Wait and see…
1 Like
One can say it is only the self which feels pleasure, or it is only the self which feels fear cone to that. We are not speaking here of social isolation, and we are not talking of anything as local or as parochial as a particular self are we? Isolation refers to the fundamental disconnect that being and reality is.
I become attached to others to people to animals to nature because they give me pleasure, comfort, etc. If I lose them there will be suffering. That is the fact. I will not ‘try’ to be dependent, un-attached in order to keep myself from the inevitable suffering from their loss… It is not about that, is it? Dependance, attachment, suffering, is all natural for us isn’t it?
Yes.
Not try to be un-attached. I doesn’t know how to express it. It is like ‘seeing’ them as a ‘new’ person everytime - as how we see a ‘third-person’/‘stranger’. So we have actual relationship with them.
Isolation means living as though on an island, psychologically disconnected from the rest of the world. This may be one form of reality: to be cut off from the world, one’s activities based around the self-centred concerns of an isolated consciousness. Or one is the world because consciousness is human consciousness.
Perhaps this is how the brain is seeing isolation in order to protect itself from something here?
Isolation - as said by Paul - is ‘right’ Dom. It is a ‘wish’ to separate one from outside - to achieve/ as afraid of something.
So how does brain sees it?
It’s out of ‘my’ hands most likely. As long as I’m there…the ‘me’…there is no change…only more of the same modified by present situations. But I’ll share this from K that I saw on Facebook today:
“So, to understand the innumerable problems that each one of us has, is it not essential that there be self-knowledge? And that is one of the most difficult things, self-awareness, which does not mean isolation, a withdrawal. Obviously, to know oneself is essential; but to know oneself does not imply a withdrawal from relationship. And it would be a mistake, surely, to think that one can know oneself significantly, completely, fully, through isolation, through exclusion, or by going to some psychologist, or to some priest; or that one can learn self-knowledge through a book. Self-knowledge is obviously a process, not an end in itself; to know oneself, one must be aware of oneself in action, which is relationship. You discover yourself, not in isolation, not in withdrawal, but in relationship to society, to your wife, your husband, your brother, to man; but to discover how you react, what your responses are, requires an extraordinary alertness of mind, a keenness of perception.”
~ J. Krishnamurti, London, 1st Public Talk, 2nd October 1949
So why we say - it is not in ‘my’ hands?
- is it we tried a lot and failed? or
- we believe we cannot change it? or
- we don’t observe the whole movement - as the ‘I’ is afraid/restricting to see itself?
So @paul how we proceed from here?
I am saying take a human being fully immersed in the reality, happy, content, successful, with friendships, relationships. Is all that at that point the being of immeasurable, the being of contact with that? If not, what has any of that so-called living got to do with isolation not being?
I may be missing your point but isn’t every creature, every plant, animal, microbe, person ‘isolated’, an organism unto itself? But it’s only the human brain (as far as we know) that can say “I am isolated from everything else.” If it doesn’t bother the others in their ‘ignorance’, why does it bother us? Because we want it to be not so? We shouldn’t be separate, isolated, alone ,etc? We’ve ‘heard’ that it actually isn’t so anyway , that “we are the world”. Where is the isolation in that? Sorry if I’m missing the boat here.
As well as having the life of the animal to live here, taking care of the physical body, we also have this life of the mind to deal with. And it’s not going very well. Looking around. Though probably just as crazy as it has always been, just different manifestations of the madness.
1 Like
I should have said, I don’t know. I lived for many years making an effort to change, and didn’t change. That doesn’t mean change will not come , only that my memory says it has NOT come in the past. So I’m stuck with what is now. And it’s either more of the same or I can observe. But I can’t make an effort to observe, because that would only be ‘me’ making effort to escape from ‘what is’ by observing.
This is what isolation means. It has nothing to do with this or any other brain seeing it; it is what the dictionary says.
No, either it is or it isn’t; then there is no most likely. The ‘most likely’ is the result of analysis again. If there is something I can do, I’ll do it; but if there is nothing I can do, that may be a whole different action.
Is it possible to live a life entirely without fear? I would put that question. And pursue it to the end.
Krishnamurti when setting the context for the whole travail of humankind, which has been carrying on forever, spoke of an immeasurable, as set against that which is measure, which is limited, and seeing connection with that as being true living, and intelligence, and about something much deeper than the petty affair that mankind is attempting to live out. Is it not clear that the consciousness we are, embodying as it does separation, and the whole reality it has generated for itself, constitutes a disconnect from all this, and that this is so regardless of how comfortable at times conditions in that reality can be made to be, and that the being of that disconnect is in fact isolation the brain is from all that?
Well then go beyond the dictionary, and the word.
Yes. ‘Seeing’ ‘what-is’ partly - i.e. today’s pleasure and suffering - brings another conflict/escape by describing,etc…But - effort for observation as a ‘whole’ - is not an illusion or an effort made by ‘me’.
You just try to see it as a whole (i.e. everything - whole humanity) - whenever you have time.
Do you ask - whether question of isolation can be raised for “choice-less awareness”?
Why you bring forth to discuss this word “isolation”? How do you see it? Why one is/likes to be ‘isolated’?
Are you asking about ‘isolation’ or ‘loneliness’ in this below statement?
Because,
- isolation is a forced act of being alone.
- loneliness is a state of being alone and not by force.
If you say - reality is loneliness - then it makes sense - we can go on discuss further.