Is it really possible to insulate oneself from anything that may cause pain? Pain - I presume you mean in the general sense of suffering - is more than a reaction to particular events or circumstances, is it not? Do not the roots of suffering lie deeper than that?
What ARE the roots, or what IS the root of suffering? Does it lie in the existence and activities of the self? or is it even deeper than that?
I donât know. If I could see anything clearly, I could see everything clearly. There is no seeing clearly when one is conditioned to see according to terms and conditions.
If you are seeing this, then you ARE seeing clearly, are you not?
Yes, on this journey one have to be able to accept great pain, suffering, to be utterly lost in confusion.Eeven the feeling that oneâs perceptions are insane. One has to able to stand alone. Able to face the fact that one is nothing.
You protest too much. Why arenât you interested in what you âwant or donât wantâ?
Good God people wake up!!
I hope you are saying this to a mirror.
I see it in hindsight. The evidence is conclusive.
How can you know anything about âthis journeyâ if, at the end of it you know nothing?
There is sometimes a feel of a journey, but yes, this could be not only an illusion, but a great mistake. Especially if it implies some sort of personal becoming.
If there is such a journey, I certainly donât claim to know what is at the end of it! if I did, would it be merely some goal projected by thought?
Note : All dialogues of JK are addressing the utility of psychological knowledge and building of me. Dialogues needs to be understood in the perspective of psychological knowledge. Psychological is a domain of purely in the space of human relationships and relationships with nature. Topics include, Love, desire, fear, becoming, image making, pleasure, ego, voilence, me, consciousness, listening, attention, and so on.
Create means effort.
Can awareness brings silence??
Thought is like wave, it can only reach the shore, when one observes it till end. Silence of mind is observation of thought in action, till it ends. Finally in absence of thought there comes total silence.
Now the question is thought first or silence first?? Can they exist together??
As long as thought exists it plays it tricks giving no chance for mind to be silent. Inattention can never get rid of mischieves of thought.
Yes, of course it is possible. But why do you ask?
It is possible to discover America again, but hardly anyone wonders if it is possible. They just accept that it has been discovered.
So what are we asking? Are we curious to find out if it is possible, or rather, are we curious to find it? If we are serious about a question, if we have doubts or not-knowing, then we need to find out, right?
Then, what will make us to find it? How can I find this quality of unconditional love? First we need to see that there is no process or method, there canât be, because such things are just abstract theories created by the mind.
Do we see this?
Then, what am I to do if there is no guidance, no path to find out? All we can do is to face the fact that there is nothing to do. Without escaping it. Without attaching it to a theory. Without building it up to an ideology.
Are we able to do this?
When we are aware of what is, actually, we can inquire. Without losing the awareness, ask the question, and stay with it.
Thatâs the poor manâs description of something that has no value, if you do not find it out for yourself.
I wonder why do we ask questions here in the forum where we need to use so many words, which are all dead. I never read a single book by K, but have sat with him in the recordings where the so called thinking together takes place. He was an extraordinary character to investigate these questions without imposing any authority. I am certain you cannot have that quality from books. Reading is born out of dead words, and giving life to them requires much more energy and attention than having a serious conversation with a friend.
jm,
Well, I didnât have the luxury of seeing videos of K, or of meeting K, and had filled my heart with compassion prior to discovering K. However, apart from listening to one tape, all of the insights that K spoke of that I have had were all from reading Kâs words. For someone who is serious, and meets all of Kâs criteria/requirements, I see that is quite possible for anyone to do what K was talking about just from reading K. Moreover, K even explained the manner by which one can open oneâs heart to compassion, which I put up in my thread on relationships.
Ummmm, do you realize that you are inferring that even your words are dead, right? You see, for someone who is serious, that seriousness can bring alive even the written words of someone who was deemed to be enlightened and is now deceased. And therefore, what you are suggesting is that a person who is not awake, and hence is still asleep, has no ability whatsoever to awaken⌠unless they proceed via âenquiryâ, as you believe that you are doing, right? Is that what you are suggesting? You see, that is the contradiction you are bringing into this forum - in other words, why even bother reading someone elseâs posts - is that it? Words are only referents which can point to facts and truths, when spoken or written by someone who is only interested in facts (a mind that is only concerned with facts can be said to be a religious mind) or from someone who embodies (is anchored) in truth.
