Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:39 am
Yes. UG's transformative moment was a physical change in the body that he said was irreversible and had nothing to do with the psychological or any other thing he had ever done. This is why he criticized JK and his psychological approach. And, as well as the Buddha's, if Theravada is really the Buddha's approach and not an approach developed after his death. His statement about JK seeing it, but not tasting it explains this.Bundokji wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:04 pmJ.K emphasized the psychological, UG focused on the physical.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:17 pm You're correct. It is JK that did use the terms attention and observation. With UG, attention and observation were not considered tools as in Buddhism, that one used to discover nibbana or the natural state. But the implication of what he constantly pointed to, the limitation of the thought structure to sort all of this out, is not possible without some kind of attention and observation of it. It is not a practice as in Buddhism where some action is repeated like noting or labeling thoughts as thoughts. This is my personal take on it, not UG's choice of words. He considered all observations as within the thought structure and part of the delusion. Thanks for that reminder.
UG denies everything including awareness. He thinks choiceless awareness is a technique