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

On the inherent blindness of the self


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 43 in total
Fri, 18 Aug 2017 #1
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear all,

Clive said something to the core in his comment from the thread "Why does the self persist", this:

"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."

Mina: Yes. When reading a title like "Why does the self persist", I already feel how the 'point' has been missed, the self not seen but continued.

By the word 'self' I do not mean one thing, (it is misleading to use one word for that which is always two or more) but the relationship between thoughts, images. The whole of consciousness psychologically is a constant creation of thought reacting to thought. Any movement of this consciousness is inherently divided, blind to realising the whole of its own structure, coming to life only as the separation between the thinker and the thought.

This is why no thought, no part of this consciousness, can ever see the whole of it.

If the first step in thought is taken, all other steps are inherently already contained in it, and the essence is already missed. The inherent blindness of the self (psychological consciousness), to which Clive refers also, can only been SEEN THROUGH, not by thought which can only maintain the duality and limitation that it is, but in intelligence, which sees through all of it.

And the 'seeing through' is weightless, matterless, thoughtless, so without a subject and object.

So, the seeing through thought/self, sees no thought, no self. Here lies the wonder of transformation of man.

..

(The above descriptions can only start making sense beyond the words when read with a silent mind)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Aug 2017 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 534 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Thanks for those beautiful words above, this was also ment by my description:

Wim Opdam wrote:
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 !

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
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #3
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Yes Wim, when I read your reply, I felt what you were saying...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
This is why no thought, no part of this consciousness, can ever see the whole of it.

I take your point, Mina. Yet K asks can the whole of consciousness be seen, at a glance?

I am asing mysef if it is only the silent mind that can see this totality? But if the mind is silent, what is there to be seen? Is there then any mind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Aug 2017 #5
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

m:>This is why no thought, no part of this consciousness, can ever see the whole of it.

Clive:I take your point, Mina. Yet K asks can the whole of consciousness be seen, at a glance?

m: "yet K asks"..can we leave K out of this..:-)...can WE ask this question, and not only theoretically, but with the whole of our being..so that the question is no longer maintained in any separation from the whole of our being in which it dissolves..

That is the 'the seeing the whole of consciousness in a timeless glance'.

Clive:>I am asing mysef if it is only the silent mind that can see this totality? But if the mind is silent, what is there to be seen? Is there then any mind?

Mina: No mind is seeing, no mind is seen. That is the totality, the actual, not the image. But for as long as there is speculation about minds and no minds etc, it is not the actual, but the image.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Thu, 24 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Aug 2017 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
so that the question is no longer maintained in any separation from the whole of our being in which it dissolves..

Some clarification please. What are you referring to when you say "it" here? The question?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 24 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Aug 2017 #7
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Some clarification please. What are you referring to when you say "it" here? The question?

m: Yes, was referring to the question/questioner, which is a creation of limitation, dissappearing in the unlimited essence of all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Aug 2017 #8
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 368 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

Is the question why the self keeps going? Isn’t it rather why the brain’s delusion is maintained, the delusion that there is a self separate from the brain? It is the brain which needs to understand the nature of self, not self, not “you” or ”me” - but the brain can say “I” for purposes of communication.

As I see it, I thought that if I was aware, if I was patient, if I understood time and self, self would end and life would be bliss. I thought I was "doing it right". And where is the bliss?

I think self-understanding has nothing to do with the bliss of a silent mind. Perhaps it opens the door to bliss, to something indescribable. I know nothing about this.

Of course, awareness, attention or observation IS silent but that is still not a silent mind.

So I think we’re confusing 2 things here - self-understanding and a silent mind. As I see it, self-understanding refers to observing and understanding time, the observer/observed duality, conflict, the contents of consciousness, effort, desire, becoming, fear, action, relationship, and so on. It is silent awareness, attention, observation which reveals the nature and significance of these things. When all this is actually deeply fundamentally understood, there is necessarily a transformation in one’s approach to life, isn’t there? In action/relationship, one now goes north instead of south - not as a method or a means but as the natural consequence of self-understanding. One may stumble or fall. The contents of consciousness still get agitated, there are reactions, fear, and so on. But one cannot unsee the nature of time, self, the significance of effort, and so on, can one? Still, this understanding may be a new delusion the brain has latched onto, and if so, awareness reveals it, no?

