Death is the mother of beauty

Psychological death - the dying one can do while still living.

Is freedom from the self Freedom with a capital F? Is our attachment to ‘I’ what keeps us un-free?

Aisi thought IS actuality, no less than any other process or object or event or sensation. But to say all actuality is alive might be more in the realm of metaphor than fact. Thought feels alive.

What happens when thought and memory stay dead by remaining completely quiet and inactive? What happens then in our relationship with each other?

Sans thought and memory the term ‘relationship’ and all its associated ways of thinking-feeling are absent. The framework for what is normally called a relationship is gone. There is no framework.

Maybe. If we mean by ‘self’ the attachment we have to our knowledge and past images, past memories (psychologically speaking), then it is obvious that this will keep us bound to the past, to the known. Freedom from that would be freedom from the known.

1 Like

Which means that now we are free to explore. While the framework exists, we can’t.

If we see nothing else, do we both see this?

We can explore any time. But if the framework exists, it will perturb the exploration. So what we end up exploring might be de/ill-usions arising from the assumptions of the framework.

When we see the mirage-ness of the framework, really see it, realize it (I don’t know if I do), we in effect begin tabula rasa, the relationship is a blank slate, unknown, a mystery. I’m not sure it even makes sense saying it’s a relationship, might be better to just be aware of a connection.

I am putting a much simpler question, which is: do we see that where there is a framework, we cannot explore in freedom? Treat it entirely intellectually first. Do we see the logic of it, that any framework must distort our exploration?

So we can’t explore any time - this is an illogical assumption. Exploration, surely, implies the freedom to go anywhere. While the framework exists, we are not free.

Uh-oh, enter self/Self! The self (small s) is clearly dependent on the past (and future). So freedom from psychological time is not in self’s bag of tricks, though it might pretend (even believe) it is.

The Self, should it exist, is (in my understanding) by nature free.

It’s probably best to avoid getting into a discussion about Self in this thread, it’s too much of a distraction from the main theme. So, for now, assume we are in agreement: The self keeps us bound to the past and the known.


I think you tend to see absolutely: There is either free exploration or no exploration, and I tend to see relatively: There are degrees of freedom of exploration. But it’s not important, let’s continue.

That’s the whole point. If we don’t see the absolute necessity for the removal of the framework, all of this is largely academic. Are there degrees of love, beauty or intelligence? So who is it that is accepting degrees if not the framework itself? While it admits degrees of distortion it sustains its own existence, which is time and thought.

Yes. I am talking about self with a non-capitalised ‘s’.

Hold the presses! Let’s look at this. What it says to me is that a relativistic approach, seeing not black or white but shades of gray – a little bit loving, largely aware, somewhat deluded – is a product of thought. Without thought/judgement, things just are what they are.

Is this what you mean?

Okay, good, got it.

Returning to the original question:

We agree freedom is limited by attachment to the self. One more step and then a question:

Freedom is limited by attachment to anything. (Ja?)

Is our self attachment the root of all our attachment? No self, no attachment?

(Just a reminder that we are talking about the psychological.)

When we say self attachment, what is attached to what?
I don’t see two separate objects.
Can each distinct moment of consciousness be fragmented?

Can thought be anything else but relativistic? Being limited, it must always operate through degrees. Our relationships to one another and to the rest of the world are limited by thought and memory. Logic tells us this. But how do we see this logical fact? Do we see it by degrees or as an absolute fact?

Certainly, we have arrived at it by degrees, we have taken our time, and we have put the pieces together quite carefully. Is it now possible for us to throw out all of that - degrees of time, thought and memory - and thus overturn the framework of not just our own particular relationship but of every other relationship too?

Our approach has been neither relativistic nor absolute; we have just been looking at things as they are and being very logical about it, making sure that we are seeing the same thing. But we have now come to a point where logic has done all it can. In order to enquire and to explore any further, what else is necessary other than the unique fact that there is nothing more we can do? Only then is the fact alive and free to act.

Attachment is to our knowledge and past memories (psychologically speaking). So if there is no longer attachment to our memories and previous knowledge, then there is no longer attachment to our memories and previous knowledge.

Is the state of being attached to memories/knowledge the root of all attachment?

The state of being attached to memories is attachment. Attachment itself is rooted in the desire to be secure. There is nothing wrong with seeking security in things that can bring security (such as a roof that doesn’t leak). But a memory belongs to the past, and the psychological past can offer no security to the actual lived present.

Do you know why we have stopped?

It can offer the feeling of security though, right? This feeling might be a mirage based on illusion and magical thinking, but it’s there.