Pointing out

So, love is the totall absence of ‘me’. Got it? If you have got it you have drunk at the fountain of life. ( Inward flowering brockwood park 1976)


This sounds reasonable and may be so but what is it that removes the ‘me’ from the picture? If the ‘me’ can’t remove itself, what does? If there is no ‘method’ that can be applied to remove the ‘me’ from blocking the way to the ‘fountain’, who or what does the removal?
And after so many people earnestly looking into this idea for so many years and the seeming rarity of its realization except in a few cases, is it just an anomaly of some brains?

Love is the absence of me.

But it is also the acceptance of me.

Freedom from the self seems to depend on 3 things :
seeing what the movement of self is all about (ie. motive via suffering)
seeing that all the me’s are just like me (ie. compassion)
refusal to do harm (ie. disgust or love)

Brains are the materialisation of mental habit - if one can be habituated to have faith in intelligence, one’s brain will have less fear of letting go of suffering.

1 Like

Is “love” sthg for the few amongst us? For the chosen ones? Can that be love? Love that makes a distinction ? Surely, this cannot be love, can it?
Every human being, including you (given a healthy brain), has this capacity .
After all, that’s what make us human beings

Wasn’t it K himself that pointed this out in his teachings?

Seems to be the case; for the very, very few!

Maybe this might be true.
But did you read what i had to say about it?
Hope you did. Will you plz reread the thread?

" Love triggers a cocktail of neurochemicals because it’s so highly relevant to survival. But it cannot guarantee non-stop happiness. It feels like it can while you’re enjoying the cocktail, however, so your brain may learn to expect that." Your Neurochemical Self

Are we equating Love with the sensations of pleasure?

It is one definition of Love in popular culture. The pleasure I feel in response to an image.

The “distinction “ is that “where the self if, the other is not”. So back to the question that Doug tried to address: what can bring about the dissolution of the ‘me’? And why is it so rare?

I’m proposing its due to causes and conditioning (luck of the environment) - just like why billionaires and geniuses are so rare.

So in the case of K, it was an anomaly even if he believed that any healthy brain could be transformed in the way that his was. Do you see any evidence of that having happened? He said he had no self…I’ve never heard that from another.

K does seem pretty weird.

I think the self is a process of the brain that is not always in motion, is sometimes silent - in all of us.
More difficult, I am convinced that it is possible to see what the process of self entails, and thus to not fully give up to the process even if existence seems to depend on it, not be totally caught up in the process - I mean to be aware of its movement and let it cease.

I am not only myself.
I am not myself.
I do have a self.
But there is no I.

Sorry, guys, but it becomes more and more complicated. Is this what a dialogue is about? May i try to keep things simple and if so, factual.
I am , most of the times, confused. When so, i cannot act properly. Everything I do seems to add more to the confusion. If i enter a dialogue in this conflicting state, i add nothing to it.
However, there are moments that there is no confusion at all. That all become clear!
How this comes about, I do not know. Am I special? I do not consider myself as special.
So, if i may ask you very very gently : what do we add to the dialogue?

Not “all” confusion, but something in particular becomes clear. If all became clear, you could clear out of this forum of confused people.

So, if i may ask you very very gently : what do we add to the dialogue?

Each one of us, confused in one’s own peculiar way, demonstrate how words and concepts are stumbling blocks for the brain that knows nothing but words and concepts, having never awakened to this limitation.

But we have to start the dialogue.
We could say it either way: when one is clear about what he is adding to the dialogue, should he stay away?
Or when one is confused should he/she stays out of it also? Do we use the dialogue for our own purpose? To dissolve our confusion? To help each other to get an insight? To confirm one’s clarity?
Nevertheless, we should be clear about this: why am i doing it?


It has been an ongoing process for a long time.

We could say it either way: when one is clear about what he is adding to the dialogue, should he stay away?

Everyone adds something to the dialogue, like it or not, for better or worse. But someone who is “clear” about anything is clear about everything, because incoherent thought can only be decisive - never free of confusion.

Or when one is confused should he/she stays out of it also?

What if we’re all confused? Is there anyone here that is not confused?

Do we use the dialogue for our own purpose?

What other way is there to use it?

Nevertheless, we should be clear about this: why am i doing it?

Can we know what we should be if we have never known it? If we knew clarity at one time and abandoned it for our confusion, can we abandon our confusion without seeing it clearly?

Non-method is also a method. In that method doesn’t have method at all. We can apply K’s teaching in the the way we see, hear, smell, sense,…, the way we see thought before it arise or at the time it arise. Just knowing.

1 Like

Even I have a confusion with the dialogue. What I see here with the discussion is that when a new topic is posted by any person he or she wants to find out more about it and one hopes to have a clear discussion and some better understanding and clarity. Every person is responding that is much encouraging for the one who posted it. But, as for me, when I follow the thread it is confusing, some one in their response coins some words, may be related but not sure how far they are helpful to the topic but confusing for sure. And I get diverted for the real topic.

What I feel is that in any topic, the discussion must be as closely related as possible. I think the one who posted the topic must be checking whether he or she is getting any better understanding or not.

I think all the members who are sharing their ideas, opinions, knowledge etc., must contribute to the question or topic of discussion.

I don’t know if you understand me.

If I try want to put in an example : An artist has a vague idea about his next painting and he share his idea :bulb: with his friends and they all come with their brushes :paintbrush: and paints they all try to do their best. But the artist is the one who should decide if the painting is developing as he intended.

1 Like

If one is not acting methodically, one is going with the flow, effortlessly, choicelessly, not resisting or reacting to the unfolding of events. This is antithetical to method because it is passive, spontaneous, and unknowing. A method is a known way of proceeding, regardless of how improvisational it may be.