When you or I ask why does the self persist, isn’t it because we feel we have understood self and time and still we suffer from the old reactions - fear, confusion, shame, anxiety, desire? Wasn’t all this supposed to end with the new self-understanding? So it was just a kind of barter - peace in exchange for self-understanding.

When you observe the chaos in the world, do you not observe it “at a glance”? You don’t - the brain doesn’t - enumerate all the innumerable fragments that make up the chaos, all the instances of corruption, injustice, brutality, greed, cruelty, and so on. Even without knowing or remembering every instance of chaos, we see that chaos pervades action/relationship, don’t we? So don’t we see at a glance that the psychological world put together by thought - not the physical Earth but the world of the totality of relationship made up by the totality of man’s actions and endeavours - is in chaos? And that the root of that chaos is in the brain?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 25 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Aug 2017 #9
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 336 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
[Clive:] "yet K asks".. [Mina:] can we leave K out of this..:-)...can WE ask this question, and not only theoretically, but with the whole of our being..so that the question is no longer maintained in any separation from the whole of our being in which it dissolves..

It's my feeling that K would have felt very happy listening to your words ...

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Fri, 25 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Aug 2017 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1910 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And where is the bliss? I think self-understanding has nothing to do with the bliss of a silent mind. Perhaps it opens the door to bliss, to something indescribable. I know nothing about this.

I think this is a good point. Self understanding means understanding the 'noise'...what actually is...the 'self'....not silence.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Aug 2017 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1910 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

[Clive:] "yet K asks".. [Mina:] can we leave K out of this..:-)...can WE ask this question, and not only theoretically, but with the whole of our being..so that the question is no longer maintained in any separation from the whole of our being in which it dissolves..

Juan:
It's my feeling that K would have felt very happy listening to your words

I think K (or Mina) would be misleading people if they state that 'I'/you...a fragment....can do anything with the 'whole of our being'. It might be best to leave aside any notions of the whole as we'll only make it into an ideal ....setting a goal of acting in some new way, rather than observing ourselves as we actually are. Don't we have enough ideals and goals already? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding this point, but it does seem misleading. .

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Aug 2017 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
When all this is actually deeply fundamentally understood, there is necessarily a transformation in one’s approach to life, isn’t there? In action/relationship, one now goes north instead of south - not as a method or a means but as the natural consequence of self-understanding. One may stumble or fall. The contents of consciousness still get agitated, there are reactions, fear, and so on. But one cannot unsee the nature of time, self, the significance of effort, and so on, can one?

Clive: I would not say this. That one heads in a different direction, north rather than south. I know K has often used this analogy, but for me the limited self understanding that might have hapened cuts off ALL directions of movement. At least all directions that thought used to supply. Better to say all the old directions still arise in consciousness, but it is quickly seen that they lead only to contradiction. So there is a “constant” starting and stopping. (This starting and stopping denies the concept of “constant”, in fact)

One may stumble or fall. The contents of consciousness still get agitated, there are reactions, fear, and so on. But one cannot unsee the nature of time, self, the significance of effort, and so on, can one?

Clive: No, self understanding is irrevocable. Not that it can be reduced to a series of fixed images.

Still, this understanding may be a new delusion the brain has latched onto, and if so, awareness reveals it, no?

Clive: Seems to me there can be no accumulation in self understanding. One is always “starting anew”, so can delusion gain a foothold? One may, and does, make mistakes of course, but these are not held onto, in so far as one is conscious of them.

When you or I ask why does the self persist, isn’t it because we feel we have understood self and time and still we suffer from the old reactions - fear, confusion, shame, anxiety, desire? Wasn’t all this supposed to end with the new self-understanding? So it was just a kind of barter - peace in exchange for self-understanding.

Clive: Looking at this. It doesn't seem quite right, or completely right. I think the question was asked because it does seem that the movement of the self is continually 'seen through' … and it also continually re-appears. But really I do not feel in touch with the state of mind that asked the question originally. Best to start over again.

When you observe the chaos in the world, do you not observe it “at a glance”? You don’t - the brain doesn’t - enumerate all the innumerable fragments that make up the chaos, all the instances of corruption, injustice, brutality, greed, cruelty, and so on. Even without knowing or remembering every instance of chaos, we see that chaos pervades action/relationship, don’t we?

