That’s a bit of an intrusion of the metaphysics of time on what is phenomenally occurring now. Consider that time is ceaseless in its forward progression. So even its recursive structure of knowledge and labels is constituting what is present. One enfolds the other. When I “step back” I’m propelled forward.
Without what is past, what is “now” could never even constitute itself and exist. You’d have non-existence. Not even a cosmos. Just nothing. Which is an absurdity.
There is no such thing as leaving past knowledge behind. That leaving must consciously occur presently and the “present” itself is constituted by and as past knowledge, which in turn now necessitates the invocation of a conscious “I” to presently unfold what is past. Therefore, it is impossible to extinguish the “I.” The “I” is invoked from orders that precede it.*
*By using the word “precede” I mean that it logically precedes, not necessarily temporally precedes.
Well, I kinda already addressed that. There’s no such thing as ceasing to step back. You’re always-already constituted as such. Always. Forgive me the arrogance of re-quoting myself with a small substitution:
“There is no such thing as “not stepping back.” That “not stepping back” must consciously occur presently and the “present” itself is constituted by and as “stepping back,” (which is still a linear progression forward) which in turn now necessitates the invocation of a conscious “I” to presently unfold what is past. Therefore, it is impossible to extinguish the “I.” The “I” is invoked from orders that precede it.*”
*By using the word “precede” I mean that it logically precedes, not necessarily temporally precedes.
There may be an interval between two thoughts, but that is not aloneness. The interval between two wars is not peace. Can I take one thought, one memory, and stay with it?
How are you addressing it? From meeting what is actually happening in consciousness or from ideas that already exist in that consciousness? There is a huge difference.
It’s not peace. But ‘emptiness’. This is the problem Paul. We long for peace - but fail to see the ‘emptiness’. Peace is Positivity. It is an expectation. An opposite of war. War is ‘what-is’ and Peace is ‘what-should-be’. We have to inquire why war happens and go beyond ‘what-is’ and not towards ‘what-should-be’ in this world. If there is eternal peace in our society - what is there in living 100 years in peace?. But ‘emptiness’ is neutral. I feel K may fail to see this too.
You may also take the life of ‘K’. Say, if the world is in peace as he thought, what will he do in his life? - We won’t have dialogues - as there is nothing to inquire. We won’t earn more than physical need - as there will be no desire. No one will travel from one place to another - because everyone merged in truth. One will store plenty of food in one’s house and will not get out from his house. No need for new buildings. No economy. Just bath,eat,drink,toilet,sleep and happens daily - no need to talk with others as everyone is ‘nothing’. Just a protection from animals. no need of marriage - as everyone feels more than beauty in ‘truth’. As no marriage - no child. As no child - no future generations. So when everyone feels the ‘truth’ - everyone lives like ‘K’ by not married - and within 100 years - human race dies. Thats it.
‘Desire for more’ is the living force of this universe Paul. Wherever there is this desire, there will be pleasure/attachments/conflicts/fight/war/sufferings/etc…Even if there is one person with desire (like serpent) - will bring conflict/war in this world. It is inevitable.
The ‘truth’ is not in peace of this world. It is a kind of inward travel.
Yes. But that one thought - i see it must be related to ‘truth’. That memory will ring the bells of the ‘truth’ and will open the door and hug you in love.
I don’t think you’re quite following and answering a little too quickly. Just wait with it. What is necessary is not to throw out or disabuse ourselves of “ideas that already exist in that consciousness.” You might as well ask for your heart to stop beating or for your blood to stop flowing. What might be needed here is to understand what their significance is to begin with. What is their meaning? And why has the “I” arisen of them, and with them and because of them.
David Bohm might shed a little light if you permit me to post a few passages from Chapter 5 of Essential Bohm:
“In fact the word “meaning” indicates not only the significance of something to us, but also our intention toward it. Thus “I mean to do something” means “I intend to do it.” This double meaning of the word “meaning” is not just an accident of our language, but rather it implicitly contains an important insight into the structure of meaning.”
“Now we can look at this in terms of the implicate or enfolded order, for all these levels of meaning enfold each other and may have a significant bearing on each other. Within this context, meaning is a constantly extending and actualizing structure – it is never complete and fixed. At the limits of what has at any moment been comprehended there are
always unclarities, unsatisfactory features, failures of intention to fit what is actually displayed or what is actually done. And the yet deeper intention is to be aware of these discrepancies and to allow the whole structure to change if necessary. This will lead to a movement in which there is the constant unfoldment of still more comprehensive meanings.”
