Only when we meet actually what I am - conditioned/not - we can inquire and see everything as a whole.
For me personally, I see that ‘sexual desire’ is the first and most important urge which involves both senses and thoughts - and present there in every living being which sexually reproduce.
Before thousands of years, more than physical need (like food,cloth,shelter) - the only desire we had was ‘to be attracted to the opposite gender’. This for me is actually what-is.
So, shall we inquire about that? (@James - Hi. We may start the inquiry here)
One may also bring what they see actually ‘what-is’ and we may inquire/discuss that too.
The mind cannot empty itself - but can place knowledge in it’s right place and free itself from it.
“Freedom from the known” by K - runs for around 100 pages.
But
“Freedom from the known” in my view/experience/realization (as an essence of K’s),
Look around - Look the ‘me’/past - Look the ‘ignorance’ - as a whole without differentiating Observer and Observed, then there is awareness whenever ‘me’ arises.
(Why not differentiating is - if one ‘me’ sees another ‘me’ - immediately it acts upon it).
That’s it. Make it Simple as Everything is Simple as such. Only one can point the door - but describing the door or the room is “useless” and a “distraction”
Well, what I speak of is that which gives rise to the “I.” The “more-to-it” is prior to the desire that issues from the “I.” Therefore, I don’t thing it is quite accurate to speak of it as desire.
It is a ‘desire/urge/whatever’ for return - that’s not the matter. But it is Not a Desire for future perfection. See there is nothing materially/psychologically called perfection.
What’s your view in “future perfected?”
Yes “Making the ground empty by ending the ‘I’” - but the ‘I’ like a worm keeps on growing in that empty ground - so ‘the other’ is forgotten in that worm - if we are not aware in that emptiness. If we are not aware every second - then again falling to that longing/desire/pleasure/suffer.
What do you mean by “(and with it, the excess of return).”?
Oh, but that is the matter. It precedes “you/I” and the “interference” it introduces. I repeat, it precedes “I.” I could probably say it a thousand times and think of all kinds of cool and interesting ways to say “it precedes you.” But, who cares? I don’t think you do. You demand a literal and formalized way of reading “K” at the expense of your own intuition and that’s a tragedy.
The “more.”
“Ending,” might just be a manner of speech.
Yes. There you go. You’re entering the way of “the Phil.” hahahhaa.
Seriously though, I think you’re on to something there.
Shock and desire are but the continuation of what you call “awareness.”
Could you show me the reply/post Number - where I had said this statement/words?
Edit - If you want to ‘play’ with me - I’m ready for it. You are like a child/parent - I’m very compassionate to show you. But what will you get in this “cheap play”?
May be for you. It’s upto you. But totally for me - when there is serious looking - there is ending.
Yes. It precedes. I could understand it. Absolutely right. That is not ‘I’. That ‘preceding thing’ is in every living being and so from ‘the other’ every creation happens. But when it comes into action - if there is no awareness of ‘Limitations’ - then circus continues.
I don’t say “who cares?”. I don’t want to use a ‘word’ for that. That feeling of ‘longing(word)’ is the only thing separates from ‘the other’. Every time it is there. But when we look - it disappears. Not theorytically/parroting K’s words - It actually happens
And so - in my replies - I say “when ‘I’ arises” - this is only because of ‘longing(word)’. If no awareness - that longing creates ‘I’. Gets Caught in limits/pleasure/sufferings/etc…
This “Ending of ‘I’ or choiceless awareness” is not ‘enlightenment’.
Enlightenment(word) is something - where there will be no “longing(word)” present and so No ‘I’ arises ever. The “Death of longing(word)”. The “thoughts” never arises (even for technical/work).
Not at all a tragedy. Intuition(edited)/whatever - it’s open to question/inquiry. But I could feel “being out from Ignorance”.
If the brain becomes totally empty of thought - will anyone think about Shiva, Sakthi or Satan? Not at all.
To live in thought, and believe in the creations of thought - as religions do - is to live in illusion. Illusions are only necessary for those who have not yet seen that they are nothing but illusions.
Everything is Illusion - including Materiality. If you see the Illusion is limited - the Illusion ends. And whatever you see - the world,materiality,K,Buddha,war,religions,scriptures,Viswa,James,Mountains,sees,Languages,Philosophies,Satan,Shiva,Trump,Biden,Modi,Borris Johnson,Hassan Rouhani,Xi Jinping,Kim Jong-Un,etc… - is all beauty of the Almighty.
It is not thinking about that - but feeling the Beauty as “How Unimaginable Your power in creating Illusions”
Illusion is also the belief in one’s own beliefs. We project god and truth out of our thinking - which is based on tradition, or on our own limited pretensions to “religious experience” - and yet believe that it is not just our thinking, but really something true.
All this is illusion. But the fact that a person is living in an illusion is an actuality. They merely use their illusions to cover up this fact - deepening the illusion still further.
See, then could you say how this atom/universe is created?
Science shows that - as a “Centre from which everything arises” in the below image - which is similar to creation of Universe in Scriptures. Brahma (creater of these materials) will die one day and merge with “truth” and again New Brahma (creater) is born and it goes on endlessly. The Same is said in “Big Bounce” theory. Like how we Inhale and Exhale - there is everything in Materiality similar to Psychic - which all limited and Born from truth.
If those are real - then why not inquire the total scriptures?
If you say - don’t trust Science - then how they say about energy etc… are real experiences we feel?
Many Scientists say that “Space Time is Limited” and many thing is Interconnected including Bohm. If there is Limited - and expanding from where this limitedness originates? - do you have any answer for that James?
