K emphasized countless number of times the availability of energy and passion generally, and specifically towards inquiry and the freeing of the mind.
Are my passion and energy trapped in belief, routine, habits, etc. That I am now deriving energy from thought?
Have those traps been replaced with other traps which I call now the teachings of K? And feel that I am making progress by repeating and acquiring more quotes and words?
Does the nature of the trap matter? Is not the presence of a trap itself a clarion call?
Sure. Yet what if that call for action is now hogged by words and quotes leaving me handicapped again by my own knowledge?
From my understanding of what you said, another point seems to be a fear that we all probably see at one time or another.
Ultimately, how do we know if we are actually, really knowing experience, or if we are deluding ourselves? To free the mind, we have to be honest with what we see.
To meet these wants/desires head on, leaves no room for doubt. Whether a trap or not, whether an illusion or real, we are lucky to even have any thought at all! Do we even âhaveâ a thought? All questions are fair, when being honest with who/what we appear to be.
Your question is one I myself have had. Then, I realized that searching can only deal with time. And that time is âborn fromâ time. There seems to be so much to know, yet we must start with what it is that is even able to know anything at all.
Energy seems to be âtrappedâ in ideas(habits/conditioning). But that is simply desire. first, start with that. Who is it that wants, when we say: âI want to be free from my conditioning!ââŚ?
All views, even ârightâ ones, are potential traps. The extent to which you truly donât know is the extent to which you are free from traps. (Unless of course you make not knowing into a trap.)
So what am I saying here?.. I know that I donât know? which have been repeated so many times.
A question comes to mind: Am I excluding in my approach? ⌠I wonder if asking this question after a conclusion has formed up in my head, would that help?
What do you mean by âtrapâ?
Is this trap not simply the limitations of our thinking and feeling?
Sure, AKA memory. How do you feel about calling it âThe body of memoryâ?
That sounds fine to me - I donât know if one needs to say âbodyâ, but thatâs a secondary matter.
So - the trap is the trap of memory (of which thought and feeling are the instantaneous expressions). So long as we are living in and moving from thought, we are bound by and limited to the confines of memory.
Hi @Ayham
When we seriously look âwho we are/wereâ - traps disappears. âthoughtsâ of knowing other person ends, other than for intellectual/technical conversations, and no attachments.
Looking is -
From Stone age to Modern age.
From Baby to Old age.
From Rich to Poor.
From Politicians to Slaves.
From Businessmen to Low wage employees.
From One Atom to the Expanding Universe
When we look all these - we can clearly see that,
Humans from stone age donât know âWhat they areâ. Only they felt 3 things,
By using those thoughts - they overcome their physical threats like shelter & clothes. But when the âfitness payoffsâ increases - humans thought that âTime & energy should be reduced in getting somethingâ. Because of this thoughts âexperiences are used as knowledgeâ and Artificial creation begins.
He created instruments, while using those - he learnt many things - and from that some improvement and those are noted down. Languages and Words are created to communicate this experience & knowledge. Writting those helped to learn intellectually.
Then many improvements & side by side many desires - aroused. Humans felt âIntroducing currency can replace barter problems & invented money (or) used gold/silver/aluminium coinsâ. It created a big attachment to earn more Money/coins and become rich. He also thought âReducing cost - can bring more profit in agriculture and business and save more money/coinsâ - and it lead to many improvements and desires too.
Many disputes aroused in these exchanges and security. So protector/King is formed for a group and laws are created for them.
Now, we are here - with those expansions. These are all scientific & historical discoveries.
From this, we can clearly see that - HUMANS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ENERGY,MASS & THOUGHTS. But they only used them and thought that âTHEY KNOWâ. But they actually donât know,
They felt emotionally attached - and thought that as love/compassion. Even when someone begs - they will only pity them because of their previous experience and be attached with them. But they couldnât accept the departure of their attachment. So running for another security and continued traditional practices due to fear.
As we look âNo one knows anythingâ, we will be aware and donât crave for âKnowing from someoneâ and so free from attachments.
The introduction of the word âBodyâ was to include feelings.
But for that, I wonder if this statement is enough. This much is clear, but when I deal and interact with people from memory. The interaction is completely controlled by memory. Hence, the memory is acting.
