**We can apparently say any psychological opinion we wish. And we could probably ask over and over, "Can we do _____?..(you name it). It’s a valid question, but how do we respond to it? With another idea?
What leads any of us to ‘say’ it’s limited? Is this what we’re ‘observing now’, or a stored belief?
2 Likes
It’s a fact . You can investigate for yourself.
Is thinking possible without verbal language? Imagery is a big part of thinking, but thinking with imagery only is impossible when the mind has verbal language because words respond reflexively to the stimuli of imagery.
The point is, it is limited mind, limited perception, limited thinking, and this is what I recognise as ability, and redemption.
The human sees themselves with ability, and ingenuity, etc. and have invented religion, spirits, Gods, etc. So they think the human is the source of their life. It doesn’t occur to them that the world was here first, and seeing the world is not a process of thought.
Yes, the mind, thought, is limited, but what does that have to do with ability and redemption? Ability is limited, and redemption may be all in one’s mind. I may feel redeemed for doing something, or for being vindicated or exonerated, but who or what is to say whether I am redeemed or not?
It is a question of what is happening psychologically, that is not on the surface, not necessarily my plan for today, or what I can say about something conversationally. The redemption is in the action of looking for a solution, searching for answers, wanting reconciliation, having a response, etc, etc.
**Should I take this “responding with another belief,” as an example of my questions, “But how do we respond? With another idea?”
K: A categorical statement stops all inquiry. - Commentaries on Living
Not a belief…a fact…whatever you choose to believe.
I don’t feel the need for redemption. If I’m able to look more closely, observe more clearly, explore and discover more effectively and deepen my understanding, I don’t need to feel assured that I’m doing the right thing or undoing the wrong things I’ve done.
I am speaking for human psychology, not about personal judgement, nor about the conventional use of words. For example conversation, is from converse, and this gets no where different. I think we’ll leave it at that, and I am out.
**So you appear to be suggesting that an expressed view is one and the same as “the actual fact?” As in, “The word IS the thing?” If so, you’d be in good company. Apparently many people seem to think what they say, the word description, IS the fact that words can only point to.
K: How do I know that anger is a fact and the opinion about anger is a conclusion. Right? Don’t you know? The opinion, the judgement about anger is a conclusion. And the fact I’m angry is a fact. For the love of god. Saanen Aug.1972
Please feel free to ignore everything I post Howard if you’re not interested in exploring as opposed to debating.
Hi Howard. I do have a question on the above - please clarify this.
If someone says something - how can we distinguish that something as ‘belief’ and ‘fact’?
How can we on this side - find that the person on other side,
- is in a ‘belief’? or
- he says a ‘borrowed or parroted statement’? or
- what he says a ‘fact’? or
- does he ‘observe’ or not?.
**When possible, I try to stick with the common word definition. Not some subjective opinion. So…here’s what it says:
A fact is an occurrence in the real world. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
So, a fact is something actually occurring in the real world. We can make “factual statements” - about - a fact, or actual occurrence. But the description is not the actual fact.
I don’t know whether someone else is looking or not. But either way, the opinion, belief, or description is never the “actual occurrence.” And when people argue or insist that the words they speak “are the fact,” this illustrates the conditioning that’s giving the false value of truth to limited abstract thought. And if you dare question this ‘internal authority of thought’, anger and insults may follow.
Absolutely. If someone asks questions to learn/see/show/inquire - the other person’s image gets frightened - think it is insulted and so anger arises.
Right. But how we can verify a statement is a ‘fact’ psychologically about the ‘I’ - because the ‘I’ is not physical, and is there any experience/standards to prove/describe it is a fact?
If not, how can we communicate someone a fact without describing?
How one can see the fact?
- Can we see the actual occurrence in real world - by our beliefs,image,etc…? or
- can we see it as a fact - only when we are out of the beliefs,etc…?
In my (not ‘my’) observation,
This memory,experience,knowledge,etc… gets accumulated always - becomes ‘I’ and is past. From this past as a base - thought arises. To die to this memory,experience,etc… (not technical) every second is what K is pointing out.
