Where are you?

We want someone to go into it all again, all what we have read about thought, the mind, conditioning, all that. Then we quibble about the way someone is speaking, writing. Surely we can see there is our own reading, looking, listening, and this is our own response to something? So we can see this response, of our own, is working with images, thought, etc. This is where we are at now, right?

It is nothing really to do with elaborating with words and ideas. It is a fundamental condition of the listener, the watcher, you and me. Then, alert to this way the mind is working, we can understand, it is a human condition, and thinking it is the other, his or her approach, is missing the point.
With this understanding, the things that come to mind, and expressed verbally, I can see are the thoughts about some complexity, some conundrum, a riddle in thought.

This seems like something we can talk about but it is a repetition of a social, verbal, interaction with thought. This is not a clear mind. I am a part of the mix of images, words, ideas, in society, and all the emotional, psychological, and social mess. Looking at that, carefully, is a clear mind. and the clarity has no need to resolve any quandary in thought. This clarity is a whole awareness fully alive to the world, completely integrated, not fragmented, and you don’t think where you are; your position is not important.

I felt the same way, as you said. After that, I felt that I am alone in my surroundings. Some thoughts are happening inside with a dualistic mindset. In some thoughts, the self feels about it as the supreme power in front of the images of other people. It is funny, that the reasons for feeling supreme inside are created by society again.:slight_smile:

“Where are you?”
The answer to this question always changes, I guess.

Thank you for sharing the view

The conditioning is designed to overcome fear, insecurity, uncertainty, and we conform, or rebel. Then knowing this, or experiencing it, there is reaction. I make more effort to find myself, find a place in the world, to be rational according to the life I live, and this is is our way to be in control. Everyone is working to be in control, and all this control, and its measurement, create levels of superiority.

“The conditioning is designed to overcome fear, insecurity, uncertainty and we conform.”

I feel that this conditioning is designed to believe the words of people around us as fact from childhood and find security in the attachments of the decisions we make without knowing the complexity. All these aspects are leading to deeper conflicts and their reflections on the behavior.

“Everyone is working to be in control, and all this control and its measurement created level of superiority”

Yes Sir, the one who tries to be in control or protect people will create more trouble among others.

If this “Everyone” includes you, Peter, at what level of superiority are you now?

Superiority is a concept made up of of levels. So whether I am superior or not, is because I am thinking of levels between people. This is applied because of some complex, insecurity, fear etc. Even to be at the same level, there is the underlying complexity of the conditioned mind. If I can look at this, without reaction, without separateness, then there are no levels, and it is a plain sharing of life together. Why it can’t be seen and understood, is the distraction of a conditioned mind. To continue with complacency, like it is something inevitable, some thing to live with, something to cultivate, is a disaster. This total disaster is acted on by preparing for disaster, inventing weapons, etc, and is a war people wage on each other.

Thanks for sharing this, I’ve partially known that awareness is already stable, there’s no need to do anything in order to know the issues of conflict. But what I didn’t realize, is that this felt need to resolve mental differences in thinking or imagined internal problems, is an illusionary desire directly linked to our idea of being separate from what-is.

it might sound a bit callous, but there is nothing that can be done for others, who go on and on about their own issues, and their conflicts, etc. We can watch and listen, but nothing can be done to help them calm “their” internal struggle, they are unwilling. In much the same way, this clarity looks at our assumed important aspects of reality to understand, or our intense desire to figure things out mentally, but nothing needs to be done to be-choicelessly-aware. Nothing needs to be done to be-alive.

Also, this point of fragmentation you bring up, is something important that I think is overlooked too often. We have never been separate from what-is-known. I think it might be impossible to be separate from knowing (from awareness).

A big “if”, and only speculation. You either can look without reaction, without separateness, or you cannot. You can’t know what you could do if things were other than what they are.

Do you understand the word verbal? It is the way we speak and write using words. You can either look at words and the grammar, analyse, and then react with more words, or you can use the time to look within, and with a careful mind, see what someone is saying. If it isn’t of interest to you, please don’t add your repeat of all the confusion not understanding the way thought works in conflict.
Actually if you look within, carefully, there is an understanding not of words and ideas, and not limited to a person to person relationship, not limited to a conceptual understanding, with all its opposites, and it is quite nice to share together.

Being aware means perceiving the situations by which person is subjected to. Such that conclusions in mind may converge to the fact and the conflict will not occur if the conclusion is the exact fact. This should be an ongoing process for the entire life, other wise a person will fall into the traps of information provided by the present society and get fragmented inside.

Why you said that it no need to know the issues of conflict?

My point is that, one should investigate the layers in those reactions happening inside. Based on the age of the person, the time to investigate every detail of information in mind may vary, which could be personal. I can say that it is possible to get out of fragmented state in the mind.

Do you see the busy mind? Thinking about things to do, something to eat, trying to figure something out, and there are memories which you find yourself involved in. All this is uncontrolled, and when you are sitting quietly, it is disturbance. We live this way with tension and unease by managing thought and looking for control. Inner conflict is not an external condition to overcome, it is in the nature of thought, the whole movement of thought.

I think, mind and brain whole together is for thinking. Thought controlling another thought is impossible.

For most of us it happens but after listening to Jiddu, there is decrement in those sensations.

This sounds rather fanciful. Perhaps you could share with us an example or two of such nice sharing together moments so one can get a glimpse of what you are talking about because all that goes on here is talking and niceness isn’t the point.

Generalizations are comforting, ‘not-knowing’ is not. Opinions are comforting but ‘not-knowing’ is not. Isn’t it so?

I’d rather admit to knowing little or nothing of something than pretend I know more than I do,

Knowledge is a burden when you’re so uncomfortable with what little you know, you pretend to know more.

Knowing is coming from words, ideas, thought. It is a verbal approach. Friends sharing together, using language, is not a practice of knowing.

The authority we see in words and ideas, is the authority of thought. This has come about through the process of naming, of image with thing. This link, the dog and the word dog, the tree and the word tree, is hard wired in the brain. Then we want to always have a link between words, ideas, and something unquestionably so. Or alternatively we like the speculative. It is repetitive process, working from a focus and trying to make connections, or discussing the disconnections. We have adopted this as a method of thinking, and the effort, the motive, behind using this is overlooked. We prefer to stay in the mechanical realm of words.

This is where this posting started.

Look where we are now.

Hi Sivaram!

When conflict arises, we know it, right? What do we need to do, in order to be able to know something? We can go deeper and deeper into analyzing conflict, but what conclusion is reached at the end of that?

If we really want to end conflict, totally, outward and inwardly… I’d suggest starting with being clear about who is knowing. Knowing memories, sensations, thoughts, etc.

We go on and on about this and that, when really, we are usually starting from a subtle belief that things are separate. The cause for the universe is unknown, but obviously the universe happened. Same with being aware of being alive. We might never know what awareness truly is, but we know that we are aware.

Same with atoms, no one really knows what is going on. So, where am I? I am, yet transparent. Almost like the temperature of the air.

Hii Philip,

When the conflict happens inside, there will be chattering inside.

When the conflict appeared, we will understand that the previous conclusion is just a conclusion. Therefore, the previous one will never be the conclusion.

This is just speculation, coming from the set of conclusions.