Basically, to live without conflict (thought, talk and deed) and, if you read the OP, it means the same as transformation. It requires a great deal of discipline.
1 Like
So live as if the âtransformationâ has taken place⌠and maybe it will?
Really? Have you read the OP?
âIts being absolutely nothingâ, not to live as if you were nothing. Then, maybe intelligence will operate through that brain, as K claimed in many ocasions, it cannot be invited. It comes on its own.
1 Like
Reading the OP it seems that transformation means a change from confusion to order (in our daily life) - so âputting our house in orderâ could just be a vague expression symbolising that there is less confusion.
The discipline it seems, would be the imposition of order upon confusion, by means of awareness. An awareness, of our attitude, experience, that frees us from the experience.
Why would such a(n effortless?) discipline arise? I mean what would cause us to become aware, to place awareness above the reality we are experiencing?
2 Likes
Do we become aware or are we aware already? There being awareness, what causes us not to become consciously aware, either by ourselves or by someone else pointing it out?
Do we place awareness above experience or is it that awareness is not touched or affected by experience? Meaning what? Why experience doesn´t affect awareness whereas awareness frees the brain from getting caught in experience and all what it brings about just by seeing?
3 Likes
Shouldnât there be an awareness of the process of psychological thinking as opposed to practical? Since there is no âthinkerâ, the thought is not being âcausedâ by âmeâ but is operating on its own. Can there be an âawarenessâ of its movement? Not to stop it but just an awareness that it is taking place? Is this awareness in the brain or is it in thought itself? If this âunnecessary â thinking is occupying the brain as well as maintaining the fiction of a âthinkerâ apart from itself, also creating fear shouldnât there be an almost constant awareness of its activity? Of when it arises?
Surely you are not implying that we are always aware? What are you getting at? Maybe you are referring to the fact that awareness is not something magical, out of reach for us normal folk? Is that it?
Whatâs the difference between there âbeing awarenessâ, and us becoming âconsciously awareâ?
Do you know this for a fact or are you surmising?
Isn´t it obvious? Did you think that human being became aware only after the coming of the big master JK? Yes, I´m talking of simple, ordinary consciousness or awareness in the waking state.
By becoming consciously aware I mean to become aware (of) that we are aware which leaves us alone with awareness, i.e., being awareness, at least for a while, since at that very moment there is nothing to be aware of that is the usual way we are aware because attention is focused only on awareness.
Now, once we become consciously aware which is not a great deal but just a matter of discernment, I agree with K that the experience or what we are aware of doesn´t touch or affect the very awareness itself and we don´t get carried away by it nor by what it brings about, either desire, anger, jealousy, envy or whatever because now and through discernment, we are this awareness not the person who is aware of this or that and feels or thinks this or that (the observer is the observed). Tendency or general advice is to divert attention away from what is perceived and to focus on awareness to avoid all the rest, unlike K who suggests us to stay with what is perceived and what it brings about, without running away from it, just looking at it, observing the whole process. I agree with him that this is the only way of ending whatever once and for all, diverting attention away to focus it on awareness doesn´t work, at least for me. He does it in most of his talks and dialogues from which we can learn a lot, not intellectually, but in a very practical way by applying it to ourselves. I had never seen this before from anyone else.
1 Like
You know, I find very useful and helpful K´s talks and dialogues regardless of whether K himself knew what he spoke for a fact or was surmising, however, did I know, in case I could, whether he knew or not, it would be totally useless for me. I don´t even mind if he was a phony.
2 Likes
Good point: if someone points to something I find âusefulâ, it doesnât matter whether the pointer knew what he was doing or not.
What matters is what Iâm getting at, and what enables me to succeed.
I find Kâs teaching useful in my quest for the end of questing.
As I come late into this discussion, Iâll retake the last part of the initial question: âWhat is it to be transformed?â
Below is my answer:
My RESPONSE to âwhat isâ is to be transformed.
My RESPONSE includes: my Actions, my words, my thoughts, my state of being, these are to be transformed.
The âwhat isâ is independent and autonomous, and generates my RESPONSE.
While, prior to this transformation, thought was believed to be independent and autonomous, capable to evaluate, understand and dominate the âwhat isâ.
I just came back to read my own comment. I read it and it feels it is not mine. Whatever I write today feels foreign the next day. I find that my words became old.
This is not transformation.
I did wonder a bit about what you said, for example :
I do different stuff, think different thoughts, feel different emotions, depending on circumstances. This is quite normal, par for the course.
The mega transformation would be about our relationship with all of our experience.
What is my relationship with my reality? Is this relationship inevitable? What is it based on?
I wanted to respond the to 2nd part of the question ( what is to be transformed), as it felt it can be approachable in a rational way; it felt that a rational mind can still respond to it.
So, at that moment, it sounded rational to say that a profound transformation is going to transform my RESPONSES as well.
The next day, I questioned my initiative to engage in or with the matter of transformation. I asked my self : Why do I even fill in a response on transformation if I have not suffered this transformation.
Thatâs why, I called my words, old.
I basically discarded my own words cause they were not based on my transformation.
PS
(This comes back to: the rational way to approach something I have no clue about it, is via negativa).
1 Like
Yes, but via negativa is useless without the honesty to acknowledge what I believe/assume to be true, and what Iâm admittedly unqualified to say much, if anything, about.
Via negativa is an approach, a technique, which is only as good as the mind that lives it. So, unless I know nothing more than how to think without confusion and act without uncertainty, I am via negativa itself, a living technique.
Oops, I canât understand what you are saying.
I really canât grasp your message.
I am not saying that what you communicate is incorrect or not clearly formulated.
I am saying I am incapable to decipher your message. It could be a language barrier combined with a not so sharp brain of mine.
Sorry about that.
If I can find a simpler way to say it, Iâll post it.
You can be part of positive or negative transformation. Critical thinking and a better understanding of applied psychology to grasp your own presents in the real world is the key to advancing your own positive transformation on a continuous basis.
Critical thinking, yes, but I donât know what you mean by âgrasping your own presenceâ, and I question whether the conditioned brain can do anything to free itself from the limits it has chosen.
I suspect that the more aware the conditioned brain is of its constraints and its illusions, the more likely it is to lose them.
1 Like