That rather sweeping assertion sounds like a pronouncement of ‘absolute truth’ to me. Help me understand what you mean?

How does I know when I is taking responsibility for the “I”?

If “I” is the problem because it’s demanding identity where there is only confusion and conflict, the responsible thing to do is to stop identifying, stop being an I, and we can’t do that because the brain is so deeply conditioned to persist in the futility. Does that mean the brain is irresponsible?

What’s “hard dogma” about it?

That post was meant for Inquiry, though my response to your post was quite similar.

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I don’t tend to do well with ‘hard dharma’ no matter whose mouth/hand it’s from! But, with some effort, I respect and value your view.

What I mean is that equating the feeling of being me with Hell, prison, and other implied abominations, seems very black-and-white to me, and life, self, existence, reality, meaning, to me these are all shades of gray, levels of intensity, degrees of ‘closeness to truth.’

The notions and words I’m using come from a Zoom dialogue and were discussed most recently here What is the Nature of Choice? feel free to have a look if you want

In short, off the cuff, by understanding what experience is, we open up to what that understanding allows experience to become. I finally is able to hear and see more than itself. (Sorry thats terrible)

The story really was about how to finally meet the world by taking responsibility for this center, this view.

To be honest, I was just flabbergasted by this :

Yes, but can you say that the brain’s condition is not a trap it has set for itself and can’t be free of until/unless it has the insight that reveals to itself what it has done/is doing?

Great, that’s helpful. The thread is kind of long, any chance you could summarize the key points? (Maybe that’s what the two middle paragraphs of your post do?)

I’m flabbergasted you were flabbergasted! The multiperspectival approach to truth is so second nature for me.

My honest response when I read the above (and we seem to be doing honesty, which I love!) is I largely agree with your reasoning and understanding, but the absolute certainty implied by ‘there won’t be X until/unless Y’ doesn’t compute for me. It’s the curse/blessing of seeing everything from different points of view, where all pov’s have value (even the crackpot ones).

I was considering starting a new Laboratory thread to work on the idea of Experimenting together - but lets play a quick game here (if you’re ok with that)

The aim of the game is : what would my argument be to the above? (with the understanding that I am trying to argue from the problematic of the self).

Your goal is to reply on my behalf, as if you were me.
What killer reply would I use to highlight the self in the above?
A short snappy put down please, and also a one word reply (like KKaatzzz!)

So what would a crazy K dogmatist say in one phrase? - and if they were only allowed one word what would they say?

(Of course - I will return the favour when asked)

Single phrase take-down (highlighting problem of the self):

Isn’t ‘X is second nature for me’ a euphemism for ‘I am robotically following my programming’?

Single word take-down (highlighting the problem of the self):


(You would do better, I’m not good at take-downs!)

1 Like

Steady on pardner! Its of course the ideas that are being challenged - its an act of friendship - we only hope to attack the scales (if any) in front of our fellow humans eyes (and we are glad that Kinfonet gives us this opportunity)

btw - well played, challenge met. (excellent answers)
Now here’s what my instinctive, no holds barred reply might actually have been :

By seeing what is looking, we see through all eyes.

And my one word answer : Greed! or Accumulation!

Do you ever ask yourself why you choose this view since it supports the confusion and conflict K talked about ending?

I feel like multiperspectivism chose me more than I chose it. The reason I went along is it seemed and still seems to get ‘closer to the truth’ than any other way of exploring I’ve run into.

My retort: What is looking cannot be seen.

My retort: Via positiva!

Whether thought is inside or outside?
Thought seems to be all outside.
Media, TV, philosophies, propaganda, Religion are all outside.
The me which is reaction of thought is also reaction to outer.
We are surrounded by propaganda. Propaganda is not only in authoritarian countries but everywhere in human society. Propaganda tells you, your identity is around a country, religion. Even this forum is part of it.

Choiceless awareness or inner silence has nothing to do with outside books, words.

If we sit quietly say with closed eyes, mind becomes automatically quiet as thought is not acting, outer thought is cut off. Even in sleep perhaps it is same.

Perhaps then choiceless awareness cannot be found out through outer, through discussion, dialogue, books, media. That all being activity of thought.

What is then choiceless awareness? Awareness without reaction of thought.

Sit with eyes closed for 5 minutes. Don’t use your phone, don’t read newspaper or book or listen to radio or watch TV for those 5 minutes. Don’t try to do anything mentally. See if there is an awareness which is not reaction of thought. See that state of mind which is without conflict. You have discovered choiceless awareness which is not thought. An awareness which is not thought.

If you are outside the stream of reaction of thought, then you are outside stream of reactions, propaganda, media, politics, tribalism, religious propaganda. You stand alone, silent, unaffected.

My conditioning chose me, I did not choose it. The reason I believe what I believe is because what I have been conditioned to believe seems more believable than the stuff that I don’t believe.

We are here because this seems to be detrimental on a planet run by such ways of living - I had no choice but to think that voting for Trump was the best possible choice, storming the Capitol seemed to me like the best way to get to the truth.

Not saying anyone here did any of this - but if what I believe is on a par with nonsense, and nonsense is on a par with reason - one should restrain onself from action - if only because we cannot tell the difference between danger and safety, between looking both ways before crossing or not.

Why do you say this? Is it in the sense that the eyeball cannot see itself? (whch is besides the point and not necessarily so) Or that the self is a process that cannot be seen under a microscope? (ditto) Or are we saying that insight into self is not possible?

Am I outside or inside?

Is choiceless awareness only available when we are not faced with phenomenon? When there is no pressure to make a choice? Is peace only available if I live cut off from the world?

If not, what is your point? That sleeping is different from waking? That being alone is different from being out on the street?

One of the points of “open dialogue” or “dialogue as meditation” is to see the self (my reactions, my choices, my suffering) in action - to see what I am. And not to be bound by it. To say : silence is truth because I prefer silence, is to say : what I want is truth.

You were not born with I, so I is created by conditioning which is outside. Someone told you that you are Indian or Hindu or British or whatever, so identity is created by outside.

Choiceless awareness is available when there is no reaction of self. Self is reaction. In it’s absence there is choiceless awareness. It is possible to live and function without self.

The self cannot see directly. Thought only knows word. Thought does not see you are just a human being. Thought labels you as Ukranian or Russian and bombs you.

Thought is not truth. Choiceless or direct awareness is truth. To see you or another is a human being just like I am. To see all animals, birds are part of nature. It is easy for doctors to see their patients as fellow human beings because they don’t label them as Christian, Hindu, British or French. Same is not true for politicians as they live on labels.

Openness is when self is not, there being no observer as me, but listening, learning. What is the mind that listens? You can experiment with it. Only if the mind has no reaction it is listening. Learning, being open requires a passive mind.

If thought is active then it becomes a debate based on words, not a dialogue based on observation.

It would interest me if you did the experiment I suggested for 5 minutes and what were your observations, whether there was a self observing or not