In intellectual circles, this word fact, is controversial. Mostly it is boiled down to individualism. So we talk about a true fact or a false fact, and are really talking about belief. But this word is pointing to what ever it is, where self is integrated, not separate, where there is no division, and no conflict. It is not being used in the usual way talking about some thing, perception or experience, etc. Nothing to do with knowing. It is where one is standing effortlessly. Conversationally I might say i know a fact, and you might take it either way, as a fact objectively, or subjectively, or even as a fact of choiceless awareness. But the actuality of a fact is not in verbal comprehension. We have difficulty seeing the world as a whole, because we perceive ourselves as one part of the many.
What do you mean by “self is integrated”? Can you clarify what division are you referring to? R.D. Laing wrote a book called “The Divided Self” and it’s about insanity.
Where did it all start? Where does self come into it? Self is a function of the way we live. It is a result. It is not the beginning of it all. We are not Gods. Where there is integration with the world, there is no self. This is not saying self becomes something, changes, or anything. It is a word. The word does not have existence. It is a thought in the mind. The whole integrated world has no parts.
Take sadness. I feel sad, and overtime I have recollections, regrets, disappointments, etc., and I think these are my sadness. I look back at sadness. We don’t see there is a great human sadness, suffering, and I am experiencing this in my petty way. We have turned compassion into an idea.
The feeling is there and we don’t like it, and we cover it up and only experience the distractions we create. Let’s not keep going along with the ideas. Let’s actually, fully realise, contemplate, the feelings, of a whole nature, and not keep searching amongst the memories and experiences we label and want to make sense of.
Can you explain this? The self and the world are two separate things. Is this not so?
In the mind the thinking is with concepts, and then uses more concepts. It applies concepts, compares them, and works through concepts. The mind is looking with concepts and does not realise it is limited to this conceptual way of thinking. It can only look back at it’s store of concepts, in memory, in knowledge. It thinks something, some experience, some aspect, is to be understood in this conceptual framework, and can not see outside of this. Are you sure you want this explained? When I say it is hot, it is obvious there is no coldness right now.
I asked you to explain what you said: “Where there is integration with the world, there is no self.”
Just focus on and clarify what you mean by your above statement.
What do we want with an explanation? Isn’t this saying its up to you to properly inform me. Its the habit acquired from teachers, and generally in society, and we are left looking for instructions and directions. Then I think, but I want my own way, my own success, and it becomes a problem to live in the world.
We are in a discussion forum. Even if you are lecturing from a podium, you have an obligation to explain what you say when asked to do so. If you are unable or unwilling to, just say so. We can move on.
That is the way it seems to me. I’m sure that I’m not alone. I’ve watched him ‘work’ at trying to 'bring something out" He ‘worked’. When he said that there is no beginning to life and , no end…when someone or something we ‘love’ dies, that the love does not die…