Impulse

[hermann]

can we talk thought , predjudices and ideas , worrys and all its complications away ?
Or is there a need to face it to its death ?
is there any somthing in you when you hear this

[Anon]

@hermann

Yes, it comes from memory, and it takes time, and we already know it because we remember. If we are here to create a space where we can watch the structure and process of thought we might slow down this thing and get to see the arising of thought at the moment of its activity, to learn about it directly. What do you feel?

@hermann

Can we talk thought, prejudices and ideas, worries and all its complications away? Or is there a need to face it to its death? Is there any something in you when you hear this?

The more we talk about thought, the more complicated it gets. For behind all of this talk is the question of what is doing the talking, what is creating the space where we can watch the arising of thought, what is learning about thought and what is facing thought to its death. Or none of this matters at all and we are in a strange new place with a completely fresh mind. Only then does it make sense to employ thought and language.

[Edited as requested. No changes made. Not sure why this was flagged as inappropriate.]

[fraggle]

@Anon

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

May I ask why someone flagged this @Anon post? What did he or she find offensive in his/her words? I’m really, really interested…

[macdougdoug]

@Dano also had a post that seemed pretty innocent flagged and temporarily hidden for a while - strange stuff happening on kinfonet?

[fraggle]

@macdougdoug

strange stuff happening on kinfonet?

That’s the feeling I got, hence my question… because I had read the post and did not see anything disrespectful towards any member of the forum, or the forum in general. Anyway, let’s wait, maybe it will reappear.

EDIT: I just realized that this post addressed to me (without any disrespect towards me) and that I had pending to answer to continue our conversation, has also been flagged.

Strange things are definitely happening on Kinfonet!

[Inquiry]

@fraggle

Someone comes to me and says or does something that makes me angry. At that point there is only the reaction, that anger, which may itself have the capacity for transformation.

The only way to find out is to remain with your anger the next time you get angry and see what happens.

[fraggle]

@Anon

While the observer is present, active, involved, it will always be a case of playing around with ideals, because the observer itself is also an ideal. And the observer is incapable of seeing the truth of this. For it is a perception that only makes total sense when there is no perceiver, no observer.

I totally agree with you. But let’s recap:

Someone comes to me and tells me something to which “I” react (either on the basis of a feeling of reward or punishment). Now all there is is the “I” making its “star appearance” in the form of that reaction. Then, if at that precise moment thought does not interfere in the observation of that reaction, an awareness of it can arise, capable of provoking a change, a transformation (which will most likely be temporary, that is, until thought interferes again with its conditioned patterns of behavior). Then, this awareness will last as long as the attention that sustains it (which does not depend on the will of the “I”), is there.

Now let me share a conversation I had this morning with a good friend of mine about the interference of the self on that attention, which I think might be relevant to our discussion.

The background is that his brother committed suicide almost two years ago, leaving his mother, sister and himself alone (the father is already dead) with the usual questions that thought asks in situations like this: ‘I could have done more’, ‘How did I not realize he was going to do that?’, etc. So at one point in our conversation he said ‘the other day I was talking to my mother and she told me about all her suffering over the loss. I told her that there was no point in continually remembering what had happened, as it was as if we liked to rejoice in that suffering, while realizing that there was nothing I could do to free her from her suffering.’

At that moment we began to observe what happens in those moments when the awareness arises, and what the thought does to regain control of the situation. Summarizing, and not to extend too much, in this observation we have seen that when the awareness appears, the thought is silent until suddenly it realizes that it is not participating in the action. Then the way he has to regain control of the situation is to bring up the stored conditionings, our habitual patterns of behavior, so that if the attention is not preserved, one succumbs to their influence and the awareness vanishes just as it came.

In the case of our conversation and what we were observing, it would translate into: (1) the awareness arises that one cannot do anything to free the other from his ignorance, (2) yet, as that awareness has its own action one remains there without psychologically separating oneself from the other. At that moment (3) the thought realizes that it is not active and begins to wonder what is happening, how is it that he is not in control of the situation? And (4) to regain control of the situation he flips the conditioning switch: ‘What do you mean you can’t do anything? You can always do something else for the other person, etc.’.

If at that moment one succumbs to such an attack, one loses one’s attention and with it one’s awareness, and one reverts to the well-known conditioned thought patterns.

Does all this mean anything to you?
To anyone around here?

[Inquiry]

@fraggle

a transformation (which will most likely be temporary, that is, until thought interferes again with its conditioned patterns of behavior).

Just as the transformation of a caterpillar to a moth or butterfly is irrevocable, so is brain transformation, even when only partial.

what happens in those moments when the awareness arises… when the awareness appears,

Awareness is beyond the brain. It doesn’t arise or appear - it is constant when the brain is not sound asleep or comatose. The problem is that the brain’s psychological content reacts to awareness, causing confusion and conflict.

[fraggle]

@Inquiry

Just as the transformation of a caterpillar to a moth or butterfly is irrevocable, so is brain transformation, even when only partial.

Yes, you’re right.

Now let me ask, does this () necessarily imply that thought will interfere again and again?

@fraggle

until thought interferes again

And what about the end of my post? ()

@fraggle

If at that moment one succumbs to such an attack, one loses one’s attention and with it one’s awareness, and one reverts to the well-known conditioned thought patterns.

[Inquiry]

@fraggle

Now let me ask, does this () necessarily imply that thought will interfere again and again?

When the brain has a partial insight, part of its psychological content is understood and thereby obliterated, which means that particular reaction is history.

[fraggle]

@Inquiry

which means that particular reaction is history.

