Again, as for me, I quite see your point, Maheshji. Do others here see it? I’m not sure. Do they understand each other, so as ewerybody of us? Here, or elsewhere…
I am not concerned with the others. Do you and I see one another? In other words, do we both see the actuality of what we are?
Funny thing, it seems to be. You talk about reality, so does Inquiry, right above. But you often do not agree between yourselves, it looks like this… Its a good example of what I’m talking about.
Paul (who disguises himself as “Maheshji” these days) talks only about conversing with someone he can bond with; someone who is as miserable living with himself as he is.
He cloaks this disorder with his belief that no two people can really communicate if they’re not both on the same level, the same feeling, the same whatever.
It wasn’t too long ago that after years of pursuing his quest, he finally found someone he felt he could bond with. When this happened, he triumphantly bid us farewell and admitted that we has just messing with us the whole time.
Obviously, his relationship with this person is over, and he’s back, playing the same old tune.
Don’t take my word for it. Go back a few years and you can see how this drama played out.
This is a reflection of what people are saying here, isn’t it. Perhaps we should try to understand what is at work here? There seems to be a very childish part in this topic, when one sets himself up as an authority, such as this inquiry fellow, witch I can see right through to the burning of hatred, agitation, that climbs like a rat to dominate his fellows. … and this is common in so called discussions… Which is reacting, stimulated and reacting … I am am doing this presently, and so we are, right. But the belligerence, the abstinence, of the Ego, and the fear I can watch it try to protect its self, fear arising, and so aversion anger follows and pride asserts it’s self dominantly with the delusion of " I know" right sirs? I wonder if you can See it? For God’s sake? … The truth of it!?
Each of these thoughts have different cause and effects. No 2 things can be the same all the time, or they wouldn’t be 2 at all. We can find gross similarities or contrasting differences. Are you proposing non duality? This concept has been deluded as everything is one, the thought, the ego this brain that brain? Right?
But isn’t this the definition of confusion? Mixing up one thing with the other? Your testicles and your ovaries I suppose? Let me say Sirs and to all, we must question and seek truth in the ideas of non duality, to be liberated from the opposites,
to be or not to Be, that IS the Question
Weather it is a God a Man A ship or a Bloody Wall!!
If it is these then it is the opposite. Which is to say that it is not.
Which are all forms of attachment, (to) identity, delusion, corruption.
As I said, do the research before you draw a conclusion. Scroll back a couple of years and see for yourself.
There are many examples of two people misunderstanding or disagreeing with one other. The world is full of such examples. If you think this is funny then we have lost our intensity altogether and gone off into less interesting areas. So I hope you would agree that it is much more important to show the world a very good example of what it means for two people to connect and to make some sort of contact on a common ground of enquiry. In order to do this, first we must both be capable of looking at and seeing one another as we actually are, not as we may believe we are or as we may wish to be.
So what are we? I come back to this question. What is the actuality of what we are? We can’t answer this question by jumping in with wild speculations or wishful thinking. To start with, we don’t know what we are. But if you and I have a history together then one of us may say, ‘I know you are kind,’ or, ‘I know you are confused.’ In other words, we’ll rely on personal memory and experience to provide the answer, which is all recorded in thought. And if we have no history together then we’ll rely on more general memory and experience, which is again all recorded in thought from what we have gained from books, from other people and from our wider observations of the world. So what we think we are and what we believe other people to be has all been put together by thought. Do we both of us see this simple fact? Then there is no Valer, no Mahesh, no Inquiry. There is only thought.
It is only a dualistic mind that proposes such things as non-duality. It is merely another way of saying, ’I am special,’ by inventing a more general belief about the nature of the universe and then aligning oneself with that belief. So I am not proposing anything. There is only thought at work here. There is no proposer behind the scenes.
Now see what happens to the brain when it stops splitting itself in two, when it stops dividing itself into the thinker separate from its thoughts.
