Well, I’ll give an example of deepening understanding and a valuable insight:
Until my early thirties, I lived in my native country and spoke only English. After this, I moved abroad and eventually learned to speak two new languages. This gave me some insight, which I regard as very valuable, into how languages work and made me more aware of both spoken and written language in general. With deeper understanding came an appreciation of how learning a language involves learning also new expressions, stories, songs and many other aspects of the culture which is behind a languages. I reflected on how I spoke, grew to appreciate regional accents and the importance of minority languages. All in all, learning two new languages was a most enriching experience and completely changed the way I felt about language. Of course, I don’t consider myself an expert and still have a lot to learn but I do think that I have some insight regarding language and how we use it.
The question here seems to be whether it is possible or not to come together on this forum in order to explore subjects such as attachment, fear, violence etc. Is it possible to explore, deepen our understanding and share insights regarding the subjects we discuss? I would say that it is and that I have direct experience of this on this forum although, of course, this does not happen in every dialogue.
I am not dismissing those insights which come to us as we learn new skills, especially language skills. Technical insights have their place. What I am questioning is the value of any form of insight into the psychology of the self.
I am fear; I am my attachments; I am violence. There may a perception of this fact which puts to an end the whole confusing mess of sorrow. But insight alone cannot bring about any change. Insight has never done this because thought says, ‘I have discovered something. There is still deeper to go. Let me share this insight.’ Insight only perpetuates the mess because there is still a centre involved saying, ‘Go deeper, share.’
It may be a shock to hear this but it is simple enough if one looks at it carefully and tests it out. Most people won’t even entertain this as a possibility because of the very insights to which they are attached.
Paul, when you make statements like this it seems that you are here in the role of a teacher rather than someone participating in a dialogue. This can have a destructive effect on any possibility of joint exploration. It may come as a shock, but the truth is that none of us are experts in the field of the psychology of the self.
So you are saying that this perception is not insight. What is it then? Can you give an example of this kind of perception?
Hey… not that. if we can see the thought where & why it arises (i.e. we have to get to the root of the thoughts), then we can easily pull out & throw it away.
Let we substitute other example. Say, we see a car. What happens next? i.e. when senses sees the object, it passes the information to the brain, then what happens? thought arises and says ‘I need that car’ right?. Then there forms a desire. We struggle to earn money and purchase the car. If we can’t succeed, then there is ‘pain,sufferings,fear,etc…’. If we succeed, there is ‘pleasure’ for some time and another desire forms in the same manner. And it’s going on repetitive in our whole life. If we are aware, we can stop it. But are we aware of it?
I have just said we have to test it out. It is simple enough when we look at it together. I stick to that. It is the assertion of an eager pupil, if you must put some label to it. I am seeing something and conveying it to you. You will see it too if you look. But don’t create this image of a teacher and put that barrier between us. If others want to play that game, it is up to them.
That is like asking for an example of insight. Perception has no examples. This is where we get stuck because thought wants to understand the nature of perception. Take the only example we have, which is here with us every day of our lives: fear, violence, greed, selfishness, the fact of what we are. Thought says, ‘My God, I am not that.’ Or, ‘Yes, I was that but tomorrow I will be better.’ So thought is observing the fact as something negative, and either rejects it or tries to change it, which is thought choosing what to do about it.
This is not the teacher speaking; I am pointing out something we can all see with our own eyes. But are we seeing this together or am I getting it wrong? Are we aware of what thought is doing? Not to reject it, not to change it, just to look at it.
No. It’s not desire. I can actually see what are all the effects of thought. Thought, when we are alone - always seeks ‘pleasure’ from whatever the senses comes across. It makes us to be attached with something, and to be a disciple for that attachment. It creates desires.
See, the person who I’m most attached, leaves me. I’m alone. Then Suffering,pain,fear takes place there. Then unconsciously, thought arises and says
if we go out of our house and enjoy the nature - we can forget the pain. Actually, we are not free from it, or
If we find another person/thing for attachment - say woman/alcohol/whatever it is - we can bring back the same feeling of ‘pleasure’ experienced with the person who left. Actually, we may get the same pleasure - but in time - they/that leaves him too or
If we become a disciple in a religious trust - make trust in god - that he will reveal me from my pain, but 'i think you know what actually happens", or etc…
But the thought does not leave me to go through the pain. Actually go through the pain means - not to suffer that ‘the person had left’ and cry daily. Go through actually means to observe what happens.
One day, K’s brother dead. He was everything to him. What happened next - does he suffer all day. No, he observed what happens when we suffer. Through observation he had get to the root of it. That’s what i’m saying.
Why do you want to be free from it? You are it. You are desire, suffering and pain; you are fear, violence, greed and loneliness. You are the whole wheel of sorrow. And thought turns the wheel.
I am not sure whether terms like undistorted perception or full treasure make much meaning considering the facts of existence we are bound with.
Limited perception implies just that it requires understanding to realize its limits. To term it as distorted is to get caught up in a never ending cycle of effort making.
Yes. It’s not a motto. He may be right/wrong. But we can enquire about it. Because we can see that he is free from it. That’s why we gather here. Not to discuss verbally right?
So you are basically saying, “I know but you don’t know. Just look harder.” This will usually lead to a one way flow of communication where you are so certain that you know the truth that you stop listening to anyone else. This is a dynamic that is very common in the world we live in. Assumed knowledge blocks any kind of new experience or new learning. Having said that, let’s proceed.
Let’s see if I’ve got this right - you claim that there is a certain kind of perception which may lead to the ending of violence, greed, selfishness etc. When I ask for an example of this, you claim this is (my) thought wanting to know the nature of perception. You state that there are no examples of perception. Is that right or have I misunderstood? The problem is that we can all claim that anything written on this forum is the product of thought, including what you say about perception. You will probably reply that you have seen this for yourself, have direct experience and so know you are right. So yes, we are stuck here.
I don’t know if we are aware of what thought is doing. This is a question we can only take away and experiment with in our daily lives. Krishnamurti spoke about the importance of observation with a silent mind. Have you experimented with that?
No, on the contrary. All effort is gone because you don’t waste time searching for understanding. Perception is now; understanding is either about yesterday or tomorrow. Time doesn’t bring about change. Change is now. I will show you.
I am violent - to see this now and live with it demands no effort at all. To seek to understand it puts everything into the future. What is there to understand? I am violent.
No, I am saying I see something, I may be wrong in what I see, let’s look at it together. You are bringing back the teacher.
I see you and you see me - this is the only example that makes any sense. (On this forum I see the words you post and you see mine - let’s not split hairs.) How are you seeing me and what I say? As a teacher? As a pupil? Or are you just seeing what I say and listening to it, testing it as to whether or not it makes any sense? Then it is a perception without any images interfering in the perception. In the same way to look at fear, violence, the self in action, without any images to distort what we are looking at. There are plenty of examples of distorted perception because they all get written down and recorded. They become our principles, beliefs, standards and mantras. Perception is none of that.