Clive: This seems to be a capacity of the brain – to integrate information into smaller units of information, to summarise. Just about everywhere one looks one sees this chaos. Increasing chaos I would say. And certainly thought, psychotically, is 'pure' chaos..

So don’t we see at a glance that the psychological world put together by thought - not the physical Earth but the world of the totality of relationship made up by the totality of man’s actions and endeavours - is in chaos? And that the root of that chaos is in the brain?

I would say that that IS seen. And yet ….. well, this is why I raised the issue about the self being blind. It seems that it simply cannot see itself for what it is. As it arises it does not realise that it is chaos, and is only a fragment – instead it is apparently based on the notion that it is somehow truth, somehow an absolute reality.

Is it that this is the factor that 'persists', this blindness?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Aug 2017 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

A completely new perspective comes to the question “Why does the self persist?”

I realise the perspective with which the question was first asked was a personal one, one stemming from observations on this particular brain. But this particular brain is only a reflection, a part (a projection?) of the general human brain, the common human consciousness. And seen from that perspective, it is perfectly obvious why the self continues as it does. It has been fed for thousands of years. Everything possible has been done to encourage it, to cultivate, to nourish it.

Our present culture/society (which is only the culmination of all previous cultures) has made the self all-important, It is the basis of politics, of economics, of social policy of religions. Psychology projects the notion of a “strong self”, a healthy self. The whole emphasis, the whole thrust of the world we have created is centred on the notion and the encouragement of the individual, separative self.

It would be a miracle if the self had NOT persisted.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Aug 2017 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1910 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
would say that that IS seen. And yet ….. well, this is why I raised the issue about the self being blind. It seems that it simply cannot see itself for what it is. As it arises it does not realise that it is chaos, and is only a fragment – instead it is apparently based on the notion that it is somehow truth, somehow an absolute reality.

That may be correct, but I'd like to put it a little differently...that thought thinks it's an accurate representation of reality...like a photograph. When we look at a photograph of a friend or relative, we know it's not the actual person, yet we say, "That's my son....or That's my friend". In a sense we think that they are that person in the image, but of course the image is of the past and only a very limited image of what they are, NOT the actual living person. In the same way when we think to ourself, "I am bad, or I am good", we accept that as reality. Thought has fooled us into thinking that the image/s is/are what we are.

Can you say more about what you mean by 'it is chaos' above? It is not chaos to think of my car or about what to cook for dinner. Why is it chaos to think of my neighbor?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 26 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Aug 2017 #15
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 368 posts in this forum Offline

12:

Clive Elwell wrote:
for me the limited self understanding that might have hapened cuts off ALL directions of movement

Can all directions of movement BE cut off? Life is relationship, isn't it? Self-understanding does not end the endless movement in relationship. There can be no relationship/action without movement, can there? And movement has direction. If there is no direction, there can be no movement. Relationship which is driven by effort goes in one “direction”. Relationship in which there is no effort to become, to win, to achieve, and so on, goes in a totally different “direction”, as I see it. This is what I mean by “north and south”, or call it “east and west”, “northeast and southwest”. It refers to the quality of the energy which determines the direction or integrity of the movement.

The rain falls and nourishes the earth. The acid rain falls and burns the earth. That is relationship. The fire burns and destroys the forest and at the same time, its ashes and embers replenish the earth so that a healthy new forest emerges. That is relationship. A neighbour says, “How you doing today” or “You better keep your damn kids off my lawn”. That is relationship.

A man juggles his income to avoid paying taxes and he says, “That makes me smart”. Another man jumps in front of a stranger to stop a bullet. One mother sermonizes and yells at her small child, telling him he’s bad. Another mother gather her toddler into her arms and says with compassion, “Are you frustrated?” and the child immediately calms down. All that is relationship, action, movement. All that is relationship and a silent mind does not mean the end of relationship, does it (not implying that "I have" a silent mind)?

When I say north and south, it refers to the fact that the trajectory is traced either by history, tradition, self-interest, effort, ambition, fear, desire, jealousy, conceit, and so on - on the one hand - or else that the trajectory is not rooted in the past or aimed towards a future goal - on the other hand. The trajectory that is not rooted in time still has movement, doesn't it?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Better to say all the old directions still arise in consciousness

To me, “all the old directions” are one and the same direction. There is a multitude of movements all going in the direction set by effort/time/self. It is not an actual degree of direction. It is the quality of the "going" that is transformed by the source of the movement. Isn't that what is meant here by direction?