1 Like
Oh, no… We both have changed several statements already, but haven’t understood one another. You see, I more or less agree with many things you say here in this forum. But… how long have this forum been functioning? Much time, I guess. I’ve been reading it for some time. What I see? Many people are discussing things, arguing, again and again… No serious understanding though, I’m afraid… One might say it’s no wonder but an usual thing between people. But here we are the people, many of whom have read Krishnamurti’s works. It’s no difference though…
Then from this very moment be different. The only thing that matters is where you and I stand right now. Are we in a place with complete freedom from the past? No opinions, no beliefs, no ideas or images. Then thought is free to discover for itself exactly where it stands and how it can move. (This is not about understanding one another. It’s important to be clear about this. For that’s a game with no winners. Our job is simply to love one another.) Does thought itself understand exactly where it is? Not the thinker aware of thought, but thought aware of itself. Then thought is free to move and operate where it must. But if thought remains attached to the thinker, wherever it goes will be cause for mischief.
1 Like
I doubt that anyone here can see things as they actually because we’re conditioned to see things as they should/should-not-be.
If you think you can see things as they actually are, you should be speaking to a much wider audience than you have here.
So what we think we are and what we believe other people to be has all been put together by thought.
Not all of it “has all been put together by thought”. There’s ample evidence of what actually happened. The past can’t be distorted or denied by thought when there’s incontrovertible evidence of what actually happened.
Why don’t you just own up to what you did and face it?
The problem sometimes is the almost constant hammering of opinions from outside leaving little space for flowering of inner feelings and thoughts. I don’t think we can distinguish between inner and outer. The outer through media, TV, Internet, religious propaganda, political propaganda, opinions is constantly hammering.
Media is unidirectional. They talk but don’t listen. It’s just bombardment of opinions.
This leaves very little space for inner feelings and thoughts to flower.
Sleep, nature and may be meditation is the only space for thoughts to flower. That space being awareness.
We are like a hen trapped in a cage. The cage being the imposition of opinions
I agree non duality implies duality,… quite.
So, no self, no other… Nor me nor you… And thought this thought, these thoughts are responding, with all the previous condition to recognize this process these thoughts; those thoughts; thought itself…
What can thought do about anything? But perpetuate itself?
Can thought be aware of itself?
Can a thought be aware of itself?
… …
Is awareness thoughts? Not the ideal, idea, intellectually arm chair philosophy of thought or awareness, but actually! … Where is the awareness that has reached no conclusions!? About Anything!?
Yes, we are that conditioning. We are conditioned thought. This is what we actually are. So there is no wider audience. This belief in the wider world is just one aspect of our conditioned way of thinking about human communication, that what matters is quantity over quality.
Forgive me, but the rest of what you said doesn’t make much sense to me. What is it you want me to own up to? First of all, isn’t it better to find out why we carry forward any fragments of the past in the form of regrets or resentments? This itself is our conditioning at play. Then we don’t have to resort to any theories about it because we are holding the evidence in our own hands.
I am not talking of a space for thought to flower. Can thought discover its own nature and thus dissolve forever its attachment to the thinker? It is the thinker that seeks solace through meditation and going off into the woods. It is the thinker that talks of awareness as some clever way out of its own entrapment. When thought is aware of itself, this is the beginning of real and very simple awareness. Then there is no cage because there is no hen.
When thought is aware of itself then awareness is very simple because the brain is no longer concerned with interpreting and understanding the world in which it lives from the perspective of a lonely, separate thinker. It is instead observing the world without choice, without selection and discrimination, without judgement. It is very much a new brain, very sensitive. Therefore it must protect itself in a new way, which is not to run away into theories and conclusions, but to be aware with all its senses of the world around.
We are trapped by the false sense of security and hope we create with thought.
For lack of self-knowledge, we know only thought, identify with thought, and live in the trap our thinking creates, sustains, and modifies.
Sir!!! Can we see that we are caught in it!! All you said is the theory! The Delusion, The Conclusion!! The ego, of condition asserting itself as the knower! The Authority right? And so isn’t it more likely that all the world will do the same?
So it is, and so by existing in relatively it is not. And so therefore, there is conflict, for and against, and something dominates, to control the situation with knowledge, conclusions, just look at inquiry? For God’s sake! And I noticed that this is what “I” am doing still now in a way.
But I wonder if awareness separate, from this? This here, this word? Now my thumbs typing away as the train screeches it’s brakes and birds chirp, and whistle blows, and the sun is setting… the shadows stretch across the field…
More dissembling.
Thought is mechanical. It can’t be aware of anything. The brain is aware of thought, but chooses not be aware of what thought is actually doing, how incoherent it is.