I think that a serious person will have no problem in being honest with himself by admitting that, unless one is able to constantly maintain that attention that gives rise to awareness, the pattern that produced that reaction will come back again, no matter how many insights one has had about it. And one will react again (there is that well-known saying “falling over and over again on the same stone”). Maybe not with the same initial intensity, but the reaction will be there once again. This is neither good nor bad, it just is, and it does not depend at all on your opinion or mine about it.

[Inquiry]

@fraggle

I think that a serious person will have no problem in being honest with himself by admitting that, unless one is able to constantly maintain that attention that gives rise to awareness, the pattern that produced that reaction will come back again, no matter how many insights one has had about it.

The only way to know if a partial insight is irrevocable is to have had a partial insight, and brains that are inattentive, uninterested in self-knowledge, are less vulnerable to insight than to little voices.

[macdougdoug]

@fraggle

the pattern that produced that reaction will come back again, no matter how many insights one has had about it.

Seeing the whole process for what it is, freedom from that process, does not mean the process no longer functions.
Seeing what the authority of memory, thought and emotions implies does not mean that they no longer arise - just that evil has been seen, just that our relationship to that process (called knowledge, experience or reality) has been modified

[Utes]

@fraggle

n the case of our conversation and what we were observing, it would translate into: (1) the awareness arises that one cannot do anything to free the other from his ignorance, (2) yet, as that awareness has its own action one remains there without psychologically separating oneself from the other. At that moment (3) the thought realizes that it is not active and begins to wonder what is happening, how is it that he is not in control of the situation? And (4) to regain control of the situation he flips the conditioning switch: ‘What do you mean you can’t do anything? You can always do something else for the other person, etc.’.

To 1. - 4.
I’d say one doesn’t separate oneself from the other person because one oneself is aware that this is how one is or how one functions. It is clear that the unconscious reaction patterns are unconscious and work in the shadows when they are not conscious, when they are not brought to light.
When the unconscious reactions take over, they act by evaluating and controlling, etc.

[fraggle]

@macdougdoug

Seeing the whole process for what it is, freedom from that process, does not mean the process no longer functions

Yes, that’s what the Desert Fathers called “combat of the heart”. Or when Milarepa wrestled some ghosts out of his cave to no avail, until he realized they were mere creations of his mind. Or even when Krishnamurti withdrew to observe any “negative” comments that someone might have made about his person and/or teaching.

@macdougdoug

just that our relationship to that process (called knowledge, experience or reality) has been modified

Let me ask: modified in what sense and on what basis?

[fraggle]

@Utes

I’d say one doesn’t separate oneself from the other person because one oneself is aware that this is how one is or how one functions

Yes, or to use Krishnamurti’s words… at that moment one is aware/feels-somehow that “I am the other, and the other is me” without any intervention of thought, hence no division arises as long attention (and therefore awareness) is there.

@Utes

When the unconscious reactions take over, they act by evaluating and controlling, etc

Yes, based on unconscious conditioning.

[macdougdoug]

@fraggle

what the Desert Fathers called “combat of the heart”. Or when Milarepa wrestled some ghosts out of his cave to no avail, until he realized they were mere creations of his mind

What we mean by “freedom from the process” (of self/suffering) is not the “combat of the heart” nor “wrestling with ghosts”.

Wrestling with ghosts (or the heart) is the habitual conflictual movement of self, in its usual struggle between what is and what should be - it is the usual movement of ignorance, albeit in the sphere of “spirituality”.

Freedom from the process is more akin to Milarepa realising that the struggle in his heart (or with ghosts) was the movement of mind (rather than some independant reality).

@fraggle

@macdougdoug

our relationship to that process (called knowledge, experience or reality) has been modified

modified in what sense?

Modified from a relationship based on ignorance and authority ie. a lack of clarity as to what actually is occuring (ignorance regarding the process of self/suffering) - and mistaking experience for truth (thus bestowing the authority of truth upon delusion) - to a relationship based on clarity and compassion (regarding suffering)

[Inquiry]

@macdougdoug

Seeing the whole process for what it is, freedom from that process, does not mean the process no longer functions.

If that’s true, the radical transformation of the brain K talked about is neither radical or transformative.

What is self-knowledge good for if what the brain discovers about how it creates and maintains its false identity, false reality, and its practice of self-deception can be restored, reinstated? If there is no end to the human brain’s misbehavior, what are we doing here?

[danmcderm]

@Inquiry

If there is no end to the human brain’s misbehavior, what are we doing here?

We don’t, can’t know that. Maybe we are looking into the possibility of change? We have read about how it came about in K’s life but don’t know if it’s possible in ours. At least become aware of what is going on in our own? And not substitute what we don’t like for something else.

[macdougdoug]

@Inquiry

@macdougdoug

Seeing the whole process for what it is, freedom from that process, does not mean the process no longer functions.

If that’s true, the radical transformation of the brain K talked about is neither radical or transformative.

The fact that the human brain continues to function as a human brain is of course not a description of radical transformation.
There was however a description of radical transformation in the story I told - that was where the description of radical transformation was.

@macdougdoug

Seeing what the authority of memory, thought and emotions implies does not mean that they no longer arise - just that evil has been seen, just that our relationship to that process (called knowledge, experience or reality) has been modified

@macdougdoug

Modified from a relationship based on ignorance and authority ie. a lack of clarity as to what actually is occuring (ignorance regarding the process of self/suffering) - and mistaking experience for truth (thus bestowing the authority of truth upon delusion) - to a relationship based on clarity and compassion (regarding suffering)