GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote:

In my view, a far better term is "cause and effect". It cuts far more deeply than "energy" does. The process of cause and effect underlies everything that happens and thus is the one thing which is consistent with the definition of Reality. The very fabric of Reality is composed of cause and effect.

As for what caused the laws of physics to come into being, that is a matter for physicists to nut out, if they ever can. But one thing we can know for sure is that they were caused to come into being, that they are part of the overall causal flow of Nature.

UG Krishnamurti wrote:

The cause-effect relationship is invented by thought. Every event is an individual and independent event. We link up several events to create continuity. The clock strikes 12 O'clock and the train reaches the station. These are separate and simultaneous events with no cause and effect connection. . U.G. says that though events are disconnected in themselves, they are connected by thought. Cause-effect relationship does not exist even in nature. Hence there is no cause for the `big bang' or for the creation of the universe or of life. There is no beginning or end. It is in a perpetual state of flux.

Are these two views in opposition to each other? If so, who is the victor and why? If not, How do they compliment each other?

UG is obviously displaying his ignorance here!

If it were truly the case that each event is "an individual and independent event", then it would automatically mean that each event pops into existence out of thin air, completely without cause, which, in turn, means that each event would have an absolute beginning. This conflicts with his later assertion that there is no beginning or end to anything.

In truth, the only the way there could be no beginning or end to anything is if all things are causally connected.

His point about the clock and the train is shallow. The clock and train are indeed causally connected to each other, even if it is just through the medium of space. Also, if we were to push back far enough in time, we would see that each of them share the same origins - e.g. their molecules are made up of the atoms which originally came from the same sun. Also, if the clock were to suddenly stop working, it could conceiveably throw the railway schedule into chaos and thereby affect the arrival of the train.

When UG says, "We link up several events to create continuity", he is looking at the matter narrowly and one-dimensionally. For we could just as easily say that our minds artificially sever what is a continuum into seperate events. (Why does everyone zero in on the former point of view and always ignore the latter, I wonder? It would make for an interesting psychological study. People's hatred of causality knows no bounds, it would seem. )

All in all, I find UG's approach to causality as rather thoughtless and conventional. He is merely repeating some of Hume's arguments without having properly analyzed them.

-

I have to agree with David. UG seems like an idiot.

David Quinn wrote:

In truth, the only the way there could be no beginning or end to anything is if all things are causally connected.

Modified:

In truth, the only the way there could be no beginning or end to anything is if all things are without cause.

Aren’t both of these true?

David Quinn:

Completely without cause, which, in turn, means that each event would have an absolute beginning.

I see what your saying, but Just because something has no cause does not necessarily mean that it has an absolute beginning, on the contrary it could indicate that because there is no cause it’s beginning is completely uncertain. As of the totality in general.

David Quinn wrote:

e.g. their molecules are made up of the atoms which originally came from the same sun.

so your definition of causal connection involves the physical time element? EG: it takes time by the watch for atoms to rearrange themselves forming new forms.

Now the forms that are constantly being rearranged in time, what is causing them to do that? No causality can explain it. You can never know what is causing the forms to be rearranged through time.

Although we can see that are forms that are now manifest in front of consciousness are temporary meaning that have been constituents of previous forms and in the future will be constituents of future forms.

This is the essence of your causal-connection definition no?

So on the surface there is causality (order), but as of the origins of the totality there is complete uncertainty (chaos)? Correct?

Order and Chaos occur simantanoeously no?

cosmic_prostitute wrote:.

Now the forms that are constantly being rearranged in time, what is causing them to do that? No causality can explain it. You can never know what is causing the forms to be rearranged through time.

Actually they are forming and breaking bonds based on electromagnetic attraction. It's not "mystical".

Moreover I do not believe that UG is denying the fact that forms are causally linked through their atomic makeup, but he is suggesting that the events triggered by each form are not necessarily causally linked.

For instance: Suppose a wolf is chasing a rabbit. Obviously there is a causal link between the wolves behavior and the rabbit’s behavior.

But suppose there is a bird singing outside your window and you are cutting a kiwi for yourself, now is there a causal link between these two events?

Obviously there is a causal link between the two forms meaning their atomic makeup has similar origins, but what about the events triggered by those forms?