Clive Elwell wrote:
all the old directions still arise in consciousness, but it is quickly seen that they lead only to contradiction.

It is seen or not seen. It may have been seen yesterday or 5 minutes ago and if "now" there is inattention, it is not seen. Where "now" there is inattention, it is only the memory of understanding which acts. So I stumble and fall. No matter what HAS BEEN understood, there can always be inattention, can't there? Where there is attention, it is seen afresh, not from memory. Where there IS attention, it cannot be unseen. No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 26 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Aug 2017 #16
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 368 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette wrote:
Still, this understanding may be a new delusion the brain has latched onto, and if so, awareness reveals it, no?

Clive: Seems to me there can be no accumulation in self understanding. One is always “starting anew”, so can delusion gain a foothold? One may, and does, make mistakes of course, but these are not held onto, in so far as one is conscious of them.

I was referring here to "looking under every stone". The mind which assumes or concludes that it has understood all and that henceforth it can make no mistakes is not the mind which understands, is it? Vigilance is still necessary.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Aug 2017 #17
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 368 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette wrote:
When you or I ask why does the self persist, isn’t it because we feel we have understood self and time and still we suffer from the old reactions - fear, confusion, shame, anxiety, desire? Wasn’t all this supposed to end with the new self-understanding? So it was just a kind of barter - peace in exchange for self-understanding.

Clive: Looking at this. It doesn't seem quite right, or completely right. I think the question was asked because it does seem that the movement of the self is continually 'seen through' … and it also continually re-appears. But really I do not feel in touch with the state of mind that asked the question originally. Best to start over again.

I understand what you're saying. I think this goes to what I see as our confusion between silent observation and a silent mind which, to me, are not the same phenomenon, if I can call it that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Aug 2017 #18
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 368 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette wrote:
So don’t we see at a glance that the psychological world put together by thought - not the physical Earth but the world of the totality of relationship made up by the totality of man’s actions and endeavours - is in chaos? And that the root of that chaos is in the brain?

Clive Elwell wrote:
I would say that that IS seen. And yet ….. well, this is why I raised the issue about the self being blind. It seems that it simply cannot see itself for what it is. As it arises it does not realise that it is chaos, and is only a fragment – instead it is apparently based on the notion that it is somehow truth, somehow an absolute reality.

I'm still puzzled by this kind of statement. You say - or would say -:) - that this IS seen and you also say that it seems that self simply cannot see itself. I don't understand "who" sees and "who" doesn't see and are they 2 different entities?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Aug 2017 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
.that thought thinks it's an accurate representation of reality...like a photograph.

But thought - and I am talking of the thought that is happening NOW, always now - is not aware that it is representing something, does it? Whatever it is saying (and that is changing all the time) is presenting itself as being simply true, isn't it? As being some absolute reality. As in:
I like that
I want that
that is so
that is a fragment
he's insulting me
she doesn't appreciate me
.
.
.

Other thoughts do arise challenging the what now is early thought, but then this new thought has taken the role of the absolute truth. And so on.

Tom Paine wrote:
Thought has fooled us into thinking that the image/s is/are what we are.

Yes, each time it arises it does this. That is, it creates an image of what we are (or what the other is). But it's rather hard to say what the "us" is, in "fooled us" :-).

Tom Paine wrote:
Can you say more about what you mean by 'it is chaos' above? It is not chaos to think of my car or about what to cook for dinner. Why is it chaos to think of my neighbor?

Yes, it is not chaos to think "It's time to have the car serviced", or "The power is off, my neighbour might need some help"

It is part of the chaos of society to think "Because my car is an expensive model, I must be a superior sort of person" or "Because my neighbour said something that hurt me yesterday, he is a complete idiot and I won't speak to him again"

The former are practical matters, the latter are drawing images, no?

I was using the word "chaos" loosely, meaning disorder - but that seems too mild a word.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Aug 2017 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
When I say north and south, it refers to the fact that the trajectory is traced either by history, tradition, self-interest, effort, ambition, fear, desire, jealousy, conceit, and so on - on the one hand - or else that the trajectory is not rooted in the past or aimed towards a future goal - on the other hand. The trajectory that is not rooted in time still has movement, doesn't it?

