I suppose that brings up the question of : what might cause us to see clearly what we are?
Would I be going too far as to say : what might cause us to see the obvious?
Or is what/who I am not obvious? Am I not directly living the experience of who I am?
Is it some complex unknown that I am supposed to see?
Dan re #40:
Personally, I do NOT think that one canât surrender unless one wants something better. People surrender or donât surrender for different reasons. Some do surrender for something better, as part of a deal or a bargain. Some surrender because they have no energy left to fight. Some surrender because they would rather die than surrender.
Some surrender because they see the folly, futility and waste of energy in their struggle. They donât know what to do, they donât have an answer to their questions, but they see clearly that their efforts - like the efforts of Tantalus - cannot quench their thirst or sate their hunger. Beyond that, one sees - I see - that human action is not inevitably determined by the thought process alone. And of course, I might be wrong.
To Inquiry (#41):
I do NOT say that I know that surrender is what it takes to solve mankindâs problems. What I see in moments of attention, in moments of awareness, is that it is an absolutely immovable fact that thought cannot do it. Maybe NOTHING can act on the chaos and suffering. I donât KNOW. Thousands of years of recorded history have gone by, societies have come and gone, technologies have progressed, and mankindâs seemingly best, creative minds have addressed the fact of our endless problems. Not only has no solution been found by thought, but the problems are, as I see it, greater, more numerous and more dangerous than ever.
Over the years, some here have expressed that perhaps it will take more time, that manâs intellect WILL eventually be able to resolve what seems to be our insurmountable problems. I donât see it that way and I donât know what, if anything, can bring about a fundamental change in the heart and mind of the human being. Maybe the chaos and suffering donât matter on some level, but we passionately, choicelessly feel that it does. No? Those who feel that way donât choose to feel that way, they just do. We can only live according to our understanding.
âWeâ, the conditioned brain, can never see anything for what it is until/unless it is free of its conditioning. So the question is, What frees the brain from its conditioning - not what can I, the conditioned brain do to enable, facilitate, invite, freedom. The conditioned brain can only imagine freedom since it exists to prevent freedom; it is the antithesis of freedom.
Thereâs no freedom until there is; no light going on in the conditioned brain illuminating it, exposing it for what it is because it is darkness, opacity, the pandemonium of confusion.
What relieves the conditioned mind of its conditioning, the conditioned mind can only guess, speculate, ponder. Freedom is a fantasy until the fantasist is free to see what it has been and can never be again.
Yes, but what you describe here is not surrenderâŚitâs just calling it futility so you can quit.
Surrender is a term used in contests, be they bloody wars or sports events, and its a tactic, an alternative to fighting to the death, sacrificing your life.
If all you were doing was trying to find out how to free yourself from your self, there was no contender, no contest. And if after years of persisting in this search, you decide itâs not worth the effort, a waste of energy, you call off the search and get on with your life.
You have to be a contender to surrender. Searching for whatever it takes to be more at home with the unknown than the known is just something one does until quitting or dying, whichever comes first.
Of course. All we can do is be honest enough to be what we are emotionally, regardless of how others feel about us, how badly or poorly weâve behaved in their eyes. All we can do is feel good enough about ourselves and our feelings to carry on, whether weâre searching for something, or for nothing but the end of searching.
re #47
Inquiry,
If you Google the word âsurrenderâ, you will find lots of various definitions, contexts, connotations and nuances for it. Some are as you defined it. But there are quite a few others which are not.
What I mean by surrender is not just acknowledging the futility of my and mankindâs efforts to remedy the global disorder. Seeing the futility of effort does not lead to me deciding that effort is not âworthâ it. Observation, attention, perception bring understanding (although I might be fooling myself that it IS understanding). Observing and questioning are an unsought part of my life, not separate from my life. They are not a search I can call off. Seeing the futility of thoughtâs forced âactionsâ is itself spontaneous action. So there is then no âgetting on with my lifeâ, no life to âget back toâ which had been left on the shelf while I persisted in my efforts to understand. I donât see it as a wild goose chase. I may NOT understand, I may be deluded in my questioning and understanding, but it is not a choice I am making. I do not seek the questions; the questions find me, if you understand what I mean. I cannot choose to stop questioning. Can YOU stop? Does what Iâm saying have any meaning for you? I could still be mistaken and deluded.
Whoâs to say who? If there is any authority, it is choiceless awareness, and we donât know what that is because we believe in choosing what is true, false, this or that; we believe in choosing what to believe.
Okay. What is it, then, that youâve surrendered to?
I cannot choose to stop questioning. Can YOU stop? Does what Iâm saying have any meaning for you? I could still be mistaken and deluded.
So why say youâve surrendered?
I can see that my interactions with @Inquiry often hit a brick wall - which is frustrating because I have my motives and nothing seems to make the conversation budge.
But what can be gained by brutalising our interlocutor? Especially if I know nothing (apart from my own projections) about my interlocutor.