Milli wrote:

Actually they are forming and breaking bonds based on electromagnetic attraction. It's not "mystical".

What causes the molecules to do that?

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Moreover I do not believe that UG is denying the fact that forms are causally linked through their atomic makeup, but he is suggesting that the events triggered by each form are not necessarily causally linked.

For instance: Suppose a wolf is chasing a rabbit. Obviously there is a causal link between the wolves behavior and the rabbit’s behavior.

But suppose there is a bird singing outside your window and you are cutting a kiwi for yourself, now is there a causal link between these two events?

Obviously there is a causal link between the two forms meaning their atomic makeup has similar origins, but what about the events triggered by those forms?

Milli wrote:

Actually they are forming and breaking bonds based on electromagnetic attraction. It's not "mystical".

What causes the molecules to do that?

Some things are causally linked to one another, some things are not causally linked to one another.

Do you think your repetitive insanity is causally linked to my peeing on your effigy?

Here's a hint: it is.

Milli wrote:

Do you think your repetitive insanity is causally linked to my peeing on your effigy?

Do you think there is a causal connection between me repeatedly burying my hands in my face and you repeatedly projecting the false image of effigy onto me?

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Milli wrote:

Do you think your repetitive insanity is causally linked to my peeing on your effigy?

Do you think there is a causal connection between me repeatedly burying my hands in my face and you repeatedly projecting the false image of effigy onto me?

Are you dodging the yellow stream of love? What's a little piss between friends. I'm just marking you as mine.

Milli wrote:

What's a little piss between friends. I'm just marking you as mine.

Having too much of another’s person urine on you can be bit uncomfortable/awkward, but go ahead be my guest. Honestly though I feel much more secure with myself when I piss my own pants because my urine is warm, whereas someone elses urinate can be quite cold and gross feeling.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Milli wrote:

What's a little piss between friends. I'm just marking you as mine.

Having too much of another’s person urine on you can be bit uncomfortable/awkward, but go ahead be my guest.

Too much? There is an optimum amount of other people's urine on you? Now THAT'S funny, man.

CP, sorry to disturbe, but getting back to the topic at hand…. ;)

The cause-effect relationship is invented by thought. Every event is an individual and independent event. We link up several events to create continuity. The clock strikes 12 O'clock and the train reaches the station. These are separate and simultaneous events with no cause and effect connection. . U.G. says that though events are disconnected in themselves, they are connected by thought. Cause-effect relationship does not exist even in nature. Hence there is no cause for the `big bang' or for the creation of the universe or of life. There is no beginning or end. It is in a perpetual state of flux.

(Please keep in mind, this not for an amateur who currently actually BELIEVES in his “logical” conclusion that NOTHING lies “out-side” a supposed knowable MIND, or Consciousness that exists because and BY “definitions”. He does not realize that HIS Definitions could be wrong. Logical arrogance, perhaps?)

I have read very little of UG, and that there is no one bible of his so to speak, and I am quite aware as to why. But from what I have gathered up until now is that he is not an easy mind to decipher, unless, one has certain personal experiences and conclusions that are already in tune to a certain degree to his thinking. Hence, it is obvious to me that even the most “respected” logician may find “obvious” ignorance in his words, because that is actually a very different perspective which is quite difficult for a close minded logician to grasp, because he thinks there is nothing beyond HIS logical reasoning, which is actually true, but what he fails to acknowledge is that HIS circle of experience has not yet enlarged, which actually enlarges his circle of Logical reasoning rather than destroy an already existing limited circle of logic, which remains restricted and bound by his present experiences.

Allow me to express where I agree and why, and where I disagree and why, keeping UG's and my perspective in mind.

The cause-effect relationship is invented by thought.

I would say ‘invented’ is a wrong choice of word. How uncaused is 'thought'? He says that because in his opinion, an “animal” kind of state, devoid of any human knowledge based in intellectual thought or interpretation, IS the “natural” state, and that HIS “human knowledge”, that is the ‘interpretation’ of any happenings through an active interpretation, has died. That is what he means by ‘death of knowledge’; a real expereince of DEATH, otherwise no one can Actually EXPERIENCE death.

