Tell me more.
Hi.
First, I share something about what humans do - which is related in this seeing. You may also skip this if you see it’s not necessary / you know this already.
This ‘thought’ after meeting ‘what-is’ - continues to project ‘what should be’, makes this as a goal - and compares the ‘what-is’ with ‘what should be’ and tries to merge/align/change/push this ‘what-is’ equal/near to ‘what-should-be’ by means of struggle/hard work.
Here why this thought does this is - it believes that in ‘what-should be’ there is immense pleasure awaiting. There is two possibilities in this - success/failure. If it succeeds, it enjoys this pleasure for a period and getting bored with it - and projects another ‘what-should be’. If it fails, there is sufferings - and projects another ‘what-should be’.
So, this goes on till this body dies - never ending - and society accepts this as a rule - and so every human fails to see/feel the beauty of ‘living’ every second.
In our life, whatever the situation is - while we are facing the ‘what-is’ - we somehow fail to ‘see’ it - but scrutinize it with knowledge in form of ‘thoughts’ which is past. This is nature. We cannot get rid of it. We know that. And also this ‘thought’ every time continues to make ‘what should be’ (it may be an idea/belief/image) when it meets the present.
So we cannot throw it away and as we cannot - it plays in the field and destroys the field. So only if it is in a right place - it could not affect our living.
But there is no way to put it in a right place - and there is no ‘other (like awareness)’ is going to act upon it - if it so, it means there is another being acts on this ‘thoughts’. But it cannot be.
So only if the thoughts aware of it’s effects choice-lessly - it calms down - like the thief comes to know how his activity affects everyone and immediately turns around.
And so, the ‘thoughts’ while meeting the present - it becomes aware that “Whatever it projects as ‘what-should-be’ is gonna be limited” and so it ends/dies immediately. It raises again - but dies again and so death every moment.
Did you ever consider if it’s even possible that the past meet the present?
wouldn’t it be even so that the past is disturbing the present ?
Isn’t it as such that: “Only the present can be aware of the past!” and in being that present the past dies!
P.S.: The living never meets the the dead !!
Hi there.
If we say ‘present’ can be aware of ‘past’ we are differentiating the two things and say one acts on another.
But, it’s not so. The past aware of ‘itself’ it’s position when it meets the present.
This’ dead’ comes into life every moment and tries to act upon the ‘living’ by showing “this is the way” but one doesn’t aware that ‘it shows the way only to graveyard’. This the circus we are living in.
And the living cannot be aware of dead - only the dead when it meets the living - can be aware of it’s place as the graveyard and goes there and sleeps
Appreciate the response. Do us a favor, when you are quoting K attribute it to him. Avoid giving the impression these are your words. Please give the citation for “Can the past meet the present and end there?”. He has asked the question in one of talks. I will wait for your citation.
These statements are descriptions of what happens during mediation, not a conclusion arrived by analytical discourse. But we will chat more after you post the citation.
Sorry for the delayed response.
I could find only this following citation - I couldn’t find the full thread and other related talks.
But can the ‘past’ meet the ‘present’ and die/end/stop there?
Hi Viswa,
The question of the’ Past’ meeting the ‘Present’ and die…does not arise for the mind that is alert and aware from moment to moment as that mind has not carried the baggage of the’ past’ till the 'present.
It looks at the ‘present’ anew because that mind lives in the present moment! The past it self died the moment it dealt with that event.
Hi there.
So is this an idea? - or a knowledge from K’s teachings? - or you see/feel it as a fact and live as such?
Can the past meet the presence and die there?
Hello Viswa, I’d say if you remember a problematic situation or relationship you weren’t able to cope with in the past and this situation comes to your mind many years later and you suddenly understand what was happening then the problem is solved so it doesn’t hunt you anymore.
Hi Utes. I have a question here, May I pose it?
Can any relationship problems (i.e. Conflict - Pain,sufferings), and not technical - can be permanently solved with solutions?
If you are saying it is not a solution - but understanding the sufferings - can you show a situation you say so?
I recall a birthday party, the family was invited for lunch in a restaurant for my uncle 's birthday. All my life I was having problems to breath when I had to eat quickly. So I hadn’t finished the main dish while everyone else was already having dessert. My mother looked at me, annoyed. She asked me: Do you remember, we were on a holiday when you were three years old, father wanted to go sightseeing and you were a little ill and not hungry. I wanted to feed you, because we would drive around the whole day, and you refused to eat like often, so I stuffed the food in your mouth.
