I have no choice. When you see something beautiful you look at it. It may be all an illusion; so you have to share it to find out.
What happens when we refuse to accept any answer to the question, whether it is your answer or my answer? Then there is something far more interesting at work than just this verbal sparring.
It can’t ever get free because the self is the trap. You are the trap. And you are thought. And thought is aware of disorder. So what will you do?
Charley no longer gets angry, etc… and it is no longer a question of agreement or disagreement, for that matter.
Charley has no opinions about anything. All opinions that anyone has are a result of conclusions that are a result to the self’s reaction to an incident that provokes/triggers a reaction (to the self’s conditioning).
Now, just who is this “we”, this royal we? Please list all the people who comprise this royal we…
Whether one says that the self is important or unimportant is but another conclusion, which is caused by thought.
Oh yes, it does have everything to do with identification. I know that because I did that some 7-10 years ago (not sure, don’t recall the exact time). Charley did a whole lot of experimentation. I did an “I am that” with the universe then. Boy, was that ever trippy! Floated on Cloud 9 (lol). Fortunately, not much time passed (a week or 2 - don’t recall exactly), when I suddenly realized that the ongoing process of meditation that was always happening in the background had stopped !!!
And it dawned on Charley: ut oh! Mistake! It is quite a lot of fun to experiment, but this one was wrong. So, sat down quite quietly and backtracked in my mind to the moment of that (cough*) choice, and saw the decision/choice. Instantaneously, and fortunately, that choice disappeared, the meditation resumed - as if nothing (no thing, no thought) had occurred, and Charley did a big “phew”, and relaxed.
Charley is well aware that there are those that actually do “I am that” with anything outside of themselves - a tree, a bush, etc. And among some of their conclusions is usually the phrase “Life’s a joke,” - in other words meaningless. Charley’s understanding is that Charley’s life did have meaning. There was a reason for everything that had happened to Charley, and Charley would never have understood that had it not been for the ongoing meditation, and had finished reading the book of oneself…
In Klaus’ case, his conclusions are obviously those of having reached a higher state of Self. You do recall, Paul, K’s discussion of “higher self”, “lower self”, etc. The self, whatever one calls it: big, small, “I”, “me”, etc. etc. etc. is still the self; and, as long as the self continues to exist inside, thought wrecks incredible mischief and horrors in the world.
When you say,
you are saying that every mortal thought (because the word “thing” also means thought) is sacred. You are saying that thought is sacred, right?? And that is a statement (conclusion) which completely contradicts everything that K stood for and talked about his entire life. That particular statement is also entirely false. It is life that is sacred, not thought - all of which brings Charley to K’s “impossible question”, “Can thought stop?”
I am just a thought. All I do is understanding the pattern in thoughts, sensations, and keep questioning.
It is a trap, I agree. At the same time, I have to mention that there is transformation in my thought process.
Is thought itself the core of disorder? Can it recognize this and end of its own decision?
Yes, this is the next question: Is the finishing of answers another step of thinking, does thinking use this step to continue, to continue here in this dialogue?
Or does it end its activity?
No. That’s your interpretation.
Therefore, what matters most? The beautiful thing that we both happened to catch a glimpse of or our relationship?
No, you said it:
The word thought (think) is related etymologically to the word thing. In other words, they mean the same thing.
K: Sir, let us put it, approach it, differently. Everything thought has created is not sacred, is not holy.
B: Because it is fragmented.
K: It is fragmented. We know that putting up an image and worshipping it is a creation of thought.
That which is whole, in other words, that which is holy, is sacred. The words whole and holy are related etymologically.
Living in time, I am a frame in a mental movie of my life. I have a past and a future, both of which affect me to some extent. I have history.
Living out of time, I am … … … well there’s really no strong feeling of I, at least not in the I-ego sense, living out of time there are sensations, perceptions, feelings, but no context to root them in. Krishnamurti said “I am nothing.” Others: “I am everything.”
Living in time is a rich multi-dimensional experience filled with a vast range of emotions, from ecstasy to utter despair. It is grounded in becoming.
Living out of time is … well, words don’t apply so much, but maybe immersive comes close? Flow. One is in flow.
Intelligence imo is to know when to live in time and when to live out of time. The art, as sivaram said.
Well…intelligence is not knowing when/what/which/whom/where, but flowing. It doesn’t have an opinion/conclusion/words about it. Based on the situation, it flows without any fixed rule. No one can understand it with knowledge/words/thoughts.
Then perhaps we need a better dictionary because a mortal thing is something living, alive; and thought is not that.
We said that: I am thought; and thought is disorder.
Before you seek to understand or to question anything, can you keep so still that there is only the disorder and nothing else?
I am a disorderly human being. What happens to my disorder when it is allowed to flower in freedom? I don’t accept it, I don’t embrace it, I don’t stay with it; nor do I reject it, resist it or seek to alter it.
Freedom in relationship can never be an illusion.
And where does this knowledge come from?
Let’s go like this
What is disorder?
I have a similar kind of understanding of intelligence as you said.
Psychologically, isn’t disorder any incomplete action?