Ugk

[Davidallany]

What are your thoughts on UGK's commentaries in this video? Everyone's input is welcomed especially from those who are no meditateres.
UGK says that anything learned is just an obstacle and distraction for our won salvation. He also suggests that a noticeable physiological change is felt before reaching true freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMTeNfOd45I

[kirolak]

I don't know whether I should tell this - but just before UG dropped his body, 3 Indian men in dhotis came to me in the astral to tell me that he was already gone, just the lower elemental remained. A few days later one of his "inner circle" emailed me to say he had died.

He was a force of nature, & "I" feel very close to "him". He could be either "good" or "bad" depending on what sort of goad was needed to alert one. I may sound insane but I truly "love" him, in the way one loves a galaxy or a tidal wave, with a total personal annihilation. . . . "It's a filthy word, love, because love implies two!" My personal "mantra" is from this remark, "What brings you here will take you somewhere else". It is a terrifying realization.. . . .

[spiritguide]

One's own path is all one needs to be able to see. Harmony between and in the Charkras makes it so. Balance is the result of understanding this and one must achieve it for them self, it comes from within not from the outside of one self.

Peace!

[markpierre]

I don't know whether I should tell this - but just before UG dropped his body, 3 Indian men in dhotis came to me in the astral to tell me that he was already gone, just the lower elemental remained. A few days later one of his "inner circle" emailed me to say he had died.


That's a cool story. That's worth telling.

To address the OP;
Whatever you 'learn' becomes a viewpoint. You can 'learn' a lot of viewpoints, but not all possible viewpoints.
Anything learned here, in and through limitation of any kind, I'd be a little suspicious of.
Not to worry. You gather up yours, every other fragment gathers up theirs, and then we gather them all together.

I love UG too. The 'whole' you already are. Shut-up and be. No BS in...no BS out.
Hey it's not a filthy word, it just means to accept wholly. It's what's there when you're not rejecting. Not an action at all.
Doesn't imply 'two' to me. Rejection implies something other.
"What brings you here will take you somewhere else" is comforting. I think you think so too. You're just a poet.

[joeecho]

What are your thoughts on UGK's commentaries in this video? Everyone's input is welcomed especially from those who are no meditateres.
UGK says that anything learned is just an obstacle and distraction for our won salvation. He also suggests that a noticeable physiological change is felt before reaching true freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMTeNfOd45I

What if what is learned about this video is also an obstacle and distraction?

The greatest obstacle to enlightenment is believing that you are not already enlightened.

-- Chuck Hillig

Which it can also be said...

The greatest obstacle to salvation is believing (learned) that you are not already saved.

It is often thought that we need a process (salvation) to come to a conclusion (saved).

Example: Beginning (Problem) - Middle (Process) - End (Solution). If you remove the middle then the whole thing collapses with no beginning or end. No Problem, right? :drum:

What if the process is a novel adventure of which the mind is a part?

[giovonni]

What if the process is a novel adventure of which the mind is a part ?



Yes indeed ... :)

i believe our minds are merely mechanism that help guide and enhance the trip ...

http://d12tusb9bq3y6m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/mind.jpg

[Freed Fox]

Well, there are unfortunately a number of issues with the audio quality for this video. It cuts out completely at the 16:09 minute mark and remains 'muted' for the remainder (checked my settings and tried again to no avail; it seems to be the video itself rather than a problem on my end).

Furthermore, it was very hard to hear on my computer. I resorted to headphones, but there are random, abrasive *POP*s which are much louder than U.G.'s voice. Paired with the background 'white noise', it was rather difficult to listen to. No one's fault really; these issues often occur with older, un-restored footage.

[mahalall]

Drawn into video with view that it might provide insight into explorations beyond disillusionment, as entitled, "Dimensions in Parapsychology"
It did not provide the depth as envisaged, however Ugk provided a sensible and a healthy reminder to travellers to be wary of the game (attachment) of experiential sensation on the journey.

[joeecho]

What are your thoughts on UGK's commentaries in this video? Everyone's input is welcomed especially from those who are no meditateres.
UGK says that anything learned is just an obstacle and distraction for our won salvation. He also suggests that a noticeable physiological change is felt before reaching true freedom.


Example: Beginning (Problem) - Middle (Process) - End (Solution). If you remove the middle then the whole thing collapses with no beginning or end. No Problem, right? :drum:



As a follow up to my prior post.

Considering the above information: To consider it or not is STILL considering it (which is a process).

To collapse it is to never have see the text and thus, effectively, it is nonexistent (to you).

Can you unread it? Yes, by forgetting it, thus regulating it into oblivion/ nothingness.

Did you ever read it? Yes and no.

You read it in oblivion which is, essentially, like never reading it because it never existed to begin with.

[rgray222]

Well, there are unfortunately a number of issues with the audio quality for this video. It cuts out completely at the 16:09 minute mark and remains 'muted' for the remainder (checked my settings and tried again to no avail; it seems to be the video itself rather than a problem on my end).

Furthermore, it was very hard to hear on my computer. I resorted to headphones, but there are random, abrasive *POP*s which are much louder than U.G.'s voice. Paired with the background 'white noise', it was rather difficult to listen to. No one's fault really; these issues often occur with older, un-restored footage.

