We do not strive to come to conclusions - they happen automatically (as part of the self’s survival instincts) - whatever we hear, smell, see, provokes a quasi immediate conclusion. (its a truck, its a bird) and value judgement.
Yes, but what is learning that is not for you? Learning per se. Learning without any purpose or motive behind it. You wanted to put aside the learner, but he keeps coming back in.
Again, what is beauty when it is not just for you? When one gets caught up in the many attractions of thought, how will you know that what you perceive as being without thinking is not just another variation of thought?
Which means thought’s responses and desires are actually quite mechanical and stupid. Now, can thought be in on this too?
Yes, if the information about whatever we are observing is already within our immediate field of knowledge there is an element of automatic response. But we are talking about how we approach anything new. How soon after the initial observation do we attempt to change it in order to bring it into the field of knowledge?
If I heard an alien spaceship whirring in my back yard, I would probably think it was a siren, or my washing machine on spin cycle.
Actually - true story : the first time I experienced a mini earthquake (and only time) the whole thing was over before I realised that it wasn’t just something wrong with the washing machine I was standing next to.
I’m not sure I’m capable of instantly realising I’m seeing something new - and when I do suddenly feel lost and confused by something I don’t recognise, my brain will pretty quickly kick in and persuade me that I do know what I’m experiencing. (nb. my brain actually thinks it knows a lot about alien spaceships)
So we transform the new into an old experience of feeling lost and confused and act from there. This is fairly common response, isn’t it? It means our feelings supersede our senses. Thought is then left to deal with the residue.
1 Like
An oxymoron. I learn, you learn, he she it learns. Learning doesn’t exist on its own.
Sure, it’s easy to observe thought’s intrusiveness.
I question it because this presupposes one knows everything there is to know about learning. So to say that learning doesn’t exist on its own is very much a statement made by the learner for the learner, in order to keep him in the loop. In effect, the learner is saying, ‘There is no learning without me. I must be a part of it.’ Such a statement doesn’t just betray the possibility of learning per se, but it is also a betrayal of the learner himself. The learner has prevented further learning except along his own narrowly prescribed lines. He has ceased being open to learning because he has settled on a conclusion about himself. He has stopped being a learner.
Thought’s responses and desires are mechanical, stupid, dictated by factors outside of immediate perception. It is easy for thought mechanically to observe its own mechanical nature. This is not in doubt. As you said, thought wants to be in on everything. But here, surely, is one area where thought cannot be involved at all.
This comes back to the different definitions of learning : learning as an accumulation - an accumulation of the knowing centre/self. Or learning as an openess to seeing the flux of what is.
One might be able to bridge this gap if there is an awareness of the movement of the self (its biological and psychological imperitives : the need to know, due to its evolutionary need for security and progress aka fear) in all processes, including learning. And that this selfcenteredness is necessarily biased at best.
Let’s bring it back. What does it mean to learn about the movement of the self? Does such a thing actually exist?
By movement of the self, I mean what we have conditioned to be and do, both biologically and psychologically.
I am a mammal and a primate and a homosapiens, this necessarily imples certain imperatives eg. what my eyes see, how my brain works, a tendancy for gregariousness (as a social animal).
And I was brought up in a particular environment so I have a tendancy to have certain beliefs and habits eg. when someone mentions the word self or jesus, I react emotionally in a particular way.
Oups! To learn about the movement would be to realise that I am not myself, I do not belong to myself. I do not choose what to think, what to believe - I’m a bit of a puppet
Hi sir,
Is it possible to have a relationship with a person without too much exchange of words?
I remember feeling that I had quite a close relationship with the person sitting next to me at a silent meditation retreat - but its more likely that feeling was wholly existant only in myself.
Also when we talk to someone else - the relationship might not exist outside our own head either - we may be just responding to the triggers in our own head - rather than understanding/receiving what the other person is expressing.
1 Like
I feel that there is some energy in relationship even without much talking.
Anyways relationship is a vast topic. 
1 Like
How do you distinguish between feeling something that is true (close to reality) and feeling something that is false?
Inside me sensations will take place, when I perceive something from opposite person but if I love that person I will be okay whether it is true or false and remain silent. 
I am a puppet and yet I attempt to learn. But I can’t learn at all. I can perform more and more puppet-like tricks, that’s all.
1 Like
What do you mean by relationship?
It would seem that this realisation would mean that some freedom from delusion is gained ?
Travelling in life with a person.