Self-denial is just a clever way of being self-centred.
1 Like
What do you mean, ‘no inner’ Paul? There’s thinking and reacting obviously…the conditioning of the brain. That obviously can’t be denied… But as you and mac pointed out thinking about thinking is circular…the dog chasing his own tail, or so it seems. What are you saying aboiut ‘no inner landscape’? That it’s just thinking but it’s not inside some imaginary me…a me who is a product of thinking/thought?
Is the explorer separate from the explored landscape? If he is, it makes some sense to explore. But if he is not, whatever he discovers will be of his own making.
He may discover something new. Inquiry may lead to insight…or do you say no, insight is impossible through inquiry…questioning…doubting?
If one can keep that up without coming to conclusions we would at least not be adding to our model of reality - and if we really have intense doubt long enough it could lead to surrender.
But thats a pretty intense state of affairs.
Usually our internal landscape is filled with stuff - and the stuff is always qualified: mine, not mine, good, bad at the very least.
Meditation then would be attention embracing what is. Attention which looks out through you, embracing the flux that presents itself to you.
Can you explain a bit what you mean by “surrender “? The state of not ‘knowing ‘ about all ‘this can be somewhat uncomfortable 
not having my ‘two cents ‘ to put in. Like being dumb. Yet there is a feeling of freshness about it.
He can’t. He is a product of the past investigating the past. It’s always going to be a movement of the old. The ending of the old brings about the new, not the continued resurrection of the old, which is what happens when you explore the past.
Our old pattern of thinking says, ‘The past matters; I must understand all about myself.’ It has not worked. So one gives up the old pattern altogether. Then the brain works differently; it is no longer reliant on patterns.
Sure I’ll give it a go - although no one really knows how it works (as far as I am aware)
I am referring to stuff like the the “second wind” of athletes (usually long distance runners or boxers) or the moment of realisation and relief experienced by those practising meditation coupled with intense doubt (Koans).
My preferred hypothesis is that these are due to the self just giving up - either due to psychological exhaustion, or just because it realises that it has no solution.
Chemical explanations (for 2nd wind) fall short, as exhaustion or intense effort does not seem as important as simple (but emphatic) denial of the self (ie refusal to react to thoughts of resting, stopping, slowing down etc)
Not analyze but question…inquire…doubt. The mind going to it’s limits and seeing there’s no way forward other than more limitation. Then what? Silence perhaps…insight?
The brain is not in contact with anything outside of itself is all.
That’s a conclusion which may be mistaken.
1 Like
So what mistake is there other than the brain is in contact with something which is outside itself?
Your brain is currently in contact with my brain. Our brains are separated by vast physical distance.
What happens to the brain when it realises that it is incapable of learning anything new? Let’s put it this way.
1 Like
Yes, I recognise what is meant by that. Dominic knows that as the standard model so to speak. It is the one the majority of elements inside of his brain hold to, but which Dominic says is conditioning, in the same way Krishnamurti spoke about the conditioning of the Catholic, the Protestant, the Buddhist etc. It is ordinarily conceived of as an objective reality the brain is held to be in, receiving signals via contact from outside of itself, which is held to not only be objective but actual. This is not to deny being to something called Paul, or agency for that matter, it is simply to say that Paul may as well be inhabiting an alternative reality to the one Dominic is. Needless to say, this is Krishnamurti addressed and is a real thing in the quantum physics all the selves in Dominic’s brain can know about.
Let me put this to you in another way. If it is said, that Paul and Dominic are native English speakers, and when Dominic hears a tongue he has no conscious comprehension of, all he hears is a sound, and he can only marvel at how a brain can interpret that as words, and then those words and their syntax as meaning. But Dominic cannot even know if Paul hears the sound of spoken English the way he hears it, much less anything else. Dominic is fine with all this, but he knows lots of the selves in his brain are not.
1 Like
Then don’t bother with any of those selves in the brain, not a single one. They’re only there when you listen to them. Don’t listen to them. Don’t listen to anything.
Yes, I understand that too, although strictly speaking, that would mean not listening to Paul either. But the title of the thread is Can the self come to an end, and some of the many selves in the house of Dominic are tearing lumps out of one another, and all seem to be making life a misery for each other to a degree. Now the question arises, can that which may have had no beginning, and no actual existence, have an end. The sense of it is, actual or not, the self has an existence of sorts, which if it can be disarmed, matters.
Paul: What happens to the brain when it realises that it is incapable of learning anything new? Let’s put it this way.
When there’s insight the brain momentarily stops…is silent. That’s all.
Can you stop it? (stop doing it?) You seem to have some sort of understanding of whats going on - is that enough to be free of fear, free of ego, if even for a moment?
I’m not clear about where this ‘I’ / self fits in and where it is harmful. I read recently K say that the brain created the ‘I’ in order to sort of stop the movement of life. As a kind of fixed point amidst the movement and info flowing into the brain through sensation…that one would go “mad” without that…when thought ponders some action that is planned to be taken, it creates an image or scenario about it, that ‘should’ play out if all goes according to plan…so that is useful imagery as far as I perceive it. Is the harmful activity of what we call the self-image, when it paints the future or past in a ‘judgmental’ way, good bad, like dislike, psychological fear, etc?