" One may think of anything finite as being suspended in a kind of deeper infinite context orbackground. Therefore the finite must ultimately be dependent on the infinite. And if it is open to the infinite then creativity can take place
within it. So the infinite does not exclude the finite, but enfolds within it and includes and overlaps it. Every finite form is somewhat ambiguous because it depends on its context. This context goes on beyond all limits, and that is why creativity is possible. Things are never exactly what they mean; there is always some ambiguity."
–From Chp. 5, SOMA-SIGNIFICANCE AND THE ACTIVITY OF
MEANING
Well, that’s it for me this evening. I’m off to bed. See you all at the dialogue in the morning.
Nite.
Now take this thought and look at it. There are so many images here: images of K, of the world, of peace, of dialogue and of enquiry. Why do you say we won’t have dialogues? If the world is at perfect peace, perhaps we’ll enquire into that. But the world is not at perfect peace, so this is all conjecture anyway. I don’t know a thing about peace or emptiness. I know conflict, noise and the constant activity of thought. Let’s start with what we know.
Take K (or many enlightened beings) - he says - he feels truth - but he is not married. If everyone feels truth - will anyone get married?. What will make them marry/dialogue/etc… if they are immersed in truth?.
And it’s not a belief/assumption - and I’m finding a person to inquire about this - and if you are okay - we shall inquire.
That’s just another idea you are throwing at me. You are not sharing the question. You are answering it from memory. I don’t want an answer from there. I don’t trust any of those ideas, whether they are yours or Bohm’s or K’s or my own ideas. I want the answer to come from direct contact with that nameless energy.
Are you concerned that when everyone is immersed in the truth then humanity will come to an end? Is this what you are saying? If so, don’t worry. Humanity will come to an end much sooner than that.
Nope. Until there is ‘desire’ - humanity will not come to an end.
Though many nuclear bombs are there - these are just play things. Only ‘trade/bio/cyber war’ may take place. Because everyone will think about the future before acting in a pposition like that. Even Thanos only killed half of the Humanity and not full.
Even if there is ‘conflict’ - every people tries to make a hold on their kingdom and tries to expand it. They need ‘slaves’ to obey them. If war brokes out, they won’t use nuclear bombs - because of it’s effects.
Even, the ‘messenger’ too says that - he will kill only evil in his return and not the good.
It is amazing to see that, in three religions - what they say as Judgement day/Second coming/Kalki avatar - resembles the same. As this resembles the same - why not inquire those - without believing/accepting/rejecting?
If we reject those as past - why don’t we reject ‘the teachings’ - as the teachings,K itself the past?
Why don’t we question the teachings but believe it as true?.
K himself sees that - no one could see the truth he feels. If we question our ‘what-is’ - it’s better. But what is there in believing in the teachings?
Why don’t we inquire the scriptures but believe it as ‘imaginations’?. Only humans said it as Imaginations. What if those humans are wrong?.
What if there is devotion - an easy path?
What if ‘the other’ prefers devotion - as we are always getting deluded that - “this is truth - I am that” or physically pressurize us through various ‘practices’?
What if ‘devotion’ is purposefully compelled so that - not wasting energy/inquiry in finding truth - as no one (like right guru) is there to acknowledge us as “Yeah you are right - you are now enlightened”?.
What if - ‘the other’ asks us to “surrender completely to him” (no other words) because - always there is some person outside - who may guide us but we fail to see it or misguide us by any of his words intentionally/unintentionally?
What if - ‘the other’ in compassion towards us - left these as treasures?
We don’t come in touch with the “nameless energy” because the nameless energy is what we are. The self-image is burnt up by the nameless energy so we protect ourselves from it by building a wall, or reality that keeps it at bay. Occasionally with ‘luck’ the wall is breached and the truth of our situation is glimpsed but that moment is felt as ‘humiliation’, ‘emptiness’. suffering, aloneness or isolation and damage control quickly hides it until the next ‘eruption’. The "facade’ disappears with the death of each body but can it happen now while we are still alive? If not it will just continue as it has, won’t it? And the “immensity” won’t be seen.
This is the same as saying, ‘I get angry, but I am not anger.’ Isn’t it? Or, I get hurt by all the incidents of existence, but I am not the hurt. Our first impulse is to push away what we think we are not. Here it is a little different because we are now inviting in that energy, waiting for it to come up close. And we are going to see what happens.
