Cultural programming is one reason we do what we do, and say what we say
And I’ll be willing to bet that @Jess and macdougdoug, despite both speaking English, have been conditioned by very different societies - In my case Western Industrialised and maybe more Traditional Relationship based for Jess - which is why we are having such a stilted dialogue?
I am not interested in all. Am I holding on to an image either about myself or about you? And how shall I find out? If we say, ‘We all have images,’ that’s a conclusion before we even start to look and this conclusion will then dictate the nature of our subsequent looking. The conclusion is therefore another image. So my first question is, ‘Am I holding on to old images or forming new images right now in the course of this dialogue?’ I’ll find out - won’t I? - when those images bring conflict in my relationship with you or with anyone else.
Because we are looking at it together; and so the looking is what matters, not what we already know in advance of the looking.
When I say, ‘I know you,’ or even, ‘I know myself,’ it is always from a limited perspective; it can never be something fixed, permanent and total. So it is not really knowledge; at best it is a partial glimpse of an outline with many shadows around it.
Thank you.
So it seems clear that Psychological ease and clarity happens moment to moment in the awareness of the clinging to self.
But in order for this awareness and letting go to be ongoing - the understanding that the “self is suffering” is essential - if not, why on earth bother observing the movement of self all the time?
This would be where it all breaks down - are we able to see what suffering is? See the effects of self clearly?
Paul’s point was that the images bring conflict in relationship. this is quite easily observed if we are at all attentive. It’s the understanding that the self brings division and conflict in relationship that’s key here, I think.
But that’s not the case all the time. If it were seen that there actually is no relationship due to the presence of a self, then the self could be seen as the ‘snake’ in the corner. But a kind of relationship is possible which is what we’ve been conditioned to accept as normal.
Yes, I see your point. But the self inevitably does bring conflict in relationships, but we accept that as normal. Husbands and wives quarrel, parents and children quarrel, etc. And actually the division caused by the self is what you say…it’s actually NO relationship…it’s a relationship of two images. My image of my spouse and hers/his of me. When the images coincide in a fulfilling manner we consider that to be real relationship.
And the image that I am suffering. I look at myself through the screen of the image…the word, ‘suffering’. I have the knowledge that I’m suffering, and that knowledge prevents observation. There’s the image of suffering created by the word, ‘suffering’, which creates a reaction, no? So is the image creating a reaction and blocking the observation of what I am…of what is…of the fact of suffering? Does this make sense?
No, I am ruling out everything to do with the psyche, including ease and clarity, as unreliable. It is an uneasy mind that seeks easement and a confused mind that seeks clarity. So none of those labels for what is supposedly taking place in the mind have any validity at all. They are all images and counter-images. I don’t know what I am: I am neither clear nor confused. All I know is that I am here talking to you. That’s a physical, verifiable fact: it is the same for you as it is for me. But if we step together into the psychological, saying, ‘Our minds are perfectly clear,’ that’s a wrong step because there is always a motive behind it. Then we are stepping into a false field and moving away from the fact.
It seems deep down the mind is always conscious of one part of itself saying to another part of itself, ‘I have to be something.’ That’s the voice of thought, the echo from a thousand or more yesterdays, our conditioning. It is a very persistent voice. But looking at it carefully, slowly, logically, we can see that however hard it tries, however much effort it makes, thought can never really be something other than an echo; and I as a psychological being can never be something other than a figment of my own imagination. So there is now this other voice speaking, talking about thought and pointing out the falseness of the earlier voice. It is not the voice of thought; it is not coming from memory, only from observation.
Huh?..
I will like to use this post to separate the talk and the walk, between theories and facts, between words and actions, etc. That is look at some discrepancies within ourselves in light of the posts.
Resorting to pejoratives, entendres, innuendos etc. because you don’t like what is being said demonstrates a poverty of character and spirit. Similarly not being able to compliment someone when it is deserved not only demonstrates the former but also has a more serious implication, and that is lack of comprehension, colloquially called idiocy. Not in the pejorative implication of the word but in the proper actual linguistic application.
The litmus of the above is established when during a discussion it is seen the focus has changed from the topic to the person, by the introduction of completely unrelated personal comments/questions on the person rather than the points that were being discussed. For example the completely unprovoked use of the word “debate” as can be seen at #56 Reading the book in one glance . Clearly we see a “hurt ego” lashing out in a passive aggressive way. The fragile ego is threatened and is being reactive. The same dynamics can be seen here between posts #42-62 On Seeing and Action even though this one had “innocently” put “the past behind” and had started fresh
Someone mentioned “belonging” as a primal instinct, which makes one wonder if it is this sense of belonging as a group, as a tribe, which is responsible for the ugliness we witness in ‘groupisim’? You know when someone with the past memory of being hurt, “unable to let the past go”, comes in with a leading/suggestive question to a group (as seen in this forum, this thread, and elsewhere), and others that are similarly hurt, answer with matching suggestive answers? Of course it is!
So the question then is why do we get hurt if someone is ‘better’? Maybe he or she is more articulate, more intelligent, less of an idiot, more ‘good’ less ‘bitter’, more innocent less cunning,…what difference does it make? It’s a fact isn’t it? Why fight a fact? Isn’t there beauty even in relative perfection? What prevents us from appreciating that beauty? As was said earlier, doesn’t beauty deserve a compliment (not important but this one compliments when deserved as can be seen elsewhere) rather than reactive pejoratives? Why compare and add to the existing bitter memories of a failed life? Or, are we incapable of comprehending beauty? The eyes are dead? So wrapped up in the hamster wheel for the search of personal happiness which we call various names like “inquiring into life” that we are now blind to everything else?
