my Father loved were ablaze in Light.'

(funeral experience)

Yes. Deep grief opens people up in unusual ways. For some people it can lead to a rather enlightened state that lasts for a long time. I remember Ram Das talking about how his mother's death cracked his father open like an egg, but the consensus trance came back rather soon and closed him down again. One writer on this forum was radically changed by his wife's death, and said that her death was as if she had given him a great gift.

[Reefs]

Oct 19, 2021 8:11:14 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Oct 19, 2021 1:52:53 GMT -5 Reefs said:

3) The Natural State is a state of not-knowing

First off, what UG calls not-knowing has nothing to do with what the (metaphysical) solipsists call not-knowing. What UG calls not-knowing is intimately related to the previous point of the natural state not being an experience. Because when the objectifying stops, the conceptualizing and labeling stops. And when the labeling stops, i.e. when you look at a rose without it immediately registering as 'rose', direct perception happens and the narrowing down of perception has stopped. When that happens, we can actually see. We can take it all in, in its fullness, in its suchness.

Most people, however, look at a rose and it registers immediately as 'rose' and then they go with the 'rose' label and may even comment on it - internally or to others - "Hey, look at that rose!" That's looking without actually seeing. Even though you would know exactly what you are looking at, you can describe it and explain it to others, remember it, take pictures of it - you are not actually seeing what is in front of you but merely an abstraction of what is in front of you.

In the first case, however, direct perception, you don't actually know what you are looking at, which means you can't describe it or explain it to others, you also cannot remember it and you cannot capture it with a camera either because what you are looking at is something living (for lack of a better word), and capturing it would take the life out of it and then it wouldn't be IT anymore...

So, when you know exactly what you are looking at, then you are basically looking at something dead. And by 'dead' I don't mean dead in the sense of animate vs. inanimate, because when true seeing happens, a dead carcass or a rock will look infinitely more alive than a human being sitting right next to you and talking to you from the perspective of labeling everything. What I mean by 'dead' is an abstraction, a mere shadow of the real, the living thing right there in front of you, which you have no way of taking in when you obsessively have to objectify everything.

Anyway, this is impossible to explain. But those with a reference for it will understand.

Now, here's how UG tries to explain it:


ETA:

Here's UG's legendary "You see NOTHING!!!" video where he explains exactly what I was trying to explain above, i.e. that people look but they usually don't see. They look at everything but they don't see anything:



"You see nothing, you don't even see THIS [hits table]! THIS will finish you!... How can you see THIS? You have never seen anything in your life, never! - Well, probably as a baby..."

Bingo! 

Yes, in a recent zoom meeting with some seekers I suggested that if I asked one of the zoomers what is seen at that moment, s/he would probably say something like "I see a computer on a desk in front of me." My reply would be, "No, that's not what you see; that's what you imagine you see. Look again." S/he would be puzzled, but might then reply, "Okay, I see images of people on the screen of an electronic piece of equipment." My reply would be, "No, that's not what you see; that's what you imagine you see. Look again." I suggested that if that individual became truly curious, s/he might sit and stare at what is in front of the eyes and eventually that staring in a state of not-knowing might lead to a realization.

A week later someone who had been bothered by my previous comments wondered if people were accepting my claim because they had given up their own authority to know what was in front of their eyes. I explained that I was using that example to point to what Niz had been pointing to when he said, "You see the Ultimate but you imagine a cloud or a tree." It's the same thing UG is pointing to.

They probably thought you were just trying to be mean.

Great Niz quote. Yes, that's it exactly.

[Reefs]

Oct 19, 2021 18:08:58 GMT -5 laughter said:

Oct 19, 2021 1:52:53 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Great quote, and great commentary as well, thanks.

The topic of dreaming comes up on this forum sometimes -- never interested me all that much until those dialogs. I think the more precise statement of what UG says here is "There cannot be dreaming without content".

Saw/read something once that suggests dreaming has two distinct modes (along a spectrum, of course). There are the dreams that tend toward lucidity, and those happen in relatively shallow states of sleep, right as you go under or come out. Then there are the dreams that happen in deeper states, which the scientists define by lower-frequency brain activity. Those dreams tend to be more abstract, and in my experience, most often involve no imagery, and for me, have always been the easier to remember. I've found those deeper dreams to be more ethereal, more fluid.

The one counterpoint I'd respond with is that there is a version of not-knowing which is a seekers not-knowing. To project what I mean onto content you've written before, this not-knowing would involve at least some measure of personal perspective, as the seeker is the one not-knowing, and can even actively engage with it. The engagement does have levels (unlike "what is engaged with"). Forgetting names (which is only one facet of description for what I mean) so that the field of perception comes into a more natural focus would be a deeper engagement than not-knowing as applied to concepts.

The meta-physical ideas would arise quite often and sometimes even forcefully when I was engaged as I describe (similar to as sifty advises, here), and that's because they were certainly central to my sense of reality. And, of course, the sense of identity is always complimentary to the sense of reality. Now, what I mean generally by that is that if you're someone - like me - who had a long time intellectualized interest in why the way the world seems to be the way it is, and who made sense of the world via some form of idealized realism, then there will be some conceptual framework deeply embedded in the subconscious, that forms that complimentary structure of identity/reality. Identity being what you are, reality being, what you are in.

These dialogs over the years have opened my mind to different ways of perceiving the world, so at this point I can certainly imagine an alternative sort of false-identity trance in which those metaphysical ideas are completely unimportant. But that's certainly outside of my direct experience.

Well, the not-knowing UG is referring to is not some kind of malfunctioning or even suspension of the intellect. As he keeps saying, when the intellect is required, as in interacting in society with others, it will all be there at your disposal, automatically and spontaneously. So you will still be able to count your money, sign documents and remember you name and date of birth.

As I used to always say, what is seen is not the point, it's all about how seeing happens. And this kind of seeing is more like side-stepping the intellect. As a seeker, everything gets filter thru the intellect. So that the seeker perspective is basically identical with  the perspective of the intellect. I say basically, because it's an oversimplification. And what UG is pointing to, we all actually have a reference for to some degree, we just have to go back, way back to a time we have hardly any memories of. UG was alluding to this with his baby reference. So it's not something new, really. Which means we should all recognize it immediately when we encounter it.

