So although I was trying to respond to my interlocutors questions, I injected my pet theories of self immediately (his initial statements make no mention of the idea).
I planned to ask clever questions about the experience of self that would eventually lead to the outcome (insight thanks to inquiry of our own experience) I had in mind.
Very twisty indeed.
Now this might not be what you were hoping for - but I can pick out some statements of yours to argue about if you like. Some are posed in a really twisty sentence structure, so Iād probably go with one of them to start with, and on and onā¦ and on
If you think it would be elucidating and others would benefit from it, why not āpick out some statementsā of mine that āare posed in a really twisty sentence structureā?
It seems that the brain needs to feel secure? It finds that sense of security in āattachingā itself psychologically to things, people, beliefs etc? Filling itself in effect? Society fosters attachment believing it makes life richer, more ārewardingā etc. It holds as truth that attachment (belief in a religion e.g.) is a human right and in the case of religion, nationalism etc, is fiercely defended in many countries. I think I have to ask myself the question that perhaps the brain is seeking āsecurityā in the wrong way? Attachment stemming from the fear of being alone, of being ānothingā can only temporarily satisfy the brainās need for total security. The total security may in fact, be in being ānothingā?
Yes, youād think that the brain would learn that seeing security through attachment brings only temporary relief from insecurity and, instead of seeking new, more durable attachments would learn to live with insecurity by being more alert and attentive than attached to whatever relieves one of that responsibility.
The essence of attachment is believing something is true, (lying to oneself), and residing foolishly with the false sense of security it engenders.
Alan Watts wrote the book āThe Wisdom of Insecurityā wherein he mentions Krishnamurti, which led me to Krishnamurtiās talks and dialogues.
It is a āquantum leapā to go from being something, someone, to being nothing!
āLittle by littleā doesnāt seem to cut it.
The entire process of thinking has to be grasped; there is awareness for a while and then we ābecomeā itā¦we ādrop it in the middleā as K said.
The Brain only knows insecurity and pain. To escape from insecurity or pain it invents security in ideas or nations. There is no security in anything that thought has created is there?
Isnāt it the very movement of thought as the āme and mineā that actually creates the insecurity? That is why as I see it, the whole of this movement of thought/self has to be seen, grasped, become aware of, followed etc whatever term you want to use.
K said follow the thought from beginning to end and donāt drop it in the middleā¦(drop it or drop out?)
Awareness of it, is freedom from it, non-awareness of it, is slavery to it?
Yes, it stands to reason that the brain must be aware of when/if awareness is compromised or corrupted by its conditioning, but I donāt know how, why, or if this comprehensive awareness might actually occur.
The brain had no choice but awareness of actuality until desire/fear chose to defy, deny, or distort what awareness reveals, and this is the condition we have lived with forever, it seems, and will continue to live with until/unless we awaken to what madness it is.
K. To be extensively aware, there must be no condemnation or justification of the problem; awareness must be choiceless. To be so aware demands wide patience and sensitivity; it requires eagerness and sustained attention so that the whole process of thinking can be observed and understood.
Yes so the āseeking of securityā has to be seen, not condemned and as he said, not justified either, just be aware of choicelessly.
K. To be so aware demands wide patience and sensitivity; it requires eagerness and sustained attention so that the whole process of thinking can be observed and understood.