Attacking people because they seem somehow deficient to me seems odd. What does it say about me?
As I mentioned, there are several existing definitions of surrender. It can mean surrender in battle, surrender to God, surrender to fear, to fatigue, to anger, to conceit, to desire, to love, surrender to various sorts of demands, and so on. Definitions are important but definitions cannot set us free from the battle that rages within, which is what mankind hungers for, it seems to me. Isnât it seen that every drop of understanding loosens the bondage to thought?
To me, surrender in this instance is the end of thought resisting thought, and thought is the essence of psychological conflict. No? Is it observed that resistance brings peace? If our questions are followed to their root or source, to the thing itself, that observation acts. That action is understanding. It is surrender to life in this moment â whether the moment is pain, fear, anger, desire, beauty, love, happiness, peace, discontent, questioning, reactive response, confusion, joy. For thousands of years, we have been trying to change ourselves and others and it has not brought us peace.
We stop resisting when the process which underlies resistance is clearly, irrevocably seen operating. Perception acts.
The unknown, the ânot thoughtâ, has no authority. As it is, surrendering to the known is our conditioning, our habit which gives thought authority. But thought is not the enemy.
Thatâs my understanding. I might be wrong.
The âenemyâ of who or what? Identification seems to be an enemy doesnât it? If we grant the possibility that the brain has infinite potential and that potential is being denied, then whatever the cause is behind that denial is an âenemyâ? If psychological thought has created an illusory entity and somehow the presence of that has limited the brain as a result, then thought would be an enemy?
Cont.
So it is the brain that has to awaken to the danger of the fiction of âwhat should beâ rather than the fact of âwhat isâ. Thought as calculator, analyzer, creator, composer, troubleshooter etc has a place but not as you say, an âauthorityâ in the mind?
Isnât the main limiting factor for the brain /mind, its identification as âme and mineâ?
And if it so, can there be awareness of that identification as it takes place?
The âgoalâ is freedom from the thing. The thing itself is not the problem.
The processes that make us what we are, are all we have to work with. So is being human a problem or an opportunity?
I donât know whether our potential is infinite, but do we have the capacity of understanding the model (of the self and its conditioning) and its limitations, seeing the process at work (in relationship as we experience it), and not being its puppet (at least not all the time)?
We definitely seem to understand the problem of self, intellectually we seem to be able to articulate it.
But stopping there, and brandishing our confused grasp of the model with pride, is not the goal.
A âproblemâ in that there is suffering (and we cause suffering in others). An âopportunity â in that there may be a possibility of freedom.
But believing that we are any thing other than âBeingâ, may be the real problem?
Thought argues with itself because, being incoherent, it is incessant and contradictory. This is our condition and resistance and surrender are futile. All we can do is be aware of the movement of incoherent thought.
Is it observed that resistance brings peace? If our questions are followed to their root or source, to the thing itself, that observation acts. That action is understanding. It is surrender to life in this moment â whether the moment is pain, fear, anger, desire, beauty, love, happiness, peace, discontent, questioning, reactive response, confusion, joy. For thousands of years, we have been trying to change ourselves and others and it has not brought us peace. We stop resisting when the process which underlies resistance is clearly, irrevocably seen operating. Perception acts.
Are you saying that observation without the observer is actual for you - not just something K said, but the thing itself - and what youâre calling surrender is the end of the observer?
The unknown, the ânot thoughtâ, has no authority.
And you have surrendered to the unknown?
The Unknown that you refer to, and they that surrender to it, is a cartoon and its character. This is like asking everyone if they are the cartoon. Are you a cartoon? are you a cartoon?
The problem is the dictat of the known. Do we have to keep brandishing what we know as a weapon and an excuse?
Our grasp of the problem is not confused if we know that confusion is like the movement of a rolling stone - inevitable until it is impossible. In our case the stone can pretend it isnât bound to come to ground if it doesnât do something to end its rolling condition, or it can watch with interest whatâs happening.
[quote=âmacdougdoug, post:60, topic:2224â]
The Unknown that you refer to, and they that surrender to it, is a cartoon and its character. This is like asking everyone if they are the cartoon. Are you a cartoon? are you a cartoon? [/quote]
Yes. Arenât you? Do you know who what you are? Are your images of you and me and others not cartoons?
The problem is the dictat of the known. Do we have to keep brandishing what we know as a weapon and an excuse?
Do we have to make harsh accusations? Iâm not sure I know exactly what youâre referring to.
If you feel Iâve been brandishing what I know âas a weapon and an excuseâ, why havenât you called me on it before? Why let it go until you blow your top?
This question is of limited value.
If @Huguette answers yes, you will most likely label her as deluded. If she answers no, you will say she is guessing and therefore equally deluded.
Ultimately, we are all alone with this stuff and can only use each other as sounding boards. Cynicism and the desire for authenticity are important and have its place but we have to bear in mind that the problem of what awareness is is a uniquely solitary affair.