Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

Why does the self keep going?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 62 in total
Sun, 13 Aug 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

I find it difficult to take up an issue when it is a few days old, but will see what comes.

We were discussing why the self is so very reluctant to end. Even though it is 'apparent' to anyone who gives it just a little thought that the self is the cause of so much misery, and is in fact the root cause of all mankind's problems. I don't see how that can be doubted. Real solutions are not to be found in politics, in economics, in any ideology/belief or the latest theory in psychology, philosophy. Technology is not going to save us. Non of these things touch the root of the problem, the human ego.

This ending of the self, or rather its non-ending, is, I venture to say, the single most important issue facing humankind, and each one of us. And no matter how difficult it might appear, to those who concern themselves with the question, we have to keep plugging away, inquiring – what else is there to do? And I am not excluding 'letting go' from that inquiry. I am not excluding anything. We cannot, as Huguette said in #173 of the Cause and Effect thread, afford to leave any stone unturned.

This was written in post #169 of the that thread:

Clive Elwell wrote: So can you see what is keeping the self alive? Or put it this way, why the self keeps being reborn after dying?

Is it simply inertia, a huge momentum built up over thousands of years?

Huguette: Can it be fear and the desire for pleasure, and above all inattention?

There is no question that the movement towards pleasure is enormously strong, at times overwhelming. It can overwhelm common-sense, it can push aside basic consideration for others, it can obliterate all traces of intelligence. We see that in their drive for pleasure, people destroy the health of their own bodies, in living for the pleasure of the moment, we loose all concern for the future, we steal from the future in fact, including the future of our children. Pleasure is blinding.

And similarly, there is no question that the existence of the self implies fear. I do not see that there can be a fear-free self. And this fear of the self extends to the idea of its own non-existence. This has shaped culture, and civilisation since time immemorial. So much could be said on this subject that I won't even attempt any more here.

And then Huguette said, above all, it is inattention that keeps the self alive.

Obviously it would be a wrong approach to debate which of these three factors keeps the self going. Clearly they are not at all separate, they are intertwined, and in the end they may be different manifestations of the same basic movement.

It is not clear which way to inquire from here, and I will stop, and see if other people come in.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Aug 2017 #2
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 406 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
...to those who concern themselves with the question, we have to keep plugging away, inquiring – what else is there to do? And I am not excluding 'letting go' from that inquiry. I am not excluding anything. We cannot ... afford to leave any stone unturned.

Clive,

Just to be clear, what I understand K to be referring to by "looking under every stone" - and what it means to me - is seeing, being aware of, detecting every subtle movement of thought which keep self "alive", every subtle assumption, conclusion, certainty which governs our action without our realizing it. It does not mean looking for an explanation for why self endures. Have I misunderstood you?

On Mind and Thought, p 133:

...self hides in many ways, under
every stone, the self can hide in
compassion, going to India and looking
after poor people, because the self is
attached to some idea, faith,
conclusion, belief, which makes me
compassionate because I love Jesus or
Krishna, and I go up to heaven. The
self has many masks, the mask of
meditation, the mask of achieving the
highest, the mask that I am
enlightened, that “I know of what I
speak.” All this concern about
humanity is another mask. So one has
to have an extraordinary, subtle,
quick brain to see where it is hiding.
It requires great attention, watching,
watching, watching.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Aug 2017 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive:
And no matter how difficult it might appear, to those who concern themselves with the question, we have to keep plugging away, inquiring – what else is there to do?

Tom: Observe?

I'm not sure that objectifying the 'self' is the best approach to understanding this self...understanding myself. It feels like when you make the self into your enemy ...distance yourself from it/yourself intellectually...it's impossible to observe objectively what it/you/me is. Best not to condemn it/me/you, imo. It's not possible to observe with care and affection that which you have demonized... that seems a certainty.

Clive: There is no question that the movement towards pleasure is enormously strong, at times overwhelming. It can overwhelm common-sense, it can push aside basic consideration for others, it can obliterate all traces of intelligence. We see that in their drive for pleasure, people destroy the health of their own bodies, in living for the pleasure of the moment, we loose all concern for the future

Tom: Isn't this due to great underlying fear? People who go to extremes of overeating, for example, are usually running away from deep conflict and fear, as far as I can see. I might say something similar about the alcoholic or drug addict. They are well aware that the pleasure of drink is harming their body, but the temporary respite from their inner pain is worth sacrificing their health for. "I'D rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." (Tom Waits)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 14 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Aug 2017 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Tom: Observe?

