Unaware contradiction

Kinfonet Discussion
70

Yes, but this is where it is possible for subtle misunderstandings to creep in.

“Evil” can simply be understood as a rather strong way of talking about the “darkness” of unconsciousness (or lack of awareness). We all know the danger that completely unaware people pose to themselves and to others, and we can call this lack of awareness “darkness” or “evil.”

And “sacred” can simply be understood as a strong way of talking about reality untainted by the projections of our thinking.

But these words have strong, prejudicial meanings of their own.

The danger of paring together words like “evil” and self, “sacred” and what lies beyond self, is that they naturally feed into thousands of years of abuse and misuse by religious authorities, by human beings who have coerced others through propaganda, through reward and punishment, heaven and hell, God and the devil.

But, if we are being simple about it, all these stories of evil and of God (or the sacred) are also the creations of thought. So they are part of ‘what is’, just as thought is part of ‘what is’.

This is something first of all to be observed (rather than labelled). No?

71

It would be ignorant to say people aren’t kind, giving, etc. But the self-help gurus are to my mind missing the basic problem which is the self image we think we are. They are trying to burnish it, make it ‘better’. K is saying as I hear it, it has to be dissolved for humanity to survive.

72

Well of course!..

73

Maybe it is just a matter of what we are talking about, because I am not denying that there is objectively in the world certain actions or activities (and even traces or effects that they leave ‘in the air’ and in human consciousness) that we can call “evil.”

But in observing the movement of our thinking, the movement of our reactions, the word “evil” always interposes itself as a judgement (as far as I understand it). Which naturally brings with it the idea - as Emile says - of something

But of course, this brings with it the question of who or what is going to do the “eradicating” - which then becomes more important than the simple observation of what is taking place in thought (as a continually arising movement of reaction, etc).

As far as I understand it, what we call self or ego is a movement of thought taking place psychologically of which we are generally unaware - and so the intelligent thing to do is to be aware of this movement as it is happening, without judging it as good or bad, right or wrong. Just observing it as though it were part of nature (although it may not be a permanently necessary part of nature - we leave that question open).

As a movement of thought, the self or ego is obviously limited, partial, incomplete in its experience of relationship - which is what creates conflict between people. And so there can be an awareness of the conflict, of the incompleteness (or limitation) of the reaction that created the conflict, as well as the movement of reaction itself.

If the self - or the movement of thought - can be ended, then this neutral observation of its daily activities (in relationship) must be there, right? I don’t think you would disagree with any of this.

74

No but aren’t you sliding over the difficulty of following every thought?

75

I don’t think I’m saying anything about difficultly or ease, only that without observation of the movement of thought (as reaction) there doesn’t seem to be a possibility of it “ending”.

77

I had an insight coincidentally while trying this excercise of following each thought. Something Douglas said a while back of thought stopping when he tried it. The insight I had was that thought doesn’t stop but a thought arises that says ‘thought has stopped’. In other words thought instead of being watched becomes the ‘watcher’ if that makes sense. So realizing that, the watching can continue until another thought arises that takes over the watching and ends it. That is what K meant about staying with it and not losing it in the middle.

78

No without thought’s awareness of what it’s doing, that it’s in the ‘wrong’ place, it has no reason to stop. I think that the attempt to follow thought whenever and wherever brings that awareness to itself.

79

Interesting…

Thought sabotaging the watching by claiming ownership of the watching! It’s strange isn’t it? It’s like when the mind is momentarily quiet and spacious, followed by the sense of “I have got it now, I know what spaciousness is” (which of course is the sabotaging of any spaciousness!). It’s a subtle business all this.

I think what you said previously is quite accurate: there’s awareness, the absence of awareness, and the awareness that one is no longer aware (the attention to inattention). There is a whole world - of suffering and beauty - in this dance of the mind.

80

Thought proceeds by a process of association. ‘Rigorous’ thoughts proceed associating with the ‘subject. Non rigorous thought moves from subject to subject…Attention as I understand it is to stay with both? It means an awareness of the ‘trickster’.

81

Depends what you mean by “separate”. The things you’ve named are different, which is why their names are separate. But every distinctively different thing is inseparable from every other distinctively different thing.

82

I don’t think it’s possible for the limited brain to imagine what love, compassion, observation, etc., are. If they can be imagined, they can be faked, and no one would know. As it stands, we don’t know what these words actually refer to, no matter how earnestly we try to imagine.

83

I’m not sure who the self-help gurus are. It seems that many therapists around the world are doing a good job helping people to live better lives. I know this isn’t the shattering of the ego through insight that K talked about but therapists can surely help their clients to have some kind of partial insight into destructive behaviour patterns etc.

It comes back to the practicalities of what K said, I suppose. While we are still investigating what K was pointing to, a bit of self-help can be very useful, at least for some people, I think.

84

No doubt there’s a place for analysts, therapists for extreme cases, suicide, aggression, perversions, phobias, etc.

But as I see it, the ‘self’ has to go…not be propped up.

85

Can the “absence of awareness and the awareness that one is no longer aware (the attention to inattention)” be acknowledged without awareness?

1 Like
86

That last, ‘attention’, K has said is “not aware of itself”.

1 Like
87

I’m not sure I understand the question here Inquiry. Doesn’t any acknowledgement imply some kind of awareness?

Surely there needs to be an awareness of X before X can be acknowledged (to acknowledge means “to admit what one knows”).

88

I don’t see how one can be “aware that one is no longer aware”. I’m either aware or I’m unconscious.

I can be aware of how poorly or how exceptionally aware I am, but I can’t be aware of not being aware.

1 Like
89

An extreme example:

Once upon a time there was a young man and his teacher. The day was hot, and the teacher asked the young man for a glass of water.

“Of course teacher, I will go right away and get you some water.”

The young man went down to the nearby river to fetch some water for his teacher to drink, and while he was doing so he heard the most enchanting sound carrying through the air. Somewhere down river a young woman was singing her heart out with the most beautiful voice, and the young man felt moved to thank her for the lovely plaintive music she had been making.

Walking down river he spied a little thatched cottage, surrounded by a pretty little flower garden. He knocked at the door, and a beautiful young woman with long flowing hair appeared at the entrance. She invited him in to hear her sing.

The young man was enraptured, and quickly fell in love.

Years passed, and the loving couple produced several children, who the doting mother also taught to sing. There was much happiness and music in the house, and on a summer’s afternoon the laughter of both parents and children could frequently be heard floating across the waters.

However, one autumn day the clouds burst, and the rain began to fall. It didn’t just rain for one day, but two. It didn’t just rain for two days, but three. Three days became four and then five. One week’s rain became two weeks of rain. As the rains fell, so did the river rise.

Eventually there was flooding throughout the land. The water broke through the garden fence, it crept up over the entrance to the cottage, and soon the young man was carrying his children up to the thatched roof.

“Don’t worry,” the young man said to his wife and children, “God will save us. All will be okay.”

But all was not okay. The waters rose above the cottage roof, and the floods carried off one child, and then the second. The young man tried holding on to his wife, but she was carried off too.

In shock and distress the young man called out “O my god, what is happening? What is going on?”

And suddenly, as if not a minute had passed since he had last made his request, the young man’s teacher said:

“Now where is that glass of water?”

90

Yes, of course I agree. K seemingly discovered a way to end the self with one profound insight and spent his life pointing the way for others to do the same. Let’s keep exploring this and see what happens.

1 Like