**It seems that using a language which implies duality or separation makes it rather difficult to share ‘observations’, which have no separation. K suggested that having an image of another creates ‘division’. But in a choiceless awareness of what is, are we really divided, or still in relationship? The ‘division’ is imagined. And when the brain mistakes this ‘imagined division’ as “actual,” we behave in accordance to this false thought-construction, and ‘act divisively’.
Isolation basically means separated from. But the actuality is that the Universe is an undivided Whole. And humanity is not isolated from any of it. And that’s observable. We’re creating all of the violence because we’ve been programmed by the culture to believe we’re separate, to mistake dualistic thought images and conceptual identities as truth. But these words, ideas, and images in the head are just abstract imagery. If you dissect a human being and try to locate a me, I, Howard, Christian, Muslim, American, or Russian, you’ll never find any of it outside of the imagination. We are always in relationship to everything. It may qualify as a horrible relationship, but the separation is imaginary. K was using the word ‘relationship’ in an uncommon manner when he said you aren’t in relationship if you have an image of the other. What that really means is we’re caught in an illusion. But we are actually still in relationship, it’s just the we aren’t paying attention to what is, we’re looking at images of each other.
You’re idealizing. There’s always limitation when thought is the instrument of inquiry, and thought is all the conditioned mind has to work with.
Regarding the concepts of oneness and separation. Is one belief more realistic than the other? Is our goal to have a more realistic world view?
**Concepts are concepts, and seeing is seeing. Some concepts are coherent with what is, and some aren’t. Do we have a goal? Or are we simply interested in observing what is, as clearly as possible? Are we interested in seeing what is true and what is false, with regard to what we’ve been told, and who we are? Are we interested in understanding the root of human conflict? All of that seems urgent to our well-being, as humanity, as the world.
You’re idealizing. There’s always limitation when thought is the instrument of inquiry, and thought is all the conditioned mind has to work with.
I’m not idealising, it’s what i see and i can explain why i say so.
See, ‘inquiry’ means looking at something without any beliefs.
When we inquire within ourselves, but not together, we again and again caught up with the knowledge/beliefs/experiences/memory we have i.e. the past. So, it’s not that easy, and we may come into wrong conclusion. Only by inquiring together, we may come out from own beliefs and reach an ‘agreement’ which may be a ‘fact’.
Thanks for the response Howard, and for the earlier one about dialogue which was very interesting, and which I will get around to answering, as that one may run and run!
I understand what you are saying here throughout this post. The division may be imagined, exist only in or as imagination, but that rightly transfers attention to the whole process of imagination, which brings one back to self, and the death of self, the psychological, imagination. That process has not ceased, and the isolation it is, is a powerfully real thing. The isolation being from that which is immeasurable. To understand isolation I must look at it very deeply in myself, since it is isolation I am, and not non-isolation. But that embodies fear, for which all the forms of joining and seeking comfort are an escape. When the mob at the Capitol gathers as part of something they feel they are all sharing in, which is greater than their self, and which provides them with a great sense of comfort, they are in fact deep in isolation, so its effect, its impact is real. What would it take for each of those brains who are even now contemplating further violence to have an insight into what lies out back of who they are? And yes they are nevertheless in relationship, because they can never not be.
Edit: And I should add I do not see them as different to myself, they are myself. They are my fear, they are my violence.
Hi everyone. Please join this, if you wish to.
Those things may seen as constituent elements of it, maintaining it, with isolation as the summation of it all, or isolation is the fact, and those things are bred from that. Can I see isolation, what it actually is, when I am fearful of it, or are concerned to have it transformed into non-isolation, or seek to diminish its reality for the comfort that affords me? The issue of isolation, feeds into the one of being effectively incommunicado, despite all the attempts at communication going on all around, and of the ability to ‘meet’ if that is actually needed, or is real. There is something about isolation that cannot be wished away or kept hidden.
