Sir. Yes sir. It is there sir. There is this demon conflict sir. And that demon is the ‘I’ sir. The whole world is the demon sir. We are dying because of that demon sir. Can you see that sir?
Why do you say ‘observation’ can’t bring ‘difference’ sir? - Can you describe that?
Wait, I don’t call it demon conflict. That is a skewed observation of it. The observer himself is the cause of the conflict, so when he says, ‘Demon,’ it is to gain control over it. The observer is the observed. All he can do is look at it. The moment he names it, resists it, reacts to it in any way, he has created a split between the observer and the observed.
Edit - Sir - Humanity is dying because of that conflict.He says I am conflict - and fight goes on. Please I beg you .Shall we observe conflict and enquire about it?
Yes, thought is present now. It’s necessary to read, process information and respond. Is that a problem though? I think the question is whether our conditioning, operating through thought, is obstructing communication in some way. Is previous knowledge restricting dialogue or are we actually discovering something new together?
If you feel, I had angered/pressurized you - I am sorry. But please don’t stop there that “I am Conflict”. One have to observe it. If you have some time to spend, please check this video. Don’t conclude that what is said in this video. We shall inquire about it.
Surely our levels of awareness vary from moment to moment and day to day. Our level of self-awareness will likely influence how we respond. Perhaps you have observed this in yourself. We don’t always respond in the same way to a scolding. I think there’s a danger of over-simplification to say that we always respond in the same way when something happens. Also, two different people may respond very differently.
Can you see sir - that you had said there is different level of Awareness - that is high/low, big/small - like that. Is there actually - high/low awareness? - Shall we inquire about that?
We believe that awareness is high/low - naturally. But is it really like that? - does it have levels?. Or is there something blocks us to be fully aware?
When we observe it totally, is there any need to enquire? There may not be. We enquire only when we are confused, unclear. So the first thing is just to look at what we mean by conflict. What is the source of conflict? Is it outside of you?
Hello Viswa. Yes, I can indeed see what I said. I hope you can too. Perhaps I can give an example of different levels of awareness. One day I might be sitting on a bus with my mind silent, observing what is going on around me and attentive to any flicker of thought which may appear in my head. On another day I might be sitting on the same bus but thinking about what I am going to cook for dinner so I am not very aware of what is going on around me. I would say that this illustrates my point about different levels of awareness. Wouldn’t you agree that there can be high and low levels of awareness?
That is the question. First of all, therefore, let’s find out exactly what it is that we are looking at together. Are we both of us looking at the same thing and in the same place and at the same time?
I think we have been looking at a number of things over the past few messages Paul. We were talking about insight a few messages back but now we’ve moved on to ask if past conditioning is blocking our communication in some way or whether we are actually discovering something new together. We seem to be both looking at this. The place is this forum but I think you may mean something else by “the same place”. Can you elaborate?
I can also see that. But, I don’t say that there is different levels. In my view, when ‘thought’ arises, there is no ‘awareness’ at all. The ‘awareness’ actually means to be conscious what happens around. See, in the same example - if you caught up in that ‘thought’ and someone calls you - the senses hear that. But will you respond to that?. No. Either you are caught up in ‘Past’ or ‘future in this case’ because of 'thought. Only when he comes near you and shakes you - you will come out from that ‘thought’. That means, either you are fully aware or there is no awareness at all. See?
I here also show you my view - which is same for the question which you had put forth before Paul.
Thought is necessary to process information i.e. to find out the meaning of the information that was seen. To read and respond - there is no need of ‘thought’.
To read is the duty of the senses i.e. the eye. The eye sees a word and transfers the information to the Brain by neurons. When you are aware - you urge to find out the meaning of the word. Then you will search the memories/knowledge - for the meaning of the word - and this searching is the ‘thought’. And if you are aware - you will immediately respond by seeing the meaning and will not let the thought carry forward you.
You see a question i.e. ‘what you ate as breakfast?’. Here, the eyes sees the word, and if you are aware i.e. not caught with ‘thoughts,etc.’ - - then you will see it as a question.Then you will search your past i.e. you will think what you ate and you find out - say ‘Pizza’. And you have to be again be aware there. Because if you let the thought go on - it will ask “He asked what you ate? - Do I have to say - where I ate? and how it was?” and you will be still thinking. If you are aware that - what he asked is just “what you ate” - then you will immediately response that - “I ate pizza”.
This is my view. What do you say?
When we observe we only not see that conflict, but also it’s effects too. If you see those effects and not respond to that - there is no awareness at all.
See - a Lion is in your house. When you see it - what will you do? You act right. How your action will be? - Will you sit with it, accept it as your family member and move on? Or will your action will be run away from it, call forest Department and rescue from it?
The actuality of conflict - is not an icecream. It actually means - the difference between ‘what was/ what should be’ and ‘what is’.
Please - I suggest you, we can continue this discussion after you see that video I had attached before and I’m again attaching the same herewith.
In my view, When we observe, we see - It is inside us. The conflict is - the ‘I’ tries to get away from the ‘I’ which is ‘sufferings,pain,etc…’, by making a belief that, there is something else which is not ‘sufferings,etc’, and does not accept the actuality that ‘I am suffering’.
The observation - ends conflict here. But the ‘I’ ‘suffers’. The effects of ‘I’ which is ‘sufferings’ - makes me be lonely,cry,etc… Then - don’t we continue to enquire about the ‘I’?
What is our greatest problem in life? And where is it? So there’s the problem and the place where it resides. Suppose we agreed that conflict is our greatest problem. Where is conflict? Where do we look?
The observation that ends conflict also brings to an end the ‘I’, doesn’t it? I am the conflict. It is the ending of both elements.
But I am not only conflict. The actuality is I am ‘sufferings/pain/etc.’ too. Only ‘I’ which is ‘conflict’ ends. That doesn’t had end my sufferings.
What pain? There is no pain without conflict.
My lovable one - who I had loved/attached for years - Either died/left me. And so ‘I’ suffer.
To shift my suffering i.e. ‘what is’. I believed that if I get attachment to someone - I may get out from this suffering i.e. ‘what should be’. And there arises conflict - that’s what we had observed and end it. But ‘I’ suffer’ still because of his/her leave. I’m alone. I cry. Does this crying, loneliness, continue my entire life?