The main feature of the natural state is that it is nothing mystical at all - UG keeps stressing this point all the time - but something rather simple, or unadorned as Adya often calls it, and actually something utterly familiar. That's why you can't miss this or doubt this when it happens. It will be something so utterly and intimately familiar, and just plain self-evident that THIS is it. Niz used to say that you just need to retrace your steps, that's all. And Papaji used to say that you are already home. All pointing to the same fact that there's nothing to accomplish, nothing new to learn or to realize.

When you see via the intellect, you look at an ugly building and your eyes may hurt because it's so ugly. But when you see directly, when the intellect gets side-stepped, there is no ugly building, there's just .. "WOW!"- the Infinite looks at the Infinite and recognizes itself as the Infinite - and that's real, true beauty, which has nothing to do with proportions or whatever conditions. It is beautiful because it IS, just IS, THIS.

So, I don't see how, from the seeker perspective, this kind of not-knowing, this kind of seeing the world, could make any sense at all. However, there is a kind of profound not-knowing one can experience as a seeker after one has followed Ramana's advice of meditating on "Who am I?" - it will, at some point, inevitably end in profound silence. And that seems to be what McKenna is teaching, but that's not what UG is trying to convey.

What UG means by the natural state is actually just the natural functioning of the body, a primordial state, free from the burden of thought. So it's not exactly the absence of knowledge or the intellect, it's the absence of reliance on knowledge and the intellect, the absence of being rooted in and therefore bound by knowledge and the intellect. And while some experiences with lucid dreaming or hypnosis may add more flexibility to and broaden one's perspective on reality, it does seem to me that a lot of people just use this to step up their identity poker game. Because it all remains very intellectual and theoretical. And that's not where freedom is found. It's not the seeing or smelling the honey that will make you understand what honey is. You have to put it into your mouth and taste it. There's this saying that in it takes one to know one. This also applies to SR, only from the perspective of Self can you recognize or know Self. Only God can know God. Only the Infinite can see the Infinite as the Infinite. And what UG is pointing to is exactly this perspective.

I've got one more quote wall from UG coming, that should make it more clear.

[laughter]

Oct 21, 2021 9:00:58 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Oct 19, 2021 18:08:58 GMT -5 laughter said:

Great quote, and great commentary as well, thanks.

The topic of dreaming comes up on this forum sometimes -- never interested me all that much until those dialogs. I think the more precise statement of what UG says here is "There cannot be dreaming without content".

Saw/read something once that suggests dreaming has two distinct modes (along a spectrum, of course). There are the dreams that tend toward lucidity, and those happen in relatively shallow states of sleep, right as you go under or come out. Then there are the dreams that happen in deeper states, which the scientists define by lower-frequency brain activity. Those dreams tend to be more abstract, and in my experience, most often involve no imagery, and for me, have always been the easier to remember. I've found those deeper dreams to be more ethereal, more fluid.

The one counterpoint I'd respond with is that there is a version of not-knowing which is a seekers not-knowing. To project what I mean onto content you've written before, this not-knowing would involve at least some measure of personal perspective, as the seeker is the one not-knowing, and can even actively engage with it. The engagement does have levels (unlike "what is engaged with"). Forgetting names (which is only one facet of description for what I mean) so that the field of perception comes into a more natural focus would be a deeper engagement than not-knowing as applied to concepts.

The meta-physical ideas would arise quite often and sometimes even forcefully when I was engaged as I describe (similar to as sifty advises, here), and that's because they were certainly central to my sense of reality. And, of course, the sense of identity is always complimentary to the sense of reality. Now, what I mean generally by that is that if you're someone - like me - who had a long time intellectualized interest in why the way the world seems to be the way it is, and who made sense of the world via some form of idealized realism, then there will be some conceptual framework deeply embedded in the subconscious, that forms that complimentary structure of identity/reality. Identity being what you are, reality being, what you are in.

These dialogs over the years have opened my mind to different ways of perceiving the world, so at this point I can certainly imagine an alternative sort of false-identity trance in which those metaphysical ideas are completely unimportant. But that's certainly outside of my direct experience.

Well, the not-knowing UG is referring to is not some kind of malfunctioning or even suspension of the intellect. As he keeps saying, when the intellect is required, as in interacting in society with others, it will all be there at your disposal, automatically and spontaneously. So you will still be able to count your money, sign documents and remember you name and date of birth.

As I used to always say, what is seen is not the point, it's all about how seeing happens. And this kind of seeing is more like side-stepping the intellect. As a seeker, everything gets filter thru the intellect. So that the seeker perspective is basically identical with  the perspective of the intellect. I say basically, because it's an oversimplification. And what UG is pointing to, we all actually have a reference for to some degree, we just have to go back, way back to a time we have hardly any memories of. UG was alluding to this with his baby reference. So it's not something new, really. Which means we should all recognize it immediately when we encounter it.

The main feature of the natural state is that it is nothing mystical at all - UG keeps stressing this point all the time - but something rather simple, or unadorned as Adya often calls it, and actually something utterly familiar. That's why you can't miss this or doubt this when it happens. It will be something so utterly and intimately familiar, and just plain self-evident that THIS is it. Niz used to say that you just need to retrace your steps, that's all. And Papaji used to say that you are already home. All pointing to the same fact that there's nothing to accomplish, nothing new to learn or to realize.

When you see via the intellect, you look at an ugly building and your eyes may hurt because it's so ugly. But when you see directly, when the intellect gets side-stepped, there is no ugly building, there's just .. "WOW!"- the Infinite looks at the Infinite and recognizes itself as the Infinite - and that's real, true beauty, which has nothing to do with proportions or whatever conditions. It is beautiful because it IS, just IS, THIS.

So, I don't see how, from the seeker perspective, this kind of not-knowing, this kind of seeing the world, could make any sense at all. However, there is a kind of profound not-knowing one can experience as a seeker after one has followed Ramana's advice of meditating on "Who am I?" - it will, at some point, inevitably end in profound silence. And that seems to be what McKenna is teaching, but that's not what UG is trying to convey.