You can always put the captions on, cc at bottom right hand corner, it is not a perfect but you get the meaning of virtually everything.

[Davidallany]

"It's a filthy word, love, because love implies two!" My personal "mantra" is from this remark, "What brings you here will take you somewhere else". It is a terrifying realizationSure it does, since we live in total duality. The world as we know it functions that way. We have the good and the bad, etc.
Even Buddhist philosophy except the higher one, is based on ending suffering to find none suffering.

[Davidallany]

It's what's there when you're not rejecting. Not an action at all.
Karma means action in Sanskrit. There are good and bad actions. There are active and passive aggressions for example, when one uses passive aggression one doesn't have an action they have a none action action, but it is an action nonetheless, that which is passive. When I decide to not pay taxes for the mafia aka the government, or not participate in an activity, I have taken an action by not acting.

[Davidallany]

Considering the above information: To consider it or not is STILL considering it (which is a process).This is an excellent point, because it goes over the heads of the majority. To me it indicates either a major flaw in recent languages by design or otherwise, although I am inclined to believe the first of the two, a problem in the intellect's logic due to lack of depth or some sort of hypnotization to suspend reason through the triggering of words and phrases while using a language to communicate. This could throw the whole communication system into chaos thereby creating misunderstanding, emotional responses and all sorts of disarray.

[Davidallany]

What if what is learned about this video is also an obstacle and distraction?

The greatest obstacle to enlightenment is believing that you are not already enlightened.
I do wonder about that often. In that case what is Enlightenment? when you come to think of it isn't that another duality? to be enlightened and not enlightened.

[greybeard]

What if what is learned about this video is also an obstacle and distraction?

The greatest obstacle to enlightenment is believing that you are not already enlightened.
I do wonder about that often. In that case what is Enlightenment? when you come to think of it isn't that another duality? to be enlightened and not enlightened.
Enlightenment does not need an opposite to confirm its existence--- you dont need anything out with to confirm you are.
The enlightened see everything as enlightened.
Tims thread is an excellent resource on the subject.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?43027-Enlightenment-A-direct-succinct-account-of-what-occurs...&p=456904&viewfull=1#post456904

Chris

[joeecho]

What if what is learned about this video is also an obstacle and distraction?

The greatest obstacle to enlightenment is believing that you are not already enlightened.
I do wonder about that often. In that case what is Enlightenment? when you come to think of it isn't that another duality? to be enlightened and not enlightened.
Enlightenment does not need an opposite to confirm its existence--- you dont need anything out with to confirm you are.
The enlightened see everything as enlightened.
Tims thread is an excellent resource on the subject.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?43027-Enlightenment-A-direct-succinct-account-of-what-occurs...&p=456904&viewfull=1#post456904

Chris

What I have come to realize is that enlightenment is a false obtainment. Like acquiring a vault full of holographic money. You may trick yourself and others into believing you're rich but in reality you have nothing of consequence. And on the other hand, being in an unenlightened state is also a false position. It's like reading a map, looking at the terrain and reading a compass and determining you're in Norway (Unenlightened) when in fact you're in Sweden (Enlightened).

Well, you think to yourself, that is not such a bad thing to be wrong about (being in Sweden when you actually thought you were in Norway) since my goal all along was to get to Sweden. But then, some time latter you find out that the LINE between Sweden and Norway was just made up, an arbitrary line. It's all just one continent, one planet, one galaxy, one universe, one ......


The greatest obstacle to enlightenment is believing that you lack enlightenment.

If I were to erase all boundaries and explain there is no NEED for them. You might object and insist you/ we do have a NEED for them because these boundaries have always been there. Well, I would say that we need them because we created them but that they have not always been there.

The virus we have in our programing is that we are destitute of something.... be it enlightenment, salvation, etc.

When in fact, the very essence of what we believe we lack is the very thing we are. We are conning ourselves into believing anything less.

So what is one to do? For me, apparently I like to chase my own tail.

http://educononline.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/singapore-educational-consultants-chasingitstail.jpeg

Excuse me as I have something I have been investigating... Just when I think I have my claws on it, it eludes me again! Damn it! I just had it! For some reason I just have to have it!


Maybe it is a 'catch and release' program? :p

P.s. I reserve the right to refine my chase at a later date. After all.... "You can only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent." -- REVOLVER (2005) :)

[Davidallany]

The enlightened see everything as enlightened.Possibly, I can't say that what you're suggesting is true. I find it hard to talk about things without a frame of reference. Isn't it a dogma to take what others say for face value without actually experiencing the thing itself first?

Back to topic. I highly appreciate everybody's input, especially non- meditaters' on the UGK video.

[greybeard]

The enlightened see everything as enlightened.Possibly, I can't say that what you're suggesting is true. I find it hard to talk about things without a frame of reference. Isn't it a dogma to take what others say for face value without actually experiencing the thing itself first?

Back to topic. I highly appreciate everybody's input, especially non- meditaters' on the UGK video.

