If one sees as a fact that one lives mentally in illusion that seeing already brings order . Illusions only continue if one gives them value and feeds them.
Hello Douglas. Yes, this is what I was trying to say. You have expressed this more succinctly.
1 Like
Alone vs. lone,
“Alone” is a combination of two words, all + one, which find their origins in Sanskrit, millennia ago.
“Lone” is another word, which gives rise to other words such as lonely, loneliness. These words began to be observed in the 16th C, as a derivative of the word “alone”. One suspects that the words “lone”, “lonely”, etc. arose as part of the wrong turn…
There are quite a few words that end in “one”, none of which have much to do with the word “lone”, e.g. clone, cyclone, none, atone, etc. …
Now there is quite a difference in the meaning of the two words:
Firstly,
When one breaks away from what society stands for: the development of the “I” - and hence all the corruption, violence, greed, selfishness, beliefs, etc. - one has effectively left the stream, so one can say, one stands alone. Hence, being whole, holy, sane.
So, one can say that being alone is a state of being, while loneliness is a feeling.
Secondly,
"Everyone knows what “lonely” and “alone” both refer to: a single person, not surrounded by people. It’s about the state of being only “one”. But the fact that they do refer to the same concept is also the cause of many errors in the English vocabulary. Because they are spelled similarly and have quite similar meanings, people also tend to replace them regardless of the context - which shouldn’t happen.
““Lonely” and “alone” might have similar definitions, by they are not identical. Some subtle differences between them create different usage requirements… Although both “lonely” and “alone” refer to the same aspect of being without other persons, there is a notable difference in the way you should use these similar words in sentences in order to not create confusions or errors.”
From the url: Alone vs. lonely
So that is why when one states:
one sees a dissonance, a discordance in the idea of having a fear of being alone, i.e. in being in a state (present or future) of wholeness, oneness. In other words, why on earth would one have a fear of being whole, holy, sane?
1 Like
Hi Charley. Thanks for your response. Dan would really have to answer your question of “why on earth would one have a fear of being alone?” but my understanding is that the fear of being alone may have its root in the projected future sadness which may come about by being in a situation where one has no company. This is not to say that being alone can never be a positive thing - of course it often is. It is just to say that some people in some situations may find the prospect of being alone rather frightening.
Looking into it a bit more, the fear of loneliness that K suggested lay behind our dependency on others and things, took me back to the self image. What had it to fear from being alone, not in the sense of all-oneness but in the ultimate sense of a complete disconnection from all that I was emotionally attached to? My wife, children, friends, house, etc. Since the self (me / mine) is actually illusory, its attachments, connections are what it IS, what I AM. Without the attachments, it, I, don’t exist. And even with them, I don’t exist, except as this “trick” of thought. So ironically, it is this trick of thought that fears being alone, when it doesn’t actually ‘exist’ in the first place!
It fears not-being, when it actually never was.
2 Likes
Thats its job. 
Are we all-one psychologically or are we fragmented ?
Because thought is fragmentary thought cannot be all-one.
Examiner,
There, a perfect example of “the answer is in the question”, eh? 
1 Like
Thought doesn’t want to be all-one, or want to be anything for that matter, because it is just a mechanical process that serves the will of the animal that utilizes it. And the will of the animal is to exist in a reality it conceives and believes to be what truly is. This is insanity, of course, but for as long as the practice of make-believe can be sustained, it distorts actuality to conform to what one chooses it to be.
This practice is a strategy for success, thus, the fear of failure comes with it. When/if one is no longer able to keep the practice up and running, one is left alone and helpless with what one has been successfully escaping and evading for so long.
Being all-one is a good thing when it implies no fear, but it’s the most frightening thing when it means the end of the duality one prefers.
let’s not turn aloneness into an idea or ideal to be achieved by thought. Thought can’t understand fear because fear is it’s own creation .
All I know about all-oneness is that it isn’t what I know. Let’s not jump to assumptions.
Thought can’t understand fear because fear is it’s own creation .
That sounds very profound, but if thought creates fear, why can’t fear understand its own creation?
Does thought have intention, or is it just a mechanism employed by the animal who intends to do this or that? If you say thought has intention, you’re saying it has a will of its own and acts to carry out that will, which means there is conflict between what thought wants/fears, and what the animal who employs thought wants/fears.
I think that there is this conflict between the intellectual brain and the animal brain. (We have three according to some) The animal brain is no match for the clever, ingenious, latecomer, the cerebral cortex . It seems to definitely have “intention” in bringing plans, projects, technical things to successful conclusions. Is there an “employer” of the thinking function? In the technical that would be the ‘challenge’ it is responding to. What ‘needs’ to be done i.e. build a more destructive weapon, find a vaccine for Covid-19…etc. In the psychological, hasn’t it become the ‘employer’? Trying to find the best method to bring ‘me’ to ‘enlightenment’? To keep me from suffering, sadness, loneliness, fear, in other words trying to change what is? Avoiding, escaping from what is? Creating drugs, religions, entertainment, classes, nationalities, nuclear weapons, etc
Yes, when thought is deliberate. But when thought is idly rambling, ranting, reminiscing, etc., it may be running mindlessly, purposely, compulsively, because there is no silence, no emptiness, for thought to repair to.
Thought employs the animal brain not visa versa. Thought as the “me” runs the Brain even though theoretically the “me” controls the Brain.
Why do you believe this?
What makes to think that it is a belief and not a fact?
One assume that one is somewhat familiar with the teachings since one has joined this K group. If one is not familiar with the teachings there is always misunderstanding . The teachings has its own unique language.
What makes you think it’s a fact?
Does belief control me, or do I choose my beliefs?
Are you familiar with the teachings of krishnamurti? I ask you this question because then I can answer your questions accordingly… I might be wrong but I have a feeling that you don’t care to study Krishnamurti 's teachings . Is that a fact or am I wrong?
1 Like