Stand with my idea of nothingness? Stand as some mysterious spiritual whotsit?
Many of us confused humans might want to - if we really really believed it was an A number 1 accomplishment. Its what we always want, (due to our habitual process of always wanting on the authority of what we know)
In which case we just need to find out how to get from the imagined here to the imagined there
This is a different question - and we might also ask what (are the conditions that) might provoke such seriousness?
K speaks of âtremendous energyâ - which always sounds mysterious and mystical to me - but we could also see it as the tremendous energy of the whole universe in movement. (aka causes and conditions)
Yes, but itâs just a story, and itâs constantly being revised according to new understandings.
I know Iâm just my story of myself, so how seriously can I take my self? My story of me may be all I have, but itâs just distraction, and I donât need distraction, do I?
Whatever you want to refer to it as, nothingness or not-story or truth or the unnameable, we donât seem interested and passionate about being/manifesting this. We want our stories! We ARE our stories, what would we be without them?
True. (and I donât know - but there is the story of non-separation from the whole and freedom from suffering)
Also : Freedom from the self is just a silly idea if we see no reason why one would consider such a thing. (and swapping my imperfect reality for some weird possibly potential future is always a bad choice)
People get skilled at optimizing their life experience: minimizing the negative, maximizing the positive. Feeling good about life usually involves feeling secure, safe, stable. Transformational wisdom often suggests we rock our boat, which threatens our security, safety, stability. Itâs not surprising this is difficult, perhaps nigh onto impossible for most people. Maybe itâs easier for people who are introduced to alternate ways of seeing/being early in life?
But thatâs not a story - itâs beyond what we know, unimaginable. All we know is our misery, our âcontentmentâ, and all we can do is try to make it better. Thatâs the cramped little world we inhabit.
Whether youâre playing defense for contentment or Devilâs advocate, I donât know. Maybe we need to hear the voice of contentment.
The only reason for considering âfreedom from the selfâ is that being two doesnât make one whole, and wholeness, oneness, has no opposite, so why carry on with confusion and conflict?
You seem to have jumped out of one story and straight into another. To live without a story is only viewed as nothingness by those who are still caught up in story-telling.
As a story, love takes time. What is love when there is no story at all attached to it?
Sorry @Inquiry this is actually a response to @rickScott (I messed up - started out reacting to your âthats not a storyâ comment, then gave up)
If we cannot say that âA is equal to Aâ is a simple undeniable fact, rather than just one of many stories, then why should we care what anyone says?
Is âA equals Aâ just as valid (ie. true) as saying âthe apple in my pocket is a neutron star that I ate earlierâ?
Mahesh might mean that âsomeone who believes the story he believes about Nothingness is a true story, believes that the story he believes about nothingness is a true storyâ
This is like A equals A. (which I find refreshing coming from Mahesh)
Yes to the first bit - Love under duress is deemed illogical by the Geneva convention
But have we grokked why the specialists in their field (like K or Huineng) keep insisting on no progress, no path, or sudden rather than gradual awakening?
Lets put aside the possibility that they are cheekily trying to mislead us, or are mistaken themselves for the moment.
In my level, if Iâm not in peace, I canât awake. When having violent in me, itâs like the river overflow its bank. So I find the best way to âpreventâ violent is aware of the first thought.
Krishnamurti viewed life without story as nothing(ness). Was he caught up in storytelling?
âThe ending of the movement which is the psyche, which is time-thought, the ending of that is to be nothing. Nothing then contains the whole universe â not my petty little fears, anxieties, problems, sorrow. After all, nothing means the entire world of compassion.â â Krishnamurti
Iâm fine with this, but it wasnât what I thought Mahesh meant, I thought he stated a clear fact âYou seem to have jumped out of one story ⊠into anotherâ and then spun a speculative story "To live without a story is ⊠"
If he mistook the word for the thing. If he viewed the world through the lens of some story - then yes.
But we can tell a story to communicate a point, as a teaching, without mistaking descriptions for fundamental truths.
This story can also be seen as simple A = A type facts :
1)When there is no movement of me, then there is no me.
2)When there is no me, there is no separation between me and x
3)No barrier between you and me - is Love - is embracing your passion
My story is all about me and what I wanted, succeeded or failed to achieve, and what I think I learned from my existence. But itâs all a story I tell myself because I chose fiction over fact to be my way of life. Maybe I was conditioned by all the those bedtime stories I grew up with.
Living honestly is having no story to tell because my life will tell my storyâŠitâs out my my hands.
If I think I know what Iâm doing, I donât really know what Iâm doing. I can only know what Iâm doing by knowing virtually nothing until I am choicelessly doing what I canât help doing.
How many levels are there? I like the teaching of only 2 levels : clarity/freedom/awake and confusion/conflict/delusion.
When I am not, peace is. When I am not, where is delusion?
Does the I awaken? or is there just freedom from the I? Seeing the whole movement of I? Psychological death?
The movement of I is violence. The purpose of I is to be at odds with the ending of I.
Prevention is a form of violence - Love is the only answer to I.
