Is K still relevant?

I am afraid of my wife. I am afraid of injections. I am afraid of spiders. I can’t look at any of them without some sort of emotional interference or reaction. I never get to a point of just looking at any of them. I never just look at my wife. I am always in this space of distortion. I don’t know what it means to look at her or to look at anything else. The thing that is making me miserable is me. It has nothing to do with my wife at all.

Thanks for the rewording.

Am I able to look at anything? Not a sideways glance, but a direct seeing of the thing.

I am the thing. I only look at myself because I have a motive or an interest to change or understand the thing that I am. I’m stuck.

One asked at the beginning of this thread whether K is still relevant. The word “relevant” comes from L. Relevare=raising up.
When reading the comments one made there seems to be a lot coming, raising up.
So, at least in this sense, the teachings are still relevant.
But one has to delve deeper into the question, no? With the risc of getting stuck in the labyrinth of thoughts, words.
Is it possible at all not to get stuck in words, simply because of the abstract nature of these words? Or even more simply said : the word is not the thing.
Mostly we tend to overlook this fact.
Delving deeper means also that you come into unknown terrain where the word has no longer grip on you.
Is this where real investigation starts?
Meaning that despite all our efforts and intentions we have not started yet.
Does this ring a bell? Like to know.

Sorry, no bells ringing here - I’ll try and vibe with what you’re saying later - but I’ll first mention what I’m having problems with : there is no path. None at all, no progression towards freedom. The only progression that may be helpful is a progression of the known : we can come to intellectual understanding of the problematic issues of self and suffering - we can build a useful model of self.

Psychological death is not something we can come to via effort or analysis - K speaks of the necessity of great energy to move against the tide of millions of years of habit - I like to talk of circumstance leaving us with no choice but acceptance and surrender.

But to agree with what you say about words : seeing our relationship to words is meditation.

Yes, this rings a loud bell for me.

As I said to Rick, I am stuck.

Then you are stuck. Is that a problem?

So am I back at the beginning? Or am I always at the beginning? Do you see the difference? It is only the feeling or the belief that I am making some sort of progress in all this that ever gets me stuck. There is actually nothing to progress through or into. There is nothing for me to become. Ever.

I can see the difference, I guess.
Back at the beginning means that you were acting (thinking) in circles and that there is no real beginning. So there is nothing “new” in all this pondering.

So, it would be of tremendous interest, if we could find out whether there is an absolute new beginning or will it ever be an outcome of our thinking i.e. imagination?
Otherwise put : do we live actually or imaginary? It is a good question, isn’t it?

Just a reply to macdougdoug …
I do not think that knowledge ( in the psychological field) will bring us anywhere.
It is this path of knowledge in all his different forms and excesses that brought us where we are standing now.
To me this is the core of the teachings and I will abide by it.
However feel free to think differently.

Agreed (at least : it won’t bring us to freedom from the known) - but the reason we (including K) talk about it, look at it, is probably twofold : to awaken us to the possibility that this reality/experience (that seems fundamental, or that I cling to?) may not be so fundamental (may necessarily include violence)
And to give us permission to accept death if and when the need arises.

But life is pure becoming, everything changes ceaselessly.

There is surely a big difference between change and becoming. From our perspective, a caterpillar becomes a butterfly or a poor man becomes rich, or a rich man becomes poor. But in the specific context of engaging in a dialogue such as this, does a human being ever become intelligent, enlightened, compassionate or free? Or is intelligence, compassion and freedom merely the imagined state of those who are caught up in the misery of their own lives? Actual intelligence, compassion and freedom would not be separate from this misery, would it? Therefore a change of perspective is necessary, one that is not limited by our own imagination.

Do I see myself actually as I am? Or do I see only a lot of images? Bearing in mind that just one image will distort everything else it may be time to face the fact that when it comes to the actuality of myself there is actually nothing to see.

What do you mean? What connection between intelligence and misery are you referring to?

Your responses seem kind of splintered and inchoate to me. All over the place-ish. They are interesting and entertaining and tease at being edifying, but I keep wondering whether there’s a ‘main point’ I’m missing? Help! :slight_smile:

It is what I have been asking all along. Is the only relevance here the actual state of my life as it is now? Or do I first have to work out what someone else says about it? Working it out in that way, hearing the wise words, putting my own slant on it, parroting all the same old phrases, none of that has made any difference, has it? I am still stuck, left on my own with my particular brand of misery. Nothing within my imagination is ever going to help change the misery. Therefore, can the misery come to life and exist freely, intelligently and compassionately, undisturbed by my imagination? Or am I so reluctant to let go of my interfering imagination?

It would be “separate from this misery”. How else can misery be seen for what it is?

Do I see myself actually as I am? Or do I see only a lot of images?

Does “I” see anything that isn’t itself?

This reluctance (if there is that feeling of reluctance at all, because you are questioning it) shows you what? It can only show you that there is conflict . So have you find lut for yourself what conflict is, what it brings about in you and in the world around you.
We made conflict as a way of living, we even find pleasure in it. Think of it ! In such a state of mind we reside.
So, indeed it is hard to question all this.
But … i still invite you to go into this matter of conflict. Not by repeating what others might have said about it. Would you like to give it a go?

Can it really be seen from afar? Or isn’t it more alive when there is nothing but the misery? What is misery minus my own images about it?

Yes, let’s give it a go!