Ok! Now let me ask you something: is what has been said above an actuality or a “should be” for the person who said it?
Let’s look at it…
The other day, after I asked if our conversation had ended with what you had said in your previous post, you said…
Sorry I’m over reacting, because this question comes up again and again, often deflecting us from what is being looked at.
Now, did that insight have the power to totally free you from the process of overreacting? If not, what happens when an overreaction comes back after you have had such a insight?
You say that…
Now, when the overreaction comes back after having had an insight, isn’t there a kind of struggle between thought, wanting to regain its power and influence, and awareness? A kind of struggle that has nothing to do with “the usual conflicting movement of the self, in its usual struggle between what is and what should be” that you mention?
Becoming angry with someone over some small thing feels petty and weak. That feeling makes me want to ‘get over it’….to substitute that feeling for one in which I am happier ie. ‘More myself’. But isn’t the ‘transformation’ in staying with that feeling of ‘anger / pettiness’? Not to make it ‘go away’ but to know it as it is? Accurately? (Done with care)
Watching someone else in a similar state I can see that they are probably going through the same pattern of conditioning.
The conditioning which is to NOT see the “jewel”-like quality of the sensation being experienced.
Becoming angry with someone over some small thing feels petty and weak.
I would add: in retrospect or watching someone else in a similar state, as you said .
At the moment when I get angry, the situation seems to be intolerable, a big deal, so I find my anger just appropriate.
Afterwards, when the dust has settled, I wonder why I got so upset and am ashamed of my exaggerated reaction, which doesn’t fit in at all with the person I want to appear to be.
This is just a statement of fact, a kind of simple logical statement - like war is not peace, hot is not cold, notA is not equal to A etc - there is no need to see this as some sort of claim that I am higher up on the spiritual hierarchy stepladder.
When an ex-smoker finds themselves struggling with thoughts of about cigarettes - are they struggling in that moment? or are they free of the past?
When we recognise imminent danger we recoil immediately without effort or resistance.
Of course there must be actual realisation of the danger - not just the adoption of an idea (eg that cigarettes are bad) - for then there can be conflict between opposing ideas (eg. cigarettes bad vs cigarettes nice)
The fallacy at play here is probably the confusion between “insight” and the adoption of an idea.
Also our identification with the popular myth of the perfect enlightened being is probably what is causing these questions to arise.
When insight just means a moment of clarity that transforms our understanding of a particular process - from then on it is merely question of whether we are attentive or not, whether there is awareness of experience moment to moment.
There can be a snake lying at my feet, if I am not aware of it, I will not jump.
Our total agreement is of far greater importance than any recapitulation can ever be, unless we are keen to remain in a state of going around in circles. Only a completely quiet mind can know such a thing as total agreement with another, where all opinions and speculations have subsided, and where there are no longer any ties to one’s conditioned expectations. Perhaps, once again, this is be told something against which our own conditioning reacts because our conditioning constantly seeks confirmation of itself as conflict. Only through conflict can the peace-maker known as the self come into being. And all through human history the peace-makers are the greatest mischief-makers of all. Without the interference of the peace-maker, conflict does not exist. So it is the peace-maker who must die away and vanish at both the immediate personal level as well as the remote global level.
yes . and because its your discription with your words i have to listen and to look .
so after a while I will get an idea of what you whatched .
the structure of thought and its action at a point
it can be a description of the feeling i have right now , ore i describe what i think and know about thought process .
when i speak , what is it i am saying ?
is it from actual ore is it i actualy remember and recap about my knowledge .
can i report from process of thought ?
This is an interesting question that obviously I cannot answer for others, but only for myself. So I can say that awareness speaks from actual. Now, the immediate question that has arisen from looking at your question is: at some point, would the awareness be borrowing from what has been accumulated/stored by thought to speak the actual?
A topic is raised:
What happens next?
The topic is a kind of impulse and evokes agreement, rejection or indifference. Or there is an impulse to continue, to delve deeper into the topic together. Perhaps a way of thinking together, however that may look exactly - including memories of situations in which aspects of the topic became clear to you, including typical sequences of the thought process as they appear to you. This is shared as a contribution to further investigation; it does not have a conclusive effect but can open up the common space.
Awareness brings up unconscious conditionings and suddenly the mouth begins to speak things that are not being thought, using the clear vision of those unconscious conditionings (which are not only mine) as examples in the dialogue.
After this the thought does not remember with clarity (if it remembers anything) what awareness has spoken/seen, which would mean that what awareness speaks/sees is not being recorded (which makes that every time awareness arises what is expressed/seen is always the actual, new).
This is all I can say with thought speaking of myself.
No, that’s the way things are, and they stay that way. Let us say that at that moment it is not the speaker who speaks, and no matter how much thought, accustomed to the existence of things, tries to find the speaker, it will never find him, since thought cannot find/see that which does not exist (contrary to the fact that that which does not exist can see that which exists).
Can we say that at this moment the thinker uses words to discribe his thoughts .
i wrote what i think about output like talking writing…
So is now a careful watch into the process of thought and it’s output ?
It seems when brain is depending and operating from its content, it looks for security by using thought process as a tool to create a false sense of I/me that will survive after death etc. But as Inquire pointed out when it is in communion with intelligence and operates from that state, the intelligence is now using the brain as a tool to express itself and hence the question of security does not arise at all . Now the intelligence is in control not brain’s content.
Fully agree with you that a partial insight is irrevocable. In my case I was reacting in a particular way to a type of situation over a period of a decade. One day there was a partial insight into that reaction and it stopped effortlessly . There is no longer a reaction as before to same type of situation .When the same situation arises, sometimes there is a memory of past reaction but no impulse to act in the same way. It is over.