**Well, clearly, if we’re talking about two or more people looking to verify a fact, it will require ‘describing’ what we’re looking at. I don’t recall suggesting we shouldn’t describe what we each see. The requirement to verify a fact together seems to be, “an openness to observing the fact.” Next, how can you or I tell what “the other” is seeing? Well, that also seems to require describing what we each observe.
**Aren’t you able to listen to, and ‘see’, the thoughts occurring in your head, as well as the thoughts another is expressing? And aren’t you able to ‘see’ the likely meaning of the words? Isn’t basically every human capable of observation and listening?
I don’t see “someone out of beliefs.” I see humans sometimes thinking, and sometimes observing. Sometimes thinking, and sometimes listening. There’s no “me” doing that, or being “outside” of belief. The belief ‘is’ the me, the thought imagery
**Yes, not ‘dying’ to the ‘technical’ or ‘practical’ knowledge. It’s a dying to all of the ‘psychological’ thought. All of “my” psychological evaluations. All “personal” beliefs, judgments, etc… “My” images of “myself and the other.” And it’s the ‘seeing of the falseness’ of all of this psychological imagery that leads the brain to no longer give attention to the false, or “die” to it.
1 Like
Yeah - now it is clear.
Yes - every human is capable - but is our ‘seeing’ is pure? - if it is pure/clear - then this movement of ‘I’ should end instantly in this attention and we be choice-lessly aware of it - right?
I can surely say that these kind of observations are not actual/real observation.
If someone says ‘he is observing’ but also thought comes again - then he is not really observing everything or listening seriously.
Yes - the belief is the ‘me’, but to ‘observe’ we should be free from one’s beliefs/image - or the circus will go on and on and on. See if i observe what you say in this dialogue with an image that “H is always right/wrong” - then i can’t observe what you said as it is - right? - as such observing the whole movement of ‘I’ can take place only when we are free from beliefs/images like ‘god/hindu/indian/etc…’.
The observation is like child watching something - it doesn’t know about anything and so watches without belief/etc…
K: So can the mind observe the totality of itself? Look, we are human beings - at least supposed to be - only we have divided ourselves into various nationalities, religious beliefs, and so on. When you observe, that is, when you go beyond all nationalities and religious beliefs, we are aggressive, brutal, violent, pleasure-seeking people, frightened and so on, and we have to learn all about that, which is ourselves - Public Talk 1 Brockwood Park, England - 05 September 1970
**My question is this: Why do humans spend so much time talking about their beliefs? Why do you suppose K asked, “Can we live without beliefs?” If we’re talking about, “I can surely say that these kind of observations are not actual/real observation,” are we dying to the known, or dwelling in psychological thought? Why do humans give so much value or importance to ideas?
1 Like
So - you ask - “why humans give importance to beliefs and ideas?”
Okay - See every human goes through sufferings in his/her life (i.e. Humans ‘actually’ suffer - we can see that). At that instant - someone/something comes before him - like “religion,communism,sex,etc…” - and provides him pleasure and so he stored that moment and make it as an idea/belief. He clings to it and earns more pleasure in form of money,business,etc… and ‘in-time’ - he again suffers - then again another form of pleasure becomes an idea/belief - and the circus goes on.
Only because of Instant pleasure - they give much value to beliefs/idea.
And regarding “are we dying to the known?” - There can also be a belief/illusion that “I’m dying” - and so we can’t find others, but one can ‘see’ themselves.
And regarding “Can we live without beliefs?” for that we must observe the whole(not part) movement of ‘I’ (i.e. pleasure,etc…) - without differentiating observing and observed.
And i stated that “I can surely say that these kind of observations are not actual/real observation Right? - it’s because our ‘observation’ is not clear and so sometimes ‘thinking’ and sometimes ‘we believe we are observing’.
But if you ask personally about me “whether i’m observing and living without beliefs/idea?” - i would say damn sure and i feel this choice-less awareness and thought gets aware of itself every moment and so i die to this every second. I don’t know it’s an illusion or not. But ‘no sufferings anymore’ and only ‘compassion’ and learn with all.
Note - These are not an idea/beliefs.