The ‘self’ as such - which I understand to be the product of thought, memory, association - has no necessary place in perception. It may appear in perception and reveal itself, reveal its nature (as thought, memory, association). But that is all, as far as I can see.
The “greater truth” - as I understand it - is not a comparative thing. It isn’t something for thought to witness or be amazed by. It lies in the deepening and widening of perception and awareness (where that occurs).
Yes, that’s really what I mean by the greater truth: that the self can play no part in perception; perception exists only when the self is not. The self must always distort perception because it is using a very limited mode of seeing, which is based on the past, on opinions, beliefs, suppositions, etc.
Who knows what the “function” of a human being is in the world? Is it different in any significant way from any other animal, any other living thing? If you are “clear”, please share what you believe your function to be.
But we are not like other animals. We have a complex inner life. As we function now, human beings are self-centred, self-protective, aggressive, violent and all the rest of it. Is it my function to go along with this?
I am considering ‘function’ as the ‘reason’ if any that the brain has evolved in the way that it has. That it is ‘meant’ to fulfill some function on earth which we are not aware of. That is why I questioned your “you must be clear about what your function is”. The human brain is serving a ‘purpose’ but it is unaware what that purpose is (if there is a purpose) and unlike our animal neighbors whose behavior is directed by instinct, we have no such ‘govern-er’ and are going in all different directions, “because we can”.
Therefore it may be my function first of all to negate everything that has come before.
If the brain sees clearly that it has been hobbled by the past and that its potential crippled, and understands that ‘negation’ is the only way out, if it sees that , there may be the energy to do what you say…to change.
We are like other animals, and our “complex inner life” is invented by our thinking (most animals also have rudimentary thinking).
Human beings are a remarkable species for all kinds of reasons - but we are not in essence any different, any more or less important, than other animals. All animals have their own consciousness, their own order, their own joy and sorrow.
Our function - like all animals (and plants) - is to flower and die. The flowering may be different for humans and animals, that’s all. The human brain may not be limited in the same way that most animal brains are limited.
The ‘flowering’ (realizing their potential) seems almost automatic for the animals, insects, plants. If K is an example of human flowering then for us it is a rarity. I think ‘flowering’ for us has been confused with individuality and achievement?
According to most cultures, of course, human flowering is measured in terms of wealth, power, and individual brilliance or genius. When we think of civilisations in flower, we tend to think of the Greeks, the Italian Renaissance, the Enlightenment period in Europe, and so on.
But I must admit that - though I am not a Buddhist - I am very sympathetic to certain forms of Buddhist art and imagery that attempt to express a different kind of flowering.
It is only a symbol of flowering - to be clear - but for me certain sculptures of the Buddha (and other Buddha-like bodhisattvas) from India and Asia, are symbols of this non-individualistic, non-ego based (and non-achievement oriented) flowering. What K used to call the “flowering in goodness.”
Compassion and goodness - where they exist - are not personal achievements, feats of individual courage or genius. They belong to the universe; and perhaps even transcend the universe.
So where does this leave us? What is the seed that brings forth the flower?
It leaves us where we are.
The simple, unpretentious awareness of where - and what - we are. There is no need for endless discussion about seeds and flowers.
Thought sees that any movement it makes will be a movement away from the question.
To put it poetically, Thought has shattered itself against the silence of the mind.
So, without poetry and without the talk of seeds and flowers, where are we now as three people in relationship to each other? Has our conversation about negation changed anything?
Is the “where” always changing?
Only with awareness it seems can there be a ‘negation’ of the psychological thinking, each thought of which refers explicitly or implicitly to itself as ‘I’. Without awareness of the movement of each of these thoughts and their immediate negation, the self image, the ‘me’ is continued. This is the work that is described as”arduous”. As I see it.
It may be. So what is a relationship? Or, what is our relationship against this background of change?
My apologies, but as of late too busy keeping up with life’s hurried demands, and falling short at that. Thus I am not full present in relationship.
I think this over analysis of awareness, consciousness, and now negation is the way of thought avoiding the issues. The issues are simple if thought stops analysis all together.
Thought is finished analysing. For you and me, thought is finished. Then what now is our relationship without any further analysis?