Can we see why we wouldn’t want to be caught up in action or thought based on judgement?
I think there is a time and place for acting/thinking based on judgment. Some situations call for it. And I don’t mean only practical situations, but psychological too. For example, if I judge a person to be abusive, my acting/thinking will accommodate itself to that state. Hopefully not swept away by the state, but definitely reacting to it.
Both your examples sound practical to me ~ we are confused by our kinfonet conditioning methinks.
Anyway, me wanting the beneficial good spiritual stuff, and wondering why I cant get it is just business as usual, no?
Can we see when we are reacting uselessly detrimentally to some arguably reasonable narrative ? Like the ones youve suggested above.
If this is true, how would we know? It could be absolutist, authoritarian claptrap, and we wouldn’t/couldn’t know. But we hunger for this kind of clarity/claptrap.
I don’t see how there can be action without judgement. Judgement per se, is not the problem. It’s poor judgment that makes judgment look bad.
If one is living with things as they actually are, one can do no wrong because one is not choosing or deciding what’s happening…one is living it.
1 Like
Maybe I’m blinded by my own biases - but everything in this 5 line strophe seems easily demonstrable (as obviously correct) - are you seeing this not to be the case?
How do we determine whether we have made a good or bad judgement (how to judge our judgement?)?
1 Like
Line 1: Only someone with no preferences can verify this statement. Are you someone with no preferences?
Line 2: I don’t claim to know what love is, and since hate is everywhere all the time, I’ve never known when they are both absent.
Line 3: Don’t know what he means.
Line 4: Can you “hold no opinions”?
Line 5: I can’t argue with that.
How do we determine whether we have made a good or bad judgement (how to judge our judgement?)?
All’s well that ends well.
I think that this line relates to a discussion with K/Bohm about man not blossoming and coming to the wall in oneself which I called the ‘edge’. Even when ‘up against it’, the slightest wish to go beyond it keeps it intact…which here is called “distinction”? It’s about freedom from the known and “not minding what happens”?
Cont.
And what ‘blossoming’ requires?
An important point, but I don’t see how you got there from that one line. The line simply says that distinction is separation - and that it is we that make the distinction - so implies that conflict is part of the the observer or arises from the point of view.
What it requires has not been written in stone.
In Mahayana buddhism they say samsara is nirvana, which again implies that our experience is dependant on our projections rather than whats actually going on.
When we are asked whether it is possible to see the whole movement of self, I think that this wall, where we can neither go forward nor escape backwards, is essential for insight.
Insight arises from the known being at a complete loss. Which starts with sincere inquiry.
This is a poetic way of pointing out the difference between the ‘personal reality’ which is ‘distinction’ Itself and ‘’actual’ reality’. The personal reality is the ‘known’ with the ‘I’ at the center judging, labeling, comparing, ‘distinguishing’, etc. In actual reality, the field of ‘energy’, there is no ‘I’ and no ‘separation’?
“Distinction” and “separation” are not synonymous.
When we are asked whether it is possible to see the whole movement of self, I think that this wall, where we can neither go forward nor escape backwards, is essential for insight.
The movement of self (I, me, mine) can see its reflection in a mirror, hear its voice in a recording, watch itself in a video, but that is not the whole of it, not the “seeing” that is “the doing”.
“The whole movement of self” cannot be seen for what it actually is until/unless the seeing is beyond, outside of that movement. This is the catch 22 of K’s teaching: the brain doesn’t know what it’s doing until it’s done or undone.
Maybe the human brain’s wrong turn involved “getting too big for its britches” by evolving abilities far in excess of what it needs to find lasting peace and happiness.
Our brains are a blessing and a curse. They’ve given rise to our greatest achievements and worst horrors. Why not just eliminate the curse and bask in the blessing? Well, yeah, sure, that would be groovey, but, alas, many of the same features underlie both:
-
The brain’s ability to imagine enables us to contemplate our own mortality and worry about the future, which can leave us wallowing in existential anxiety/angst.
-
The brain’s ability to empathize leaves us vulnerable to the suffering of others, leading to sadness, despair, and helplessness.
-
The brain’s ability to think abstractly can lead to feelings of disillusionment and despair as we contemplate the absurdity and meaninglessness of existence.
-
The brain’s love of complexity can discourage us from trusting simplicity.
-
The brain’s love of IN-PUT can discourage us from enjoying stillness.
The brain is like Pandora’s Box.
1 Like
Most Western neuroscientists and some philosophers believe that awareness and awareness-of-awareness are parallel processes, i.e. run simultaneously. That would mean you can be aware of birds singing and at the same time be aware that you are being aware of the birds. Buddhists believe otoh that awareness is serial, non-simultaneous: I hear birds singing, then I am aware I hear birds singing, then I hear birds, then I am aware I hear birds, usw.
Poor Buddhists…don’t they know that nowhere is now here?
Is the quest to penetrate to the core essence of things a fool’s quest?
It is, if what you are IS the “core essence of things”?
If so, Einstein, Bohm, and others were fools.
But if you’re referring to the conditioned brain fathoming itself, its conflict, its compulsions, its confusion, how can that be foolish?
I guess I’m asking: Is there a core essence of things? If the answer is “No” is “There is no core essence of things” the core essence of things? Paradox ahoy! That’s why I said: fool’s quest. (Note: I’m quite fond of fools, especially creative ones.)
I don’t know anything about “the core essence of things”, or if there’s any such thing.