I would like to explore this further in a private message if it’s ok with you. A lot of what you said resonated with me.
Sure…just PM me. Not sure how the messaging system works here but I suppose I’ll get a notification if I have a new message.
All the daily life activity is obvious, right? I don’t think about it. I may talk about it, organise it, and say I am doing this or that, but this talk is not the actual living. The talking about it, is referring to the past, and we are repeating the way of thinking. This is mixing up the actual activity as it takes place, with all our self reflections, our ideas about purpose, reason, belief, duty, practice, ideals, etc, and interaction between other people and things, places, etc. Here in this blog, what we are talking about is this condition of mental activity, thought, sentiment, emotion, and memory, and saying it is not living. It doesn’t take time or effort to realise there is this division between the activity and thought. I can see clearly the activity. What is the state of mind? Am I in a hurry, am I rushed, am I not listening, am I flustered, am I rude, am I careless, am I trying to get to the next activity. We may have a way of working carefully and slowly. But this is cultivated, following some practice. So we say to ourselves we have to do all this activity and get it all done, and this is what I have to do. This is thought. That’s not to say abandon your activity. On the contrary. It is saying see it clearly.
The self is your self-image. If you believe there’s something wrong with effort, and you’re unaware of your own fear and desire, blame on the self.
Yes, I can’t really find any fault in that statement.
May I ask if you understand the statement “the self is fear and desire” - or are you disagreeing?
Krishnamurti may have said that, but you may be taking it too literately. He used “self” to refer to self-centered behavior, and one could mistake that as meaning the illusion of self has power in itself, which it does not. Its power is what we give to it. Your national flag, for instance, may mean a lot to you, but to someone without your experience, it’s nothing but a flag.
I would ask “who is giving it power?” - But we both know how that plays out, (I’m presuming a bit on your behalf here - you do recognise this pattern don’t you?) we’ve been going round in circles long enough now don’t you think?
When I say “the self is fear and desire” - One reason is my interpretation of Genesis (fruit of knowledge of good and evil)
Another is that self is its content, self is its movement. And self is the sense of existing as a separate entity - which means it is the desire for survival/existence.
Try this question : Can there be fear and desire without self?
How would I know? I still have my self-image and the power I give it. Who am I, you ask. As I’ve said, I am thought…sometimes rational, practical, sometimes psychological, self-absorbed.
We’re all human, most of us living with our selves, our distorted images of who we are and our notions of what we must do and avoid, etc. But as long as we’re able to question and doubt ourselves, and learn to think coherently, without distortion, we may get to where one’s self is not a problem but the most interesting thing we know of.
You already are the most interesting thing you know of.
This “I” you speak of - do you realise its you? It is yourself.
I think that our inquiry together is a bit of a dead end - I really can’t see how to make even the smallest headway. Time for a break perhaps. Do you have any other way of exploring the self other than discussion and mentation? Calm observation perhaps?
No mentation? You can learn to do physical things you can’t explain just by demonstrating them. But if you undo yourself and you can’t explain how, don’t mention it.