I do not totally agree to the above although I know what he means, because he fails to acknowledge that “human knowledge”, human interpretations, ARE also absolutely natural, and Reality encompasses that too. Hence, human knowledge is not “unnatural” or some “illusion” that it should be disregarded or discarded by any far fetched imaginations.

Hence, the causal relationships that we Recognize, necessarily needs some ‘thing’, (in our case, with all our human attributes that includes our verbal thought processes, and the capability to meaningfully communicate with ANOTHER, Thing) that will Recognize, and when one applies reasoning to it, which is also natural, one can reach a true conclusion that there is causality, and that WE, as THINKING THINGS, Recognize it, not “invent” it.

Every event is an individual and independent event.

He does not actually mean that each and every event it Ultimately NOT connected in and of causality, but that each and EVERY thing is an individually created THING, or EVENT, BY its own, but not ON its own.

We link up several events to create continuity.

And I would ask, who is this WE? Some “unnatural thing” capable of CREATION? Aren’t WE just things? Simply made capable in and of our own particular Thing-ness, as humans, to do what casualty itself has made US capable of? Recognizing thoughtfully? Thinking? Reasoning?, and thence reaching a “reasonable” conclusion?

I am not talking about how "right or wrong" a conclusion may be, but just the fact that we ARE capable of reaching conclusions, and that that is absolutely natural.

So basically, WE do not “link up several events to “create” continuity”, we simply Recognize, thoughtfully, that which already IS, and are able to communicate that understandings to OTHER – THING'S. For example, OTHER members of this forums, who are NOT “appearances” to “my mind”, but are factual OTHER – THINGS, me being ONE of those THINGS. BTW, I have mentioned before, how logical is it to say "MY" MIND? WHO the hell is thinking that other than the Process we defilne as "mind" itself? Isn't THAT the biggest of all "illusions" to begin with?

The clock strikes 12 O'clock and the train reaches the station. These are separate and simultaneous events with no cause and effect connection.

Absolutely, but that does not mean that those two, and infinite events happening at that very moment, in the NOW, are not Ultimately connected; they are, but not in the sense of a SINGLE chain of causality, (which is what I would say leads to a REAL delusional thinking), but as a natural, most commonly shared attribute, a Process, that continues to show its power in each and every individual THING, for the simple reason that it HAS created individual Things, and without INDIIVIDUAL things, what could be aware of what?

Awareness cannot exist in and of ONE, in any actual or vague sense; duality is absolutely necessary for anything to be aware of anything, and hence it is a mistake to think in terms of ONE Absolute THING, be it even a so called "underlying" Truth, for even the thought of a Truth is a THING, and necessarily relies on a thinking THING to have any form whatsoever, and Reality even encompasses THAT, and Reality is ALL that there IS.

BUT CAUTION! That WORD (Reality with a capitol R) or whatever one means by it, is reliant on another THING, hence duality is a permanent thing relying in and of THINGS, and hence there is no real “Reality” as such, except All that there is, and that cannot be “totaled” up even as “Reality”. Infinite-ness of things cannot even be imagined or dreamed of, let alone be reasonable thought.

U.G. says that though events are disconnected in themselves, they are connected by thought. Cause-effect relationship does not exist even in nature.

Humbug. How Unnatural is thought? Which nature is he talking about? The one that EXCLUDES – HIM or HIS thoughts? The relationship is not connected BY thought, but the process of THINKING recognizes that which IS. If thinking is not natural, ask UG to try and get rid of it, for he needs that even to fry his Papadum. (sp?). Only that he is surely able to flow with what comes about through natural urge, due to his changed perspective, and I can understand that perfectly, for I live the same.

Hence there is no cause for the `big bang' or for the creation of the universe or of life.

Wrong choice of words again. Not that there is no “cause”, but that there is no INHERENT REASON for any thing to come about; THAT it is Actually Empty and Meaningless, from the perspective of Totality, which causality has made ME capable of logically deducing and hence Realizing what Reality is, and that excludes NOTHING, including “my” conceptualization of “Reality” itself. Hence, how “unreal” is ‘conceptualization’ IN and OF itself? What the hell is an “illusory”, actually?

There is no beginning or end. It is in a perpetual state of flux.

