Dear friend,

This is a reply to you first written in the thread 'About the nature of thought', but thought it might start a new thread.

Manoj: "You are saying that behind the helplessness to break the pattern is the desire to be different - the movement away from the truth of "what is". "

What is interesting here concerning the 'movement away from the truth of "what is", is that we are talking about movement created by image/happening in image. So we could say it never really happens, no matter how hard we try to maintain/create it. So there is not even any real contradiction between 'what is ' and 'what should be', that contradiction/distance is still between ideas of both, created by thought! There is only 'what is', (Being not created by thought/division) at the heart or in the source/essence of any expression, however distorted it may appear.

Minna, we could say it never happened.... but when you are seeking to get out... you are that movement of ''becoming what should be''.

I see the point that essentially there is no difference in what is and what should be.. the fragment will still remain incomplete.. still struggling to become whole...

What is is as material as what should be, as limiting as what should be. It is in the total attention to the fragment and its seeking that truth of the shadow is revealed.

I Am Not This!

Yes...

"it never happened"...i like that expression...

I think the 'what is', is the stream and tangle of consciousness. If we have sudden fear, we often try to push it away, as it's an uncomfortable feeling. Or take anger, a feeling that culture feels is bad, wrong. So, we try to be not angry. This seems like the division between the 'what is', and 'what should be'. The fact is anger...trying not to be angery-which is trying to achieve some other, ficticious state, is where the whole thing begins. At least that's how I see the thing...?

Hi Mike

Let us discuss it.
You catch yourself trying to be not angry - so trying to be not angry is "what is".
You ''know'' that this trying creates division and further continues the conflict - so you try not to try - "what should be".
The insight is choiceless awareness of what is...

I Am Not This!

mike christani wrote:

I think the 'what is', is the stream and tangle of consciousness. If we have sudden fear, we often try to push it away, as it's an uncomfortable feeling. Or take anger, a feeling that culture feels is bad, wrong. So, we try to be not angry. This seems like the division between the 'what is', and 'what should be'. The fact is anger...trying not to be angery-which is trying to achieve some other, ficticious state, is where the whole thing begins. At least that's how I see the thing...?

Hello Mike, nice to meet you. Yes, the way you describe here the difference between 'what is' and 'what should be', is clear. But when this again (trying to be what one is not) is seen in intelligence (not by thought/division which could never put an end to division which is its nature),there ceases to be this contradiction too. Both 'what is' and 'what should be' in the sense you are decribing them, and the division between them, ends. Thought ends.

Minna Martini wrote:
'...the truth of "what is", ..Being not created by thought/division...

Minna, Are you equating 'what is' with truth or Being? Sometimes 'what is' is that I am trying to impose 'what I think should be' - the false - on my behavior and, therefore, on the world. This may be seen for the inattention that it is, or happen with complete lack of awareness. Seeing inattention means self-knowledge, lack of awareness means stuck in conditioned behavior. These are not the same 'happenings' and deserve greater clarity.

"K: Perception seeing itself perceiving - then it is not perception." J. Krishnamurti The Way of Intelligence Chapter 6 Part 4 Seminar Madras 31st December 1982

This post was last updated by gp garden Wed, 24 Jun 2009.

gp garden wrote:

Minna Martini wrote:
'...the truth of "what is", ..Being not created by thought/division...

Minna, Are you equating 'what is' with truth or Being? Sometimes 'what is' is that I am trying to impose 'what I think should be' - the false - on my behavior and, therefore, on the world. This may be seen for the inattention that it is, or happen with complete lack of awareness. Seeing inattention means self-knowledge, lack of awareness means stuck in conditioned behavior. These are not the same 'happenings' and deserve greater clarity.

Dear friend, let me try to clarify although have no idea what to say. :-)

Yes, it appears i have used the term 'what is' to describe both a reality created by thought and its ending, but i never felt any contradiction there, because the reason thought lives its conditioned divided reality is exactly because it is held apart from its true essence, its own ending.

Mina Martini wrote:
the reason thought lives its conditioned divided reality is exactly because it is held apart from its true essence, its own ending.

Mina. There remains the question of what keeps thought "apart from its true essence", which might seem obvious, but might clarify the topic when stated. One aspect of this is that the statement seems to obviate the necessity of self-knowledge as integral to observing that which holds thought apart from its essence as "its own ending". Not that this a step in a process, bur rather that without self-knowedge, does thought end?

Dear friends,

<pre> Can we really capture self-knowledge?
</pre>

Why would we want too,unless we wanted to use that knowledge for self-aggrandisation.
With the seeing of the self without converting it into an image ,which it isnt anyway,then it can not be seen as the seeing has ended its illussion of identity.
If the ending of thought is a goal of thought then it is just the continuation of thought. As i am thought then the ending of thought is beyond my grasp.I will always be too late,as thought has already begun.This does not mean that the state of the ending of thought can not be experienced only that i can not experience it.

regards john

Richard Kover wrote:

Mina Martini wrote:
the reason thought lives its conditioned divided reality is exactly because it is held apart from its true essence, its own ending.

Mina. There remains the question of what keeps thought "apart from its true essence", which might seem obvious, but might clarify the topic when stated. One aspect of this is that the statement seems to obviate the necessity of self-knowledge as integral to observing that which holds thought apart from its essence as "its own ending". Not that this a step in a process, bur rather that without self-knowedge, does thought end?

Dear Richard,

That which seems obvious to oneself may at times takes such a form of expression which needs more clarification. Thank you for pointing out this need.

After reading your first sentence here about what keeps thought 'apart from its true essence', it immediately came to be said: thought itself does it, by being divided as thinker separate from thought. It resists itself, keeps itself apart from itself, in other words resists its ending because it can only exist in a state of division that it is .Yes, without self-knowledge which here means the realisation that there exists no thinker as separate from thought, the thinker/thought continues. The illusion of psychological continuation is its very nature. And it ends in self-knowledge because self-knowledge is not an outcome of thought.

Here again, one can say that the "true essence of self-knowledge" is no knowledge of the self. It means exactly the same as "the true nature of thought is its ending." It describes negation/undoing of that which is untrue.

Thank you again.

John T wrote:

Dear friends,

<pre> Can we really capture self-knowledge?
</pre>

Why would we want too,unless we wanted to use that knowledge for self-aggrandisation.
With the seeing of the self without converting it into an image ,which it isnt anyway,then it can not be seen as the seeing has ended its illussion of identity.
If the ending of thought is a goal of thought then it is just the continuation of thought. As i am thought then the ending of thought is beyond my grasp.I will always be too late,as thought has already begun.This does not mean that the state of the ending of thought can not be experienced only that i can not experience it.

regards john

Dear John,

Yes, wonderfully said, such clarity in your words and beyond.
in gratitude,
Mina

Can we really capture self-knowledge?

Capturing self-knowledge is very different from listening to self-knowledge - as in seeing the negative influence of the self in each moment without reaction, escape, or indulgence - is it not?

Yes, in ''capturing'' self knowledge - another entity that is engaged in the act of "capturing" - separate from the act - is created and thus thought continues. Same applies to seeing the movement of self as a separate seer.

the insight that the ''seer'' is ''seen''... demolishes the seer ... ''what is'' is now without a need to become an ideal..

I Am Not This!