Im not suggesting that---its a quote from Tim on the thread I linked.
The thread is a great resource for anyone serious about the subject of enlightenment or meditation.
There are lots of frames of reference on the thread coming also from direct experience---it is not second hand
Have a quick look--the opening post says it all really.
Respectfully Chris

From Tim's thread

"This is an account of the direct experience of awakening.

What can be said, or written, of itself cannot reveal the truth.

Words and language are themselves an illusory tool, an aspect of the relative dream, and can only indicate or hint towards the totality, or reality, or that which is.

Upon the moment of awakening not only does the illusion of the relative self or ego vanish like a shadow exposed to light, but all “other” egos, or relative selves, disappear. All separation disappears, and the absolute Self is realized. All is then enlightened and whole, for there never really were separate entities that could become individually enlightened. There then is no relative doer, nor even an absolute doer, for all doing implies separation. Or something to do, or somewhere to go. And not just other humans, but the entire creation is enlightened and whole.

Now nothing can be judged, or observed, or transcended, as there is no separate observer, nor separate objects observed, nor even separate observing."

[Davidallany]

Im not suggesting that---its a quote from Tim on the thread I linked.
Any comments about the video will be welcomed Mr. greybeared.

[greybeard]

David
The video tells a similar story to others I have watched which helps to validate it.
I validate by referencing other sources saying similar.
Experiences come and go ---there is nothing that needs to be done as such to confirm what you truly are.
Some have spontaneous awakenings without meditation, or any spiritual practise, however if I want to learn about some thing, I go to someone I can communicate with who has experienced of what I look to experience,
The idea that nothing needs to be done is sometimes aired by those with spontaneous awakening.
It would seem that for most obstacles have to be removed--to reveal--uncover that which is always present---SELF.
As the video says no mind.
Dogma is an obstacle but shared experiences encourage.
Its a pity the sound quality is not better.

Chris

[Davidallany]

Its a pity the sound quality is not better.
I agree that the sound quality is not that good, however the video is still watchable. Thank you for your input Mr.greybeared.

[Milneman]

Ok I'd like to try and unpack what I just saw. To qualify, I am a meditator, but not in what would be considered the eastern traditions.

When Krishnamurti (UGK) was 49, he experienced something physical that had he perceived as having no mystical or religious content to it. It was simply another, as he says, phenomenological experience of sensation. He questions, what makes me different than the enlightened people everyone speaks about (currently and historically I'm assuming). When questioned by the interviewer, he emphasizes again that what he experienced, again, what a sense experience (which seems to make me perceive that the experience he has was empirical in nature, that it could possibly be measured somehow, be it electrical impulses in the brain, biochemical reactions, etc). Holding this belief has several problems however which I will address after unpacking the interview (which sound cut off just after the mirror comments, so I will withhold making any remarks about his interview at that point).

He says there is no such thing as a new experience, which I take to mean that every experience comes with an input of sense perception and an output of biochemical reactions that are confused as pleasure, or interpreted as pleasure. We constantly seek new experience which will produce a higher output of pleasure. Spiritual experiences, then, are not higher experiences but just other empirical experiences which we falsely qualify, and which "gurus" or "teachers" take advantage of by emphasizing this false representation. Gurus, as he puts it, are selling "pleasure goods". There is a supply and demand market for guru-ship. "If one leaves, another comes in." He does not attempt to free anyone from their beliefs, what he has experienced cannot be shared, has no value for society. What the listener brings out from what he says we bring out from our own empirical understanding of what he says. Even more interesting, he says that if we find anything false with what he says it is not because there is something false about what he is saying, but rather we are reading what he is saying incorrectly.

"I have nothing to offer....I have no meaning...if you find it, that is your tragedy."

The first issue I have is with the statement that if we find something false with what he is saying, then we are reading what he says incorrectly. The problem is, he has already claimed not to free anyone from their beliefs (for example, a belief that something he says is false), what he says can't be shared or fit into any value system (so it can't be quantified as being true or false, even though it can be experience empirically); in short, he has nothing he can share or say, and even if what he experiences is something he claims everyone already experiences empirically, it can't ever be justified because my experience can not be false, and his experience can not be false, and neither of our experiences can be shared. However we must agree, even though we cannot quantify these experiences as something shared in common, as just normal experiences every human being has but experiences which we falsely quantify as higher experiences when in truth we should be lowering them to other, pleasurable experiences.

I can't make up my mind if he's a hedonist, a marxist, a solipsist, or just someone who is saying nothing and hoping he can make something from what he is saying.

However, there's a bigger problem in including these kinds of experiences as purely empirical. If it's only a chemical response that we've falsely included as a spiritual experience, and is equal say to the chemical response of say, a sneeze, then it's purely naturalistic. Which means a higher consciousness, say God, can't have played a part in creating. This leads me to the assumption that UGK is pro porting to believe in a kind of solipsistic naturalism. The problem with this here is that if you follow this line of thinking, you are going to end up with a defeater for any experiences you claim your sense perceptions tell you. How does that work?