Absolutely True, but THAT itself should make it apparent, that FLUX necessarily means motion, and motion cannot come about without some-thing being moved, hence a thing senses motion in and of another thing, as in the PROCESS that can now be intellectually detected, so it is the PROCESS that is permanent which is defined as causality, and not "things". hence “things” do not inherently, that is PERMANANTLY - REMAIN - and not NOT INHERENTLY EXIST, and the most logical of us give THAT EMPTY PROCESS of CAUSALITY the status of GOD. What can I say... For where or what causality would be, it it were not for THINGS that it cannot help but keep creating and destroying, and it is this process of creation and destruction that we detect and define as causality, which in and of itself, holds no inherent meaning.



(Why do the most seemingly “logical” folks zero in on one side of the coin and always ignore or FORGET the other, I wonder?but not really. It would make for an interesting psychological study, not really though, because I know how delusional even someone’s “logical reasoning" can get. People's LOVE of causality knows no bounds, it would seem… no…. no…. that is most definite.)

sapius

:(Please keep in mind, this not for an amateur who currently actually BELIEVES in his “logical” conclusion that NOTHING lies “out-side” a supposed knowable MIND, or Consciousness that exists because and BY “definitions”. He does not realize that HIS Definitions could be wrong. Logical arrogance, perhaps?)

man wills by thought

Sapius wrote:

I do not totally agree to the above although I know what he means, because he fails to acknowledge that “human knowledge”, human interpretations, ARE also absolutely natural, and Reality encompasses that too. Hence, human knowledge is not “unnatural” or some “illusion” that it should be disregarded or discarded by any far fetched imaginations.

Yes, human knowledge is fine as long as one isn’t attached to it meaning it doesn’t become intertwined with the ego. As soon as you find yourself strongly defending human knowledge then you have a problem.

Human knowledge should be a tool, fit together properly it can stimulate deeper understanding into certain problems.

Sapius wrote:

I have mentioned before, how logical is it to say "MY" MIND? WHO the hell is thinking that other than the Process we defilne as "mind" itself? Isn't THAT the biggest of all "illusions" to begin with?

Yes the thinking mind is involuntary, it doesn’t make sense to take ownership over that process.

Sapius wrote:

there is no real “Reality” as such, except All that there is, and that cannot be “totaled” up even as “Reality”. Infinite-ness of things cannot even be imagined or dreamed of, let alone be reasonable thought.

Yes, the intellect cannot capture the essence of reality using ‘thought’. One is left with a state of emptiness where wonder and uncertainty are ones guide.

Sapius wrote:

If thinking is not natural, ask UG to try and get rid of it, for he needs that even to fry his Papadum

Yes, UG has also stated that ‘thought’ is all you have to survival so it is an invaluable resource, but I think he means that thought is unnatural in the context of how human use thought.

Sapius wrote:

how “unreal” is ‘conceptualization’ IN and OF itself?

Yes to conceptualize what reality is has never made sense to me either.

Sapius wrote:

For where or what causality would be, it it were not for THINGS that it cannot help but keep creating and destroying, and it is this process of creation and destruction that we detect and define as causality, which in and of itself, holds no inherent meaning.

Yes, it has no inherent meaning, but you must admit that the design is quite impressive, an infinite amount of forms constantly being created/destroyed producing an beautiful spectacle of motion, interaction and change.

Sapius wrote:

(Why do the most seemingly “logical” folks zero in on one side of the coin and always ignore or FORGET the other, I wonder?but not really. It would make for an interesting psychological study, not really though, because I know how delusional even someone’s “logical reasoning" can get. People's LOVE of causality knows no bounds, it would seem… no…. no…. that is most definite.

Yes, if one truly abides in emptiness then they have admitted the limitation of the intellect in that the intellect is limited and ‘thought’ is only a tool, a instrument that should not venerated as more than what it actually is.

