Yes, ordinary everyday thought (technical thought) needn’t build up the self-centre. The issue is that where awareness and attention are lacking, the brain doesn’t recognise the difference (between technical and psychological thinking) and subsumes the one into the other.
1 Like
James,
Ah!!! One wondered about that, thanks… 
1 Like
If thought itself is measurement - the means by which the whole is fragmented into parts - how does measurement “measure itself as attachment to the senses”?
That is an important question Inquiry, and it is really important that one discovers firsthand through action the whole movement of thought and the manner in which the self manifests and continues.
This is impossible to look at without understanding the true instinct of diet/hunger and everything that comes into and through the body.
The pattern of self has emerged from evolution through a wrong turn.
K asked: Did mankind take a wrong turn?
James - It is when thought attaches itself to perception, and measures itself as personalised experience, rather than being at one with the perception.
The self manifests as a centre of the senses, inventing the illusion of emotions.
"Emotion’ etymologically meaning ‘agitation of the mind’ - ‘to move away from’.
The eyes take in the information of the form and thought says “that is a tree”. It can list the characteristics, knowledge of the ‘tree’, etc. It crosses the ‘line’ when it thinks. “I like that tree”.
Dan - where does the ‘I’ come from? - how does the ‘I’ arise?
Doesn’t it , the me and the mine, arise in early childhood? Through comparison with and by others?
From everything else
Doesn’t it cross the line first when it says, “that is a tree”?
If perception is direct to begin with, how much of that pristine perception involves knowledge?
1 Like
I is the perceiver, the factor of distortion personified. It arises as reflexive reaction from its core beliefs.
Depends where we draw the line - knowledge, belief in that knowledge, identifying with that belief? suffering due to our identity?
Dan - It is not that simple. One is born into and from the universal conditioned brain.
The conditioned brain is already wired in favour of self-centred activity which requires Insight to decode.
macdougdoug - What do you mean by this? It is not at all clear.
Perception is not of ‘self’. The ‘I’ never perceives - all it can ever do is measure itself as a reaction.
Yes, that’s what I mean by “perceiver”.
Knowledge is not the enemy - thought is not the enemy.
It is the manner in which the self arises which requires insight.
Insight is not personal.
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be clear.
I suppose it means that for any particular thing/event to occur/exist, everything else (ie. the whole of time and space) must also have occured. The self arises due to everything else.
Patricia,
It is only thought which decodes, and when there is thought there is no insight, there are only intellectual realizations. Insight is always instantaneous (both K and Charley), and there is an explosion associated with it, and since it is non-verbal, it is seeing the truth or falseness of a fact. When decoding, one is utilizing thought, so one might be tempted to call it an “intellectual understanding”, but it is only a realization of the brain, and there is no real change in the mind, only a modified continuity, and definitely no mutation. As @James correctly pointed out, someone’s brain employing thought everywhere can no longer distinguish nor “recognise” thought in its right place (technological thought) from psychological thought, which defeats the purpose of understanding what discovery is. Charley wonders whether or not this condition is permanent…?
To see that the human brain is disordered requires insight. Without that insight there is nothing to decode.
Seeing the nature of that disorder instantly puts thought in its right place as technical thinking which has decoded the dominance of psychological time.