← Back to Kinfonet

“Is it possible to act, to live our daily life without the centre?"

Public Talk 5 Saanen, Switzerland - 18 July 1978
“Is it possible to act, to live our daily life without the centre?” “Our consciousness is a living thing, a moving thing, it is active, not something static, closed, locked up - it is not like that, it is a thing that is constantly changing.” “You know when you see something like that marvellous mountain against the blue sky, the vivid bright, clear, unpolluted snow, the majesty of it drives all your thought, your concerns, your problems out of it.” “So the mountain absorbs you and therefore for the second, or minute, you are absolutely quiet, which means there is no self.” "So when you are trying to expand consciousness there is a centre of measurement.” “… what is love that may completely dissolve the centre, completely bring about a holistic action.”


So for a moment, every now and then, I get a glimpse of how self-possessed I am…then what? If that momentary realization doesn’t have the effect of transforming me from self-confidence and self-assurance to self-doubt and self-questioning, all it does is remind me of how determined I am to be who/what I believe I am. Which, come to think of it, is better than nothing.

It’s better to constantly remind myself that I’m better at being a liar than a child.

Better than nothing? To be or not to be. Humm…Center, no center…

Q: “What did the aspiring apiarist say”?
A: “To bee or not to bee”

“Center - no center”, said the center…

We’re not sinners…we’re centers!

But seriously, how comfortable am I with my beliefs? Why can’t I live without a pile of beliefs, some of them too sacred to question? What am I, anyway? If I think I know, I know I don’t because without thought, who am I? If no one can say anything I can believe, where am I?

“If no one can say anything I can believe, where am I?” Inquiry, sounds like you’d be outside consensus; an outlier, a deviation from the mean.

Yes, of course, not normal. But if no one can say anything I can believe, I can’t believe anything. So how can I live with actuality and the means by which it is described and distorted, without losing touch with actuality? Or to put it another way, can I exist without losing I constantly? That is, how much of I is necessary? If you say the I has to go, it’s just your belief, your K-conditioning.

If I say, “I don’t know.,there may be a place for I in the afterlife, after the death of the ego, the dissolution of the center, what I is not what it used to be.” There would be no I as we know it because there would be no ego. Nevertheless, we will think and speak, and it will always be this particular human speaking and thinking, so even if it uses its name instead of the pronoun, “I”, it is still I, this individual, thinking and speaking.

Perhaps. But is it necessary?

What’s the alternative?

What are hoping to achieve by the existing alternative?

What is the “existing alternative” to the pronoun “I”?

What is the “I” trying to achieve by probing for an alternative?

Why do you assume that I am probing or trying to achieve something?

I’m simply asking whether the brain with no ego, no center, would refer to itself as “I”, and if not, why not. since it’s the proper pronoun for an individual human referring to itself?

Let’s see if op has an answer for my question.

Let’s see what Vikas is playing at…

No sure what i did to get you so upset. Simply waiting for an answer to my first question “But is it necessary?”

I suggest you learn the difference between “annoyed” and “upset”.

But is it necessary?

Is what necessary? The use of the pronoun “I”?

Not sure why you are now misquoting me by splitting and joining what i have said above. Which is an act of deceit. You may call it annoyed instead of upset, but whatever the emotion is behind the word, is not a positive emotion. It is clearly unwarranted. I suggest you get a grip over yourself. I will have to refrain for any further exchanges with you until you learn how to have a civil discourse, without feeling the need for misquoting others. But appreciate your response on the other thread.

1 Like

Yes, please do “refrain for any further exchanges with” me. I’ll be grateful if you can do it.

Since i see an attempt to mislead i should clarify for anyone that is reading this.

op asks “is it possible to act, to live our daily life without the centre?”

I posted a question to op, “Perhaps. But is it necessary?”. Again, the question was to op not to the above poster.

The poster above then jumps in with his own question at me, which i wanted to understand better and which lead to his tantrum.

There is action which is not thought. And thought creates conflict. Thought creates “the centre”.

See what is action without a cause, and the question dissolves quite naturally.