Following this line of thinking, our behaviour comes about because of natural selection. Natural selection is a purely random process that favours random mutations that make a species more successful. As long as the behaviour is successful, the species mutates until the mutation becomes the norm, and on it goes until another random mutation comes about. However, ideas which occur during this random mutation are....get ready for it....irrelevant to the mutation, the process, or the being in question. In other words, if UGK pro ports to believe that energy, or God, or goodness exists, it must play some part in the process which brings about these chemical reactions in our bodies that we consider spiritual. If that's not a clear enough evidence that they are, in fact, higher experiences, consider this:

If he has nothing to offer, and what he says has no meaning, why are you listening to anything he has to say about anything? He is the embodiment, in this aspect, of a self-refferentially absurd hypothesis.

Or, to put it 20 words or less, that's 15 minutes of my time I'll never get back. ;)

[Davidallany]

Ok I'd like to try and unpack what I just saw. To qualify, I am a meditator, but not in what would be considered the eastern traditions.

When Krishnamurti (UGK) was 49, he experienced something physical that had he perceived as having no mystical or religious content to it. It was simply another, as he says, phenomenological experience of sensation. He questions, what makes me different than the enlightened people everyone speaks about (currently and historically I'm assuming). When questioned by the interviewer, he emphasizes again that what he experienced, again, what a sense experience (which seems to make me perceive that the experience he has was empirical in nature, that it could possibly be measured somehow, be it electrical impulses in the brain, biochemical reactions, etc). Holding this belief has several problems however which I will address after unpacking the interview (which sound cut off just after the mirror comments, so I will withhold making any remarks about his interview at that point).

He says there is no such thing as a new experience, which I take to mean that every experience comes with an input of sense perception and an output of biochemical reactions that are confused as pleasure, or interpreted as pleasure. We constantly seek new experience which will produce a higher output of pleasure. Spiritual experiences, then, are not higher experiences but just other empirical experiences which we falsely qualify, and which "gurus" or "teachers" take advantage of by emphasizing this false representation. Gurus, as he puts it, are selling "pleasure goods". There is a supply and demand market for guru-ship. "If one leaves, another comes in." He does not attempt to free anyone from their beliefs, what he has experienced cannot be shared, has no value for society. What the listener brings out from what he says we bring out from our own empirical understanding of what he says. Even more interesting, he says that if we find anything false with what he says it is not because there is something false about what he is saying, but rather we are reading what he is saying incorrectly.

"I have nothing to offer....I have no meaning...if you find it, that is your tragedy."

The first issue I have is with the statement that if we find something false with what he is saying, then we are reading what he says incorrectly. The problem is, he has already claimed not to free anyone from their beliefs (for example, a belief that something he says is false), what he says can't be shared or fit into any value system (so it can't be quantified as being true or false, even though it can be experience empirically); in short, he has nothing he can share or say, and even if what he experiences is something he claims everyone already experiences empirically, it can't ever be justified because my experience can not be false, and his experience can not be false, and neither of our experiences can be shared. However we must agree, even though we cannot quantify these experiences as something shared in common, as just normal experiences every human being has but experiences which we falsely quantify as higher experiences when in truth we should be lowering them to other, pleasurable experiences.

I can't make up my mind if he's a hedonist, a marxist, a solipsist, or just someone who is saying nothing and hoping he can make something from what he is saying.

However, there's a bigger problem in including these kinds of experiences as purely empirical. If it's only a chemical response that we've falsely included as a spiritual experience, and is equal say to the chemical response of say, a sneeze, then it's purely naturalistic. Which means a higher consciousness, say God, can't have played a part in creating. This leads me to the assumption that UGK is pro porting to believe in a kind of solipsistic naturalism. The problem with this here is that if you follow this line of thinking, you are going to end up with a defeater for any experiences you claim your sense perceptions tell you. How does that work?

Following this line of thinking, our behaviour comes about because of natural selection. Natural selection is a purely random process that favours random mutations that make a species more successful. As long as the behaviour is successful, the species mutates until the mutation becomes the norm, and on it goes until another random mutation comes about. However, ideas which occur during this random mutation are....get ready for it....irrelevant to the mutation, the process, or the being in question. In other words, if UGK pro ports to believe that energy, or God, or goodness exists, it must play some part in the process which brings about these chemical reactions in our bodies that we consider spiritual. If that's not a clear enough evidence that they are, in fact, higher experiences, consider this:

If he has nothing to offer, and what he says has no meaning, why are you listening to anything he has to say about anything? He is the embodiment, in this aspect, of a self-refferentially absurd hypothesis.

Or, to put it 20 words or less, that's 15 minutes of my time I'll never get back. ;)
Let us assume for a moment that UGK had reached a state of knowing, but he was not able to teach it, because he didn't know how to. There are beings called Pratekya Buddhas. They are those that reach enlightenment through their own efforts without following instruction from another teacher, but who are either not able to or prefer not to teach others what they have discovered for their own reasons.

UGK mentioned that all of us seek pleasures and that what he had found can not be taught because it is in the area of experience, besides it has no value for society according to him. His experience is the candy that he withheld from us, the kids, because it has no value to us, or maybe he just doesn't want to share it?!

He sure does say a lot, for a person who doesn't want to say anything. Ok so he has experienced something that he doesn't want to or is unable to share with the rest, to me this seems to be either laziness, carelessness or an inability or all of these together.