What UG means by the natural state is actually just the natural functioning of the body, a primordial state, free from the burden of thought. So it's not exactly the absence of knowledge or the intellect, it's the absence of reliance on knowledge and the intellect, the absence of being rooted in and therefore bound by knowledge and the intellect. And while some experiences with lucid dreaming or hypnosis may add more flexibility to and broaden one's perspective on reality, it does seem to me that a lot of people just use this to step up their identity poker game. Because it all remains very intellectual and theoretical. And that's not where freedom is found. It's not the seeing or smelling the honey that will make you understand what honey is. You have to put it into your mouth and taste it. There's this saying that in it takes one to know one. This also applies to SR, only from the perspective of Self can you recognize or know Self. Only God can know God. Only the Infinite can see the Infinite as the Infinite. And what UG is pointing to is exactly this perspective.

I've got one more quote wall from UG coming, that should make it more clear.

Oh, most definitely the seeker-not-knowing is intermittent, so, it's not exactly the same deal as the not-knowing in UG's natural state. In one sense, the two notions are very very different, because there's no aspiring to the here and now. In another sense, though, not all identity poker hands have the same cards, and the two are very much of the same fabric.

Some seekers can have experiences and insights short of the end of seeking, short of the natural state, but that lead to perspectives entirely different from the consensus trance. So different, in fact, that a sort of shadow of the undeniablity of recognition applies. Just as retracing ones steps is a process, so is the time with the head in the tigers mouth, or the digestion of the red hot iron ball. None of these processes are mandatory, as every path is unique. But seekers who find themselves in this situation often have to admit to themselves that reality is not what they thought it was, and to a degree that they'd rather not have to, for any one of a number of practical reasons. IOW: spiritual people are often considered eccentric mad men and women. I'm sure sometimes that's an act. But, as you allude, and we agree, there are matters of degree involved, so, some facets of this cultural alienation are going to be sincere.

Now, whether or not a sense of identity like this can be so stable as to last indefinitely is a topic I have to speculate about, but it seems to me from what I've heard of long time seekers like UG is that it can. For me, during that time - and I know this can sound (foolishly) harsh - I both couldn't deny that I was seeking, but also couldn't deny that seeking was - bottom-line - a self-created mind game. While I don't know if UG ever used that precise language about seeking, it's certainly there in what he says. The dissonance was probably easier for me to deal with than typical because most of my seeking was done unconsciously, over a very long time.

For me, during that time of seeker-not-knowing, the futility of abstraction and intellect was quite clear - consciously, in the forefront of mind - and based on full-body-direct experience. Here again, whether or not someone can get into a state like this prior to that insight about intellect, I have to speculate, as for me, that's not the way it happened. But, unlike with what seems to the seeker as the intermittent nature of stillness/silence, I've never heard a serious seeker object to the point, made in various ways - depending on who is pointing - that the existential truth is out of reach of the intellect.

[Reefs]

4) The Natural State as the pure functioning of life, untouched by thought

This part sort of sums up all previous points, including what I've said in my commentaries. After having pointed out what the natural state is not, UG tries to point at what it actually is. You'll notice that he tends to contrast it with the realm of thought, which he considers as lifeless and basically dead. The natural state, he calls the living state, where everything comes truly alive. And again, 'alive' here is not meant in the sense of 'animate' vs. 'inanimate', those are mental categories that don't apply here. Alive here means the Infinite, Source, Life flowing and blowing thru everything - what mind would classify as animate and inanimate! This is impossible to convey or even imagine, but UG's description of it as an 'explosive aliveness' captures it pretty well.

UG: When I use the term 'natural state' it is not a synonym for 'enlightenment', 'freedom', or 'God-realization' and so forth. Not at all. When the totality of mankind's knowledge and experience loses its stranglehold on the body --the physical organism--then the body is allowed to function in its own harmonious way. Your natural state is a biological, neurological and physical state.

The natural state is not the state of a self-realized God-realized man, it is not a thing to be achieved or attained, it is not a thing to be willed into existence; it is there -- it is the living state. This state is just the functional activity of life. By 'life' I do not mean something abstract; it is the life of the senses, functioning naturally without the interference of thought. Thought is an interloper, which thrusts itself into the affairs of the senses.

This state is a physical condition of your being. It is not some kind of psychological mutation. It is not a state of mind into which you can fall one day and out of the next. You can't imagine the extent to which, as you are now, thought pervades and interferes with the functioning of every cell in your body. Coming into your natural state will blast every cell, every gland, and every nerve. It is a chemical change. An alchemy of some sort takes place. But this state has nothing to do with the experiences of chemical drugs. Those are experiences, this is not.

The natural state is a state of great sensitivity, but this is a physical sensitivity of the senses, not some kind of emotional compassion or tenderness for others. There is compassion only in the sense that there are no others for me and so there is no separation. Actually, there is always a gap between any two sensations. The coordinator bridges that gap, establishes itself as an illusion of continuity.

In the natural state there is no entity who is coordinating the messages from the different senses. Each sense is functioning independently in its own way. When there is a demand from outside which makes it necessary to co-ordinate one or two or all of the senses and come up with a response, still there is no coordinator, but there is a temporary state of co- ordination. There is no continuity; when the demand has been met, again there is only the uncoordinated, disconnected, disjointed functioning of the senses. This is always the case. Once the continuity is blown apart -- not that it was ever there; but the illusory continuity -- it's finished once and for all.

In the natural state the movement of self is absent. The absence of this movement probably is the beyond but that can never be experienced by you. It is when the you is not there. The moment you translate, the you is there. You look at something and recognize it. Thought interferes with the sensation by translating. You are either thinking about something which is totally unrelated to the way the senses are functioning at the moment or else labeling. That is all that is there. The word separates you from what you are looking at, thereby creating the you. Otherwise, there is no space between the two.

What I am saying is outside the field of teachability; it is simply a description of the way I am functioning. It is just a description of the natural state of man -- this is the way you, stripped of the machinations of thought, are also functioning… What functions is a primordial consciousness, untouched by thought.