A limited tool.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Quote:
If thinking is not natural, ask UG to try and get rid of it, for he needs that even to fry his Papadum


Yes, UG has also stated that ‘thought’ is all you have to survival so it is an invaluable resource, but I think he means that thought is unnatural in the context of how human use thought.

thinking makes systems of government,and by systems of government man awakes new 'forms' that can consume him.being death is the consuming of the virtues of non-existence,except those of man.we have become involved with disease,our food poisonous.our process of permission (in thought) is unlikely to become healthy again.thus man wills by thought.
so I can understand this as thinking is not natural.and thought is "all" you have to survival.(as I stated in my (topic)commination:as a reality,life and death are the same)

Sapius wrote:

I do not totally agree to the above although I know what he means, because he fails to acknowledge that “human knowledge”, human interpretations, ARE also absolutely natural, and Reality encompasses that too. Hence, human knowledge is not “unnatural” or some “illusion” that it should be disregarded or discarded by any far fetched imaginations.

CP wrote:

Yes, human knowledge is fine as long as one isn’t attached to it meaning it doesn’t become intertwined with the ego. As soon as you find yourself strongly defending human knowledge then you have a problem.

Human knowledge should be a tool, fit together properly it can stimulate deeper understanding into certain problems.

Are you two trying to out do each other to win today’s Most Skew-Whiff Thought?

Sapius – your ‘thought’ is so obscure, that it is difficult to make head or tail of it. CP just ran with the, “human knowledge is not ‘unnatural’ or some ‘illusion’” part, and then ploughed in his manure on top of yours. You need to define what you mean by human knowledge/interpretations being “natural” as opposed to being “unnatural”.

CP – So “human knowledge is fine as long as one isn’t attached” ------ What the? You wouldn’t happen to be attached to that ‘thought’ in any way - would you? (Thinking rationally involves looking at the consequences of your thought.) Perhaps, you too, could rethink your idea, and then write about knowledge. Maybe you could write about what influences a person to be interested in one area of thought, and not another.

Look forward to reading some non skew-whiff posts written by both of you.

-
Sue

CP:

Yes, human knowledge is fine as long as one isn’t attached to it meaning it doesn’t become intertwined with the ego.

Sue

So “human knowledge is fine as long as one isn’t attached” ------ What the? You wouldn’t happen to be attached to that ‘thought’ in any way - would you?

Clearly the act of thinking is part of all of us, so you could say we're attached to our thoughst, but I think what CP means is that one shouldn't equate their own self worth with how much knowledge they've attained, or the accuracy of that knowledge.

Bert,

man wills by thought

Nice to know.

So, what does an animal will by?

What does an amoeba will by?

What does a tree will by?

Sapius – your ‘thought’ is so obscure, that it is difficult to make head or tail of it. CP just ran with the, “human knowledge is not ‘unnatural’ or some ‘illusion’” part, and then ploughed in his manure on top of yours. You need to define what you mean by human knowledge/interpretations being “natural” as opposed to being “unnatural”.

Dear Sue, basically you have no right to talk about any thing that an ANOTHER THING says or does, because you know for an absolutely surety that any and all THINGS are but appearances to YOUR mind, and although they surely are what they are, but you are not sure if that which appears, do or do not exist as ‘individual’ things beyond YOUR MIND. That is, with their own individual attributes according to their own individually created causal conditions. Over which YOU have no control, but yet they are “appearances” to your mind, and have no other reality, truth or existence as such. Right?

First solve the above problem, and then, may be, I could take YOUR comments seriously, as being YOUR comments, because if I go according to your philosophical and logical conclusions… taking ONLY that “appearance to MY mind” thing literally, then why should I even bother questioning that which appears? They are appearances, and I’m absolutely sure of that, and that’s that.

If CP and Sapius seem illogical to you, or that YOU do not understand what THEY are talking about, how does that really matter to YOU? You are not even sure if we exist beyond YOUR MIND, so why question THAT which may not exist? Are you not the masculine minded person who does not entertain any thing except that which encompasses absolute certainty? How certain are YOU that I exist beyond your mind? If you are not, why try communicating with that that might not exist?

CP, I might need to clarify certain things although it may seem that we are thinking alike.

For example…

SP: I have mentioned before, how logical is it to say "MY" MIND? WHO the hell is thinking that other than the Process we define as "mind" itself? Isn't THAT the biggest of all "illusions" to begin with?

CP: Yes the thinking mind is involuntary; it doesn’t make sense to take ownership over that process.

I agree with the later, but the “mind”, a causally created PROCESS of any particular thing is not ‘involuntary’ as far as that THING is concerned. It IS voluntary, a willful process of THAT particular causality created THING. Causality works IN each and every INDIVIDUAL THING, irrelevant of the TRUTH that causality encompasses any and all THINGS one can think or imagine.

