Here you say that - action is one where there is an intention to get something or to run away from something. And relationship is an activity (activity which is an action which has an intention behind it) involves more than one entity.
Say, is there is an action with no intention, and without intention that act can bring actual relationship between two persons or between a person and objects/nature?.
Can an action be without an intention - and just do what is brought before it by others and so an actual relationship with them without giving/taking?. We canāt expect the others too have an actual relationship without intentions with us. But can we be with others - not forming an image of āthemā and acting not as a response to the image?
Does it? I am not so sure. Thought will tell me all sorts of things about myself, how deep I am, how complicated. Can I first of all simply find out what I am without thought telling me about it? First, there is the physical body; I donāt need thought to tell me that. There are the five senses of the body; again, I donāt need thought to tell me that. Then what?
Will you make an image of me if I tell you? Of course. Therefore you are only asking this question to build up more images, gain more knowledge and add to the collective history. So the conditioning starts now. Therefore it also stops now when we refuse to relate through images. Conditioning is not something in the past. It is only ever in this one encounter between two human beings.
You are escaping to see āwhat you areā. You donāt have to share with us āwhat you areā. But please donāt deceive yourself - by not seeing it.
I beg you to ālook at youā (in individual or in meeting others).
But you are just only showing what others do and fail to see āwhat you areā - by saying āI donāt know what I am and I will not look at itā.
As a friend or as a child unborn to you, I beg to look at you as a whole. It will show you something different - you didnāt know before and makes you aware of it. It happened to me.
I am used to verbalise my life so much that I would not do a thing that is not a result of a wordy/ imagery description/ reflection in my head.
Is the intention born and then altered by the content of me? By the me?
How would our naked raw intentions, if there were any to begin with, look like beyond the words and images?
Right in the sense that the question was put wrongly.
Conditioning is now, right! So, do we not need our history, our shared history? Shared history of conditioning which drove our lives in more ways than we perceive, or more than I perceive at least.
Isnāt this momentary conditioning that history continued?
(as there is no way to communicate it - other than words - I use those).
See, we face āwhat-isā - but we are not fully satisfied with it. The intentions are like, when senses perceive something physically - the āmeā says that āI think it will satisfy meā - as the āmeā is impressed by what it sees through senses. the āmeā is always searching for something physically - struggle to get it - gets pleasure from it - but in time - got bored of it - and suffers as it comes to see the whole form of it. This pleasure distracts the āmeā from seeing - the whole form of that something (where the whole form is pain,sufferings,struggle,etcā¦).
The āpleasureā seen by āmeā - creates the intention to do an act. Whatever the act is. If the āmeā doesnāt sees the āpleasureā - there is āintentionā to not do an act. So, the āmeā is driven by āpleasuresā and forms every intentions within us.
But when intentions arises, we just have to stop immediate driving/hold - and inquire of āWhat will happen in everyoneās whole life - if I do/not do the intentions?ā - and be aware of everything. Then whatever the action is, there will be no āintentionā behind it - and the relationship too will be actual without any images. Then how the water flows - the action will flow without any direction/end point.
No, I am saying the exact opposite: I donāt know what I am; therefore I have to look. But I am not going to allow a lot of images to tell me what I am. Then I am just deceiving myself.
From the childhood to now there are just a lot of images as memory. They will tell me what I was; they canāt tell me what I am. So they are all irrelevant. Therefore they fade very quickly until there is nothing of myself to see. Only then can I see you, meet you, talk to you. Arenāt you sick of forever looking at yourself? It is like a dog returning to its own vomit.
You are explaining the answer to me, I have encountered these answers to question that might seem similar to the question I have put. But it is not. The question that was put is new, at least to me.
You explained the movement of the conscious neatly indeed. But the question was intended to look beyond the conscious.
Absolutely Paul. It cannot tell you about ānowā. But the āmeā is not now - it is only the āpastā.
See, I just ask to look at āmeā/āPaulā for once as a whole and not for lifetime.
In that dog example, if the dog can only see the whole vomit - it can be aware of it. Or else, unconsciously it may eat itās own vomit.
So, once and for all - just look at āmeā what is it. You can be aware of it and in that awareness whenever āmeā comes in action - it stops because you are conscious about āmeā and not unconsciously returns.
If you hesitate to see that once - then you cannot throw away/jettisen it - and it will arise unconsciously.
So can I look at it without thought using it, judging it, censoring it, interfering in it? Can I look at just one indelible moment from my past and get the taste of it, the sound of it, the feel of it in my body? That is, using only the senses to tell me all about it.