My talking comes out in response to the questions which are asked. I cannot sit and give a talk on the natural state -- that is an artificial situation for me. There is nobody who is thinking thoughts and then coming out with answers. When you throw a ball at me, the ball bounces back, and that is what you call an 'answer'. But I don't give any answers; this state is expressing itself. I really don't know what I'm saying, and what I'm saying is of no importance. You may transcribe my own talking, but it will make no sense to me -- it is a dead thing.

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.

You can never understand the tremendous peace that is always there within you, that is your natural state. Your trying to create a peaceful state of mind is in fact creating disturbance within you. You can only talk of peace, create a state of mind and say to yourself that you are very peaceful -- but that is not peace; that is violence. So there is no use in practicing peace, there is no reason to practice silence. Real silence is explosive; it is not the dead state of mind that spiritual seekers think. "Oh, I am at peace with myself! There is silence, a tremendous silence! I experience silence!" -- that doesn't mean anything at all. This is volcanic in its nature: it's bubbling all the time -- the energy, the life -- that is its quality. You may ask how I know. I don't know. Life is aware of itself, if we can put it that way -- it is conscious of itself.

Now, compare all of what I've posted here from UG to what one usually hears, sees and reads in non-duality circles these days and you'll probably have to admit that this aspect of SR is somewhat neglected and gets rarely mentioned at all. But, as I have argued, and as UG has argued as well, without it, our understanding remains somewhat theoretical. In fact, UG's point seems to be that without a direct reference for the natural state, one has no actual reference for what it means to be truly alive. And I agree.

[inavalan]

Oct 22, 2021 9:41:06 GMT -5 Reefs said:

4) The Natural State as the pure functioning of life, untouched by thought

...

UG: ...

My talking comes out in response to the questions which are asked. I cannot sit and give a talk on the natural state -- that is an artificial situation for me. There is nobody who is thinking thoughts and then coming out with answers. When you throw a ball at me, the ball bounces back, and that is what you call an 'answer'. But I don't give any answers; this state is expressing itself. I really don't know what I'm saying, and what I'm saying is of no importance. You may transcribe my own talking, but it will make no sense to me -- it is a dead thing.

...

...

I see some potential there.

[Reefs]

Oct 21, 2021 10:07:21 GMT -5 laughter said:

Oct 21, 2021 9:00:58 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Well, the not-knowing UG is referring to is not some kind of malfunctioning or even suspension of the intellect. As he keeps saying, when the intellect is required, as in interacting in society with others, it will all be there at your disposal, automatically and spontaneously. So you will still be able to count your money, sign documents and remember you name and date of birth.

As I used to always say, what is seen is not the point, it's all about how seeing happens. And this kind of seeing is more like side-stepping the intellect. As a seeker, everything gets filter thru the intellect. So that the seeker perspective is basically identical with  the perspective of the intellect. I say basically, because it's an oversimplification. And what UG is pointing to, we all actually have a reference for to some degree, we just have to go back, way back to a time we have hardly any memories of. UG was alluding to this with his baby reference. So it's not something new, really. Which means we should all recognize it immediately when we encounter it.

The main feature of the natural state is that it is nothing mystical at all - UG keeps stressing this point all the time - but something rather simple, or unadorned as Adya often calls it, and actually something utterly familiar. That's why you can't miss this or doubt this when it happens. It will be something so utterly and intimately familiar, and just plain self-evident that THIS is it. Niz used to say that you just need to retrace your steps, that's all. And Papaji used to say that you are already home. All pointing to the same fact that there's nothing to accomplish, nothing new to learn or to realize.

When you see via the intellect, you look at an ugly building and your eyes may hurt because it's so ugly. But when you see directly, when the intellect gets side-stepped, there is no ugly building, there's just .. "WOW!"- the Infinite looks at the Infinite and recognizes itself as the Infinite - and that's real, true beauty, which has nothing to do with proportions or whatever conditions. It is beautiful because it IS, just IS, THIS.

So, I don't see how, from the seeker perspective, this kind of not-knowing, this kind of seeing the world, could make any sense at all. However, there is a kind of profound not-knowing one can experience as a seeker after one has followed Ramana's advice of meditating on "Who am I?" - it will, at some point, inevitably end in profound silence. And that seems to be what McKenna is teaching, but that's not what UG is trying to convey.

What UG means by the natural state is actually just the natural functioning of the body, a primordial state, free from the burden of thought. So it's not exactly the absence of knowledge or the intellect, it's the absence of reliance on knowledge and the intellect, the absence of being rooted in and therefore bound by knowledge and the intellect. And while some experiences with lucid dreaming or hypnosis may add more flexibility to and broaden one's perspective on reality, it does seem to me that a lot of people just use this to step up their identity poker game. Because it all remains very intellectual and theoretical. And that's not where freedom is found. It's not the seeing or smelling the honey that will make you understand what honey is. You have to put it into your mouth and taste it. There's this saying that in it takes one to know one. This also applies to SR, only from the perspective of Self can you recognize or know Self. Only God can know God. Only the Infinite can see the Infinite as the Infinite. And what UG is pointing to is exactly this perspective.

I've got one more quote wall from UG coming, that should make it more clear.

Oh, most definitely the seeker-not-knowing is intermittent, so, it's not exactly the same deal as the not-knowing in UG's natural state. In one sense, the two notions are very very different, because there's no aspiring to the here and now. In another sense, though, not all identity poker hands have the same cards, and the two are very much of the same fabric.

Some seekers can have experiences and insights short of the end of seeking, short of the natural state, but that lead to perspectives entirely different from the consensus trance. So different, in fact, that a sort of shadow of the undeniablity of recognition applies. Just as retracing ones steps is a process, so is the time with the head in the tigers mouth, or the digestion of the red hot iron ball. None of these processes are mandatory, as every path is unique. But seekers who find themselves in this situation often have to admit to themselves that reality is not what they thought it was, and to a degree that they'd rather not have to, for any one of a number of practical reasons. IOW: spiritual people are often considered eccentric mad men and women. I'm sure sometimes that's an act. But, as you allude, and we agree, there are matters of degree involved, so, some facets of this cultural alienation are going to be sincere.

