Thought is a ‘thing’, a material movement. Awareness is not a thing. It is in every thing and every thing is in it? As TNP (above) put K’s statement.
Which is another way to say: The observer is the observed. No ‘centre’?
So if the brain is filled with the reflex actions that make up ‘me’ the self, the ‘center’ and all of which are not under any control but act on their own, what could possibly bring about a ‘radical’ change? Obviously not thinking or talking about it? What then? Anything?
It has to happen in our brains. so any ideas on how this freedom from the known, the unnecessary brain baggage of the past can fall away? Anyone?
I think K asked the question this way: “Can the rhythm of thought come to an end?”
You’d have to get a very good, detailed look at this “baggage” to know what to do with it, and it seems we either can’t examine it, or we don’t really care to examine it.
We know there’s a body of beliefs, fears, desires, and godknowswhat in that content, but we may not want to review it because its disturbing, and we’re more averse to disturbance than we are interested in finding out what we’re desperately holding onto.
So the ‘content’ cant review the content? What can?
Doesn’t water and mud coexist in a puddle? And isn’t mud one thing and water another? And does mud change the nature of water? And does water change that of mud?
I’m very sorry but I don’t see any statement from K in @tnp’s post, Dan. So maybe @tnp could post the actual quote so we can see what exactly K said about it.
That’s like asking why a book can’t read itself.
The brain knows it holds content that it doesn’t examine because the content is its false sense of identity and security.
So what if anything will make the brain/mind consider that being ‘nothing’ is infinitely better than holding on to this ‘mess of potage’ it has attached itself to? As K said, being nothing is being everything!
He also implied that it could be done when he said somewhere that we’re going to die and that somewhere in time our death had already happened so why not get out now before it does.
Does anyone remember this remark by K which just came up for me and spoke to all this? It was something to the effect that, if one didn’t create an image in the present moment, that affected the images of the past somehow. That they had no place? I don’t remember the wording but at the time I read it I had the feeling it was very significant.
Is this what you are looking for?
K: Keep it very simple. I say something that doesn’t give you pleasure. You have an image instantly, haven’t you? Now at that moment, if you are completely aware, is there an image?
Q: If you don’t have that new image, all the other images are gone.
K: Yes, that is the whole point.
Yes Can We Be Free of Images?thank you fraggle that is it!
Can We Be Free of Images?
From the book Truth and Actuality
I highly recommend reading the ‘source’ piece fraggle
Has posted.
Feel danger in the changing of the thing, the name, the word…
How about being the Father or the Mother of everyone or everything so that I am the keeper of the Eternal Law…?
This way is more practical than thinking or talking about freedom when I don’t know what freedom is like…
I am free now if I ever was.
If I am not free now but I was before, this phenomena or thought of freedom is illusion.
I remain with myself if I know what and who I am.
How can I remain with myself if I don’t know what myself is?
The only thing anyone can remain with is the ongoing unfolding of actuality. Trying to hold onto anything is desperation, and desperate behavior has consequences.
Myself is whatever I decide it is at this moment, so how seriously can I take myself?
Right, so ‘judgement’ isn’t intelligent…just seeing yourself without judgement is. K. called that the “highest form of intelligence “ and you can see why that is so. Judgement about myself implies a ‘judger’ that stands apart from ‘me’ but the judge is the ‘me’. Any judgement about myself implies this illusion of separation. It implies that what is ‘could’ be different. That I could be different than what I am. That the world could be different than what it is.
Say I have a sense of my true self, my Self. A feeling. And I stay with it, rest in it. Is this the ongoing unfolding of actuality?
Judgement doesn’t have to be intelligent to be adequate. We make judgements constantly, and they’re usually accurate enough to enable us to function. It’s our poor judgements and self-serving judgments that have regrettable consequences.
just seeing yourself without judgement is. K. called that the “highest form of intelligence “ and you can see why that is so.
Can I? Can I see, acknowledge what doesn’t assure me that I exist as something real, substantial; that I am not merely a product of thought?
Judgement about myself implies a ‘judger’ that stands apart from ‘me’ but the judge is the ‘me’. Any judgement about myself implies this illusion of separation.
Since I am an illusion of my own design, I am the judge of how well or poorly I am performing. The separation between the creator and the created is as illusory as what results from one submitting to or defying the other. It’s all delusion.
It implies that what is ‘could’ be different. That I could be different than what I am. That the world could be different than what it is.
Actuality can’t be other than what it is, so when the human brain decides to be the judge of what is actual at every moment, it has lost its mind, and operates within the confines of thought and imagination.
Very much True, there is no division but it does not mean one becomes what ever IS. But have not seen the truth of K’s statement when he said he saw himself as the hammer that a person was using to break a stone, he saw himself a engine, tyre of a car that moving on the road or felt himself as the ant climbing a grass etc
1 Like