It is quite logical to say “my hand, my lungs, my car, my brain, or my whatever”, but because of this linguistic habit, and because MIND, which is simply a calculative PROCESS, perceives A body through sensual perceptions, and mistakenly assumes that since all things belong to me, the BODY is ME. What do you thing I will point a finger at when I say “MY car” (emphasis on ‘my’) and what can I point a finger at when I say “MY mind”?

So, basically when it comes to the “mind”, although I can define it as such, but I cannot say “MY mind”; in that I am mistakenly taking MY BODY as ME, and not the mind, where as the MIND is really ME, I, which is but a REAL “I”, that cannot be gotten rid of as long as I am a conscious thing.

SP: there is no real “Reality” as such, except All that there is, and that cannot be “totaled” up even as “Reality”. Infinite-ness of things cannot even be imagined or dreamed of, let alone be reasonable thought.

CP: Yes, the intellect cannot capture the essence of reality using ‘thought’. One is left with a state of emptiness where wonder and uncertainty are ones guide.

No, there are no uncertainties. What I mean is that there can be no such thing as “Reality”, unless and until it can be compared to “Un-Reality”, which necessarily needs to exist if “Reality” has to exist. And I am intellectually conceptualizing even what I just mentioned, because of duality, and Duality is all that there is, nothing exists beyond THAT; now one can call this concept ANY THING at all, but that will not make it as ONE literal and TRUE REALITY beyond “consciousness” as such, but only a conceptual one, which necessarily needs Duality to hold THAT concept of an assumed ONE ULTIMATE REALITY. Noting lies beyond human consciousness, not even concept, nor any Ultimate Reality as such, but on the other hand, consciousness is NOT only the property of a Human Brain, and exists at different levels, down to a quark, hence consciousness never un-exists because duality always exists, A=A always exists. And one cannot name IT a name at all because it is actually an EMPTY process, - Recognition – Differentiation – and necessary Reaction, and is not A THING at all, hence, what I have heard, (I don’t know if it is Buddhist or Zen), that which can be named, is NOT the Tao (Reality). Something along those lines…

Yes to conceptualize what reality is has never made sense to me either.

Taking what I said above even further; no such THING as Reality exists, but ANY and ALL things are absolutely REAL, including conceptualization, including the concept of something being “illusory” or “un-real”, and also including THIS very sentence itself.

Yes, it has no inherent meaning, but you must admit that the design is quite impressive, an infinite amount of forms constantly being created/destroyed producing an beautiful spectacle of motion, interaction and change.

Yes! “I” have no words to describe such a literally conscious experience that comes with the Realization that interaction and change IS experiencing interaction and change, and that “I” am no more than just ‘interaction and change’, which essentially makes ME simply BE Just THAT, a product of a “process”, just as any thing else, but Absolutely nothing else.

That does not mean that I become ONE with every THING that exists, just that I can mentally project MY conceptualization into all THINGS, and yet remain an “I”, because that cannot be gotten rid of, because THAT is consciousness itself, the “I”, which cannot exist without duality, hence duality is all that there IS, with all its attributes that makes it ALIVE.

What an existence! What a comprehension! What a Realized Existence!

Sapius wrote:Bert,

man wills by thought

Nice to know.

So, what does an animal will by?

What does an amoeba will by?

What does a tree will by?

Sapius, you know bert's inanities are merely pseudo-intellectual thought stoppers.

millipodium wrote:

Sapius wrote:Bert,

man wills by thought

Nice to know.

So, what does an animal will by?

What does an amoeba will by?

What does a tree will by?

Sapius, you know bert's inanities are merely pseudo-intellectual thought stoppers.

Yes, I know, but that's existence; I don't mind it being around.

He is who he is, what can actually I do about it? :D

Diebert, if I’m not, very, mistaken, I think I saw your post below Milli’’s post above!

I also remember its context, and keeping that in mind.

UG is not taking any scientific understandings into account when concluding….

The cause-effect relationship is invented by thought. Every event is an individual and independent event. We link up several events to create continuity. The clock strikes 12 O'clock and the train reaches the station. These are separate and simultaneous events with no cause and effect connection.