I said that I was not excluding anything in this inquiry, and for me observing is very much a part of inquiry - perhaps even the whole of it. But I don't want to get caught up in defining words now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Aug 2017 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I'm not sure that objectifying the 'self' is the best approach to understanding this self...understanding myself. It feels like when you make the self into your enemy ...distance yourself from it/yourself intellectually...it's impossible to observe objectively what it/you/me is. Best not to condemn it/me/you, imo. It's not possible to observe with care and affection that which you have demonized... that seems a certainty.

Yes Tom, I take your point, it is a good one.

Tom Paine wrote:
Isn't this due to great underlying fear?

Yes often it is. K often pointed out fear and pleasure are the opposite sides of the same coin. Hmm, just seeing something here. A cycle may start with fear, and the reaction is to pursue pleasure, (the oblivion of pleasure), or it may start with pleasure (the pursuit of pleasure) and soon fear comes in, the fear of loosing that pleasure, of not being fulfilled.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Aug 2017 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Have I misunderstood you?

I did slightly change the meaning of the words, I know. Put a different emphasis on them. Sorry about that, and thanks for pointing it out.

Looking at your quote, yes, it is all too easy to deceive oneself that one is NOT behaving selfishly. And this illusion puts an end to self inquiry, doesn't it? As do all "answers", "solutions".

And there are many rationalisations for selfish behaviour. I sometimes wonder if there is anyone in this world who does not have such a rationalisation, excuse, anyone who has not deceived himself that he is not in the right with his actions? Perhaps when one does face the fact of what one is, condemnation and even depression generally sets in. But such reactions can be seen for what they are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Aug 2017 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Perhaps when one does face the fact of what one is, condemnation and even depression generally sets in. But such reactions can be seen for what they are.

If one is actually 'seeing' the lie(not judging or condemning), then it's over, isn't it? If I'm seeing very clearly that I'm using or manipulating someone(my girlfriend or boyfriend, for instance), then it ends. Or if I become aware of my arrogance. Usually it continues because I'm unaware I'm doing the manipulation. Or I'm unaware that my actions are manipulating.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 14 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

This is how it seems to me, Tom. The seeing of 'what is' is the dissolving of what is - unless what is is a fact. Facts cannot be dissolved, can they?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

I want to investigate what Huguette suggested - that it is inattention that keeps the self alive. Or at least I want to investigate the relation between the self and attention/inattention. But suddenly finding myself too tired to continue today.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Facts cannot be dissolved, can they?

Do you mean that the seeing/understanding of the fact of greed in 'me' doesn't dissolve the fact of greed?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I want to investigate what Huguette suggested - that it is inattention that keeps the self alive. Or at least I want to investigate the relation between the self and attention/inattention.

I'd say it's more that fear and desire/attachment keep the self alive....because they are the basis of the self.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Rather than guess, can't we just ask ourselves: "why do I want to stay alive?"

I wasn't just guessing Dan.

Dan McDermott wrote:
"why do I want to stay alive?" We'll all have our own answer(s), but at least we'll know why we want to.

Hmmm. We may 'think' we know, but there may be a lot of reasons 'why' that we are unaware of.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Aug 2017 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

BUT the question I thought I was replying to was, 'what keeps the self alive?', not 'why do I want to stay alive?' I see a big difference between those two questions. Not trying to ignore yours, however(which seems to have vanished into thin air!). "I'd say it's more that fear and desire/attachment keep the self alive....because they are the basis of the self. Will get to your question at another time. Got to make dinner. A reply to Dan's post which has disappeared.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 16 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Aug 2017 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I want to investigate what Huguette suggested - that it is inattention that keeps the self alive.

From my ongoing observations, it seems clear that there can be, there is, an awareness of the movement of the self as it arises. And this is a 'choiceless' awareness, there is no way one can deny it, turn away from it. It is just a curious awareness, and there is no feeling that one has to “do something about it”. The passive awareness IS the doing, is the action, as Tom touched upon.

