This is not a “subtle belief” - it’s self-evident.
For the conditioned brain, believing is breathing. As long as I have the power to determine what is true and false, good and bad, etc., I am Authority, what I say is the truth, and this is the power of believing, the power of suggestion.
It is self-evident because anyone can see for oneself that when awareness is always accompanied by a constant and consistent stream of thought, reality is a narrative, the story that is my authority. When this narrative stops, goes silent, there is no authority above and beyond what is actually transpiring.
Since I don’t know, I can only speculate, and my guess is that without my narrative, I am nothing but choiceless awareness/direct perception and response.
Surely there are moments when your narrative either falls way into the background or disappears altogether? Unless you’re suggesting every moment of your life is infused with and dominated by the narrative?
If we say : “when I am not believing the stories I tell myself, then I believe this particular story I am telling myself”, surely we are not paying sufficient attention to what we are telling ourself.
Personally, my answer to this question would be : WTF??!!??
Though if pushed the story I would go with is : The sense of self (and my body, my car and my bank account etc) is a process that arises from other processes within what is. (bit like an eddy in a stream)
If no story telling was allowed, I’d go with : …Knock knock ?
Thanks for mentioning Whitehead btw - I looked him up last time you listed him next to other mystical big wigs - “process philosophy” sounded cool, I’ll look into it some more now you’ve reminded me (or would that be like hanging out in an echo chamber? )
Process philosophy , also ontology of becoming , or processism ,[1] is an approach in philosophy that identifies processes, changes, or shifting relationships as the only real experience of everyday living. Wikipedia
I am now thinking about Knowledge, Understanding and Philosophical ideas.
I’m wondering what the best introduction to Philosophy might look like. And unfortunately (or not) for me, I completely missed out on a formal education in Philosophy.
My theory is that the Socratic method is a good starting point. But with the emphasis on asking questions and avoiding as much as possible answers and explanations. If any truth statements are made they should be either irrefutable or incomprehensible.
Explanations might actually dull the mind. (aka strengthen the known)
I’m glad to say that I don’t know what that really means - and I worry that you might feel that you do
Yes, surely, but these moments, these gaps between thoughts are too brief to reveal what is otherwise being denied, dismissed, and distorted.
My guess is that when the conditioned brain takes its condition seriously enough to lose confidence in itself, thought slows down and the gaps widen until the whole point and purpose of its persistence is seen for what it is and the mechanism of egocentricity has a power failure.
Little black outs lead to power failures until the whole system of artificial illumination is seen for the waste of energy that it is, and this insight brings about its complete collapse.
Does the amount of time and energy you put into meditation correlate with your breadth of gaps? If it does, and the gaps are really important to you, you could go on a solo meditation retreat. It wouldn’t have to be formal, you could just pay single-minded attention to what-is for a few days.
(Witness me engage in: an agenda, becoming, magical thinking, conditioning, choicefulness.)
I would say that deliberate, purposeful meditation is practicing a technique to arrive at a desired destination, and is just a modified self.
When K said meditation is something you do as you go about your business, it seems to me he was saying that when the brain is serious about its condition, it is no less attentive to its stream of consciousness than to what it is trying to get done. In other words, when you’re serious, you’re always meditating, no matter what else you’re doing.
It seems to me that natural, spontaneous meditation is the brain’s interest in what it can’t do anything about, i.e., its constant narrative.
For me, there are meditation styles whose destination cannot be objectively described (or described at all) and that work at illuminating rather than modifying/strengthening the self. Zazen, shikantaza, and open awareness all come to mind, I’m sure there are others.
I’ve tried all three, failed miserably at zazen (too posture-obsessed for me), did better with shikantaza (love the idea of ‘just sitting’), and best with open awareness (resting in awareness). Though I must admit no form of meditation, Krishnamurti’s included, has ever really ‘worked’ for me, mostly they’ve been tedious, sleepy-making, and pointless-feeling (which, I guess, is the point!).
)