Which is? I mean, where would you be if you actually saw the flaws in all views?
āKnowingā neither I nor anyone else ultimately knows anything. I.e. in free fall. And okay with it.
1 Like
You have already devoted a lifetime of work to it - and where has it got you? You are still at the point of indecision. How long does it take to drop the past? Either you do it or you donāt - it canāt ever be a gradual process. So, do you want to do it? Obviously not. Therefore, take desire out of it altogether. Just drop the entire lifetime of spiritual-emotional work - drop it all as so much junk - and see what happens. And as the junk resists, reacts, listen completely to the reaction. This reaction is the sum total of the past resisting change, resisting the new. This reaction is you. And is there actually any further reaction when you are listening to it with total attention?
Resisting the new and missing the comfort of the known. We are, to a large extent, creatures of habit. Tradition soothes us.
Weāve heard this over and over, and we believe itās true, but itās like going to church for years and being told repeatedly that youāre not saved until you accept Jesus and renounce yourself.
But close examination of those who imply that they are transformed by the experience of psychological death, shows that they are just profoundly deluded, utterly convinced of their exceptional status.
It seems that if you want something badly enough, desperately enough, you will have it, by god, whatever it takesā¦and no one will take it away by casting doubt on your conviction.
In this case - of understanding the workings of the self - even if we have never experienced it - we can surely see how this works logically? When you understand a problem or process - it totally changes our relationship to the process, the problem is no longer a problem.
As for our perception of other people, and their claims about themselves - there can obviously be delusions on both sides.
Yes, thatās why we believe itās true.
As for our perception of other people, and their claims about themselves - there can obviously be delusions on both sides.
Of course The one unable to see the truth of what he suspects is true, is skeptical, doubtful that anyone can cease to be confounded. And the one who is no longer confounded, yet incapable of expressing this freedom unconventionally or originally, is suspected of being delusional.
2 thoughts come to mind :
-
If I have an idea of what an enlightened person is, and how they should act, this is obviously a fallacy/delusion - correct?
-
If I donāt understand what someone is saying how do I tell which party is lacking? Are they describing something of which I have no experience and thus cannot recognise, or are they confused and rambling some nonsense?
I get the impression that sometimes some people are saying quite simple things and their interlocutor is not getting it at all. And of course sometimes I donāt myself get what some people are trying to say.
And a 3rd thing : Silence is not always a memorable moment. However, an intense change of consciousness experience, due to the falling away of self, can sometimes occur, but does not last forever. And once the self, with its conditioning/beliefs, remembers the experience - this is often the cause of further confusion and conclusions - which is a problem.
Itās an idea, but not necessarily āa fallacy/delusionā. What good is enlightenment if it sounds and looks like delusion?
I get the impression that sometimes some people are saying quite simple things and their interlocutor is not getting it at all. And of course sometimes I donāt myself get what some people are trying to say.
Krishnamurti said āsimple thingsā that few, if any, āgotā, so itās not just your impression.
Silence is not always a memorable moment. However, an intense change of consciousness experience, due to the falling away of self, can sometimes occur, but does not last forever. And once the self, with its conditioning/beliefs, remembers the experience - this is often the cause of further confusion and conclusions - which is a problem.
So this āfalling away of selfā is transitory, not the end of self, not the psychological death you spoke of?
If I have no idea what enlightnment is, or some vague imaginary idea of what it is, all my ideas about what an enlightened person is, or how they should act is obviously just a mistaken opinion.
Someone acting in a mysterious fashion during their day to day interactions with everyday folk is probably just confused.
The self is just a sensation produced by the brain, nothing actually dies, and the brain will very soon start to produce the sensation again if there is some hiatus in the process.
Everyone has some āidea of what enlightenment isā, but not everyoneās idea is āvagueā.
Enlightenment is seeing the cause of suffering.
Silence is freedom from the self.
Enlightened action is action without a center.
These descriptions are referring to the psychological self which is the movement of fear, and how this clouds our vision and commands our behaviour.
They seem vague like descriptions of the colour blue seem vague to a colourblind person.
Why would an enlightened mind speak condescendingly to someone admittedly benighted? Why speak from the other side when thereās no need to? If the enlightened mind canāt awaken the benighted mind without speaking from a position of separateness, how enlightened can it be?
But Iām probably putting the bar to high. Perhaps not even an enlightened mind is capable of speaking as directly to another as it is capable of perceiving the other.
In what way is the ānormallyā sighted person being condescending when describing the colour blue?
In no way does the description of the colour blue mean that the colourblind person now understands what seeing blue is like - no matter how unfair this seems.
A better example is the description of a long distance runnerās āsecond windā - we can talk about it all day - but to really know what its about, you have to go running.
1 Like
Does the enlightened mind need to defend itself?
1 - Iām not defending myself, Iām having a discussion with you.
2 - Like the self, the enlightened mind is not an entity (I am not enlightened)
1 Like