Continuing to look at some more examples ( these are not my interactions but examples picked from how different posters have interacted with each other in this thread):
Beautiful theory/words…but then goes on to say,
Which is a suggestive innuendo disguised with a question mark at the end. So much for, “to understand what is being said, see where the other person is coming from, appreciate more fully what is going on”
First, stating the obvious is stating a fact. It’s not a judgement and it’s not “figuring out”. Trump’s actions are public information and speak for themselves. But the more important point is why react if the poster said something contrary to your political affiliation and then come up with a disguised retort to defend your affiliation?
So looking at facts, these are a breakdown of our actions, the hidden dynamics of how we function in real time, aside from the theories we “talk about”.
The presumed ability to know another persons intentions, comes part and parcel with the “Western Industrial” analytical mindset (I am guilty of that too).
Regarding the “stilted dialogue” I was just pointing out another difficulty that we have when it comes to dialogue - namely different cultural backgrounds. (other difficultes being raging egos, and cognitive dissonance)
I’d like to take this opportunity to declare my respect for @Jess - and apologise if he too felt (understandably, being human) that I was making underhand insults regarding identity.
And since we are getting all personal, I would also like to declare my respect for all the “Traditional Relationship based” societies (which make up the majority of humankind) including all my Chinese Aunts and Uncles, who regularly remind me that I am not acting in accordance with what those relationships dictate.
If this was understood in any significant manner it would mean seeing past the words, even past the concepts they point at, and thus at the whole movement of identity, separation and fear. This would mean that our world was turned completely upside down, and the scales of delusion fallen from our eyes.
I agree that understanding, when it comes is “easy”, but this is because understanding is not a matter of effort - but if all we have understood is that : “conflict arises during interactions, because people are involved” or some such similar concept at an intellectual level - this is of course not the liberating insight.
Seeing that “the self is the suffering” is the same as “freedom from the known” .
I was wondering why this seeing (and thus liberation) does not seem to be happening for most of us?
My posts weren’t addressed to anyone but yours is addressed to me, so i will respond with the following:
Your response is a diversion from the issue pointed out in my posts. The posts started with a clear explanation on what they are about, quote, “look at some discrepancies within ourselves in light of the posts”. Though you haven’t said a thing, not a single thing, that actually pertains to the points highlighted in the posts, nevertheless let’s straighten the suggestive cues included in the evasion:
You most likely are, but if the implication is to include this one then It’s a strawman fallacy having no relationship to the posts. Still, addressing this strawman fallacy, one will like to point out that the posts never went into anyone’s “intentions”, rather into the facts of what is actually seen, and supported by quotes/references. Based on the evidence of such apparent facts of real time actions, some matching reasonable deductions can be made, which were made.
The stilted dialogue is an accusation of a person’s approach to the dialogue and includes many nasty connotations/meanings, none of which include cultural or racial associations, but the fact being pointed out (supported by the evidence provided) isn’t the “reason” but the continued usage of such trigger pejoratives and enetendres in these so called dialogues.
Re raging egos and cognitive dissonance, oh that’s easy to see! They were addressed in the previous responses under the phrase “passive aggressive”. Some may say it’s a dishonest way of expressing one’s ego.
As for the rest of the stuff in your response they are unrelated and do not require any response.
Surprising as it might seem : we’re all doing our best.
But obviously, despite (or because of) our best efforts, the house is very much on fire. We are hurt by what we see, and we spread that pain about.
In order to give up, we must first see that all this pain, inside and out, is being spread by me.
Can you go into this a bit? Is it that as long as there is this ‘fire’ of me feeling apart as an ‘individual’, it will be spread? Lanroh in another thread said something that was interesting: “…a wrong turn or a fork in the road. Here is where man and the mind moved into duality and from that day forward mans actions has been In the illusive state of his world being separate from him. We must ask ourselves, in what form would of the world taken, and its still not to late if man acted and behaved as if nothing was separate from him/herself? When I first stumbled upon this during enquiry it rocked my world, I knew the love for the first time that Krishnamurti spoke about, it simply meant not two. Till then my house was on fire and the water that was going to put it out was ones ever expanding inclusion of everything as not just my own body but the body of anything and everything.”
(my bold)
There is the metaphor of our fall from grace.
There is the metaphor of “I am everyone”
I think the magic number is not 2, not 1, but 0.
I am nothing but the empty space that embraces all.
But of course all these metaphors are wrong. They may one day be helpful, but meanwhile they can only be a burden.
From one single occurence - like a word, a noise, a grimace, a smile - my brain has already painted a clear and undeniable and complex fantasy - and I will act accordingly - be it with violence or pleasing words.
Yes. As long as that ‘complex’ (the bundle) of ‘me’ is there, that is the only thing that can happen. That is the ‘prison’. We all have it. It is the ‘wrong turn’. What Howard has referred to. When the brain dies, it will end. K. has said that that death has already happened in time. (we can be certain of at least that!) Now, can it be died to now, so there is no more accumulation?
**Hello Dan - I think I understand your point clearly, ‘what the words point to’. But it seems a little misleading to imply that the ‘brain’ dies, now. It seems to be more like, “Can the brain die to the known,” and more specifically, to the “psychological known.” All of the fictional scenarios in thought, of a “me,” and all of the stories of ‘what supposedly happened to me’.