Now, whether or not a sense of identity like this can be so stable as to last indefinitely is a topic I have to speculate about, but it seems to me from what I've heard of long time seekers like UG is that it can. For me, during that time - and I know this can sound (foolishly) harsh - I both couldn't deny that I was seeking, but also couldn't deny that seeking was - bottom-line - a self-created mind game. While I don't know if UG ever used that precise language about seeking, it's certainly there in what he says. The dissonance was probably easier for me to deal with than typical because most of my seeking was done unconsciously, over a very long time.

For me, during that time of seeker-not-knowing, the futility of abstraction and intellect was quite clear - consciously, in the forefront of mind - and based on full-body-direct experience. Here again, whether or not someone can get into a state like this prior to that insight about intellect, I have to speculate, as for me, that's not the way it happened. But, unlike with what seems to the seeker as the intermittent nature of stillness/silence, I've never heard a serious seeker object to the point, made in various ways - depending on who is pointing - that the existential truth is out of reach of the intellect.

Yes, at some point, the mind game of the search becomes obvious and one is looking for a way out, there may be some yearning for something real, something of substance. And that can't be found in books or youtube videos. Face to face satsang may be something different though. UG really did suffer when he was a seeker, not only mentally, but also physically. In the end, he basically ended up on the streets.

So what I usually recommend to seekers is not to worry about enlightenment, SR and all that stuff but to go for flow and alignment instead, because that is something of real practical value and will give immediate and predictable results. The enlightenment and SR and ultimate truth stuff, in the end, all comes down to grace. Lightening will strike when it strikes. So that will take care of itself. As UG points out, nothing that the seeker does or doesn't do will make any difference in that regard. But when the focus is on alignment and flow, what the seeker does or doesn't do will make a difference. As I keep saying, suffering is optional. As a seeker, one can be ignorant and miserable, or one can be ignorant and happy. And especially when it comes to flow, there's a chance to fall into deep flow now and then, i.e. when it suddenly becomes impersonal. Same with alignment. It's those moments when time and space become non-existent. These moments will actually show up as a gap in memory, because they are not experiences. Ordinary flow is actually easy to achieve, all it takes is an activity you naturally enjoy and that matches your skill level, you apply a bit of focus and off you go into flow in no time! Another way is the ATA route, you focus fully into the senses, i.e. when you wash the dishes, you feel the warmth and softness of the water running over your hands and stay with that sensation, or when you take out the trash, you open the door and it is squeaky and you stay in that sharp sound so that it reverberates in your entire being - that's the kind of - seemingly insignificant, mundane - stuff that 'caused' a lot of great sages of the past to have profound insights.

So I hope what people take away from what UG presented as the natural state is that the ultimate truth is not something abstract or static but something very much alive, pulsing and flowing, right here right now, in the most mundane things and therefore available and accessible at all times. I used to make a similar point when I coined the term 'truthin' (as opposed to truth).

People are too much focused on truth and the ultimate realization and forget to live in the here and now. Actually, one doesn't even have to be self-realized in order to live in the NOW. In fact, a lot of people who apparently have seen thru the SVP actually don't have the slightest clue what the natural state is. I find that a bit odd.

[zendancer]

Oct 22, 2021 9:41:06 GMT -5 Reefs said:

4) The Natural State as the pure functioning of life, untouched by thought

This part sort of sums up all previous points, including what I've said in my commentaries. After having pointed out what the natural state is not, UG tries to point at what it actually is. You'll notice that he tends to contrast it with the realm of thought, which he considers as lifeless and basically dead. The natural state, he calls the living state, where everything comes truly alive. And again, 'alive' here is not meant in the sense of 'animate' vs. 'inanimate', those are mental categories that don't apply here. Alive here means the Infinite, Source, Life flowing and blowing thru everything - what mind would classify as animate and inanimate! This is impossible to convey or even imagine, but UG's description of it as an 'explosive aliveness' captures it pretty well.

UG: When I use the term 'natural state' it is not a synonym for 'enlightenment', 'freedom', or 'God-realization' and so forth. Not at all. When the totality of mankind's knowledge and experience loses its stranglehold on the body --the physical organism--then the body is allowed to function in its own harmonious way. Your natural state is a biological, neurological and physical state.

The natural state is not the state of a self-realized God-realized man, it is not a thing to be achieved or attained, it is not a thing to be willed into existence; it is there -- it is the living state. This state is just the functional activity of life. By 'life' I do not mean something abstract; it is the life of the senses, functioning naturally without the interference of thought. Thought is an interloper, which thrusts itself into the affairs of the senses.

This state is a physical condition of your being. It is not some kind of psychological mutation. It is not a state of mind into which you can fall one day and out of the next. You can't imagine the extent to which, as you are now, thought pervades and interferes with the functioning of every cell in your body. Coming into your natural state will blast every cell, every gland, and every nerve. It is a chemical change. An alchemy of some sort takes place. But this state has nothing to do with the experiences of chemical drugs. Those are experiences, this is not.

The natural state is a state of great sensitivity, but this is a physical sensitivity of the senses, not some kind of emotional compassion or tenderness for others. There is compassion only in the sense that there are no others for me and so there is no separation. Actually, there is always a gap between any two sensations. The coordinator bridges that gap, establishes itself as an illusion of continuity.

In the natural state there is no entity who is coordinating the messages from the different senses. Each sense is functioning independently in its own way. When there is a demand from outside which makes it necessary to co-ordinate one or two or all of the senses and come up with a response, still there is no coordinator, but there is a temporary state of co- ordination. There is no continuity; when the demand has been met, again there is only the uncoordinated, disconnected, disjointed functioning of the senses. This is always the case. Once the continuity is blown apart -- not that it was ever there; but the illusory continuity -- it's finished once and for all.

In the natural state the movement of self is absent. The absence of this movement probably is the beyond but that can never be experienced by you. It is when the you is not there. The moment you translate, the you is there. You look at something and recognize it. Thought interferes with the sensation by translating. You are either thinking about something which is totally unrelated to the way the senses are functioning at the moment or else labeling. That is all that is there. The word separates you from what you are looking at, thereby creating the you. Otherwise, there is no space between the two.

What I am saying is outside the field of teachability; it is simply a description of the way I am functioning. It is just a description of the natural state of man -- this is the way you, stripped of the machinations of thought, are also functioning… What functions is a primordial consciousness, untouched by thought.