Actually I had no remembrance of that holiday, but I suddenly understood my problems with getting enough air while eating, and I understood, in which situation she had been then.
This understanding solved the distress with breathing while eating.
Yes - but this is technical understanding (i.e. medical cure for body) - isn’t it?
We can understand the pain of our parents/wife/children/friends - but why in the same way we couldn’t understand all human’s?
Is this understanding comes from ‘attachment’? If yes, does ‘actual relationship’ springs from ‘attachments’?
"Yes - but this is technical understanding (i.e. medical cure for body) - isn’t it?
What is technical understanding to you? I don´t think this has anything to do with a technical or practical application.
" We can understand the pain of our parents/wife/children/friends - but why in the same way we couldn’t understand all human’s?"
Understanding pain makes no difference between humans - it makes no difference whose pain you understand.
1 Like
Whaaaaatt :)? Is this a fact?
This is the kind of “breakthrough” that therapists try to bring their patients to.
Reviewing one’s past is crucial to understanding one’s behavior, but the events we need to recall are suppressed and unavailable because they were so traumatic at the time. Now, they’re just memories we can let go of…if we can unearth them.
1 Like
As I said, feeling this urge can be a way of justifying yourself, i.e., “As long as I am searching for the truth, I’m an innocent, noble human being”. But if the urge is not self-serving, the truth is always now.
Hi @Inquiry
this real urge is present inside everyone including K,Buddha,etc… No one can deny this. But as a conditioned one, we are caught in this ‘self’ - and so we couldn’t feel that urge. (Here i used ‘we’ to represent general human behaviour - not implies ‘you’ and ‘me’ 
)
I’m not coming here to justify myself - but to learn/inquire together everyone’s observations.
The urge is surely self-serving brother. It served all - who have been serious, we can refer the history.
So, how you say that truth is now?- because of knowledge from K’s words (or) you too have that urge and can feel that truth?
Do you want me to quote/cite what K said about this “real urge”?
Thanks.
Hi, I hereby express a situation and I request you to provide your suggestions for two questions I raised at the end.
Situation
Say,
Mr. X & wife - have a beautiful child. Due to illness, Mr.X’s wife dead when their daughter was a year old. Mr. X is also a good-named Policeman. Now he preserves her daughter - love her to the core - raise her like a princess - not let any kind of pain reach her, as such.
After her daughter grown up (say her name is Miss. Y) - she falls in love with Mr. Z. Her father came to know this, and starts to inquire Mr. Z’s character. In his investigation, he came to know that Mr. Z, who has a political background, is already married and he is also using Ms. Y as a ‘toy’, which her daughter is not aware of. When Mr. X came to know about this - sudden uncontrolled anger raised up - he came to the place where Ms.Y and Mr. Z was, and shot him dead with his licensed gun, as legal proceedings won’t affect Mr. Z as he has political background and ‘money’. This is not a murder logically but an emotional accident - because of the love for his daughter.
Now, Mr.Z’s wife came to know about this - and filed a plea against Mr. X in the Hon’ble Supreme court, as she has two innocent children to take care of and Ms. Y could understand the pain of Z’s wife & children. But on hearing this plea, Mr. X approached a humble lawyer - and stated the situation - and the lawyer also agrees to ‘frame a story’ - as legally, this situation may lead to a death sentence. Ms. Y also accepts this ‘story’ as she could understand the pain of her father.
Now, Ms. Y is summoned by the Hon’ble Justice - to provide her witness statement.
So, from this I raise two questions,
-
What will you suggest to Ms. Y to say to the Hon’ble justice?
-
Why there arises uncontrollable anger for Mr. X - in terms of K’s language?
Hello Viswa,
I don’t know if I really get this story. I would say that it is wrong to shoot others when there is no acute physical threat to life and one just thinks someone is misbehaving or does not meet the moral standards (2), and the death penalty is also wrong.
Hi,
This is the culture/society were I’m living. This is more a fact. But death penalty is not there - but life time imprisonment is there.
If the law provides for death penalty(or life time prison), what’s your answer for those two questions?
-
What will you say to Ms.Y? - To save her father as she has much love for him (or) to provide justice to Mrs. Z?
-
In K’s language, how this anger arises - is this because of attachment?