I wonder how does this movement sustain itself? Feels that something is missing that is driving
My question is: Does the movement of memory that is me, responds to the movement of memory that is you and by that continues indefinably?
Yes - we collude in perpetuating the content of memory. Society is that: nationalism, religion, status, identity.
But what is the source of memory - where does it come from?
It comes from the brain - right?
Memory is simply a tool that our brains use to store up perceptions and experiences, in order to use them at a later date.
Right. The brain and I personally feel that it could also be stored in the body, hence calling it the body of memory. It stored and then acted upon.
However, what I am currently really curious about is Responding? Not why do we respond, because we have an endless number of answers for that. But, What is responding?
Responding maintains the movement/ chain of memory. I imagine that if there was no response the movement of memory would seize at some point.
Yeah, I am stuck at responding.
You mean in relationship between people?
Initially, isnât it is the senses that are responding? I see you, and there is the perception of seeing your face, etc.
A moment later, there is a process of recognition: either I remember you from before (the memory of how you looked when I last met you), or I donât recognise you at all.
If I recognise you, then there quickly arises the like and dislike associated with that recognition, which is from memory.
If I donât recognise you - because I havenât met you before - then there might be an interval of space, before I eventually categorise you, like or dislike you, etc (again from previous associations, memories).
Not just relationship, I donât know if it is before of after, but in me. What is one memory responding to another memory, in me?
Before we explore the outside maybe we can explore the inside? However, I will still go with your take
So is sensing responding?
Eyes could respond to light organically. Ears to loudness, etc. But psychologically, can there be response without recognition?
Does response come before recognition? And if so what is that response?
I think yes. If Iâve never met you before, or if Iâm in a new place Iâve never been before, a new country, then there can be an interval of space for a fresh response - before it is taken up by the past as memory. - Hasnât it happened to you sometimes when you travel or meet someone for the first time?
What is responding then - even if only for a short interval of time - is my sensitivity; the sensitivity of the senses, and the sensitivity of my vulnerability to the new, my unexamined awareness of the new.
Which after a few seconds or minutes or hours or days, is absorbed into my memory and becomes recognition.
I am sensitive, I am aware, I exist.
I donât depend on time, place, or âlabelââŚ
Thatâs about as succinctly as I can describe being-conscious.
It is assumed here that I am operating from nothingness, from no position or state. As conditioned as I am memory is active. My trip and its purpose could quite possibly be a result of seeking, etc.
I donât feel that we could be factual examining this question by looking at our interactions with the outside world just yet. I would still look at the inner movement of memory that is me before. Donât know if we are meeting on this one?
Ayham - maybe if you could articulate your questions more clearly? After we had seemed to agree that the trap you were inquiring into was the trap of memory, you asked
That is: your question initially implied what occurs in relationship between people - right? Do you see how I could understand that from the way you phrased your question? However, you then clarified that you didnât mean only relationship:
But you said, nevertheless, that
i.e., looking at the question of memory in relationship; and you asked
Which is what I replied to. I replied to your question in terms of the place and role of memory in our interactions with another person for the first time. This, for me, is something we can observe phenomenologically in our experience. However, this was a dead end, because the real question you seem to be wanting to ask - which is still for me something relatively vague - was:
By this I assume you are asking: what is the inner movement of memory that constitutes the âmeâ before I meet another in relationship?
Is that right? Earlier you had asked:
Again, your question - to me at least - is a little vague. You seem to be asking: what causes one memory to respond to (or follow on from, be associated with) another memory in the brain?
But you could equally be asking - from the grammar of your question - what is the substance or the essence of any memory that responds to another memory in the brain? - Or, why is one particular memory responding to another in a causal chain? Why that specific memory and no another?
Could you kindly clarify which of these questions you are actually asking? And if none of them fit with what you are asking, can you ask your question again in a clear and simple way - without adding extra layers of complexity?
Yes, I see how unclear and confusing my input was. Appreciate your dedication to untangle this 
These question, above, are exactly what I intended to ask.
This could lead us to analysis so better not delve into it
This version of the question sound good, but maybe Iâd ask it (my way) like: What drives one memory to respond to another in the brain?