My talking comes out in response to the questions which are asked. I cannot sit and give a talk on the natural state -- that is an artificial situation for me. There is nobody who is thinking thoughts and then coming out with answers. When you throw a ball at me, the ball bounces back, and that is what you call an 'answer'. But I don't give any answers; this state is expressing itself. I really don't know what I'm saying, and what I'm saying is of no importance. You may transcribe my own talking, but it will make no sense to me -- it is a dead thing.

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.

You can never understand the tremendous peace that is always there within you, that is your natural state. Your trying to create a peaceful state of mind is in fact creating disturbance within you. You can only talk of peace, create a state of mind and say to yourself that you are very peaceful -- but that is not peace; that is violence. So there is no use in practicing peace, there is no reason to practice silence. Real silence is explosive; it is not the dead state of mind that spiritual seekers think. "Oh, I am at peace with myself! There is silence, a tremendous silence! I experience silence!" -- that doesn't mean anything at all. This is volcanic in its nature: it's bubbling all the time -- the energy, the life -- that is its quality. You may ask how I know. I don't know. Life is aware of itself, if we can put it that way -- it is conscious of itself.

Now, compare all of what I've posted here from UG to what one usually hears, sees and reads in non-duality circles these days and you'll probably have to admit that this aspect of SR is somewhat neglected and gets rarely mentioned at all. But, as I have argued, and as UG has argued as well, without it, our understanding remains somewhat theoretical. In fact, UG's point seems to be that without a direct reference for the natural state, one has no actual reference for what it means to be truly alive. And I agree.

Good stuff. At one time I had my doubts about UG, but I had never read much that he had to say. These quotes make it clear that he was very clear. I can now see why so many people have misunderstood what he was saying.

[Reefs]

Oct 23, 2021 11:47:12 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Oct 22, 2021 9:41:06 GMT -5 Reefs said:

4) The Natural State as the pure functioning of life, untouched by thought

This part sort of sums up all previous points, including what I've said in my commentaries. After having pointed out what the natural state is not, UG tries to point at what it actually is. You'll notice that he tends to contrast it with the realm of thought, which he considers as lifeless and basically dead. The natural state, he calls the living state, where everything comes truly alive. And again, 'alive' here is not meant in the sense of 'animate' vs. 'inanimate', those are mental categories that don't apply here. Alive here means the Infinite, Source, Life flowing and blowing thru everything - what mind would classify as animate and inanimate! This is impossible to convey or even imagine, but UG's description of it as an 'explosive aliveness' captures it pretty well.

Now, compare all of what I've posted here from UG to what one usually hears, sees and reads in non-duality circles these days and you'll probably have to admit that this aspect of SR is somewhat neglected and gets rarely mentioned at all. But, as I have argued, and as UG has argued as well, without it, our understanding remains somewhat theoretical. In fact, UG's point seems to be that without a direct reference for the natural state, one has no actual reference for what it means to be truly alive. And I agree.

Good stuff. At one time I had my doubts about UG, but I had never read much that he had to say. These quotes make it clear that he was very clear. I can now see why so many people have misunderstood what he was saying.

I'd say, for people in the West, the advantage UG has over let's say Ramana and Niz is that UG spoke English very well and so we get his words unfiltered, in the original. And since he had an aversion to anything organized religious or dogmatic or anything that came close to a system of thought, he speaks in plain English instead of riddling his talks with Sanskrit terms that are open to interpretation. With Ramana and Niz, we don't really know how much got lost in translation.

[laughter]

Oct 23, 2021 10:50:08 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Oct 21, 2021 10:07:21 GMT -5 laughter said:

Oh, most definitely the seeker-not-knowing is intermittent, so, it's not exactly the same deal as the not-knowing in UG's natural state. In one sense, the two notions are very very different, because there's no aspiring to the here and now. In another sense, though, not all identity poker hands have the same cards, and the two are very much of the same fabric.

Some seekers can have experiences and insights short of the end of seeking, short of the natural state, but that lead to perspectives entirely different from the consensus trance. So different, in fact, that a sort of shadow of the undeniablity of recognition applies. Just as retracing ones steps is a process, so is the time with the head in the tigers mouth, or the digestion of the red hot iron ball. None of these processes are mandatory, as every path is unique. But seekers who find themselves in this situation often have to admit to themselves that reality is not what they thought it was, and to a degree that they'd rather not have to, for any one of a number of practical reasons. IOW: spiritual people are often considered eccentric mad men and women. I'm sure sometimes that's an act. But, as you allude, and we agree, there are matters of degree involved, so, some facets of this cultural alienation are going to be sincere.

Now, whether or not a sense of identity like this can be so stable as to last indefinitely is a topic I have to speculate about, but it seems to me from what I've heard of long time seekers like UG is that it can. For me, during that time - and I know this can sound (foolishly) harsh - I both couldn't deny that I was seeking, but also couldn't deny that seeking was - bottom-line - a self-created mind game. While I don't know if UG ever used that precise language about seeking, it's certainly there in what he says. The dissonance was probably easier for me to deal with than typical because most of my seeking was done unconsciously, over a very long time.

For me, during that time of seeker-not-knowing, the futility of abstraction and intellect was quite clear - consciously, in the forefront of mind - and based on full-body-direct experience. Here again, whether or not someone can get into a state like this prior to that insight about intellect, I have to speculate, as for me, that's not the way it happened. But, unlike with what seems to the seeker as the intermittent nature of stillness/silence, I've never heard a serious seeker object to the point, made in various ways - depending on who is pointing - that the existential truth is out of reach of the intellect.

Yes, at some point, the mind game of the search becomes obvious and one is looking for a way out, there may be some yearning for something real, something of substance. And that can't be found in books or youtube videos. Face to face satsang may be something different though. UG really did suffer when he was a seeker, not only mentally, but also physically. In the end, he basically ended up on the streets.

