The relationship is not me, a human, doing something. It is just a word, relationship; sharing a place in the world. Do we see we worry about what kind of world it is, and want to define it, organise it, by parts, and then see our selves in some place safe and secure?
1 Like
Human relations : how humans relate to their own perceptions and interpretations.
If my world view in this moment is useful, that’s cool.
If no interpretation of reality is necessary, or if my world view is fallacious, a cause for further misery, then, if thought is in the right place, it can be dropped without effort as fallacious or unnecessary.
There is the fact, and there is my interpretation of the fact, these are in 2 different dimensions. Acceptance of what is englobes both dimensions.
I see the world in ‘fragments’ , separate things. I am a fragment looking at all the other fragments. I see it must be this way if I am to survive; I must be able to discern the dangerous snake from the harmless one etc. but I sense that this fragmented, subjective way of seeing may not be the whole truth. There is a theory that ‘it’ is all one, no division… but that fact , if it is a fact, is hidden from me. I see Life, the worlds, the suns, the galaxies all as fragments.
The rain has started here and the snow is predicted within hours. The birds sense it and there is a frantic-ness at the feeder. I’ll fill them again before it snows. The five or so species that live here by the river all have their distinct ways of relating to each other. These are the small birds, the large birds always keep their distance. Two eagles have come down the river to fish. When the water is cold the fish come close to the surface and the eagle flies down from a tree and plucks them from the water with its talons. Eight mourning doves have come to perch in the branches of the leafless oak overhanging the riverbank. They are very still. They are too large to eat at the feeders and so pick up the seeds that the smaller birds have knocked to the ground searching for their favorites. I’ll spread some on the ground for them when I fill the feeders.
2 Likes
In the silence, how many things are there?
1 Like
We all do, that is the conditioning. It is very logical that anything fragmented is not the whole. Now can we find out what is the whole truth without making any conclusions? What is truth? What is not truth?
Only a mind that is not conditioned, free from all authority, empty, could be with ‘what is’?
This is what the K-conditioned mind believes to be true, but does not actually know.
1 Like
Find out for yourself if it’s true.
If you have found out for yourself that “Only a mind that is not conditioned, free from all authority, empty, could be with ‘what is”, you’re as enlightened as K presumably was. But, like everyone else here, convinced what K taught is true, make him our authority.
Try not to take this personally…look at it objectively. One advises another to find out for themselves whether what K said is true, because of one’s certainty that it is. I believe it is true, but I haven’t found out for myself, and never will for as long as I believe it. Belief is a substitute for first-hand knowledge, realization, the transformative effect of finding out what is true. It’s our conditioning.
1 Like
I think ‘belief’ is the wrong word here. Given the fact of suffering that I see in and around me, I wonder why it is so. Is it ‘human nature’ as some say or is the misery, brutality, greed etc the result of something in us that went ‘wrong ‘ and can be made right? Someone comes along and presents the ‘theory’ that it can be radically changed, not by him or her, but by going through the ‘door ‘ that they are pointing out. They make logical sense and tell you that if you make them into a teacher or an authority, you miss the point…if there is any belief here, it is the belief in our own judgement, our own conclusions from experience, our own authority.
1 Like
Dan,
One experimented with this “idea”, quite some years ago, when one still had an “I”. So, Charley did an “I am that” with something outside of oneself - ya know, out there lol.
Boy, was that ever trippy!
Fortunately, one wondered about what one had done mainly because the ongoing meditation had stopped, and one sensed that there was still stuff inside that one hadn’t seen. As little physical real time had passed, and one realized that it was a false/incorrect action, one was able to see again what one had done, and the very seeing of it dissolved this action, and one was back to where one was before - the meditation resumed immediately as if nothing at all had happened - thank god !!
This form of identification is false also for the reason that one didn’t create what is out there, outside of oneself. One can invent, as so many do, that one is the author of all the creations outside of oneself, understand?
So, one also states all of the above because one realized that it was just another form of identification, which has led others to say “I am god”… - one has seen this online elsewhere !!! (As an aside, do you recall K saying: “I am not the tree !” ?)
Identification - the crowd that yells “stop the steal” is based on identification. The groupies that insist that one fragment of oneself must “meet” the fragment of another, get it?
Dan, you are fortunate that this idiotic theory is “hidden” from you. 
Yes, belief is the essence of insanity, regardless of what one believes. Believing what actually is true is no better than believing what is false.
We say that “seeing is believing” because believing is all we know. We don’t know what seeing, direct perception, is. Truth is what we believe it to be, and we talk and think about what we believe is true and false without realizing we are perpetuating the problem we believe we are intelligently addressing. We operate on belief so completely, so pervasively that, we can believe we’re progressing toward seeing…or worse, believe we are free, living beyond belief.
1 Like
Don’t we make everything, what ever it is called, practical by our use, and that includes calling something psychological, or practical, knowledge or belief. I am using it all verbally and not understanding any difference. I don’t even care to understand. Verbally, it is all the same, and this is where I am comfortable.
2 Likes
From silence to perception to interpretation/reaction to further conditioning/knowing - seems like a recognisable and unavoidable one way street.
Is there a path from perception to interpretation/reaction to realisation/silence?
Thought prefers a reality that is constructed of past experience, subjective, with an illusory ‘me’ at the center. It is continuous except in deep sleep. It sees the alternative, to only act practically when needed and with no center, as a kind of death.
So can I know that death is sometimes more reasonable than a never ending struggle?
Can I see that my never ending rehashing of thought is not always necessary?
Thought has to put that question to itself in the moment, doesn’t it? K.: “Thought is fear”.
It is also ‘time’, time for the ‘me’ to ‘break free’…always in the imaginary future of course.
And always serving up the same old ‘me’. 
Necessary for what? Survival, well-being, understanding?
Yes - our survival does not always need our attention.
Our desire for well-being might actually benefit from a rest. (ie. wellbeing may benefit from a lack of neediness)
Understanding might actually be clouded by fear/knowledge/interpretation
But K also asks us this question - So if any realisation occurs (regarding the fact that the suffering is the self) one must be aware that the habit of thought that accompanies any realisation, is a movement away from that realisation - the past can only cover up the fact.
Understanding/seeing happens in the space between the thoughts - what is seen is always in danger of being analysed/corrupted into a theory for future use.