Yes, you are the saying the same thing Paul - you want to begin ‘in here’ because you have assumed that you know something about what is ‘out there’, when you haven’t even tried to look with your eyes and ears.
Okay - you don’t think I should use similes, to ask my question. Should I ask the question again (more simply - like : what do you mean)? It is to do with your claim about suffering.
Ok. Start the thread.
LightintheDark, you have come down hard on a few posters in this thread but have not commented since a few very sincere and wise posters have come forward and conversed some with Paul and pointed out similar things.
Where do you stand, how do you look at this, now that more has been seen, penetrated into, discussed, with sincere posters like James, Erik, Rick, Charley, and MacDoug?
Do you still think there is no blind spot in Paul and his approach is correct on this forum, how he is going about it?
You seem more interested in what others think than in what you think, David. Why is that? Isn’t your own thinking more in need of your curiosity and attention than the thinking of others?
Yes.
Edit: Inquiry, I thought we had a deal, I wont bother you about your business, and you wont bother me about my business. But you seem to have broken this unwritten rule.
I was letting Inquiry be Inquiry, even if that means he keeps talking about Paul, and you were supposed to let me be David, even if that means David asks questions about what others think…
Please stay out of my business now and I will do likewise for you!
I don’t see the quarrel with Paul. Just look at the bigger picture. A thread comes out about someone mimicking krishnamurti, which the author points the finger to, and because that is now set in peoples minds they go to the person in question. That’s group think, and Paul has already agreed with me on that. So, I’d like to ask a very important question. Wherever this conversation about Paul will drift, will the enquiry about it ever result in anything definitive or important? Or, is the question itself so meaningless that there is no point in trying to produce anything out of it? Which is, the questioning of Paul’s genuinity. The originality of what he says. If it is necessary then the only way to enquire into that is looking at the relevance of what Paul says when he responds. Because if he was just mimicking krishnamurti then he wouldn’t be able to apply any sort of real intelligence, would he? From what I’ve read, it’s utmost obvious to me that Paul isn’t mimicking and the name of the game in this thread is of accusatory nature. Probably because the author made the thread out of an accusation, don’t you think?
Thanks for sharing LightintheDark. We can agree to disagree on this. And feel free to believe I am being accusatory here. We will leave it at that. I have moved on awhile ago and am not commenting on Paul anymore, in case you havent noticed. Paul will be Paul, and David will be David.
You can say that because people suffer, have pain, are in conflict. You can see that and still we do not know why it is there. If it is so to speak natural or man-made? What makes it exist and if it is possible that it can end? If one does not take suffering for granted, one asks these question because I do not accept simply that we humans spend our life suffering.
The self is suffering.
1 Like
How could I have made an unwritten “deal” with you if every word we’ve exchanged is written and recorded?
What do you mean by “business”?
Yes, all sorts of things are assumed - that’s the danger.
I can’t put it any simpler.
Paul, can you set the record straight and clarify a few things for LightintheDark. I already explained everything earlier but he seems to have not read it carefully. If you dont want to, I totally understand and just skip, no problem.
But if you are willing, can you tell him that this thread was your idea. That I had no intention of starting this infantile thread as he calls it and it was solely your idea.
Can you tell him that you were a willing participant to this thread and was okay with making public this, saying you have spent 20 years inwardly watching yourself and you were happy to do this publically now.
Can you tell him I have not hurt you in any way or was disrespectful. And that we are still on good terms.
I am not making any claim. At most, it is a doubt. I doubt that the self has ever suffered a thing. Which sounds like a bizarre thing to say, but there it is. The self has never gone through a complete experience. It keeps stopping itself from changing. That is, as long as it remains attached to any idea or belief, it will assimilate everything it encounters through this filter of ideas. This assimilation is what the self takes for experience and suffering. But psychological pain can’t be assimilated, explained away, rationalised, at any level, without maintaining the false structure of the self which will then continue on into tomorrow. To suffer any psychological pain really means the ending of the self. But we don’t suffer it; we don’t allow it in and really get to know it; instead we quickly act upon it and therefore keep alive the belief that we are separate from the world that causes us all this pain.
Why not? I don’t know what your “business” is, but if you think you know what mine is, please tell us.
Yes, I am sure we on the same page here, maybe just a line or two apart.
Have you seen what I wrote to Doug above? Does it make any sense to you?
Yes, of course, everything you say is quite correct.
I assume Lightinthedark is called Jake - I much prefer proper names, don’t you? There are some lovely names already; I wonder why we choose other names. I used to be known as Paul D before this, and also I used the name Tom many years ago, and just Mr D before that, I think. It was a long time ago.
This is the statement that I would like to inquire into. What makes you think it is so?
Please ignore this further stuff if it inteferes with your ability to answer the question above : Are you merely saying that all pain ends eventually (even when left alone) or that the continuation of pain, the non-reaction to pain, has a liberating effect on the psyche?
Actually, to be totally honest, my claim is thus : Not caring about my pain, is the ending of my pain.
To suffer the entirety of psychological pain the self must be entirely absent. Otherwise, it is merely about the self playing out a range of its own possible scenarios. It is stopping the pain in its tracks, either pushing it away or distorting it into something more palatable, not realising that by doing this it is stopping its own transformation and keeping itself caught in a very limited field of experience. For the self is the pain; and the pain is the self - so they can’t ever be split in two except as an idea. Once they split off in this way, thought fills the gap between the two with a lot more ideas.
We are talking of psychological pain, however small or however large; it is all the same pain, just different by degrees. It is very interesting to play with this.