So what I usually recommend to seekers is not to worry about enlightenment, SR and all that stuff but to go for flow and alignment instead, because that is something of real practical value and will give immediate and predictable results. The enlightenment and SR and ultimate truth stuff, in the end, all comes down to grace. Lightening will strike when it strikes. So that will take care of itself. As UG points out, nothing that the seeker does or doesn't do will make any difference in that regard. But when the focus is on alignment and flow, what the seeker does or doesn't do will make a difference. As I keep saying, suffering is optional. As a seeker, one can be ignorant and miserable, or one can be ignorant and happy. And especially when it comes to flow, there's a chance to fall into deep flow now and then, i.e. when it suddenly becomes impersonal. Same with alignment. It's those moments when time and space become non-existent. These moments will actually show up as a gap in memory, because they are not experiences. Ordinary flow is actually easy to achieve, all it takes is an activity you naturally enjoy and that matches your skill level, you apply a bit of focus and off you go into flow in no time! Another way is the ATA route, you focus fully into the senses, i.e. when you wash the dishes, you feel the warmth and softness of the water running over your hands and stay with that sensation, or when you take out the trash, you open the door and it is squeaky and you stay in that sharp sound so that it reverberates in your entire being - that's the kind of - seemingly insignificant, mundane - stuff that 'caused' a lot of great sages of the past to have profound insights.

So I hope what people take away from what UG presented as the natural state is that the ultimate truth is not something abstract or static but something very much alive, pulsing and flowing, right here right now, in the most mundane things and therefore available and accessible at all times. I used to make a similar point when I coined the term 'truthin' (as opposed to truth).

People are too much focused on truth and the ultimate realization and forget to live in the here and now. Actually, one doesn't even have to be self-realized in order to live in the NOW. In fact, a lot of people who apparently have seen thru the SVP actually don't have the slightest clue what the natural state is. I find that a bit odd.

Looking back it was definitely the times when the mind went naturally quiet that were most significant, so I can relate quite directly to what you say about flow. This would happen during solitary walks, intense sport - especially skiing, near the end - sex and even chasing pleasure through food and drink. Work too, coding, you can lose track of time and sense of doer with focus completely on the doing. Suffering always teaches as well, but I've been relatively lucky that way. None of this was done consciously, but the perspective changed over time, gradually, until I finally stumbled onto Tolle, and the seeking turned conscious.

Intellectual engagement was quite complimentary to this. The sense of awe that can be had by contemplating the scale of the physical universe is a mind stopper. As is contemplating the dissonance between our commonsense, sensory perception of the world and the scientific descriptions of how it works at small scale. Never considered the bigger philosophical questions all that often or in depth - at least consciously. I've told the story of my college sophomore dialog about QM many times, how from that day on, every now and then, I'd stop what I was doing, look at my hand, and think "huh. mostly empty space and that not empty space not independent of the observation". Then I'd get back to work.

I was definitely fortunate to have been very young during the crescendo of the new age. Existential hints are peppered all over the pop music from the 60's and 70's. The Matrix and Fight Club were the culmination of a trend that had played itself out at least a decade prior to getting made. heh heh, both from the same rabbit year. This is something we can notice, in general, that culture reflects how everyone who isn't done seeking is a seeker, whether they're conscious of it or not. Art, science, and even the constantly shifting details of our social structures all reflect the existential question, sometimes quite directly, sometimes more indirectly.

The one big philosophical question and answer that I did stumble upon during the subconscious time was the limits of intellect, which can follow directly from contemplating the limits of the individual, the limits of the group, and ultimately, the species. The secular humanist view of reality, tinged with just enough new-age spice, can lead the mind to conspire with the silent moments, even if one doesn't realize that it is the stillness that they're after in what they reach.

[Reefs]

Oct 23, 2021 14:18:32 GMT -5 laughter said:

Oct 23, 2021 10:50:08 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Yes, at some point, the mind game of the search becomes obvious and one is looking for a way out, there may be some yearning for something real, something of substance. And that can't be found in books or youtube videos. Face to face satsang may be something different though. UG really did suffer when he was a seeker, not only mentally, but also physically. In the end, he basically ended up on the streets.

So what I usually recommend to seekers is not to worry about enlightenment, SR and all that stuff but to go for flow and alignment instead, because that is something of real practical value and will give immediate and predictable results. The enlightenment and SR and ultimate truth stuff, in the end, all comes down to grace. Lightening will strike when it strikes. So that will take care of itself. As UG points out, nothing that the seeker does or doesn't do will make any difference in that regard. But when the focus is on alignment and flow, what the seeker does or doesn't do will make a difference. As I keep saying, suffering is optional. As a seeker, one can be ignorant and miserable, or one can be ignorant and happy. And especially when it comes to flow, there's a chance to fall into deep flow now and then, i.e. when it suddenly becomes impersonal. Same with alignment. It's those moments when time and space become non-existent. These moments will actually show up as a gap in memory, because they are not experiences. Ordinary flow is actually easy to achieve, all it takes is an activity you naturally enjoy and that matches your skill level, you apply a bit of focus and off you go into flow in no time! Another way is the ATA route, you focus fully into the senses, i.e. when you wash the dishes, you feel the warmth and softness of the water running over your hands and stay with that sensation, or when you take out the trash, you open the door and it is squeaky and you stay in that sharp sound so that it reverberates in your entire being - that's the kind of - seemingly insignificant, mundane - stuff that 'caused' a lot of great sages of the past to have profound insights.

So I hope what people take away from what UG presented as the natural state is that the ultimate truth is not something abstract or static but something very much alive, pulsing and flowing, right here right now, in the most mundane things and therefore available and accessible at all times. I used to make a similar point when I coined the term 'truthin' (as opposed to truth).

People are too much focused on truth and the ultimate realization and forget to live in the here and now. Actually, one doesn't even have to be self-realized in order to live in the NOW. In fact, a lot of people who apparently have seen thru the SVP actually don't have the slightest clue what the natural state is. I find that a bit odd.

Looking back it was definitely the times when the mind went naturally quiet that were most significant, so I can relate quite directly to what you say about flow. This would happen during solitary walks, intense sport - especially skiing, near the end - sex and even chasing pleasure through food and drink. Work too, coding, you can lose track of time and sense of doer with focus completely on the doing. Suffering always teaches as well, but I've been relatively lucky that way. None of this was done consciously, but the perspective changed over time, gradually, until I finally stumbled onto Tolle, and the seeking turned conscious.

