What is “non-self”? All psychological thought is content, i.e., self, so for the conditioned brain, there’s only self.
self and non-self are concepts we have adopted to make sense of the world in which we live.
Non-self is obviously a concept because self is all we know. But how ever conceptual self may be, the brain is conditioned to feel I-me-mine is actual.
Self is all we know because we can’t imagine being nothing but choiceless awareness/direct perception.
Well, if it is true that there is only self then it must also be true that there is only everything. Not just in this life but also in the next life and in the lives after that. What is our next question then?
I think you misunderstood what I meant. I’m saying that for the conditioned brain, the self is paramount, the most important thing overall. This is what is meant by “self-centered”.
Right. A conditioned brain is concerned only to protect itself. But what is itself? Is its interest limited only to what exists inside the skull and the body? Or is it possibly something that covers the whole field of existence? To put it another way, what dictates the extent of the centre?
I don’t think it matters whether the brain’s self-center is enormous or minuscule, and even if it covered “the whole field of existence”, its primary purpose is to sustain the illusion of self.
What matters is whether the brain has a self-center or not.
The nervous system, fear, and self seem to be intimately intertwined, a three-way feedback loop.
That’s my question. What is the range of the brain’s concern? For if it covers the whole field of existence then the very term ‘self’ ceases to have any real meaning.
So what is connection between two humans? If the self is involved at any level, it doesn’t seem to be possible.
Seems like when the self is involved to any extent for either person, distortion results in the form of image making and believing, felt separation, conflict, defensiveness, anxiety, distrust, fear, anger. The distortion may be dramatic (war) or subtle (peace). Pure undistorted connection is rare I’d say.
Yes, I would tend to agree with you. Maybe connection doesn’t even matter then. It may even be a bit of a false lead…
Aren’t all leads false, Paul?
There is nothing revolutionary in the following of leads, true or false ones.
It requires division for leads to exist. Ditto for connection to have meaning.
Does silence speak?
Interesting. Say normal self-present connections are not so much true connections. Yet still they are really important for us. Without them we tend to languish, fall into depression. What is it we are getting when we engage in our partial, perhaps even faux connections? What do they bring us that seems emotionally indispensible? What is really being fed when we faux-connect?
Is Maneshji Paul Dimmock?
Good questions for Paul to contemplate if he’s still obsessed with “meeting” someone.
To those for whom the statement “Truth is a pathless land” has significance, nothing is relevant. Which uncannily renders everything relevant.
Memento mori.
There are several points for us to get clear about here perhaps. The implication is that all connection is somehow false, so that the notion of true connection contains within itself a contradiction.
But the statement is never the actual. That’s just the point I was making at the beginning of all this. The statement merely diverts us away from the actual. It doesn’t really matter whose statement it is, either.
What remains of K is statements.
Sadhguru said about Krishnamurti: “When he was there, there was a fragrance; when he’s gone, only books.” (I am not endorsing Sadhguru as a teacher, I’m not sure what to make of him.)
Sounds like you have doubts about K’s teaching but you’re hesitant to express them. Are you afraid of being banished from the forum for implying or hinting that Krishnamurti’s teaching is not what we think it is? If so, what do you think you know about K’s teaching that we don’t?
All gurus “endorse” Krishnamurti, the guru who deplored gurus.