There has been a mistake. You are not who you feel, think, you are.
The âmomentumâ against being aware that you donât exist is powerful.
Iâm sure you take your belief that you are nothing/nobody seriously, so Iâll tread carefully around it.
Iâm reminded of this constantly. I know I am not who/what I think I am, but that doesnât mean I donât exist. It means I donât see things for what they are, but for what they should/should-not-be. My perception is distorted by my confinement to the corridor of opposites that thought is.
We are individual humans who are unique in some ways and much like everyone else in some ways. Each one of us has oneâs own identity. Our problem is that we canât perceive who/what we are until/unless we are free to perceive directly and not distortedly.
You have decided that you are nothing, not real, because youâre incapable of knowing who/what you are so long as the brain is conditioned to alter its perception in accordance with the fear/desire that rules us.
When K taught that each of us is nothing, nobody, he didnât mean it literally, but figuratively, in the sense that no matter how exceptional or mediocre one may be, we are as good as dead because thatâs how we all end up.
Here nothing does not mean absolute non existence.
Remember reading K saying " you are nothing, meaning not a thing created by human mind. But there is movement that is entirely different "
2 Likes
Yes. The body exists. The âmovementâ of thought that creates the âmeâ is imaginary. âI Amâ, but not in that âwayâ?
Good question.
Even in the sphere of science, our relationship to the model can be a hindrance.
Even in the sphere of philosophy, our relationship to the idea can be a hindrance.
So yes, when we listen, our relationship to the words can hinder our understanding (intellectual or otherwise) of what is being proposed.
We are triggered by our conditioning. Those that look up to K may be triggered by words like habit, meditation, awareness etc in different ways than they would otherwise have been.
Being free, one neither shies away from, nor is trapped by oneâs intellectual understanding, nor is one triggered by the word - one remains in contact with what is being proposed.
Thatâs an accumulation of âstuffâ isnât it, the practical which we need to get by and the non-practical, philosophy and all the other stuffâŚwe live in the ârealâ world of the body with its aches and pains and the imaginary world of âpsychologicalâ thought with an imaginary center and the âsentimentality that comes with it?
I always want to get into a discussion about the neurological model of experience as being a projection of the brain - even our experience of solid objects - but have been told that this just complicates matters unnecessarily.
What I will put forward is the claim that it is not our intellectual model (knowledge) of the self that will free us from the self (not necessarily anyway) - even if our intellectual understanding of the self is a good one (no terrible errors, no obvious conflict with the facts).
K seems to be saying that it is the seeing, a realisation of what the self is that is key. Which provokes, as far as can tell, an awareness of the movement of self, as and when it occurs - awareness which liberates us from the experience of that movement.
Seeing what the self is, may or may not be facilitated by a clear/correct intellectual model of the self, but definitely needs (methinks) an undeniable need to see, an unbounded curiosity about the self and its suffering. Unfortunately, this (as with most things) is not a choice we make - the universe makes us choose.
On the other hand, maybe we can just give ourself some space each day to do nothing, and come face to face with ourselves.
1 Like
Did you explore the question? Is âcan be a hindranceâ, âcan hinderâ, âmay be triggeredâ exploring? It may be, though it just sounds like a lot of words that dances around the question. If it is true that sometimes it is and sometimes it isnât, then it is rational to pursue intellectual understanding. Then we are left with the issue of determining when it is and when it isnât. Will we use the intellect to determine that?
Or will intellectual understanding actually just hinder?
As you said 'Being free, ⌠- one remains with what is being proposed.
So we assumeâŚbut we really donât know, do weâŚ
And the question is âwhyâ is this seeing so âarduousâ as K put it. It obviously is, but why? Sean asked a similar question.
The brain tyrannized/tantalized by fear/desire is too reactive to see anything as it actually is, so trying to see through its own resistance to seeing is arduous.
I would put it this way. Awakening from the dream of the self, even for a moment, takes energy.
Yes, it takes energy to awaken from dreaming, so if weâre dreaming of awakening, weâre just wasting energy by dreaming more energetically.
Yes the duality of thinker separate from thought is a kind of persistent âdreamâ. The âthinkerâ canât awaken from that. Thought is not the âinstrumentâ to bring it about. âAwareness â can see it but it is arduous for the brain (?) to bring it to bear on the habitual, mechanical operation of thought? Easier to just remain asleep?
Firstly, I see the problem you raise about using the intellect to judge the intellect.
I tried to address the question by defining what it means to be âhinderedâ - that it is a relational issue.
Are you implying that âintellectual understandingâ is a hindrance in an absolute sense? You are defining IU as being necessarily a hindrance (to freedom of intelligence)?
Are you in a way saying : there is no freedom from the known? ie. I am necessarily under the authority of the past, of my accumulated knowledge?
True. Body exists and acts in its usual mechanical ways. There may be a movement but not of thought. What that movement K did not eloberate and may be it is not possible to put it into words.
There may be a âstillnessâ out of which every âthingâ comes?
1 Like
I donât see any difficulty in equating the thinker with the thought because I am thought. Who do you think you are?