So, are you suggesting that it is only through âenquiryâ that one can awaken? The problem is that enquiry does not lead necessarily to seeing some or all of oneâs conditioning, and then being as free as K was, right?? And Bohm is the prime example who used enquiry and who was in no way an enlightened being or even free (he hid his persistent depression from everyone; moreover, he had a bad heart in every sense of the word)! Do you see that what you are suggesting comes strictly from thought, and is therefore patently false, right? Do you get that?
The entire problem is highlighted by the fact that neither the Buddha, nor K, nor a few others who are/were considered to be enlightened beings ever had to pass through âenquiryâ, right? (Personally, I can see that Buddhism per se, as it is practised today is but another example of how belonging to any cult or organized religion does not lead to enlightenment.) Personally, I am not saying that there is something inherently wrong with âenquiryâ - on the contrary. What I am stating is that your statement about having that quality of love solely through âenquiryâ, or, for that matter, having any mutation, is false (incorrect, not true). It is false for that reason, and also because it is a conclusion - a conclusion which obviously originates from thought - I wonder whether or not anyone reading this gets this.
How can you be certain if you have not read any of his books.Youâre comparing what you experienced with what you think you know. THE ONE IS IN THE PAST AND THE OTHER IS ACTUALLY UNKNOWN. Please wake up! 
What exists between all human beings by default is love. Love is in the air like oxygen. Thought as kind of a chemical substance pollutes Love. The oxygen of life is getting polluted by thoughts chemical reactions. When the levels of thoughts interference (pollution) comes to zero love (pure oxygen) prevails.
Everyone who thinks they know what love is feels sorry for the those who know they donât know what love is, but I think itâs more loving to be honest than to presume to know what you honestly do not.
What exists between all human beings by default is love. Love is in the air like oxygen. Thoughts working on the basis of past are barriers to realise the existence of love between human relationships. Thoughts are the pollutants for love of oxygen.
To know all LOVE, the commonsense, is to know what is that whcih is NOT love. The complete observation of what is NOT love derives love. Is anger love? Is jealousy love? Is attachments love? Is pleasure love ? Etc. Through negation status of love prevails.
To know all LOVE, the commonsense, is to know what is that whcih is NOT love. The complete observation of what is NOT love derives love. Is anger love? Is jealousy love? Is attachments love? Is pleasure love ? Etc. Through negation status of love prevails.
It may be but how does it work between the predator and its prey here? What is this âloveâ you speak of? Is it just for humans?
I once asked a person, âwhat do you love?â. He thought a bit and said, â I love conning people.â
Last night I caught a mouse in my Havahart trap. I just drove 3/4 of a mile and released it into the woodsâŚI feel that if Iâm not going to eat it, I have no right to kill it. Love?
Why, when I donât know what love is, would I know what love is not? I have my feeling about what love is, but the feeling can only mislead me into believing I know what love is not, and isnât believing (self-deceiving) the antithesis of love?
If you act based on animal insticts and NOT based on thought - that is right actions.
I have realized that animals have no fear ( new observation, may be very few in the world has come up on to realize this) because in their behavior they are alert to survive as common instinct available to all species both live and non-live things.
Because when life movement of species is natural to ecological balance, the question or logic of fear in animal species does hold rational.
The alertness of dog or cat every time they encounter the same thing is not fear, it its basic instinct to be alert to extend the interplay of life among species. One consumes another and another consumes another, if not consumed by scheme of things then its origin consumes.
Origin seems to remain allways dynamic beyond the capacity, capabilities, imagination or comprehension of human experience.
If my animal instinct compels me to attack anyone who steps onto my property, into my territory, is that right action?