Yes, agree…the contradiction in me…one fragment of ‘me’ opposed to another fragment of me.
Are you referring to conflicting desires ? Like: “I want a piece of cake and I must not have a piece of cake” at the same time - If so this is a result of the confusion and conflict.
But can we not see that there is no need for opposite desires for there to be conflict? I’d like to focus on the conflict inherent in just : “I want”
macdougdoug: Are you referring to conflicting desires ? Like: “I want a piece of cake and I must not have a piece of cake” at the same time - If so this is a result of the confusion and conflict.
right…I want cake and at the same time I want to lose weight.
But can we not see that there is no need for opposite desires for there to be conflict? I’d like to focus on the conflict inherent in just : “I want”
OK…go on. I’m not clear on that point.
1 Like
If we theoretically see that it is the ‘empty’ mind that can allow for the new and not the ‘crowded’ mind then, any psychological wish / hope / desire, to become this or that, any ‘want’ at all would ‘pollute’ the empty or the ‘what is’ mind. The ‘what is’ mind is the mind/ senses / awareness functioning in the Now? Desire to ‘become’ is opposed to that ‘Now’ and a movement away from it into an illusory ‘future’ or time?
Either I am at ease with what is, or I am in conflict with what is.
The above statement is not entirely accurate.
Actually : If I am, ease is not.
Right. If ‘self’ is, conflict is.
1 Like
Desire for what is not, is aversion to what is.
There is only what is. To want something else than reality, is to be in conflict with reality.
It also assumes that there is something other than what is, doesn’t it?
First, the quote is magnificently clear.
Secondly, when you “dissect and analyze” something it is thought, the limited, the conditioned, that is doing the investigating.
Do you understand that when you do that, dissect and analyze, you are not understanding what K said and you won’t as long as thought is operating. Thought is the past. I know all of this has become a cliche but obviously it is still necessary to repeat it.
What K discovered was not the result of his thinking. It was, as he explained, the result of insight and perception which are not rooted, not connected to thought. It comes from truth. So why use the limited, the illusory; thought to try to understand what K has pointed out? You do see the absurdity of doing that right?
2 Likes
Desire or will is going towards a particular direction, irrespective of what the actuality bring us in that moment. (The example of the woman). The “illuminated” person takes what arrives (without clinging to it) and let things go when the they go away. Our desires can be fullfilled or not but an any case it’s a kind of imposition on the ongoing reality. Did you notice that desire produces tension in us? This tension divides us from reality so, in this sense perhaps, it’s a contraddiction.
Desire produces tension perhaps because of the fear of NOT getting…of not getting what we desire. What divides us from reality is thought, no? Ideas and images…whether of what we want or of what we’re afraid of. Is that it?
I’m trying to express something I’m living now, but I don’t know if I’m able to express it in a logic way. It’s all at an intuitive level and so I could be wrong.
Yes, of course, the fear of not getting it produces tension, but there is also tension which is not related to fear but just with the fact that we are living in the future, we are trying to anticipate future. There is tension when we are waiting for something to come. And there is tension in the very desire of getting something.
Yes, thought, but desire is part of thought, it’s the movement of thought, like fear,
It seems that the natural state of the mind is being still. When it’s still it resonates with the cosmos, with order. Will, desire, fear, produce a turbulence in the mind, like a turbulence in the flow of a river. So the tension is a sign of this turbulence, which is also disorder. We are creating disorder both in ourselves and in the world. So perhaps K. saw this as a contraddiction.
P.S.
“for every centre of desire is opposed to another centre”
This makes me think of two conflicting egos. The ego is a centre according to K. But it seems to me that not all desires produce a conflict with another person. So it could also refer to conflicting desires. There is always the eventuality that he could be imprecise in his statements… he was not God (
There is tension when we are waiting for something to come.
And there is tension in the very desire of getting something.
Right…thanks for pointing it out
Yes, thought, but desire is part of thought, it’s the movement of thought, like fear,
It seems that the natural state of the mind is being still.
When we’re hungry…or when our child is crying out for food?
When it’s still it resonates with the cosmos, with order. Will, desire, fear, produce a turbulence in the mind, like a turbulence in the flow of a river. So the tension is a sign of this turbulence, which is also disorder. We are creating disorder both in ourselves and in the world. So perhaps K. saw this as a contraddiction.
P.S.
“for every centre of desire is opposed to another centre”
This makes me think of two conflicting egos. The ego is a centre according to K. But it seems to me that not all desires produce a conflict with another person. So it could also refer to conflicting desires.
It produces conflict period…both inwardly and outwardly…as far as I can see.
There is always the eventuality that he could be imprecise in his statements… he was not God (
[/quote]
Being a foreiner I fail to understand if you are being ironical or not… so I’ll take it as if you are asking a serious question. If it is not the case… well, never mind.
When I said that the natural state of mind seems that of being still, silent, I was referring to the meditative state as intended by K. I remember someone else saying: “the the entire world is in meditation.” So, if that is true, when the mind is silent it is in tune with the universe. As you can see from his diaries, he used to be in that state walking, eating and even driving a car. We should have asked him if it is possibile to stay still and silent when our child is crying out for food!
I can answer that, no, it’s not.
1 Like
It was not the “common man” but a demon.
Actually the word ‘legion’ in this context signifies a multitude of demons that are tearing the man apart. It is significant that people tried to chain him to a rock (rock signifying a belief) but he always tore himself free. “No one could chain him.” The emphasis on the word ‘one’ in the context of ‘multitude’ and belief (rock) is at the heart of the meaning.
The man was beset by many rival beliefs, each calling itself ‘I,’ It is these different and contesting 'I’s that are tearing him apart and they are what is being referred to as ‘legion of demons.’ The I’s are demons. It does not refer to literal demons but the demons of the fractured mind, what K calls the fragmentation which the I and desire brings about.
You cannot chain this man to a rock to calm him and make him whole. He will tear himself free and his torment will continue. The ‘rock’ is a belief system. Stone truth is that which is immutable and immovable. Jesus changes the name of his most dogmatic disciple (Simon) to Peter (the rock) and says that Peter will found a church in his name. That was a prophesy that the living truth that Jesus was said to preach would become a dogma. It was not an invitation to build a church or to found a religion. It was a sever criticism of the nature of dogmatic thinking and for betraying the living truth (in the story) Peter (Simon-Peter) is crucified upside-down. In other words he turned the teaching into its opposite, something dead.
You cannot chain a multitude to a single idea. It will continue to tear itself apart despite the chains of belief. The mind has to become integral on its own. That was the teaching being imparted. Or, as K said, you cannot integrate fragmentation. The fragmented mind is that of the common man.
I think the above sits well within the context of this thread - “All desire is contradiction, for every centre of desire is opposed to another centre.”
3 Likes
Yes… if there’s food in the refrigerator, we can be silent and act accordingly…in silence. At least theoretically I would think we can. But if there’s not enough food, then thought MUST kick in, right? WE need to figure out how to get our child fed.
So after all you were serious… well, it’s an old and importand problem and I remember someone asked him a similar question. I don’t remember exactly what he replied now and I’m afraid my memory could made me say something wrong. But I think that his answer was similar to yours. If I find it, I’ll post it.
OK…I’d like to see that. But I’m fairly certain he said something like the following: ‘the teaching is not for the man who is poor and hungry. His only concern is to find a way to get fed.’