UGK makes it clear that he doesn't want to bother with those of us who are not fortunate enough to know what he presumably knew saying that "....it is their tragedy"

He said that there was nothing extraordinary about him, but to whom? to himself or to others? He did mention something about repetitive experiences that we seek out of boredom. Now if he had the ability to do things that we couldn't do yet, and that he was doing those things all the time, then that is surely something that was not extraordinary to him any longer.

[greybeard]

As far as organic change goes pre enlightenment and sometimes post enlightenment.
Several have spoken of this---seemingly the body is made ready to accept a higher spiritual vibration--- this may be Kundalini or other wise.
Spontaneous Kundalini awakening within my own experience.
His response to the interviewers question regarding Kundalini a bit vague.


Chris

[markpierre]

The enlightened see everything as enlightened.Possibly, I can't say that what you're suggesting is true. I find it hard to talk about things without a frame of reference. Isn't it a dogma to take what others say for face value without actually experiencing the thing itself first?

Back to topic. I highly appreciate everybody's input, especially non- meditaters' on the UGK video.

Okay, I'll just affirm it for you. It's true. You don't even need to be enlightened. Somebody made that word up when somebody else said,
'ya, it's like the light comes on.'

[markpierre]

"I have nothing to offer....I have no meaning...if you find it, that is your tragedy."

The first issue I have is with the statement that if we find something false with what he is saying, then we are reading what he says incorrectly. The problem is, he has already claimed not to free anyone from their beliefs (for example, a belief that something he says is false), what he says can't be shared or fit into any value system (so it can't be quantified as being true or false, even though it can be experience empirically); in short, he has nothing he can share or say, and even if what he experiences is something he claims everyone already experiences empirically, it can't ever be justified because my experience can not be false, and his experience can not be false, and neither of our experiences can be shared. However we must agree, even though we cannot quantify these experiences as something shared in common, as just normal experiences every human being has but experiences which we falsely quantify as higher experiences when in truth we should be lowering them to other, pleasurable experiences.


That's a nice paragraph.
He isn't believing anything. He's communicating with a world where 'belief' seems to be everything, or at least enough. He's trying hard as hell
to express what he experienced/experiences, and knows perfectly well that anything he says isn't going to be it. Not only that, someone who is
virtually anyone and everyone, is going to run off and piece up a dogma from it and miss it entirely. And here we are. He always seems to try
to arrest that if he can. How the hell can anyone agree or disagree with someone else's experience? You're you. You said it beautifully.
You're experiences are elegantly exclusive to you. And they are shared. Nothing is not shared. The mind that's preoccupied won't notice it.
It's also the mind that thinks 'enlightenment' is a big deal. Or believes there is such a thing. It's a belief. It either is or it's a belief.
I like UG's 'natural state'.

That's why he resisted teaching. "I have nothing to teach" is a pretty good excuse. It's also a pretty profound teaching.
"what he experiences is something he claims everyone already experiences empirically" is what any other real teacher will tell you.
The ability to give everything it's meaning. You and only you, is where you haven't been looking. The meaning giver.
The place you didn't search for your keys; the ignition. They had to be somewhere other than the obvious. I'm not speaking for UG. I'm speaking for me.
Being in your 'natural state' is pretty useful wherever you find yourself. Searching for it is not a natural state. Living among things that
aren't clear in their purpose, and needing you to give them meaning, is not a natural state. Dwelling uncomfortably in the effects of those meanings,
is not a natural state.

When someone reaches the point where he knows that what he is, is more intimate and personal than can be communicated externally,
they usually shut up. There are more people like that than you think. Be careful when you presume that no one around you is in that
experience, maybe seemingly not aware of it. But everyone has those moments, and usually dismiss them.
You won't be aware they are, until you are.

People do get hooked on ecstatic experiences. People get hooked on imagining them. How they view themselves, and feel in their
moment to moment isn't good enough. It doesn't seem to contain any love and acceptance and freedom. Where does that come from?
So they go looking for enlightened ones. Someone else thinks they know who is and who isn't.
Dress up in white or orange and hang around with those guys.

Where the 'thinking' mind is and what it's doing doesn't reflect anything true or real. Eventually it quiets down. I don't know if it ever entirely
stops muttering it's viewpoints. I don't really care if I know that it's the reasoning mind that conjures up grief. Doing what it does.

[Davidallany]

Okay, I'll just affirm it for you. It's true. You don't even need to be enlightened. Somebody made that word up when somebody else said,
'ya, it's like the light comes on.'
Ok, I will admit it. That made me laugh.

[Davidallany]

After considering what UGK was saying I came to the conclusion that what he was referring to was that the problem is with actively seeking experiences rather than just relaxing (being) in what one has in the now.
He was saying that everyone already has it, but we choose to constantly chase something else, rather than resting (being) in the now, just because of boredom.

[Milneman]

Or...alternatively...stop trying to get other people to tell you what to do, and do what you know what you should innately.

I have to admit having slept on this, he has many ideas that are (if only vaguely) akin to Reformed Epistemology.

[Johnny]

What are your thoughts on UGK's commentaries in this video? Everyone's input is welcomed especially from those who are no meditateres.
UGK says that anything learned is just an obstacle and distraction for our won salvation. He also suggests that a noticeable physiological change is felt before reaching true freedom.