According to him, “death of knowledge” means, an animalistic existence, an instinctual existence, which is what is left when one STOPS interpreting ones perceptual world through verbal thoughts, or words itself, which necessarily have to have a predefined meaning, and hence lead to giving “meaning” to any and all actions. He repeatedly says that there is no Action, but only Reaction, so how does he actually discount causality? An action according to him would be equal to the First Cause kind of a thing, and Reaction according to him is an absolutely natural Reaction to “something” that is makes it react, just as an animal reacts to its environment without any assistance of Verbal Thinking. Hence he also says, that WE are already a very “intellectual” thing because he sees that we already have the “intelligence” that we see in animals, or any and all things that actually React but don’t initiate any ACTION at all.

So, one would not have been aware of the cause-effect relationship if it were not for verbal thinking being around, hence if one removes verbal thinking from the equation, then what are we actually left with?, but pure and simple animalistic reactions to whatever that comes up. In which, since HE IS a Human after all, and cannot get rid of words or meanings, includes those “meanings and words” within his “animalistic” existence, and hence says, when asked “how are you now actually understanding the words I speak right now although you say that your knowledge is dead?”, he simply says that he is reacting to words and there meanings, but does not use them to Actually say any thing “meaningful” at all. THAT is UG. In way, he has removed Maya in conceptualizing that very thought, which permeates his mentality. He is a Realized person in my opinion, however certain of his minor opinions on particular things that even I might not agree to, do not really matter. As a whole, I can see HIS big picture, and that is what actually matters. In my opinion of course.

WORDS, which do not come before perceptual conceptualizations by a human mind, already carry a meaning before we are aware of the word itself. A word by itself is actually EMPTY without what it MEANS. So it is the “meaning” that a word points to that we actually understand. Hence, in that sense, UG likes to say when someone asks him a question, “you already have the answer, hence you are questioning. Stop questioning!”, and people are confused as to what he means. Generally most would.

You mentioned at the end, something about ‘people love what he says and follow like a herd”, or something like that. No, it is not that they follow what HE SAYS; hardly any actually understand him; but they actually see something worthwhile in what THEY INTEPRET according to what fits well according to their own preconceived ideas picked up over their course of their interest in “enlightenment”, and what that means according to THEM. I have hardly seen anyone who actually understands him, including the person that wrote his words. I have seen the video of the person who wrote his book, frantically arguing with UG, when UG is plainly telling him that there is no frustration in him (the writer), and the writer keeps saying that how can that be, “I feel it, so I necessarily have it”. At that point, the writer has no idea of what UG is saying, because according to UG, the writer is holding on to the meaning of the word “frustration”, and the writer cannot see it.

millipodium wrote:

Sapius wrote:Bert,

man wills by thought

Nice to know.

So, what does an animal will by?

What does an amoeba will by?

What does a tree will by?

Sapius, you know bert's inanities are merely pseudo-intellectual thought stoppers.

it's ok for you to hate me,cause like Sapius says,what can I do about it?
and what can I do about it if you do not understand me?
he who is pure in his wisdom of sound sleep has no dogma to expound.
like I said,those who contain the great Ideas have no opinions.

2 choices:degeneration or immobility.

I can be harsh ,it goes like this,and is directed to you:
O,you fool,who's future is in other hands!unbidden you have listened to my soliloquy.so then,here cometh my Anathema,endure !

Foul feeder!Ye are slipped on your own excrement?Parasite!for you have made the world lousy,imagine ye are of significance to heaven?

desiring to learn,ha...you think to escape hurt in the rape of ignorance?
for more of innocence shall come out of what I've put in!
shall I satisfy your moral-fed desires?

I,who enjoy my body,would rather pack with hordes of bears and wolves then enter your pesthouse!

you want to know your blind wormcycle:sensation,nutrition,masticate,procreate!your love for desire,has it not been bloody...only your accusing diet shall change anything?

Cannibal,what meat should I offer?haven eaten your dead selves the flavour still in my mouth,you shall contain to raven on my mind's motion?

ye who believe your procreation is ultimate are the rubbish of creation manifest.In your conflict,ye think to have obtained?

when your hunger shall still?