I am not in charge. I am not the invited speaker. I am another participant. Someone else is thinking there is the need for managing the discussion. So it breaks down in to conventional discussion, or what is called dialogue. So I am saying there is Speaking Freely. And you would need to read the opening post to get what this is.
No - i’m not saying that.
We have to participate in the dialogue/discussions.
But what is that - when we enter in the discussions - with a ‘belief’ - to achieve something - by quoting ‘K’- is the problem i see.
And this belief - restricts one to ‘observe’ what happens psychologically as a whole.
So - many discussions goes on verbally - for intellectual pleasure.
I see that people automatically are concerned for their own thinking and self expression. They try to adapt their thinking to meet with the gathering. Or clever people have a skill to moderate the thinking. There is a tendency to give importance to individual self expression, sentiment, emotions, experiences, inquisitiveness, etc. I see it is psychological, the workings of a mechanical brain, and not personal. I find the meetings are a conflict, which is basically the individual conflict, and this is the authority of individualism .
I am going to finish for now.
Yes. I can see that too.
The world of personal pleasure and pain, its pursuit, its loss, its avoidance may serve to highlight certain aspects of it but suffering seems more fundamental than any of this activity, Is suffering not a universal quality connected to the fact of disconnection from an immeasurable?
Yes - this ‘sufferings’ is the wall and acts as the bridge too.
As a wall - it is build up on ‘fear’ on this ‘loneliness/emptiness’ - so seeks for pleasure.
But, as a bridge - it helps to ‘observe’ everything.
It helped many - and I referred many stories in this link
But is not the reality of it all in front of each brain in the fact of its being, without reference to anything else? All this business about the self, and its problems and issues around pleasure and pain, and being conditioned is just traversing the foothills on the way to basecamp. Until this stuff is cleared up the issue which has kept this show on the road for as long as it has will not emerge.
how to show this to a mind - which is ‘conditioned’?
Will those mind ‘listen/observe’ - to what is bring forth - about pleasure, pain, beliefs, images, etc… - which itself has a ‘belief’ of something and restricts to see?
Is there any ‘way’ to show this to the conditioned mind?
In my view - we can do it by discussions - like how you put forth the obstacles - and observing the obstacles - that is revealed.
So, we can discuss, by bringing up every person’s view (who is willing to look/listen/observe) and let them show - which blocks them to see individually - and continue further.
On the face of it this is impossible since anything functioning as a centre has to be such seeing itself.
There can be a benefit to doing this yes, while being mindful of the part it may play in extending things. But the core element as I see it, is that only I can bring the listening I am, just as the other has to bring the listening they are, and when it is not there, there will only be the obstructions and little else.
If the mind can watch its reactions, acknowledge its feelings, follow its thoughts, why would it choose not to? This is a serious question because most minds would rather attend to anything but what they’re doing from moment to moment, and the mind’s operation matters more than anything else because it is fundamental.
The mind that is not primarily interested in its operation, i.e., its response to stimuli, its reactions, its reasoning, etc., is an irresponsible, reckless mind because it lacks self-knowledge and has a false notion of who/what it is.
The “I” is not empty. It is full of itself; its beliefs, values, fears, desires, etc. On the rare occasions when it is honest, it acknowledges the worthlessness of its psychological content, and the harm it does by retaining it.
I understood that as the ‘I ‘ coming up against the ‘wall’ of itself and being in despair, suffering etc, which is what it is and the fear of being in that state…without relief …that the seeing that, is the ending of it.
Another way to put it is when the fearsome possibility of “isolation” is seen as the ‘I’ itself, it ends.
When Krishnamurti said “the seeing is the doing”, he meant that when there’s no conflict, there’s no mistaking what is seen because there’s no belief threatened by it. The reason we don’t see what actually is, is that we believe we know what should and should not be. Until we are disabused of this conceit, there is no seeing, and therefore, no doing.
Yes that is the ‘I’. That is the self-image. When the self-image is ‘seen’, its ‘power’ is dissolved. It is seen as the illusion it is. Then there is no ‘knowing’ what should or should not be. that is the ‘stuff’ of the ego.
There’s no seeing until the conflict is resolved, and the resolution is realizing you don’t know what should/should not be.
But who doesn’t think they know what should/should not be? Who sees the error of establishing truth? We know we have nothing to go by, and since we don’t trust any authority, out of desperation we authorize ourselves to keep the sacred knowledge of what should/should not be as our guide to life.
Our only alternative to complete darkness and total ignorance is our belief that we know what’s good for us, even though we really don’t. What serves as our light is a lie we believe to be true, and until we see this shining lie for what it is, we are blinded by it, and conflicted.
What is the psychological significance of ending here? Is ending relief, is ending salvation? Is ending hope? There is pleasure, there is comfort and the escape to them, but when the thing escaped to is the thing escaped from, and there is nothing left to escape to, does there need to be an end any longer?
That is, when I keep a factor isolation, and a factor pleasure, and I am seeking to escape isolation, through pleasure, through comfort, but pleasure, and comfort are isolation, then what is the psychological necessity any longer for an end?
‘Ending’ is ending, not for something. Ending is emptying, opening…not continuing.
There needs to be an end to your conflict. Until it is resolved, you’re seeking the end.
And when my conflict is with ending? The end of ending, the end of all ends?