I like him, and I agree about what he is saying. In this video, he is kind and accommodating, but he can be a harsh person to his surroundings :)

Since the thread's name is Ugk, then allow me to put another video in the thread, that could have under the title:

"There are thoughts, forget about the thinker".

This video made ​​me laugh in a sad way, if possible :)

T7qLZFWAgQ8

Johnny

[Davidallany]

"There are thoughts, forget about the thinker".
This is a good idea. But why forget about the thinker? how does one forget about the thinker? and who is the thinker?

[Davidallany]

Or...alternatively...stop trying to get other people to tell you what to do, and do what you know what you should innately.

I have to admit having slept on this, he has many ideas that are (if only vaguely) akin to Reformed Epistemology.
Does that apply to a person who grows up with monkey away from any human contact in the forest?

[Johnny]

"There are thoughts, forget about the thinker".
This is a good idea. But why forget about the thinker? how does one forget about the thinker? and who is the thinker?


But why forget about the thinker?

UGK say it in the video.


how does one forget about the thinker?

Have you forgot have to forget ??? (just kidding :) )


and who is the thinker?

Perhaps he considers that the thinker is a thought in itself ! I can agree with that.

Remember we have learned all the words. You have learned the Spanish words, I learned the Danish words and so on, and if we use pictures or will express feelings, then we interprets them in words.

The 'YOU' is before we learned the words. I know it sounds crazy, but I do not know how else to say it. And it is THAT 'YOU' we need to know (about), But on the other hand we ARE that you, and that have very little to do with

Johnny :)

[Milneman]

Or...alternatively...stop trying to get other people to tell you what to do, and do what you know what you should innately.

I have to admit having slept on this, he has many ideas that are (if only vaguely) akin to Reformed Epistemology.
Does that apply to a person who grows up with monkey away from any human contact in the forest?

David,

Sorry but if you found any meaning in what I was saying that would bring about questions such as the one you're asking, I'm afraid that's your tragedy. ;)

[Davidallany]

Or...alternatively...stop trying to get other people to tell you what to do, and do what you know what you should innately.

I have to admit having slept on this, he has many ideas that are (if only vaguely) akin to Reformed Epistemology.
Does that apply to a person who grows up with monkey away from any human contact in the forest?

David,

Sorry but if you found any meaning in what I was saying that would bring about questions such as the one you're asking, I'm afraid that's your tragedy. ;)
I didn't, although it is still my tragedy which is why I threw in that question. Now that is really tragic.

[greybeard]

"There are thoughts, forget about the thinker".
This is a good idea. But why forget about the thinker? how does one forget about the thinker? and who is the thinker?


But why forget about the thinker?

UGK say it in the video.


how does one forget about the thinker?

Have you forgot have to forget ??? (just kidding :) )


and who is the thinker?

Perhaps he considers that the thinker is a thought in itself ! I can agree with that.

Remember we have learned all the words. You have learned the Spanish words, I learned the Danish words and so on, and if we use pictures or will express feelings, then we interprets them in words.

The 'YOU' is before we learned the words. I know it sounds crazy, but I do not know how else to say it. And it is THAT 'YOU' we need to know (about), But on the other hand we ARE that you, and that have very little to do with

Johnny :)

Hi Johnny.
I particular I agree that the moment words come into use the "You" is lost.
Every word brings some kind of identification, judgement, concept, belief, sooner or later.

Eckhart Tolle jokes--It all starts with you name---pretend for moment or two that you dont have a name.

The opening video seems to suggest that you throw everything up in the air.
ACIM says that all thoughts are untrue.
Whatever a lot of things have to be let go of.

Chris

[Johnny]

Hi Johnny.
I particular I agree that the moment words come into use the "You" is lost.
Every word brings some kind of identification, judgement, concept, belief, sooner or later.

Eckhart Tolle jokes--It all starts with you name---pretend for moment or two that you dont have a name.

The opening video seems to suggest that you throw everything up in the air.
ACIM says that all thoughts are untrue.
Whatever a lot of things have to be let go of.

Chris

Hi (again) Chris :)

Thanks for your reply.


Eckhart Tolle jokes--It all starts with you name---pretend for moment or two that you dont have a name.

Yes, our name is a kind of joke, I usually say: "My mom certain my name should be Johnny and the entire cosmos had to obey it." :)


ACIM says that all thoughts are untrue.

Try to see the truth in the untruth. :)


Whatever a lot of things have to be let go of.


That is where discernment comes in, not as a conclusion, but as a beingness, also called awareness :) It also removes the confusion about "Johnny and the I". (mostly :) )

Kindly regards Johnny

[Milneman]

I had to really process this over the last couple of days.

If he's sincere, he's a solipsist, in which case we're all just figments of his imagination and we should treat him well because once he goes, we all go. ;)

OR

He's a sophist.

I'm going with solipsist myself. In which case...well....yah...end of discussion really.

