There’s no position to assume or judge whether your words are a repetition or an expression of direct perception. Such assumptions would impose conclusions where none are needed. We can only observe our self with integrity, so extending that outward is merely a distraction by the mind.
You point out the tragedy of self-centeredness and how it appears advantageous for survival.
It’s essential to inquire into this deeply to understand advantageous for what? Isn’t it the survival of the idea of “I” that benefits from this self-centered movement? And this survival is fundamentally at odds with the wholeness of life, creating division, conflict, and disorder; not only within but outwardly in the world.
From a biological perspective, life itself has no “use” for this fragmented “I”. The self-centeredness born of thought may appear to offer short-term gains for the individual, but in reality, it perpetuates isolation, fear, and the destruction of the very harmony upon which life depends. Can we see this clearly as something directly observable in our own lives? Not as an idea to debate or defend.
The mechanical nature of thought can only sustain what it knows, like its own patterns, fears, and desires. This “survival” is not aliveness or true living, isn’t it?
So, is this “advantage” you mention truly for survival, or is it the very root of the tragedy we speak of?
The illusion of the self is advantageous to the survival of the biological organism. For example, there are two groups that are geographically separated:
Group A – not caught in the illusion of the self
Group B – caught in the illusion of the self
All other things being equal, I would wager that Group B will spread and overwhelm Group A. This is just my perspective based on basic understanding of evolution.
The illusion of the self must provide some survival advantage given that the masses are caught in this illusion. From an evolution perspective, humans are very successful; we are the dominant species on the planet and there are over 8 billion of us. Note, that I am not trying to justify human behavior; I am just trying to understand how it has unfolded for our species and the role this illusion has played.
Is it possible to live in this world without concepts like morality, justice, fairness, harmony etc.? These concepts are born from a fragmented outlook; they hinge on flawed assumptions that we are separate and that we are in control. If looked at from the fundamental laws of physics that govern the universe, none of these concepts exist. But we are heavily conditioned by these concepts - there lies the contradiction in how we function.
To “live with what is” includes effortlessly accepting the world as it is.
The acceptance of authority whether it is the authority of evolution, the self, or the concepts of morality, justice, and harmony, is itself the denial of truth. Authority is not merely external but exists deeply within us in the structures of thought, in our reliance on ideas and conclusions, even in the concept of “what is”.
The illusion of the self may indeed have evolutionary advantages, as you suggest, but is survival the measure of truth? To inquire into whether we can live without concepts like morality and justice, we must first ask are these concepts born from truth, or are they products of thought?
To “live with what is” cannot mean to accept the world as it appears through the lens of these concepts. Instead, it demands a complete negation of authority, of conditioning, of every framework through which thought seeks to define existence. Only then can there be a perception of truth which is whole, indivisible, and free from contradiction.
It is very human to accept and conform to the loneliness and suffering of “I”. But the key question remains: can we do anything about it?
‘What is’ …is it each ‘I’ looking out on the world through its narrow, limited perspective? Is the perception that is ‘freedom’, the inclusion of the ‘I’ itself with its narrow perspective and all its attachments? Is freedom an absolutely clean break from any center or frontier? Is it that the brain is active but “tuned”? Active but emptied of all trace of the ‘I’ framework? The duality of observer and the observed is ‘seen’ as false? (Even though it ‘feels’ as if it is true?)
JK: "After understanding all the waves on the surface—fear, authority, all the petty affairs compared to that which we are going into—the mind has then emptied consciousness of the whole of its content. It is empty; not through an action of will, not through desire, not through choice. Consciousness, then, is totally different; it is of a totally different dimension.
Because there is space, there is emptiness and total silence—not induced silence, not practiced silence; these are all just movements of thought and therefore absolutely worthless. When you have gone through all this—and there is great delight in going through all this; it is like playing a tremendous game—then in that total silence, there is a movement which is timeless, which is not measured by thought. Thought has no place in it whatsoever.
Then there is something totally sacred, timeless."
HAPPY NEW YEAR everybody and best wishes for 2025 (for all those who are already in 2025, as well as for all those who in a few hours will be in 2025)
p.s.: pending answers will arrive tomorrow or the day after tomorrow (taking 100% care of a sister with psychic impairment, as my other sister is still slightly convalescing from her vertigo attack, takes up a lot of time).
