Yes…no ‘mes’, if you please!
There is no me, only perception that includes the organism like any other happened to be. It is me that creates the division and identification of type of conciousness as gross etc.
What do you mean by the word ‘other’?
In the waking state the division of subject and object arises only when there is identification / labeling etc. Otherwise in waking state there is only perception, no centre that is perceiving. It is also true that this perception takes place in waking state. Is such a perception possible in dream state, do not know. In deep sleep what happens, is there is subject / object etc. , one can not be certain as nothing is recorded.
**I mean the ‘thought-projection’ of an “other,” as in the thought of “me and an other,” that we confuse for the undivided actuality.
The arising of the ‘me’ or ‘I’ with the immediate identification with my gross body itself indicates a division. This is absent in states like deep sleep.
In deep sleep what happens, is there is subject / object etc. , one can not be certain as nothing is recorded.
There is certainly knowledge that I had good sleep. There were no objects.
Otherwise in waking state there is only perception, no centre that is perceiving.
That may be true only for one who is liberated.
Until we don’t have ‘image’, there is no ‘other’ & there is no ‘differentiation’. There is only ‘action’. But when we start to explore the memories of the ‘action’ - ‘image’ blossoms.That is where the differentiation arises.
When we see a friend after a short/long time, we just bring back the memories and come to conclusion that he is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ by the ‘pleasure’ or ‘pain’ we had experienced with him. And we fail to ‘see’ what he ‘is’.
When someone scolds us, thought arises and says ‘I am right’ and ‘who are you to scold me?’. Here, the ‘other’ arises due to the ‘image’ of ‘me’ and ‘you’. But in my view, the ‘right action’ is to sit with him and discuss ‘why you think I’m wrong. Please show me, so i may change if it so’.
**That makes sense, but it raises the question, Can the nature of the blockage to this listening to each other be seen, and dropped?
I would also question that it is a “we” that “brings back memories.” It appears to be the brain that “brings back memories.” There appears to be no ‘we’ or ‘I’ doing that.
When it’s not seen that this is all the action of the brain, that there is no ‘I’, no ‘we’, no ‘chooser’, then thought is free to create the duality of a ‘thinker’ separate from itself and perpetuate the myth and illusion of ‘individuality’.
1 Like
No if we ‘see’ - we will immediately act. We won’t drop it.
When the ‘House is on fire’ - will we see it - and drop it and move on?. No, it’s because - ‘We think that we ‘see’ it, but we are not actually ‘seeing’ it’.
We can’t say that ‘Brain’ brings back memories. If we can ‘see’ that, brain brings back, we will act stopping it what it brings forth. But really what happens is - the ‘I’ brings back all these. Because ‘I’ or ‘we’ is itself the past. ‘I’ is the ‘ego,beliefs,knowledge,experiences,images,etc.’ If we can actually ‘see’ that ‘Observer is the Observed’ - no ‘Images’ arise.
Does the below statement answered this?
**If it isn’t dropped in the seeing of the false, then it’s not really seeing.
**The I is an image, not an entity that can “bring something.” The brain is like a computer, when the senses reveal, to the brain, a familiar face walking in the door, the brain immediately “re-cognizes” the face from stored memory, and connects it to the name. The brain is the processor, and the conditioning, including the self-image, is just thought…information. You’re correct, the I, the ego, is the “past.” It’s past imagery. And imagery doesn’t “bring” or “choose” anything. They’re just abstract imagery.
I think we had to get into neuroscientific facts. Let’s discuss about that. Brain is an entity. I can see that. But it is a Hard disk. It cannot act. There is no proof that only it stores, it does everything. Scientifically we couldn’t distinguish between Brain and the mind. Mind is psychological, the Conscuiousness. I thought i could discuss this later. Actually, ‘I’ is the Conscuiousness. The ‘I’ is covered by the images,beliefs,experiences,past,etc… and if we are aware - those disappears, and there remains Consciousness, the “Actual I”. One can’t say that only Brain does this all. It’s a non living entity. If we die, does the senses and brain reacts?. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Even someone who has studied neuroscience only knows a tiny part of all that is known about neuroscience.
Everything that we know can be demonstrated to be incomplete, and also usually wrong.
And just on one particular point that jumps out at me : the brain can be alive and can die, and the concept of entity can be applied to many things (theoretically we have the concept of a brain in a jar - is that an entity?)
We doesn’t know about that. And in my view, there’s no need to find out whether it is complete/incomplete and right/wrong. Because, even if we find it is complete, it won’t help us to free from our desires. 50 years back, there is no this much ‘advanced research’, but K had freed him on those time. So, in future if they find that, it can become a statement that “it is right/wrong”, but it serves no purpose for our discussion.
Is the brain and heart alive, or is there is something which acts upon the brain?
I am glad - so we must stop telling stories, with the assumption that the stories we are telling are facts, and then using these stories to come to conclusions, that we consider factual/right.
All this to what end? Usually it is on behalf of our need for psychological security.
Why are we discussing this? Sounds like a metaphysical question - to me you are asking what is life?
No, i’m not asking that. The word ‘entity’ means ‘a state of being’ and also means ‘an object’ too. I just ask - in which sense u say that those are ‘entity’. 1st one or 2nd?
If it’s 1st - then I ask further, that
If it’s 2nd - then we can skip that question for time being.
Stories are different from facts. Stories is past, creative, images, etc… But facts are that what we observe and accept it as it is. Lets say one say about “lord Krishna, gods,etc”. It is a story. There is no proof as of now to accept that. But facts are present in ‘now’. We can see it.
Please consider the link above
Also a narrative consisting of a subjective amalgamation of statements (whether “factual” or not) is a story.
If facts are of the now - is it possible to describe the facts?