"By action" I mean the dissolving of the movement of the self

Of course just because some movements of the self are seen, that is no guarantee that ALL movement of the self are seen. I have the feeling that the self exists at different levels. The movement “at the top level” may be seen fairly easily, deep down the movement may be barely perceptible.But they still have its effect. Would people go along with this?

Obviously one has not had this awareness of the self-consciousness all one's life. Has it developed gradually, or come about instantaneously? Or a bit of both? Is it that a little sensitivity breeds a greater sensitivity? I find it's hard to say. But I feel strongly this awareness of the self, in which the self dissolves, is hugely significant. It is not a theory, not an idea, not a “should be”, it is an actual process going on.

Would be interested in getting other people's take on this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Aug 2017 #15
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would be interested in getting other people's take on this.

The question "Why does the self keep going?" Surprised me because if you approached it with an empty mind, it seems to me the birth of self. You can not even call it a rebirth because there is thought needed for ! And indeed it is - as Huguette cites - inattention that propagates itself and develops as a kind of cancer.

The less obstacles the better the awareness, but that says nothing about
the growth of awareness but about the amount of fog, obstacles still present.

I have no idea whether this is my take or a truthful vizie

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Aug 2017 #16
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
The less obstacles the better the awareness, but that says nothing about
the growth of awareness but about the amount of fog, obstacles still present.

Hi folks,

Woke up this morning with this clear analogy:

Light is the symbol of truth.
The sun exists longer than humanity.
Light comes to us
In the light we disappear

Awareness is like the sun
Only many obstacles can obstruct the light
Some of natural nature and some by our own doing.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Aug 2017 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
The less obstacles the better the awareness, but that says nothing about
the growth of awareness but about the amount of fog, obstacles still present.

I am wondering about this phrase "the better the awareness", Wim, and what you are intending to convey with those words. Are there degrees of awareness? I think K said "There is only awareness or not awareness, there are no degrees of awareness. When I do a search for this, I cannot find the quote, although I see K talked of the need for "a high degree of sensitivity". But for myself I cannot see how awareness can be measured.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Aug 2017 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Awareness is like the sun
Only many obstacles can obstruct the light
Some of natural nature and some by our own doing.

"obstacles to awareness" is an interesting subject. And yet I think it is false to think that one (whatever 'one' is) can in anyway control or influence awareness. But I should not start from this assumption.

Judgement, condemnation, seem anathema to awareness. The two cannot simultaneously exist, can they? We know that K usually uses the phrase "choiceless awareness". But condemnation arises so readily with regards to self - which is silly, because condemnation IS the movement of the self, isn't it? Although the whole of society is based on the notion and movement of the self, it is simultaneously condemned, by the action of some sort of "doublethink".

But still, the very word self, selfish, contains within itself condemnation. Is this why it is so hard to examine, to be aware of? Also it seems to me that the self contains within itself an inherent blindness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Aug 2017 #19
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Also it seems to me that the self contains within itself an inherent blindness.

Hi Clive,

Yes I think this is the case. We are blind to ourselves as the 'experiencer', the thinker, the observer...the 'seeker' with our 'cravings' , the 'searcher' for the truth etc. 'Blind' to the very psychological movement as the cause of conflict, violence...

But isn't the 'seeing' of that "blindness" in us, the awakening of intelligence?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 18 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Aug 2017 #20
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But still, the very word self, selfish, contains within itself condemnation. Is this why it is so hard to examine, to be aware of? Also it seems to me that the self contains within itself an inherent blindness.

Yes, to the part in bold. Can we examine it without the self itself doing the examination? And if I'm inherently blind what value is there in me doing the examining? This might be a little problematic! Arent we like the thief disguised as a policeman in order to catch the thief? We are the self. To condemn what we in fact ARE means further division and conflict. The examiner is the examined. Maybe it's best to leave it be....itself. Then perhaps it will reveal itself without effort from 'me'/itself.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 18 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Aug 2017 #21
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am wondering about this phrase "the better the awareness", Wim, and what you are intending to convey with those words. Are there degrees of awareness?
I think K said "There is only awareness or not awareness, there are no degrees of awareness.

