← Back to Kinfonet

Past meets the present

When the past (i.e. thoughts) meets the present (i.e. what is) and continues to create the future (i.e. what should be) - we can see that there is fear,pain,sufferings,etc…

We also see that we cannot get rid of thoughts - as it is nature. And there is no place for control.

But can the ‘past’ meet the ‘present’ and die/end/stop there?

That is, can the ‘thoughts’ be aware of itself when it meets ‘what is’ and die there?

Shall we discuss this by seeing a situation?

In the discussion - “Is it possible to live without fear?” - you may have seen the ‘snake bite’ situation - shall we discuss that in deep?

Once I went to a garden - a snake bites me. It is stored as a memory. When I go to the same garden again, ‘thought’(i.e.past) springs up and brings back the memory of “snake bite” and meets the ‘garden’ (present i.e. what is) and continues to create a future of “what if it happens again?” - and so there is fear.

But when thought meets this garden - can it be aware of itself that “However we are going to die in time (as time is limited) - why I have to be attached with this body?”. And when there is this awareness - thought of ‘snake bite’ dies - so there is no fear,sufferings follows and we ‘see’ the beauty of garden without any images.

One may also doubt about this awareness is within choice/choice-less - and so we can also see an example for this too.

When Signal turns red while we ride a bike - we stop the bike - right?. We stop this bike as we choose to ‘not go’?. Absolutely not. We stop because we are choice-lessly aware that “if we continue to drive - we will confuse other drivers and we will be penalized”.
So this choice-less awareness sees the effects of an action as it is without any image,belief,interest,law,etc… -. Like it sees that “thought arises in time which is limited”

So, coming to the point, can the “thought” be aware of itself when it meets “what is” and die there every moment it arises?

Why do you want thought to die? Why do we want to live without fear? Do we have these desires for freedom, wholeness, clarity, etc., because we are acutely aware of being fragmented, confused, incoherent, and clueless, or because we’ve made K’s teaching our basis for what-should-be?

1 Like

Hi Inquiry.

If you are frustrated of this whole circus going on in this world - i.e. aware that whatever we see is only limited and brings only sufferings at the end - then there only thing remains is - the real urge to find out the truth.

It is not a desire to find and hold on to the truth - but the real/actual search

1 Like

Hello @Viswa

Well said. It seems you are infected with the real urge to find out the truth.

Fortunately this contagion strikes only those with a mind and so is restricted to a very small fraction of humanity. This providential contagion does not infect those with ‘shoddy’ minds, an example of which is seen at post # 2 above, who live under the authority of their shoddiness and burning to impose it on others. Nor does it affect said thieves, who are ‘clueless’, therefore always on the lookout to ‘incoherently’ steal other’s ideas, words, & expressions to construct a basis for what they wanna-be.

1 Like

Harsh words, defensive and aggressive.

Looking for the truth is not so simple. The truth is hidden, disguised, distorted, by our beliefs, our reactions to our experience. Out of this comes what-should-be, what we want and don’t want.

We say we want the truth, but it isn’t true because we are guided by what-should-be instead of being open to the possibility that there is no guide. Thus, with what-should-be to guide us, we embark on our quixotic “search for truth”.

Yes. It’s not so simple until we stop running for ‘what should be’.

If we are totally serious, then it reveals itself without involving time.

I can see that you are being caught in ‘want’ and ‘what should be’. Humans are caught in this - it is nature. But If you are totally aware that there is disaster whatever the ‘want’ is - you will die to it instantly and start to find out “why this all happens?”

You can ‘observe’ the distortions,beliefs,wants,dont wants - right? Then in this observation why we are not aware of this circus?

And are you asking this all to have an intellectual debate (or) to test me with knowledge of K’s teachings (or) to inquire/learn together?

Note - The above questions I asked you for, is not to say/answer ‘what humans really do’ - but I am asking you personally to observe/inquire within about - “even after we see these beliefs,etc… - what makes us to continue with those and not be ‘aware’ of it? - what distorts one to observe?” and share those observations.

The experience of thought, is what constitutes self, I, myself, and this thought experience is taken to be the place for me to think, look, listen, speak and write. That is I am memory, tradition etc. and don’t look beyond that. I might want to rebel, be free, live an alternative life, but I am still working from the thought experience.

Hi Peter.

So we are working from the thought experience and so it is always distorted.

Knowledge is never complete, can never be complete. That is a fact, the scientists can explore not only the atom but also the universe, the stars, what is beyond the stars, but their knowledge is limited, they can never, never have complete knowledge of the universe, any more than a mathematician, or a biologist, or any kind of specialist’s knowledge must invariably be limited, which means, listen carefully, that knowledge always goes with ignorance. You follow my point? I wonder if you do. As knowledge can never be complete, it must always have the shadow of ignorance with it. And out of this knowledge springs thought. So thought is always limited. Right? Please come with me, move.
Bombay, India | 1st Public Talk, 16th January 1980

This is today’s excerpt - shall we discuss about this?

This thought is from knowledge - which is limited. It means we ‘see’ things with experience of thoughts which are from knowledge. So why we are ‘hold/attached to’ this knowledge even after we ‘see/observe’ that ‘it is limited’?

What we call knowledge, what we know, carries this force of arrogance.

Is my reply is arrogant? :sweat_smile:

1 Like

The word arrogance comes from the Latin, meaning to not ask. In this case I am saying knowing is not asking. I can have a method of asking, but not fundamentally be asking free from knowledge.

So it means, we should not ask, and just interact/share the facts about knowledge/thoughts and move on living with it?

Asking is free from knowing.

Yes Peter.

So I ask, why we are ‘hold/attached to’ this knowledge even after we ‘see/observe’ that ‘it is limited’?

The asker has to watch closely, carefully.

So this ‘asker’ includes ‘both Viswa and Peter’ or only ‘Viswa’?

I don’t know. (20 characters)

1 Like

@Viswa

Yours truly has said many times a laugh or a smile speaks volumes. This priceless post,

Will fall in that category.

What you are witnessing in the exchange above is a classic example of what happens to the human mind as it ages and is increasingly burdened with all kinds of knowledge/known. If not treated at the right time the mind apparently becomes neurotic and a fine example of such damage is seen in those who often resort to obfuscation when asked simple and direct questions. This kind of cunningness is the symptom of that aliment and among a myriad of things also point to the lack of a spine(metaphor).

Welcome! :slight_smile:

Edit: BTW i can’t remember where but K has spoken on how after a certain age it’s gets very difficult to be cured from such aliments because people are “too washed up”. I believe he gave a very generous number but it seems it’s close to 40 nowadays.

1 Like

So said K…

1 Like