Is the “error” the unwitting creation of a self-image that would have to be constantly added to and subtracted from, as it went out into a competitive society /world and tried to make its way and become more and more…?

Thank you, danmcderm, for asking. Today’s JK quote on reads: “And it is only that truth that liberates, and nothing else. That is why you must stand completely alone.” Therefore, if my saying that the error is the creation of a self-image does not liberate me, then what I am saying is not true for me, it is someone else’s truth. My understanding is that the error precedes the creation of the self, or that the self is a consequence of the error, or that the error is the truth that I deny. You may approach the error differently, but regardless of how you approach it the approach must be your own.

Are you afraid that if you describe the “error” that you will lose something?

When we talk (write) here, are we primarily talking to ourselves, or others?

Are there others? Is there a self?

When there are no others, no self, whom are we talking to?

Why are we talking? What is our deepest, most hidden and ulterior motive for talking here?

What do you mean by, “unconcerned of any conditioning with regards to anyone is to be unconditioned”? It makes no sense to me.

We’re always talking to ourselves and others most likely to identify with what we’re always telling ourselves.

Are there others? Is there a self?

The self, like ghosts and gods, is real for believers only.

When there are no others, no self, whom are we talking to?

When one is beyond belief, one is talking to believers.

Why are we talking? What is our deepest, most hidden and ulterior motive for talking here?

It’s revealed whenever I speak, so if I can’t hear it, it’s because I’m more interested in repeating myself than in finding out what I believe.

Say we are always talking to ourselves and others. That means in any conversation, there are 4 images present: my image-ined sense of me and of you, your image-ined sense of you and of me.

Imagined entities are not agents that can do things like talk, right? So in the ‘meeting’ of 4 imagined entities, who-what is really doing the talking? The conditioned minds? The habitual and reflexive patterns stored in the conditioned mind and activated by present moment triggers? That sounds like what happens when AIs ‘speak together’! Are we as rigidly trained as AIs?

The talking is attributed to imagined entities by the talker: psychological conditioning.

Are we as rigidly trained as AIs?

So it seems…

Trigger, response. Trigger, response. Ding, dong. Ding, dong. Dong, ding. (Salivate!)

What is driving me to type these words? What does it want? Is it getting it?

Thank you for asking, Dan, but it seems to me that such a description is not necessary, it will help no one, it will only add to the bias, to the distortion and the confusion, and can be cause for a misunderstanding. So, I ask myself, what could possibly justify this question?

Thank you, Inquiry, for asking. Leaving aside technical knowledge as conditioning, what I meant was that to have no relationship to conditioning of any form, in relation to anyone, is to be unconditioned.

Manuel why present us with a parable of ‘The Bookkeeper and his Error’ and not explain what the ‘error’ was? Are we supposed to guess what you’re getting at? Perhaps you remember the confusion of Monty Python when they listened to Christ’s parables at the Sermon on the Mount and heard: “Blessed are the Cheesemakers”? :innocent:

1 Like

Thank you, Dan, for insisting. I do not know Monty Python, but in your reference to such character you have hinted at the error yourself, which I describe as taking things for what they are not, to allow oneself to be deceived by appearances, by perception, and then to act based on the deception. I take it that this is the fundamental error into which every human being falls upon awakening into consciousness for the first time very early in life, perhaps the origin of the crisis in the consciousness of every human being that JK spoke about. I do not know if you remember this happening to you.

1 Like

Is this more helpful, or less helpful than what was actually said?
Is the problem (or curse) of proper explanations in the words used or the motivations and conclusions of those listening?

In truth I say verily to one and all : blessed are the cheesemakers.

Thank you Manuel for your explanation.

‘Monty Python’ was the name of a very successful British comedy group. The scene I mentioned was from one of their films: The Life of Brian.

The life of Brian - which was definitely an important milestone in my own personal development.

Thank you, macdougdoug, for this response.

How essentially similar/different are these: 1) an individual who sees their own well-being as top priority, and 2) individual who sees their group’s well-being (family’s, organization’s, nation’s) as top priority? Are group needs merely an extension of individual members’ needs?

Yes. needs relate to the central needer.

You are saying you see deep care for the well-being of yourself as essentially the same as care for the well-being of a group you feel part of: your family, friends, France, Europe, Earth, life?

1 Like