Thank you for looking at this in detail, Huguette. Your words above seem to cover what I was trying to get at, in my clumsy way. Yes, a direction is already known, isn't it? It is, as you say, rooted in the past. And such action is only an attempt to approximate myself to an idea – so I would not really call it action..

So is there an action that is not based on idea, that does not have a future goal? Is such an action the action of complete negation – which is what I meant, I think, by “having no direction”?

Will look at your other posts tomorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Aug 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It is not an actual degree of direction. It is the quality of the "going" that is transformed by the source of the movement. Isn't that what is meant here by direction?

Can you enlarge on this, Huguette, I am not quite grasping it.

Clive Elwell wrote: all the old directions still arise in consciousness, but it is quickly seen that they lead only to contradiction.

Huguette: It is seen or not seen. It may have been seen yesterday or 5 minutes ago and if "now" there is inattention, it is not seen. Where "now" there is inattention, it is only the memory of understanding which acts. So I stumble and fall. No matter what HAS BEEN understood, there can always be inattention, can't there? Where there is attention, it is seen afresh, not from memory. Where there IS attention, it cannot be unseen. No?

Yes, this is the essence of looking, understanding, attention. The memory of understanding is not understanding. As K said, :A truth, once repeated, becomes a lie". And such attempts to accumulate understanding only form the basis for conflict

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Aug 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I'm still puzzled by this kind of statement. You say - or would say -:) - that this IS seen and you also say that it seems that self simply cannot see itself. I don't understand "who" sees and "who" doesn't see and are they 2 different entities?

Clive wrote: I would say that that IS seen. And yet ….. well, this is why I raised the issue about the self being blind. It seems that it simply cannot see itself for what it is. As it arises it does not realise that it is chaos, and is only a fragment – instead it is apparently based on the notion that it is somehow truth, somehow an absolute reality.

Huguette wrote: I'm still puzzled by this kind of statement. You say - or would say -:) - that this IS seen and you also say that it seems that self simply cannot see itself. I don't understand "who" sees and "who" doesn't see and are they 2 different entities?

Yes, I am also puzzled.

Would you say that all we can communicate are descriptions? We observe ourselves, the world, and if we wish to communicate what we see, we have to use the medium of thought, no? That is one of the purposes of thought. So the communication is a description, and descriptions are part of thought, and so subject to the same limitations as thought is. They are fragmented. Being fragmented means one part of the mind may say things in contradiction to other parts of the mind. “Mind” here may be seen as an individual mind, or the common human mind.

Putting it simply, our perceptions are limited, and so may be contradictory.

What do you say, Huguette, about the statement “the self is intrinsically blind”? No, I will rephrase that - “the self has elements, or an element, that are/is intrinsically blind”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Aug 2017 #23
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 534 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
“the self has elements, or an element, that are/is intrinsically blind”?

Hi Clive and Huguette,

Does not the confusion also interfere with the use of the words:
'see', 'seen' and 'seeing' in a context that has nothing to do with the physical but carry all the connotations of it ?

It is known that we physically all have a blind spot and that is supplemented by interpretation of the environment. It's also true that we can never look in our own eyes except through a reflection of a mirror.

In view of the use of the words in a psychological context, may we deploy these observations on the physical as not applicable ??

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
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
It's also true that we can never look in our own eyes except through a reflection of a mirror.

This is an analogy that keeps occuring to me, as regards this blindness of the self. It is as if there is some quality of it that it itself just cannot look at. So it continues to operate in its blindness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

I have been reflecting and observing on this issue of the self being blind, or at least having certain attributes of blindness. And I wonder if in the answer to this question does not contain the answer to the question “Why does the self keep going”

This comes to me: When the self acts, psychologically, or rather tries to act, it carries an assumption, an implication, that the self is permanent. Well, not necessarily permanent, but has some continuity. Any action of the self has to be in time (“I WILL act”), and so it has to continue in the future in order to act. (Isn't this why the self was invented?)

But in actual fact, the self has no permanence, no continuity. The self is a creation of thought, and thought is transient, it comes and it goes. Comes and dies. So thought can do nothing psychologically.