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

Awareness is like the sun
Only many obstacles can obstruct the light
Some of natural nature and some by our own doing.

"obstacles to awareness" is an interesting subject. And yet I think it is false to think that one (whatever 'one' is) can in anyway control or influence awareness.
But I should not start from this assumption.

Is my imagery speaking really soo hard to understand ??

Does the sun radiate less light if it is on the other side of the earth or falls behind a skyscraper and can I influence that light ??
It is clear to me that the light is not influential and /or cumulative but that there are natural and / or unnatural obstacles.

I'm also not trying to test my description of what Krishnamurti has said about it, but now you start with it I've done my best so a few quotes that speak about variables in awareness.

Ojai, California | 9th Public Talk 1945

The mind-heart has become insensitive through fear and gratification of authority
but through deep awareness of thought-feeling comes the quickening of life. Through choiceless awareness the total process of your being is understood; Through passive awareness comes enlightenment.

.

Ommen Camp, The Netherlands | 7th Public Talk 9th August, 1937

Questions: Is awareness a matter of slow growth?

Krishnamurti: Where there is intense interest there is full awareness. As one is mentally lazy and emotionally crippled with fear, awareness becomes a matter of slow growth.

.

Ommen Camp, Holland | 7th Public Talk 9th August, 1937
This understanding is the natural outcome of deep awareness of the process of craving in its different forms. This demands keen interest out of which comes spontaneous concentration. Understanding is not a reward; in the very moment of awareness it is born.

So to me it seems that there are moments in time I'm more or less receptive to awareness but never can influence or cumulate it and the obstacles are to be found in ME.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Aug 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
We are blind to ourselves as the 'experiencer', the thinker, the observer...the 'seeker' with our 'cravings' , the 'searcher' for the truth etc.

Blind to itself as the creator of its problems.

Is the self blind because it is always looking AWAY from itself, and so cannot see itself? As was said on the forum some times ago, it is like the eyes trying to see themselves.

Dan McDermott wrote:
But isn't the 'seeing' of that "blindness" in us, the awakening of intelligence?

Before asking that, I am asking if the self, being blind, can truly see its own blindness? it can INFER it, yes. It can read the evidence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Aug 2017 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Yes, to the part in bold. Can we examine it without the self itself doing the examination?

Right, this seems the rational, logical, intelligent question. If there is a faulty tool. it is not longer any use to keep using it.

Tom Paine wrote:
And if I'm inherently blind what value is there in me doing the examining? This might be a little problematic! Arent we like the thief disguised as a policeman in order to catch the thief? We are the self. To condemn what we in fact ARE means further division and conflict. The examiner is the examined.

Yes, this seems to be the situation that we are in.

Can we say the self can examine itself, until it sees the inherent contradiction in doing so? And then it can go no further. Then faced with its own impotence, it dissolves?

But our whole conditioning is to try to "do something about the problem". This, it seems to me, only continues the problem.

To use K's analogy, the self "paints itself into a corner". This may take quite a time, or it may do so very quickly.

As I have been describing, this is how things present themselves to me. But it is not a 'once and for all' dissolution. the self rises from its own ashes. Do we have an idea that it should not do that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Aug 2017 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Does the sun radiate less light if it is on the other side of the earth or falls behind a skyscraper and can I influence that light ??
It is clear to me that the light is not influential and /or cumulative but that there are natural and / or unnatural obstacles.

So you are saying that the source of awareness does not change, but our ability to somehow "pick it up", or "utilise it" varies with time and circumstances, it that it Wim?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Aug 2017 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can we say the self can examine itself, until it sees the inherent contradiction in doing so? And then it can go no further. Then faced with its own impotence, it dissolves?

When it sees that 'I' am in fact the thief in the above analogy...and no movement to put on a false disguise (of a policeman) will change the fact. If all movement to try to change ceases then inner conflict ceases.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But our whole conditioning is to try to "do something about the problem". This, it seems to me, only continues the problem.

Why do we want to do something? It's because we are suffering in some way, right? So we try all the usual means to escape or to deal with it, and they don't work. Or they only bring temporary relief, like a drink at the bar may relax us. And of course there are deleterious effects. And the tradional approach of analysis has not brought resolution either....like the thief trying to reform himself. Where do we go from here? I'm just exploring here, Clive. I don't have an answer.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Aug 2017 #26
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But it is not a 'once and for all' dissolution. the self rises from its own ashes. Do we have an idea that it should not do that?

