Sitting quietly

When we say mind, are we again thinking of what conditioning tells us? Are we again thinking there is an obstacle, an impediment, a problem, to the whole seeing? Have we used this word, mind, with limited conditions? Are we entrenched in the conditioning, and can talk about it all, but actually there is no limitation to seeing?

1 Like

This seems like another good question Dan. The quote by K you posted seems to be saying that in attention, all “frontiers of recognition” are crossed so that would include the frontier of recognition of the image I have of myself. Is that what you understand?

Entrenched, yes. That’s it in a nutshell. I’m probably doing it now…talking about it without seeing.

And this would be something of a “miracle”, wouldn’t it? The acknowledgement that I don’t exist but am a projection of thought? What occurs in the brain when this is seen? What was felt to be known is all based on this existence of me. That there was a sense of continuity created by a permanent me and that now is ‘breached’. And the fact that there is no ‘knowing’ of what will happen ‘next’ because psychologically ‘next’ is also a projection of thought. Is this the “aloneness” that K spoke of that was necessary for one to see the “real”?

What do you mean by aloneness? What strikes you about this word?

The brain we say has been conditioned or programmed. Which makes it finite or limited to the conditioning, beliefs, philosophies, etc. Like a computer. But unlike the programmed computer, the brain, as K has said, is infinite in its potential? In the practical technical realm, there seems no end to the ingenuity, discovery, invention… But psychologically it has been stifled by the conditioning which it sees now as dangerous, divisive and destructive, but seemingly can’t break itself out of. Free itself from its image of itself and the world. Yet it’s obvious that it must or it will destroy itself.

It is a feeling. When its realized that the ‘thinker’, me, is an illusion created by the thinking process and that there is no me at all apart from that…that feeling, the whole view of what was, what is , is turned upside down. No me in control as was felt to be the case. Yet there is the body, the brain, the heart. It is a feeling of being ‘alone’ for the first time.

Loneliness, is the fear of the me, me, me separation - it is the suffering habit of mind?

Aloneness is the non-dependance on authority?

Oneness, Silence, Emptiness = non discrimination

But that ingenuity does not touch conditioning does it? and the potential the brain may be said to be lies unrealised, and therefore, not real. The only reality is the conditioning, so can I see what is involved in that conditioning at a deep level, and not just at the cultural level, which is the particular conditioning? What really is conditioning, and what is the relationship of it to reality and to illusion?

Conditioning gives life to and determines the direction of ingenuity. Conditioning is the rifle and the powder, ingenuity is the bullet.

A caged brain has infinitely less potential than one that is not - the known is small compared to the unknown.

Conditioning is a form of delusion - but conditioning is a part of reality. We cannot deny the conditioning, which is us. In fact we are the tool that we must use in order to relate to the rest. Once we see the cage clearly, it is no longer a barrier from the rest.

But am I looking at conditioning at any depth when I say it is what I relate to the rest with. What relationship does conditioning actually permit?

To answer that question we must observe the conditioning - not use (or be used by) the conditioning.
Conditioning is all we have (as I think you are also saying) - so I suppose I’m saying we must use it, without reacting to it.

PS - there is no depth to conditioning, only time, or habit - it has immense power, but no substance. So unreal is it we can only point to its shadow. (ie me and the world we have created)
PPS - The zen buddhists say we must use the body. which is probably less confusing. This works as the body is very closely related to the mind.

Yes we are aware of that much, but what of it is getting observed? Why are the exchanges here so moribund with participants so content it seems to remain on the surface of things and constantly go off at a tangent, which is essentially an escape from things? Why will you not all address your deeper fears?

There is the movement of the conditioning, its content reacting to itself, and there is the seeing the conditioning for what it is - these are often confused. The eyeball has trouble seeing itself.

If I examine what my conditioning offers up for inspection and judgement, what has been gained? This is like yesterdays excitement where one Kinfonet guy accuses the other : "you are mad! " - “you are blind!” - except that by exploring and analysing our own baggage we don’t need other people to push our buttons - we push our own.

We can spend our life in analysis, or auto-analysis and what will we have gained - just more data for analysis - just a deeper well of content.
Or we can fill the depths of our conditioning with complete knowledge of the fields of Psychology, Anthropology, Neurology (which is not possible - no one can hold the immense libraries of knowledge of even one of these fields) etc and we will still not have clarity.

The insight is a kind of death that must be whole and immediate - we are hoping for some nugget of knowledge that can be grasped. Or some sort of philosophico/magical cleansing. But there is no one to be cleansed

Survival

Right. Sitting quietly, address yourself, your mind, your fears. The exchange of words and ideas between people is conversation. The verbal does not address what is actually on the mind for oneself. Looking immediately at the state of the mind, together we can discover and share this. This is deeper than verbal conversation, and needs looking at not following the ordinary way of discussing ideas and expressing opinions, nor sticking to what someone has said or written.

So much has to do with thought projecting horizontal ‘time’ into the psyche. I looked at three instances in myself: Worry, Prayer, (or hope) and Preparation. Imagination or image making. With worry (an image) there is a fear that something will take place in the future that is seen to a ‘negative’, bad, horrible, awful, etc. Suffering results. With prayer or hope, there is a desire (image) for something to take place that is considered good, benign, valuable, etc. Prayer entails a belief that someone or something out there is listening. There is suffering until the whatever is resolved one way or another. Preparation is actually ‘doing’ something about a ‘real’ future to create a desired outcome…like making sure the ‘wheels’ don’t come off, etc. No suffering.

Thought’s role in all this plays a major part in suffering and conflict. It doesn’t see or doesn’t wish to be aware of the destructiveness and divisiveness it creates with its psychological model of a ‘past’, a ‘present’, and a ‘future’. not to mention its creation of an ‘observer’ separate or a ‘thinker’ apart.

But does all of this mean I can’t observe it, I don’t see the point in observing it, or I don’t want to observe it, or something else? Also what are you really having conditioning to mean here for yourself?

Yes there is the sense that when I have to resort to verbal communication over this things are really not working out. Given there is a point or a need at times for us to communicate our understanding, there is a need to be understanding. Either I look at these things in the company of others, or I look at them for myself, but not looking is not a serious option here.

In essence this is the past, the present and the future of psychological thought. The fear contained in a future time is really here with me now is it not? just as all of the past, all of time, all of history is here and now. In seeing the present moment I am seeing the past, and if no change occurs now this moment, there can be no change in any future, and the security I am concerned to build into the future as preparedness comes about from the insecurity that is here now, on account of the disorder of the brain and it’s inability to institute true security for all of itself, rather than undermine itself through its irrationality.

1 Like

The “I” can only come to conclusions - thus reinforcing its own conditioning. This is why there is the concept of death, surrender, dying to the known. Which I also cannot do, nor decide to do.
All we can do meanwhile is to realise that I cannot really know. That I do not really belong to myself. That I don’t really know what I am, nor what is beyond.
All I can do in the meanwhile is to experiment with moments of acceptation of I dont know.