[skamandar]

What are your thoughts on UGK's commentaries in this video? Everyone's input is welcomed especially from those who are no meditateres.
UGK says that anything learned is just an obstacle and distraction for our won salvation. He also suggests that a noticeable physiological change is felt before reaching true freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMTeNfOd45I

In short, what I feel he thinks is:
I AM SO FED UP!!!
Don't ask stupid questions if possible, because this is spamming and trolling me.
Go experience more and speak less.
I need more people willing to play with me, otherwise the boredom of being surrounded with sleeping people will make me leave the planet.
That's all what the video is about.

[kirolak]

Apropos of nothing really, when I was a small child I used to drive my mother mad by earnestly saying, "Everything that is, is; and everything that is not, IS not." It was the beginning of my feud with the verbs "to be" (2 of them in spanish) & in UG I found an echo of that feeling.

[Milneman]

So basically what you're saying kirolak is that nothing can move?

;)

[ulli]

Apropos of nothing really, when I was a small child I used to drive my mother mad by earnestly saying, "Everything that is, is; and everything that is not, IS not." It was the beginning of my feud with the verbs "to be" (2 of them in spanish) & in UG I found an echo of that feeling.

I love that, and I used to say it as well, and sometimes still do.
What is, is....
What ain't, ain't.

[Milneman]

Ladies, then what you are affirming is that nothing can move.

What do you need in order for something to move? You need the thing that is going to move (what is), and the space it's going to move into (what is not).

OHOH

What is the space it's going to move into?

What is not. It doesn't exist.

Ergo, by what you guys are suggesting, nothing can move. Nothing does move. Movement by this reasoning is impossible. More specific, motion itself is impossible. Zeno's paradoxes. You'll love them. Google them.



I love how pre Socratics end up getting the majority of people who think they sound cool landing in a bunch of nonsense. ;)

Or if you'd rather.

What is: someone who, as an irrationalist and a solipsist, is demonstrating his philosophy and demonstrating to people exactly how to be a good irrationalist and a solipsist.

What is not: me thinking his, or that, philosophy makes sense.

I dunno, I'm typing! I'm breathing, I'm moving.

Any of you read Thomas Reid?

[Johnny]

Ladies, then what you are affirming is that nothing can move.

What do you need in order for something to move? You need the thing that is going to move (what is), and the space it's going to move into (what is not).

OHOH

What is the space it's going to move into?

What is not. It doesn't exist.

Ergo, by what you guys are suggesting, nothing can move. Nothing does move. Movement by this reasoning is impossible. More specific, motion itself is impossible. Zeno's paradoxes. You'll love them. Google them.



I love how pre Socratics end up getting the majority of people who think they sound cool landing in a bunch of nonsense. ;)

Or if you'd rather.

What is: someone who, as an irrationalist and a solipsist, is demonstrating his philosophy and demonstrating to people exactly how to be a good irrationalist and a solipsist.

What is not: me thinking his, or that, philosophy makes sense.

I dunno, I'm typing! I'm breathing, I'm moving.

Any of you read Thomas Reid?

I do not think so, Milneman. If you look at it as Cause and Effect, then everything is in move, except one thing, the Cause that everything is in move. That Cause always have to be what it is and can not move or change. Where do you find it ??

Another thing about paradox we can take up: Meaning of life. Answer: There is none ! Question: Why not. Answer: Because of Freedom. Freedom and a meaning of life do not go hand in hand. The paradox is, we can have all kinds of meanings of life because of Freedom. (Look around in the world :) )

If you have one meaning of life, and it is taken from you, then life becomes meaningless, but that is not the same as there is no meaning of life. (It is a kind of Trinity).

The next question can be, what is it we have meanings about. It is two things, ideas and what we like and dislike (which on the basic also can be ideas), and from that point you can proceed,

but if you say that freedom is an idea, then the equation will fail :) (everything IMO ! )

Cheers Johnny

PS: What happen when we are stuck in an idea or ideas?? We can,t move, even if we say we move :)

[Milneman]

Ladies, then what you are affirming is that nothing can move.

What do you need in order for something to move? You need the thing that is going to move (what is), and the space it's going to move into (what is not).

OHOH

What is the space it's going to move into?

What is not. It doesn't exist.

Ergo, by what you guys are suggesting, nothing can move. Nothing does move. Movement by this reasoning is impossible. More specific, motion itself is impossible. Zeno's paradoxes. You'll love them. Google them.



I love how pre Socratics end up getting the majority of people who think they sound cool landing in a bunch of nonsense. ;)

Or if you'd rather.

What is: someone who, as an irrationalist and a solipsist, is demonstrating his philosophy and demonstrating to people exactly how to be a good irrationalist and a solipsist.

What is not: me thinking his, or that, philosophy makes sense.

I dunno, I'm typing! I'm breathing, I'm moving.

Any of you read Thomas Reid?

I do not think so, Milneman. If you look at it as Cause and Effect, then everything is in move, except one thing, the Cause that everything is in move. That Cause always have to be what it is and can not move or change. Where do you find it ??

Another thing about paradox we can take up: Meaning of life. Answer: There is none ! Question: Why not. Answer: Because of Freedom. Freedom and a meaning of life do not go hand in hand. The paradox is, we can have all kinds of meanings of life because of Freedom. (Look around in the world :) )

If you have one meaning of life, and it is taken from you, then life becomes meaningless, but that is not the same as there is no meaning of life. (It is a kind of Trinity).

