K speaks about "Observing without the “me” here
Any reflections after reading this anyone?.
K identifies the problem as : contradiction, war, hatred and sorrow. So at least the problem has been identified.
He goes on to say that the key is Freedom. Because in order to see clearly we cannot be influenced by prejudice, or fear/desire.
The main difficulty is that we are conditioned (deeply/subconsciously) - and that what we see is just the projection of the past. (observer is the observed)
So there you go - I think that most of us have grasped this intellectually
I have the same question as I put before. In actuality, in actual practice, what is the change (from this condition)? Not what is the problem; what is it I am not addressing?
The realisation that the condition is of my making - I am the movement of contradiction, war and sorrow.
The realisation that anything I do can only lead to more contradiction, war and sorrow.
This is surrender.
Once I see that the cage, the prisoner, and the green pastures outside the cage, is all me - I see the futility of my struggle.
1 Like
Perhaps, but it’s an expanding loop. The more we question, the more we find out, and if our findings are falsifiable, not misleading or delusory, we’re deepening and widening our understanding. Anyway, what’s the alternative? If a question arises should one ignore it because the intellectual exercise of questioning and answering is “an unending loop”?
Elaboration is thought. Ignoring thought is thought. Sidestepping thought is thought. Thought is the basis of human experience. Experience is virtual – the mystery that is existence is not.
1 Like
We all hope for a happy ending…
This statement stands logically - If there is no happy ending, this must be due to the difficulty in seeing that my vision of reality (and the problems that I have) is completely and utterly subjective and self centred.
Or that there is a lack of understanding as to why such a vision is necessarily delusional, and cause for conflict and suffering.
Is there a surrender-er? One who sees the “futility “ of doing anything? Doesn’t this view still maintain a duality between a ‘me’ and ‘my’ situation which in this case an ‘I’ is surrendering to? Always some part that imagines itself not conditioned?
No.
How so? What supports your hypothesis?
nb. Me and my situation are the same (one is the projection of the other) - one reflection is not surrendering to another - by seeing the whole, conflict is no more.
Does it matter? Why?
Yes and No - An angry mob, who suddenly sees that its adversary is actually a reflecton in a mirror, and realises that neither shooting at the reflection nor commiting suicide will result in victory over the enemy - in that instant, by seeing/realising that fact, the angry mob is no more.
The problem may be with the word surrender, if there is no longer an angry mob, have they surrendered? Who is surrendering?
If you catch a ball that is flying through the air, at that instant, is it really flying through the air?
When I stand up, what happens to my lap? etc…
For whom or what is the seeing difficult? Can the “completely and utterly subjective and self centred” system of distortion that is operating see what it is doing by overcoming the difficulty of doing so? Or does the seeing occur for no apparent reason and with such devastating effect that there is nothing left of that which was making it difficult?
Yes. If you’re seeing that you are the problem and the shock of that realization brings an end to you, there is no one to surrender or surrender to - the seeing is the doing. You are done.
Readers of K might also be confused by comparing the word surrender to something like what is mentioned in today’s quote : “Renunciation to gain an end is barter; in it there is no giving up, but only exchange”
Obviously, trying to surrender in order to obtain something is not surrender.
Giving up cake in order to lose weight is dieting, not surrender.
For me. For the me to see the me might be akin to the eye seeing itself; the camera filming itself.
2 possibilities :
-
there is the seeing of the self through its effects. What it believes, how it acts - what we sometimes call : its relationship to the world.
-
the self and the brain might not be synonymous - so the question is : can we access a form of intelligence not based on fear? (aka anger, hatred, desire)
Jesus came to forgive us by dying on the cross. By dying, obviously he’s no longer judging us to be bad people, he’s dead.
But by no longer existing as an agent (he’s dead) - can he be said to be forgiving us?
Or is Psychological death necessary (no longer identifying with this center, no longer being a separate entity in conflict with what is) for there to be forgiveness?
This way of looking at it is probably wrong in the normal sense of forgiveness - forgiveness usually means : I’m so wonderful, that you no longer hurt me.
If by “we” you mean brains that hold beliefs/conclusions, consciously or unconsciously, the answer is No because beliefs/conclusions are limits.
forgiveness usually means : I’m so wonderful, that you no longer hurt me.
That may be what it means to you, but in common usage it means ceasing to hold someone liable for what they did or for what they owe you.
You forgive someone who has “trespassed against” you because you take a more comprehensive view of what happened. For example, you forgive a debt because, due to unforseeable circumstances, the borrower can’t pay it back, and punishing them would be compounding their misfortune.
Are we able to learn new things? To change our opinions? To think outside the box?
If so, maybe our limits can be crossed?
Are we able to feel the evening breeze, listen to the world in movement, without analysing it to death? without needing the sensation or sound to last forever nor cease immediately?
If there are even tiny moments where there is no knowing, no naming, no separation, no judgement; this means that there are moments when the gate is open, when there is no limit.
Are you always here? Has someone ever called your name - and upon hearing the call, you appear out of nowhere?
And when I appear, and I again know what’s what - am I necessarily considered the ultimate authority over what’s what? Do I always regain my power as the ultimate judge and dictator of truth?
Is it that there is an acceptance or belief that my ‘ordinary’, usual reality is real and not a type of dreaming? In sleep with dreams, there is an acceptance, belief that what is taking place is actually taking place…it isn’t. And we see that is so upon awakening; it is only imagery. Now is something similar taking place in this ‘waking’ state of consciousness. The illusory reality of the dream state ‘traps’ one and one only escapes it upon awakening. In the same way that I can’t realize the dream landscape isn’t ‘real’, I can’t realize that this ‘self’ reality is limited, subjective, illusory, etc though in a different way than the sleeping dream state. I think K and others are pointing at this further ‘awakening ‘ as a possibility for us as well as necessary. ‘Self knowledge’ it is suggested , is the only way open to us.
By asserting, concluding, affirming, reassuring, etc., the mind establishes its limits. But the closer it examines its certainties, the more it realizes how much of its knowledge is just presumption, and how arbitrary its limits are.
There’s no need to “cross” these limits because the mind has drawn them and can erase them upon seeing how hastily or emotionally they were drawn.
Do I always regain my power as the ultimate judge and dictator of truth?
If you can believe you are “the ultimate judge and dictator of truth” you’ll continue with that belief until you realize you are no more than what you care to learn about what you are.
If you’re more concerned with “the change” than interested in what you are, there can be no change from what you are.
As usual the point of inquiry is missed, and only some little incriminating thing is picked on, not allowing people to use the dialogue. This is unfortunately a quite common approach.
4 Likes