Perhaps we are hurt on a daily basis. Does hurt have to be made personal and converted into suffering each time we are hurt?
No, it may just be a way of expressing something out of the ordinary, which is a mind that refuses to suffer. Is such a mind possible?
Are you devastated? Or is this a theoretical scenario?
is in conflict? is suffering?
No, we are missing the point. Let’s start again in a new thread and go from there.
Not interested in your boasting?
Forget all that. Do you suffer?
This question is just speculation.
Yes, obviously, the source of conflict is the existence of the “I”.
The point was, that conflict is fundamentally I, self, and there is no relationship as we like to think there is, or is not.
Yes, Peter, intellectualization is an exercise of one particular layer of the consciousness, of the “I”, and there is no true relationship between two talking heads. Neither would feel deeply “related” to each other, hence the manifestation of conflict is likely. And, however comforting it is to find someone on the same wavelength as one is (who has a similar layer of consciousness), even verbal (apparently affectionate) exchanges that pass as dialogue within such a frequency/wavelength exchange may end up only increasing the strength and density of that particular layer of consciousness in each of the participants. In other words, their particular ideological stance will be reinforced - and only devolve into a belief that both share.
1 Like
You’d like to forget all your boasting.
Isn’t the self / me a kind of “boast” itself? Whether it considers itself superior, inferior, or somewhere in between, I still see myself as an ‘individual’ apart from everyone and everything else? I take it that is the “psychosis” Peter mentioned. The psychosis is the brain’s belief / attachment to this ‘division’.
As an ordinary person I wouldn’t think about this stuff, and it is mostly understood within the framework of professional analysis, and which we may read about. So I have to ask, how can it actually reach my thinking, as an immediate thinking experience, not as secondhand? There is no point just talking about it like we do between each other, when there is no understanding there is an inherent conflict in self. Self can have no remedy for itself, beyond self. This thinking that self can find a different solution is false. All self does is manage, organise, the thinking, and others, and their thinking.
What I like or dislike is irrelevant. You say you suffer; I say I don’t. Yet suffering goes on and on. So both these statements, yours and mine, are meaningless. In one statement you hear a boast. But in the other statement - ‘I suffer’ - there may be something far worse than any vain boast.
What I like or dislike is irrelevant
Yet the subject is still you, and how the other “may be something far worse”.
I don’t know. You have not revealed yourself. You are the one making it all about me.
Isn’t the whole point of being here about “knowing yourself” - understanding yourself - instead of knowing “the other”? And, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to have subject matter that remains impersonal and non-confrontational? When the subject matter gets personal, dialogue degenerates, even ends. I must add that as I browsed various topics on here, I happened upon a commentary on a zoom meeting; and, reading about the conflict therein and staring at that comment, I wondered whether or not to download the zoom app, and as my hand and cursor hesitated above the blue button, the mind/heart piped up and said “no”. So, no zoom meetings for charley.
1 Like
Or let’s find out why we are here. In our relationships to one another, that’s where we’ll find out who and what we are and why we are here. Then it isn’t myself or yourself that actually matters, only the relationship.
When I said that understanding oneself is the whole point of being here (on this site), I was in no way suggesting that our relationships (on this site) will necessarily show us who, what and why we are here (on this site!!!).
Insofar as who one is, that is at the very beginning, and that begins in looking at the conflict around oneself, all of it. Only then can one begin to look inside by attending to (by passive awareness) one’s reactions. This seeing itself begins to awaken intelligence.
Insofar as why one is on this site… really? For some, tomorrow, that may change… this doesn’t seem like a good question.
For those who are advanced enough, and have some intelligence, it is only through the emptying of the contents of consciousness that one can discover the “why” of one’s life, and that can only be done through meditation, not dialogue. When one has emptied all the contents of one’s consciousness, then one can easily see why one was born, why one had the childhood one had, why one had the life one had, why one had the relationships one had - everything has been shown, which all leads to understanding. And it is this understanding that will give one a sense of the meaning one’s life - meaningfulness. And I would add the purpose of a particular life is to discover that meaningfulness. Without an awakening intelligence , meditation is impossible.
I could go on, but somehow I wonder whether people on this site are advanced enough to get it.
I will add one final statement - that the reason I am here - on this site - is a way of giving back for all that I have received. And I have absolutely no intention of encouraging intellectual discussions, which I consider to be rather meaningless, potentially leading to leading to wrong questions, wrong conclusions.