The self cannot see that it is impermanent. Its whole thrust, its rasion d'etre, is permanence. I suggest this is its “blind spot”. Or one of them at least, but it is a fundamental one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 #26
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 368 posts in this forum Offline

21:

Huguette . wrote:

It is not an actual degree of direction. It is the quality of the "going" that is transformed by the source of the movement. Isn't that what is meant here by direction?

Clive Elwell wrote:

Can you enlarge on this, Huguette, I am not quite grasping it.

I’m sorry. I think I made my meaning unintelligible by talking about “degree”. I meant degree as in direction degrees. That is, even though self seems to be heading in a multitude of directions, all these “different” directions or actions are self-centred, aren’t they? Self carries over yesterday’s enmity, anger, fear, hope, expectation, attachment, desire, pleasure, achievements, failures, and so on, into today and this also shapes tomorrow. So what seems to be a multitude of directions are all the direction chosen by the darkness of the confused mind.

Yesterday’s (Aug 28) QOTD expressed the same thing differently still, as I see it: “if thought is limited by memories, traditions, prejudices, by the past, then any action springing from it can only create further ignorance and sorrow.” This is what going north (or call it south or east) means to me.

Also, today's QOTD: "The eternal is ever the unknown for a mind that accumulates; what is accumulated is memory, and memory is ever the past, the time-binder." The mind which functions out of its accumulation cannot "change directions", can it?

Then action, movement, direction which does not spring out of the past is a complete change of course - it is “going” south (or west or north) instead of north (or south or east), a total change of direction stemming from the brain’s understanding of itself, which ends psychological time. This, as I understand it, is still not the silent mind we talked about. Is it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 29 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 #27
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 368 posts in this forum Offline

25:

Clive Elwell wrote:
But in actual fact, the self has no permanence, no continuity. The self is a creation of thought, and thought is transient, it comes and it goes. Comes and dies. So thought can do nothing psychologically.

The self cannot see that it is impermanent.

Isn't it more than a question of continuity alone? The self cannot see anything, can it? ... no more than "someone" in a dream can observe anything? Isn't self a figment of the brain's (thought's) imagination? The brain can observe, if it observes silently, without the past clouding its observation. The brain is material, it is not a figment. IT sees the table, not self. No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 29 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Aug 2017 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I’m sorry. I think I made my meaning unintelligible by talking about “degree”. I meant degree as in direction degrees. That is, even though self seems to be heading in a multitude of directions, all these “different” directions or actions are self-centred, aren’t they?

Clive: Yes, one could say that there is only one direction, that of self aggrandizement .

{cut}

Then action, movement, direction which does not spring out of the past is a complete change of course - it is “going” south (or west or north) instead of north (or south or east), a total change of direction stemming from the brain’s understanding of itself, which ends psychological time. This, as I understand it, is still not the silent mind we talked about. Is it?

I am trying to see this. What does it mean if the mind is following a direction – not, not following – that is not self centred , and yet the mind is not silent?….is this similar to a “motiveless state” that I mentioned recently? Is it guided by intelligence? Is it simply responding to the challenge of 'what is', without that challenge being interpreted by knowledge, by the past? “Stemming from the brain's understanding of itself”, you say. Yes, I begin to see that is indeed a new direction – or a whole series of new directions, no?

And if we act without the brain understanding itself, then that action must bring chaos. Which is what we observe happening.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Aug 2017 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3664 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't it more than a question of continuity alone? The self cannot see anything, can it?

Clive: Can we say that all that the self can see is itself?

no more than "someone" in a dream can observe anything?

Clive: Well, it observes what is happening in the dream, doesn't it?

Isn't self a figment of the brain's (thought's) imagination?

Clive: I think this is a fact, unquestionable.

The brain can observe, if it observes silently, without the past clouding its observation. The brain is material, it is not a figment. IT sees the table, not self. No?

This distinction between the self and the brain certainly has to be drawn. Perhaps in the past I have at times been hazy about it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Aug 2017 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1910 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Huguette . wrote:

Isn't it more than a question of continuity alone? The self cannot see anything, can it?
Clive: Can we say that all that the self can see is itself?

The self doesn't see anything does it? It thinks. The brain sees the tree or the spouse or child. The self immediately reacts with thinking....he/she is good or bad, right or wrong, etc. No seeing at all is involved in that reacting. So I'd say that the self doesn't see anything...including itself. It's blind!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 43 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.)