The life we live is full of experiences, events, circumstances, changes, feelings, emotions, self expression, and all that, right? Then we might want to talk about life. We don’t think we can change the past, and see a future as something to come later, not arising from now. We talk about life as what we know, what we have read, and we are repeating what we know, our thinking. All this so called thinking is using the past knowledge with all its concepts. We have skills to be creative with thought. But that thinking is within the limited state of our thinking, and is the education, socialization, religion, beliefs etc of the whole civilization. We will be exercising what is called assumption, speculation, idealisation, prejudice, faith, theory, etc. So can we not analyse and repeat the details of whats on the mind, and our personal perception, but actually look at the whole condition of a mind full of thought?
When I look at something and see it clearly, it is not belief. It is when I want to think, talk about it, as if it is my life, my ability, and my analysis, that there is belief.
Question : Are we hoping for introversion (me looking at me)? Or a difference in our relationships?
Don’t I have beliefs?
I believe so - Most surely I am full of beliefs (the strongest of which I call Facts or Knowledge)
There are beliefs such as, nothingness, nihilism, nirvana, which have some philosophical meaning, but are ideas carelessly used, and become a defense and a weapon. Ultimately thinking, there is nothing I can do, and even though having the ability to talk about it, abstractly, philosophically, not actually, seriously, questioning the nature of I, or the self holding that position. Belief is a protecting itself. I, self, is impenetrable.
On another thread, I am trying to make the case that self is fear.
Belief (or knowledge) is also the need for certainty/security.
Belief is a part of self. It is its armour.
The only beneficial understanding that the self can come to, is that it is the cause of its experience (which is fear, and the pleasure of accumulation, which just creates more fear)
The only beneficial understanding that the self can come to is that all its actions will just create more harm. (and more self)
The only hope for psychological death is an intense need to do no harm.
And when the self dies/dissapears/has no power then we can see, by its absence, what it was.
What is the “we” that does this looking? What evidence is there that it exists? If you can “actually look at the whole condition of a mind full of thought”, yet no one believes you can, how can you be sure you’re not deceiving yourself?
The sense of self exists. Its barrage of knowledge exists. Its ability to perceive and interpret from behind its own walls exists.
Can a feeling, full of beliefs, look at itself?
No, but it can believe it can.
The illusion of self can’t persist without the belief, conviction, certainty, that it must persist, so I would say that belief is the whole story. When believers speak of “faith”, they’re saying that without their belief they are lost and doomed to perdition.
To be self-centered is to believe in myself while denying that I’m doing this. It’s an act of duplicity that enables me to believe in God or Krishnamurti or whatever authority I choose while denying that choice is my authority, my power. I have the omnipotence to create reality in my image, to perceive what I choose to see by denying I’m doing this. I can believe anything because I can deny that belief is madness. The power of belief/denial enables this lifelong duplicity because I identify with thought, a mechanical process that can create confusion for the sake of whatever purpose it serves. But the human, the animal, has the uneasy feeling that it’s doing something wrong, and since thought is in charge, in control, the animal howls.
Talking about belief is not the whole story. There is the responsibility of the speaker, writer, thinker, to get the point, or not. Responsibility is to see there is this speaker, writer, thinker, I, myself, before I react with a clever verbal response, evading the point.
So what do you think “the whole story” and “the point” are? Can you share your knowledge and understanding of what it is you accuse the writer of “evading”, or is your reaction all you can bring to this exchange?
Actually I have no idea what others understand. I can tell from the lack of interest in taking the point that something is wrong. When there is an impression, like I disagree, I think it is controversial, this person needs educating, I’ll give my opinion, and the such, what is happening? Isn’t it something reactionary, emotional, and cognitive? Now where does that come from? Is there really an independent creative mind, or is it working from memory, knowledge, and this is called conditioning? You have to look into this for yourself. In fact the turn around to the other person is a giveaway that something is happening in the mind, and is not on the same page. When I think, this is annoying, or this is interesting, I don’t have any details, it is just an instinct which is reflecting of myself; what’s on my mind as in conditioning… That is, from the characteristics in my impression I am getting, observing this, and not reacting, I learn what is the nature of self. Of course I can think I know something, but not see the bits and pieces, psychologically, are what are a cognitive action. Automatically, I think this is what to do, what to say, and how to act, and believe there is a value and correctness in my thinking. But is all this automatic cognitive action, is it actually thinking?
“Automatic cognitive action” does sound like a definition of thinking.
Looking at myself is obviously a tricky (impossible ?) manoeuvre.
And if I see it all, how would I even dare to move for all my faults?
We are stuck! The mind continually shifts from one thing to the next. I am watching TV, had enough, and think about doing something else. Wait! Let the mind settle, and quietly get a sense of the whole human being, just so. Maybe disturbed, restless, anxious, wanting to do something, wanting to be sure of itself. Don’t carelessly move onto some activity, some thoughts. Sitting quietly, awake, not a special activity, not with any purpose, lets all the thoughts pass. Listen, watch, feel, what is all there, body, mind, environment, but as a whole natural experience, is usually neglected. And what we say is what I am doing as an ordinary matter, is the neglect highlighting what we think is an issue to be solved.
Sounds like a good description of our situation!
Flippin’ 'eck! What a twister! I thought it might be a question. (I’d love to hear this sentence put differently)
The issue to be solved : total dependance on the self (solution : freedom from the self)
Now, when we describe what we do, our interpretation of what we have done and should be doing etc and the feelings of powerlessness etc - all this is the self and its desires. (the self mumbling to itself)
We are stuck.
PS - Maybe you are saying that our neglecting the silence is what needs to be solved?
The self doesn’t have desires - the mind that believes it’s a self has desires. The question is whether the mind can see belief for what it is, and thereby cease to believe anything because it sees the insanity of belief.
Everybody has everyday beliefs like, “I believe I’ll be able to do this” even though one knows they may not be able to, because one needs confidence to proceed toward a chosen goal. But is belief necessary to accomplish necessary tasks? When something must be done because its necessary, one goes about doing it without believing anything because there’s no choice; one is completely committed to the task. But when the task is chosen, is something I want to do, I have to believe I can and should do it because it’s desire that compels me, not necessity.
Where there’s desire/aversion, there’s belief, and where there’s belief there’s the believer, I, me, the self. Where there’s no desire/aversion, there’s only the clarity to see what, if anything, must be done and the act of doing it without hope or faith or confidence; without the belief that it can or should be done. Belief is palliative relief from confusion administered by a mind too confused to question what it is doing, especially when everyone else is doing it.
The condition of the ability with thought, is a twister. What I have in my thoughts to do, to write, and say, is already a reaction. Listen and reflect on them for oneself.