Hello Dan,
I think you’ve summed this up very well. In the moment that our self-images feel threatened, there is definitely an opportunity for awareness to see ourselves reacting. Does this make sense to you?
Absolutely! The ‘self images ‘ are a protection against getting hurt psychologically, aren’t they? They try to avoid the pain of being hurt, the ‘deflation ‘ and seek the ‘security ‘ of flattery. So yes the key is to be as attentive as possible in those moments in relationships when the self image arises. Because the only real peace can be when as K points out, “attention “ in the moment, the “fire of it” burns up the possibility of being hurt, ever…not a theory, you can test the truth of it!
I think this is very significant Dan and there is something here that lies at the heart of K’s teachings - when there is great attention in the moment of something occuring (in this case when the self-image arises), that attention/awareness brings about a change. As you say, we can all test the truth of this. Is this how you see things?
The default mode network of the brain is responsible for the illusion of self, and though it is the default mode, it is not the only mode of consciousness. The more aware we are and attentive to this mode and its function, the more clearly we see that its primary purpose is to secure and advance our social status and self-esteem.
There are things we can do to escape this mode of consciousness and bring temporary relief, but only by observing its operation can we be free of its authority.
Yes. If there is a ‘self’ image there, it will be hurt or have a reaction when it feels a threat or is ‘belittled’. Like: “You are stupid!”…Is it only full attention in that moment that can ‘bypass’ the reaction by revealing the presence (resistance?) of the self-image?
When a conditioned response arises, see it for what it is and watch it wilt
And never be hurt again as K. put it!
Can that be taught to a child?
No, you’ll be hurt again and again until you realize what you’re doing. There’s no magical solution. It’s a matter of waking up, and that can be a long, slow, incremental process.
Taking ‘time’ to “awaken”?. Isn’t that a ploy of the self? Giving ‘attention’ in the moment is not a matter of ‘time’, is it?
When the world was discovered to be round you didn’t have to approach that knowledge slowly, incrementally…similarly after the light bulb was invented you only had to flip a switch…why ‘continue ‘ to be hurt, to suffer?
No. Conditioning takes time to take hold. It involves a lot of repetition that results in reflexive reaction that occurs automatically. But when we turn attention to our reactions, observe our responses to stimuli, we are more aware of how conditioned we are, and of which responses are self-serving rather than rational.
This dawning realization is gradual. It can’t happen in a flash of insight that changes everything instantaneously because it’s learning about the self, self-knowledge, and learning isn’t magical or dramatic. It’s an arduous process involving patience and delayed gratification; a labor of love.
At some point in this process there may be a tipping point, a crisis, a breakthrough which seems to have come out of the blue, but in fact is just the culmination of patient, persistent inquiry for its own sake - not for reward.
And to come upon this energy, we have to understand inertia understand not how to come by this energy, but understand the inertia which is so latent in all of us. I mean by inertia `without the inherent power to act’ - inherent in itself. There is, as one observes, within oneself a whole area of deep inertia. I do not mean indolence, laziness, which is quite a different thing. You can be physically lazy, but you may not be inert. You may be tired, lazy, unwilling - that is entirely different. You can whip yourself into action, force yourself not to be lazy, not to be indolent. You can discipline yourself to get up early, to do certain things regularly, to follow certain practices and so on. But that is not what we are talking about. That can be easily dealt with and understood; we can come back to it a little later, if time allows.
What we are concerned with is this inertia which is so inherent in all of us, which very few of us come upon and actually do something about. We know what to do about laziness, we know what to do about a mind that is dull. You can sharpen it, polish it, freely discuss it; but that is not what we are talking about. We want to go into this question of inertia, which is without the power to act, which is so inherent in all of us, deep down. This inertia is essentially the result of time. This inertia is the result of accumulation. And what is accumulated is time. One needs time not only to gather information, knowledge, experience, but also to act according to that experience, knowledge, information.
Yes, self-knowledge is not accumulation, but an understanding of how the acquisitive mind accumulates and brings about inertia.
Interestingly, in this excerpt, K went on to say, "Please don’t say, “How am I not to accumulate?” When you say, “How am I not to accumulate?”, you are again accumulating inevitably.
After talking about “the right question” in a previous Quote of the Day, K gives an example of the wrong question.
K: if one realizes that all thinking, at whatever level, is conditioned then we will see that thinking is not the means of breaking through this limitation, - which does not mean that we must go into some blank or speculative silence.
There’s the rub.
Indeed…
Time is a factor in the accumulation of our “inertia”, our consciousness. Time or ‘method’ can’t be a factor in psychologically dying to it…any process using time only adds to it. ‘Life’, living is a movement without accumulation, outside of time. Living / Dying to, is the same movement. It is ‘freedom’.
K. “The look of love is different from the look of thought. The one leads in a direction where thought cannot follow, and the other leads to separation, conflict, and sorrow. From this sorrow, you cannot go to the other. The distance between the two is made by thought, and thought cannot by any stride reach the other.” (The Only Revolution)
This is what a koan does. When the rational mind realizes it cannot penetrate or elucidate what it is faced with, it turns away from the impasse, or remains with it.
When the mind hits the wall, so to speak, it attends to the wall, or it turns back to its usual gratifications.
Liberation in neither this nor that - but possibly in seeing the entity imagining and wanting this and that?
Now, is that mind aware of what it is doing and why in both cases, only in one, or neither in one nor in the other? … What do you (anyone) think?
Remaining with the impasse is unusual, and the mind is aware of what it is doing. Turning away from it, back to its usual mode of operation is what most minds do, and without giving it a thought.
The average mind doesn’t like being at a loss, stumped, etc., because it overestimates its ability and is in denial. This condition is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.
**Does a ‘mind’ have ‘likes’? Is the mind an ‘entity’ with likes and dislikes? Where are you ‘seeing’ the mind ‘not like’? This psychological thought appears to imply an observer, ‘who doesn’t like’, separate from the observed. Does a mind ‘overestimate’? Or, does its movement simply reflect the content of thought patterns?