When you speak of together, you must have a sense of what that means for you when you say it. You can’t say something and then in effect say, I don’t know what I mean when I say that, so that’s what we have to find out, as that is entirely circular.
I have said there is physiological together, coming together as humans have done since time immemorial, to help build their neighbour’s barn, in return for help with their own in future, and there is the psychological notion of together, which is the idealisation, from the reality of separation, of non-separation being. Separation is the fact here, and not non-separation, so I am saying that if by together, you actually intend non-separation, then in non-separation the matter of the same thing together is redundant, since together is subtly separation still. So that then leaves the drive to see the same thing together, which is an abstraction, so what is driving this if not separation?
When it is said that the self is not original, that it is something passed on, which is to say inherited, then that which is inherited, must have an origin which is a beginning, unless it is said it is existing, but has no beginning, and therefore no end. So is that what self is: something which is inherited, which is without a beginning or an end?
But together means the two of us. At the moment we are separate. Seeing that we are separate and that to live in separation is an idiotic way to live, that may be the thing that brings us together. What happens from there, neither of us know; so I refuse to guess at it.
Are you trying to test a theory by asking someone else to do something you imagine they should? Or was there some experience of your own that we are trying to replicate?
The self exists in the stream of human consciousness, a stream which has been flowing for thousands of years. A man living in this stream cannot do a thing to get himself out of the stream. I think this is the point we are coming to. Can the entire stream stop? Not only the personal elements, but all the racial, cultural, social elements of this stream. The man cannot stop the stream. All of his efforts – whether he goes with the flow of the stream, goes against the current of the stream, or clambers out of the stream on to the sunny bank – these efforts take the stream with him, wherever he goes. So the shock is not just his personal shock; it is a shock to the whole of consciousness.
Sir, there is no realisation of emptiness; and there is no realisation of love. There doesn’t need to be. The actuality is there; and it doesn’t require the intermediary of a self. An empty mind also means an empty brain; but it doesn’t mean the brain is fast asleep. On the contrary, it means a brain totally alive, receptive, and watchful. The free brain can speak of all this. Of course it can.
Neither. We are separate, not just physically, temporally, but deeply psychologically separate. That is not a theory. Nor is it a theory that this separation is the cause of immense suffering, not just inwardly personally but right throughout the world, because where there is division there must be conflict. My fragmented and conflicted consciousness is no different from yours, and no different from the rest of humanity. So in separation we have the same conflicted consciousness; it may have some superficial differences according to background, culture, etc. but deeply it is the same consciousness with the same fears, hopes and confusions and with the same dependency upon ideas and images to take it through the course of its life in the physical body. Surely these are undeniable facts. What happens when all of that ends because we see very simply and clearly together the utter insanity of living this way?
But it is just a verbal acknowledgement; therefore it has very little meaning. The brain is caught in the past. When it meets the word ‘love’ it reacts to that word from all its past associations. When one looks deeply into the question of why one does not love other people except perhaps for a very select few, this very questioning of one’s lack of love begins to unfetter the brain.
We are separate from each other. That’s all. It is not that I am separate from you and you are separate from me. We are separate from each other in this very relationship now. It is our joint responsibility. Therefore whatever happens next can have meaning only when we both of us see this. Then everything is simple because there is a direct communication, a communion one with the other. It is not that I see, you don’t see and so I tell you all about it, or vice versa. That’s generally the pattern of discussion. We never seem to start together naturally, easily, happily. It is always from one position we are shouting out our ideas across an interminable void.
The stream has created me…how can I be the origin? There was no ‘me’ until my parents and teachers, etc, said I was ‘me’. But I am not separate from the stream, yes.
You are one manifestation of the stream; but you are also the whole stream. That demands a whole action, not a partial, personal action or a partial, personal perception.
The brain cannot resolve this problem. There is nothing the brain can do. When the brain comes to a complete stop there is no thought and therefore no self; and so into that brain comes real intelligence, not the phoney stuff put together by thought. The brain is never the same again. Watch what happens: hearing all this, the brain as thought starts immediately to question, analyse, plan, prepare and project, which means that the brain can’t stop of its own volition and it can’t be made to stop, no matter how erudite the explanation. So volition and effort have no meaning; they are invalid responses.
To find out if I am the whole, the only valid response is total silence.
There is much to learn about the machinations of the self. Much you coud have learned over the past decade about your own behavior in K-forums. Had you been paying critical attention to your posts you’d have seen long ago what you’re still doing now. All because you doubt that there’s anything to be learned about the ongoing activity of egocentricity.