I'd say,sure we do at some level. "Should" and "should not" are very important concepts for any challenge to 'technical thought'. For planning, for a successful outcome, it's very necessary to 'do' or 'not do' certain things. But when these concepts of 'should/should not' are 'carried over' into the psychological world of 'becoming', they bring the concept also of time. And 'should' and 'should not' are opposed to 'what is'. They represent the 'ideal' (as is discussed in the QOTD.) Trying to get rid of the 'self' is an 'ideal' and a paradox because the 'self' IS the 'ideal' that it hopes to accomplish (or do away with) As long as there is 'desire', the 'self' is maintained. The study of desire as the motive behind self/thought is important as I see it. The 'wanting' for things to be other than they are necessarily introduces time and the ideal. But again this is proper and necessary in the 'technical' but in the psychological, desire introduces conflict because it is a resistance to 'what is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Aug 2017 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Trying to get rid of the 'self' is an 'ideal' and a paradox because the 'self' IS the 'ideal' that it hopes to accomplish (or do away with) As long as there is 'desire', the 'self' is maintained. The study of desire as the motive behind self/thought is important as I see it.

I was just now reading an excerpt on John R's forum that touches on this. I'll copy and paste....comments in parentheses by John:

K: (This inner) conflict exists when desire assumes the form of an ( independent?) 'experiencer' and pursues 'that which is to be experienced' (which) is also put together by ( the same process of thought sustained ?) desire.

Q: You are saying that ( the process of thought-enforced?) desire not only builds the 'experiencer', but also brings into being ( a mentally projected image of?) 'that which is to be experienced'. Now, you are asking, what is the state of the mind which is no longer (entangled?) in this inner conflict, which is not driven by desire? But how can this question be answered without the ( interference of the?) 'watcher' who is watching the experience of desirelessness?

K: When you are ( becoming self-) conscious of your humility, has not humility ceased? The moment you are aware that you are happy, you cease to be happy. What is the state of the mind which is not caught in the (dualistic ) conflict of desire? The urge to find out ( the ultimate experiential answer?) is part of the same activity of ( the thought-sustained?) desire which has brought into being the ( illusory split between the?) 'experiencer' and the 'thing to be experienced', is it not?

Q: That’s so. Your question was an (experiential 'fly?) trap' for me, but I am thankful you asked it since I am now seeing more of the intricate subtleties of (my thought-enforced ?) desire.

K: It was not (meant to be?) a trap, but a natural and inevitable ( check-up?) question which you would have asked yourself in the course of your inquiry. If the mind is not extremely ( awake?) alert, aware, it is soon caught again in the ( illusory?) net of its own desire.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Where do we go from here? I'm just exploring here, Clive. I don't have an answer.

The suggestion is that we don't go anywhere from there. That it is seen that all attempts to go somewhere are false, as you say. We have painted ourselves into a corner, we are surrounded by wet paint, and we see that there is no path to the door.

How clearly do we see this? There is such strong conditioning into the idea of trying to go somewhere, thought trying to find a way out of the contradiction. But the thought IS the contradiction. When this is seen, we no longer expend energy in thought trying to find an answer. Instead the question is, can thought be quiet? Can thought cease to try and find answers?

So I don't think the question "Where do we go from there?" is a valid one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

I think of idea of “doing something about it” is a great curse. It is a curse that permeates human thinking. It brings in the issue of choice, the question of just WHAT should one about it. It brings about various forms of 'practice', various 'disciplines', and gives rise to authority figures who claim to KNOW what should be done about it. All that mass of confusion. As Dan mentioned, It opens up a space, a division, between what is and what should be. And that space can never be bridged.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
We are blind to ourselves as the 'experiencer', the thinker, the observer...the 'seeker' with our 'cravings' , the 'searcher' for the truth etc. 'Blind' to the very psychological movement as the cause of conflict, violence...

Inviting you to say more on this, Dan, if you can. What are the 'limits' of the self? And why is it intrinsically blind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 62 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)