Intellectual engagement was quite complimentary to this. The sense of awe that can be had by contemplating the scale of the physical universe is a mind stopper. As is contemplating the dissonance between our commonsense, sensory perception of the world and the scientific descriptions of how it works at small scale. Never considered the bigger philosophical questions all that often or in depth - at least consciously. I've told the story of my college sophomore dialog about QM many times, how from that day on, every now and then, I'd stop what I was doing, look at my hand, and think "huh. mostly empty space and that not empty space not independent of the observation". Then I'd get back to work.

I was definitely fortunate to have been very young during the crescendo of the new age. Existential hints are peppered all over the pop music from the 60's and 70's. The Matrix and Fight Club were the culmination of a trend that had played itself out at least a decade prior to getting made. heh heh, both from the same rabbit year. This is something we can notice, in general, that culture reflects how everyone who isn't done seeking is a seeker, whether they're conscious of it or not. Art, science, and even the constantly shifting details of our social structures all reflect the existential question, sometimes quite directly, sometimes more indirectly.

The one big philosophical question and answer that I did stumble upon during the subconscious time was the limits of intellect, which can follow directly from contemplating the limits of the individual, the limits of the group, and ultimately, the species. The secular humanist view of reality, tinged with just enough new-age spice, can lead the mind to conspire with the silent moments, even if one doesn't realize that it is the stillness that they're after in what they reach.

Interesting story, thanks for sharing.

Yes, I think flow is generally an easy entry point into the discussion about the natural state because everyone can remember moments of flow. Usually those memories that stand out in terms of significance because they are usually rare and also intense, in a positive way.

Right, if you really think it thru, you should come to the right conclusions already. But, at the end of the day, those conclusions don't mean anything, because once something else catches your attention again, you snap right out of it again and are back into your usual state of minding and dreaming.

There's a lot good pointers to be found in art, especially music and poetry. That's what I always found fascinating about the East, the music of India and the poetry of the Chinese - it always seemed that they were operating on a totally different level in that respect. Quite unique.

I did study psychology and philosophy, so the limits of the intellect, logic and correct thinking I was trained on pretty early. Correct and clear thinking is pretty rare these days. Just read some books on philosophy from the 1700s and then a contemporary one. It's a huge difference in terms of clarity and conciseness.

At the time those studies all seemed a bit like a waste of time though, because as a seeker I thought I could find answers in to my questions in those fields of study, but somehow I felt I made no headway, and I've already told the story how I found a quote from Ramana in a psychology textbook of all places, psychology of consciousness, it was this quote:

"There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth." - Ramana

It got me kinda hooked, even though I didn't understand it. And that's how I got into spirituality. And it was just a short stint, really, 5 years at the most, when suddenly lightening struck. Boom! Now Ramana made total sense.

[laughter]

Oct 23, 2021 23:33:11 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Oct 23, 2021 14:18:32 GMT -5 laughter said:

Looking back it was definitely the times when the mind went naturally quiet that were most significant, so I can relate quite directly to what you say about flow. This would happen during solitary walks, intense sport - especially skiing, near the end - sex and even chasing pleasure through food and drink. Work too, coding, you can lose track of time and sense of doer with focus completely on the doing. Suffering always teaches as well, but I've been relatively lucky that way. None of this was done consciously, but the perspective changed over time, gradually, until I finally stumbled onto Tolle, and the seeking turned conscious.

Intellectual engagement was quite complimentary to this. The sense of awe that can be had by contemplating the scale of the physical universe is a mind stopper. As is contemplating the dissonance between our commonsense, sensory perception of the world and the scientific descriptions of how it works at small scale. Never considered the bigger philosophical questions all that often or in depth - at least consciously. I've told the story of my college sophomore dialog about QM many times, how from that day on, every now and then, I'd stop what I was doing, look at my hand, and think "huh. mostly empty space and that not empty space not independent of the observation". Then I'd get back to work.

I was definitely fortunate to have been very young during the crescendo of the new age. Existential hints are peppered all over the pop music from the 60's and 70's. The Matrix and Fight Club were the culmination of a trend that had played itself out at least a decade prior to getting made. heh heh, both from the same rabbit year. This is something we can notice, in general, that culture reflects how everyone who isn't done seeking is a seeker, whether they're conscious of it or not. Art, science, and even the constantly shifting details of our social structures all reflect the existential question, sometimes quite directly, sometimes more indirectly.

The one big philosophical question and answer that I did stumble upon during the subconscious time was the limits of intellect, which can follow directly from contemplating the limits of the individual, the limits of the group, and ultimately, the species. The secular humanist view of reality, tinged with just enough new-age spice, can lead the mind to conspire with the silent moments, even if one doesn't realize that it is the stillness that they're after in what they reach.

Interesting story, thanks for sharing.

Yes, I think flow is generally an easy entry point into the discussion about the natural state because everyone can remember moments of flow. Usually those memories that stand out in terms of significance because they are usually rare and also intense, in a positive way.

Right, if you really think it thru, you should come to the right conclusions already. But, at the end of the day, those conclusions don't mean anything, because once something else catches your attention again, you snap right out of it again and are back into your usual state of minding and dreaming.

There's a lot good pointers to be found in art, especially music and poetry. That's what I always found fascinating about the East, the music of India and the poetry of the Chinese - it always seemed that they were operating on a totally different level in that respect. Quite unique.

I did study psychology and philosophy, so the limits of the intellect, logic and correct thinking I was trained on pretty early. Correct and clear thinking is pretty rare these days. Just read some books on philosophy from the 1700s and then a contemporary one. It's a huge difference in terms of clarity and conciseness.

At the time those studies all seemed a bit like a waste of time though, because as a seeker I thought I could find answers in to my questions in those fields of study, but somehow I felt I made no headway, and I've already told the story how I found a quote from Ramana in a psychology textbook of all places, psychology of consciousness, it was this quote:

"There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth." - Ramana

It got me kinda hooked, even though I didn't understand it. And that's how I got into spirituality. And it was just a short stint, really, 5 years at the most, when suddenly lightening struck. Boom! Now Ramana made total sense.

The song that pops into my head on reminiscing of the unconscious search .. "looking for love in all the wrong places".