More or less… in some posts of mine, where I try to explain my point of you, you can notice two different parts of the speech. The first (which maybe not in chronological order) is the enunciation of my point of view, of my general approach to K and to the theme in discussion, and the second is some few example of what I mean. You only focused on the second part, skipping the first. It does not require superhuman powers to see this.
This is the essential part of my explanation. Don’t rush to read what follows, don’t react immediatly to what I said ("yes, but…), just listen to these few sentences. Slow down, make a pause, let that enter into your consciousness.
I’m not saying that my enunciation is right. Of course it can be wrong. But you cannot discover if it’s right or wrong if you don’t consider it. In all your replies to me there are some empty spaces, things you have skipped, things you have not taken into consideration. The core of my point of view lies in those things you have skipped.
Then we have the examples. Those have a secondary importance, they may be or appear wrong to you, I might have chosen something not exactly pertinent, even if they may appear pertinent to me. So in focusing only on them you are bound to conclude that I am wrong. And by the way, I may have introduced too many secondary issues, but the essential part is always the same and consists of very few words. Sometimes so few that you didn’t grasp their meaning. One example of this is “it doesn’t end there”.
Now, there are also side issues, things in your replies which show your lack of global understanding. In your long replies I see too many of those side issues which would need to be addressed. I chose not to do it because the result would be and endless and vain back and forth. Therefore I said that your replies didn’t have sense to me.
Now, let’s try again and consider only one of your replies, It can and will lead us to put the essence in first position and so discover what is that I wanted to say.
One of the “other” factors which I mentioned connected with the outer/inner observation, was love. You replied that you had already considered that aspect before in the thread. (You said more things but I am simplifying). Good that you had considered it before, it’s just what I wanted to say. But don’t you see that in saying that you are confirming my thesis that things don’t end there?
So what is the essence of my point of view about your thread?
Actually I have already explained it several times and you never responded to that but only to side issues.
The essence is that, 1) all you said about observation, the first step, etc, is true and I have agreed with it for 13 times or posts (see my list in my previous post). Nevertheless you were fixed with the idea that I was objecting to it.
- That said, that granted, that experimented, in my 14th post I introduced the point of view of someone who has done that first step. Someone who has navigated for a while in that sea. When you are sailing for pleasure, there is no destination, and the first step - starting the journey - is the last step, because the journey itself is the goal, there is no other goal than sailing. So the moment you are sailing you have done the last step to be there. And in sailing - it’s obvious - you discover that things don’t end there, there are many things you encounter and have to tackle, many waypoints where you have to change your course or adjust it. K has spoken for more than 50 years about those viewpoints and all the things involved in the inner exploration. This is one of the points that you seem to ignore, why?
I have also told you that in debating or enunciating those things in this forum, it’s inevitable to see those factor linearly, that is, a sequence of words, concepts, etc. What we are doing is dividing K teachings into fragments and putting those fragments in a line, one after the other. In my view things don’t work that way. It’s fine to start observing but unless we have a “circular” view of all the connected problems our observation will be fragmented as well.
One small example of this fragmented observation is your impass in understanding my description of what I experimented in meditation, the content of thoughts. What you had in mind was the content of consciousness, but you could not see and so understand what the content of thoughts was. Something which is there most of the times. And IMO this is due to your choice of focus only on emotions, or reactions. I.e., you chose what to observe! Got it now? Yours was not a choiceless observation because you had decided, planned that the only important thing was to observe emotions. While if you let the observation free, without choosing the object of observation, or without sticking to one thing only, you will be aware of whatever passes in your mind. Is it clear now?
And now please forgive me but I have to go to lunch.