Yes it seems to be at the core. Is it a remnant in the old brain of the inherent terror of being separated from the mother? Of being abandoned? The ‘weaning’ is never total? The unconscious force behind our need for attachments?
What is the original of it, given it does have an origin? When the mother is insecurity, and the whole reality she is exposed to is insecurity, is there something that can prevent the infant’s slide into insecurity too?
Yes, and that’s why we do it. We need to confront our biases, our conditioned responses. Self-knowledge comes through rigorous honesty with oneself. Inquiring with others can be helpful, but ultimately, we have to discover what we are psychologically by being aware of our own thought process and our responses.
**If we get caught up in the knowledge, inquiring within ourselves, then we aren’t looking without beliefs, right? It may be easier to get caught in illusion ‘by oneself’. But being in a group inquiry doesn’t mean we aren’t still caught in belief…to my observation. Being aware of what is, alone or together, can be very revealing. But in looking together, we can all be learning together.
This is an all-or-nothing statement. It’s absolutist. Are you so sure, so certain, or are you open to the possibility that it’s a cognitive distortion?
Have you considered the effect this belief has on you? Convinced that you can’t discover and learn about your own thinking without others makes you helplessly dependent on others.
Furthermore, “an agreement which may be fact” is only an agreement until it is ascertained to be a fact or not a fact. This much you can work out in your own mind once you see the falseness of what you believe to be true.
I don’t believe, what is ‘Truth’. Even K may be right/wrong. A ‘fact’ is an ‘universal agreement’. So whatever we or K concludes can only become ‘agreement’. Only if it is ‘Universely accepted’ - it becomes a ‘fact’. So, let’s find out what ‘truth’ is, and spread together all over the world - until it becomes a ‘fact’.
If others includes Not only person, but also - videos, books, etc…, ‘yes’ I’m convinced that only by ‘Inquiring together’ we may come to it easily.
Yes in ‘group inquiry’ - we can. If some one gets caught in his belief, he doesn’t know whether he is been caught or not. But by expressing what he ‘sees’ to others, through ‘inquiry’ - others can ‘show’ him how he caught in beliefs. Only after K had shown others - they understood. We can do that too.
‘Being aware of What is’ - We doesn’t have felt what ‘love’,‘consciousness’ truly is. Only through negation we can feel that. We can be aware of Beliefs, but we cannot be aware of ‘what is’ - we can only feel it.
What do you mean by this statement?
Not by definition.
Facts are established by proof, not agreement. Trump and his minions all agree that the election was stolen, yet they can’t prove it, having no evidence.
As for “universal agreement”, you need to provide some examples. It seems to me that the only things we agree on universally are so obvious as to be self-evident. People can disagree on anything, and usually do.
By definition, inquiring is looking into something, examining. K gave it a special meaning as he did with other words like “observation”.
You’ve said that you don’t think inquiry is possible without others because our conditioning makes it impossible. But you can observe and question your own thinking to see if there are distortions and biases. You don’t need others to point them out to you.
Are you aware of your own thinking? Do you know when you are thinking something that may be distorted or untrue?
I pointed out earlier an all-or-nothing statement you made. Did you ponder it? Do you see the error of believing something has to be this way and no other when you honestly don’t know if it’s true?
You are right that Facts are established by Proofs, but only for physical activities. Psychologically, we can’t show proofs. It’s only agreed based on actual life experiences and not an verbal agreement.
Here there is no place for belief. K and others had enquired about every means and came to an agreement that there is no other way to feel the pure Love. Me, K and others may be right/wrong. Here there is no argument that it’s true/false. We doesn’t know what truth actually means. If you have any other way, just put it on the table. Let’s discuss. If what you put forth is agreeable, we can spread that in the world we live. The humanity is in need of these.
Yes we can observe individually. I agree. But it’s not that easy compared with together. Because, individually, we assume that this is the answer for that. But this may be an conditioned answer too. If we had found the answer individually, it should have changed our daily behaviour with persons instantly. But we can see it’s not. Sufferings continues. So, it’s always advisable to Inquire together.