The next question can be, what is it we have meanings about. It is two things, ideas and what we like and dislike (which on the basic also can be ideas), and from that point you can proceed,

but if you say that freedom is an idea, then the equation will fail :) (everything IMO ! )

Cheers Johnny

PS: What happen when we are stuck in an idea or ideas?? We can,t move, even if we say we move :)

And then you end up with the problem of the first cause....and again, you're thingamajiggered because an infinite series of causes leaves you with no motion. ;)

When I'm stuck in an idea and can't move, it's just one of the challenges of being an academic. It doesn't mean you've stopped...it means you've slowed down, you have to back up, and wait for a pry-bar (as Wolterstorff calls it) to work at the idea. It happens all the time for me!

I'm one of those crazy people that follow Plato-Christ-Augustine-Calvin-Plantinga-Kant-Reid-Taylor so the ideas are innate, there's a first causer, motion is possible, knowledge is possible (real knowledge that is, even though Kant would say otherwise...maybe...)

Everything moves. It's...well common sense. :)

(That's the Scottish Parson in me coming out lol)

[Shezbeth]

Johnny, one can observe phenomenon and use it to apply meaning to their experience of life, but this cannot apply a 'meaning of life'. Individuals are welcome (and do) have countless reasons why their experience of life has meaning, but that is not the same as there being a 'meaning of life'; points for effort, but what you describe is a fallacy.

Part of the problem you illustrate is the attempt to generalize terms and phrases. By definition, an empirical meaning of life would be endemic, universal, and uncontestable; I insert the 'empirical' as a qualifier to indicate specificity, ordinarily this would not be necessary.

More simply, people can and do observe and perceive the meaning of their lives, but that does not address a/the meaning OF life. I personally know what gives my life meaning, and could state that it is the meaning of my life, but that is not the same as the meaning of life. That, you accurately assessed by indicating that there is none, though I welcome any attempt to contest my assertions.

[Johnny]

And then you end up with the problem of the first cause....and again, you're thingamajiggered


'thingamajiggered' ?? What the heck is that, something Scottish ?? :) :)


because an infinite series of causes leaves you with no motion. ;)

No, not if you leave the linear thinking :) If there are a cause to everything, then there is also a cause to 'cause and effect', THAT was what I was 'talking' about.



When I'm stuck in an idea and can't move, it's just one of the challenges of being an academic. It doesn't mean you've stopped...it means you've slowed down, you have to back up, and wait for a pry-bar (as Wolterstorff calls it) to work at the idea. It happens all the time for me!


I know, the same here :) but there are people, who are stuck in their ideas throughout their adult life.


I'm one of those crazy people that follow Plato-Christ-Augustine-Calvin-Plantinga-Kant-Reid-Taylor so the ideas are innate, there's a first causer, motion is possible, knowledge is possible (real knowledge that is, even though Kant would say otherwise...maybe...)


If I may suggest: existentialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism



Everything moves. It's...well common sense. :)

The sun moves around the center of the galaxy with a speed of (I do not remember), the Earth moves after AND around the sun, with a speed of (I do not remember), in spite of this, we are able to stand still on the ground. Yes common sense :)

With what speed do the Galaxy move ????? :)


(That's the Scottish Parson in me coming out lol)

You are welcome !

Cheers Johnny

[Johnny]

Thank you for your post Shezbeth.

My post was an attempt to give the ladies in Milneman's post number 43 a little hand, but it drove on by itself :)


Johnny, one can observe phenomenon and use it to apply meaning to their experience of life, but this cannot apply a 'meaning of life'. Individuals are welcome (and do) have countless reasons why their experience of life has meaning, but that is not the same as there being a 'meaning of life'; points for effort, but what you describe is a fallacy.


If one can ask the question: 'Is there a meaning of life', then an answer can not be a fallacy. (imo)


Part of the problem you illustrate is the attempt to generalize terms and phrases. By definition, an empirical meaning of life would be endemic, universal, and uncontestable; I insert the 'empirical' as a qualifier to indicate specificity, ordinarily this would not be necessary.

It is an attempt to keep it simple :) There are probably written libraries full of books about the subject. It took me years to be able to put words upon it, so it could be simple.

You see, we are able to kill/ and or be killed for/because of our ideas for what also is called 'meaning of life' (and also called our reality), most people are not aware we are free to choose our idea/s, and/or get rid of them.

Sometimes we do not know where they come from or originated from, and nor which HUGE concept the word idea is in our life (reality), and with that, meanings about ideas.

It is a zillion $ industry to put ideas into our heads/minds (marketing, health care, policy etc.), but we also use it ourselves everyday. (talking to each other and ourselves :) )


More simply, people can and do observe and perceive the meaning of their lives, but that does not address a/the meaning OF life. I personally know what gives my life meaning, and could state that it is the meaning of my life, but that is not the same as the meaning of life. That, you accurately assessed by indicating that there is none, though I welcome any attempt to contest my assertions.


You are absolutely right, but if the question is: What is the meaning of life or is there a meaning with/of life ? I will overall say no there is none.

In spite of that, I can express many ideas/meanings about everything during a day :) If I want it !!

Cheers Johnny