?

I don't know

??

...are we questioning together?:)

dhirendra singh wrote:
?

Katy 9 wrote:
??

:)) + :D = :D)

Dan.....

Hi Katy and Dan,

I hope, we are questioning together:).

What is that question?A single question?

I don't know

dhirendra singh wrote:
What is that question?A single question?

Maybe a single question and so far 3 questioners, sir.!:)

Katy 9 wrote:
Maybe a single question and so far 3 questioners, sir.!:)

This is almost that question.Three centres are struggling, competing, fighting, moving in different directions.Is it possible to end these centres?Is it a core issue?

I don't know

dhirendra singh wrote:
This is almost that question.Three centres are struggling, competing, fighting, moving in different directions.Is it possible to end these centres?Is it a core issue?

Yes, I wonder, too Dhirendraji...can there be any question for which these 3 centres would have the same answer/view apart from mathematical ones?
Can a person get away from having a different point of view? Is this what you are asking?

dhirendra singh wrote:
This is almost that question.Three centres are struggling, competing, fighting, moving in different directions.Is it possible to end these centres?Is it a core issue?.....

well between people living in the Amazonian forest and a life surrounded by computers , technics and the craving to win and the craving to buy and possess , I wonder if to be alive is reasonable at all....is the universe nuts ?

I find all that weird , really weird ! some living creatures ending up fighting to say : I am the best , I have more and so on....this is entirely meaningless as such because of the suffering , after all if we remove the suffering it may still be meaningless but at least ok and we stick to that....whatever the reasons are..

Is it possible to end this centre say you as of course we meet on differences to impose and use , instead we shall meet on common factors , for it to happen yes it demands huge understanding....common factor is quite simple to find out : the basic needs which are easier to be done together , and even better which are factually done together , but the thief comes around and find a system to steal, this include war and the all of it......this is what happens simply put....talk to you later the crowd is back from the journey to the sea side...

Dan.....

Katy 9 wrote:
can there be any question for which these 3 centres would have the same answer/view apart from mathematical ones?

"Centres, have you got all that your abilities deserved in life?"

"Centres, are you incapable of understanding anything in spiritual matters?

"Centres, do you know what quiteness of the mind is?"

Honest answers to these questions by all centres will be same and factually wrong, dear Katy. I am sure you can think of many more.:)

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Muad dheeb wrote:
Is it possible to end this centre

Katy 9 wrote:
Is this what you are asking?

Hi Katy and Dan

Dan's question is mine too.I add, how to end this centre?I am not interested in endless topics, in K's diagnosis or in yogis' diagnosis, in reading description of beauty of other shores' etc..

What is the way?What to do?

I don't know

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Honest answers to these questions by all centres will be same and factually wrong, dear Katy. I am sure you can think of many more.:)

:)

For sure, Dr Sudhir, and to do so would be tedious wouldn't it sir?

Sorry for misunderstanding.

I can see (I think ) what you and Dhirendra are pointing to; that the centre, by definition, obscures perception of/seeing the fact.

dhirendra singh wrote:
I am not interested in endless topics, in K's diagnosis or in yogis' diagnosis, in reading description of beauty of other shores' etc..

This is the centre up in arms trying to mislead about its ending and, as a result, ensuring its survival!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Katy 9 wrote:
that the centre, by definition, obscures perception of/seeing the fact.

Right Katy, can this centre end? how?

I don't know

dhirendra singh wrote:
Right Katy, can this centre end? how?

By Death? Certainly not by more thought..thought chasing after thought..producing yet more confusion. If one supposes a method..a system..a how it is still the center expanding it's self through yet more tangents?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

dhirendra singh wrote:
Right Katy, can this centre end? how?

The received wisdom as you know, Dhirendra, is that there is no 'how' in words...'Can there be an 'I' free of motive?' (I am not the author of this question). It seems (to me) that one cancels out the other.

At this point I would refer/defer to what Krishnamurti said/wrote about all of this.

This post was last updated by Katy 9 (account deleted) Sat, 30 Jul 2011.

RICK LEIN wrote:
If one supposes a method..a system..a how it is still the center expanding it's self through yet more tangents?:)

Yes, indeed, Rick. Thanks.

No, let's keep the centres and ditch the periphery. Then, what is the centre?

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

What is that question? A single question?

Yes, I wonder, too Dhirendraji...can there be any question for which these 3 centres would have the same answer/view apart from mathematical ones?

Hi :-),
is already clear to us, what is the centre, we are talking about ?

Ute S wrote:
Hi :-),
is already clear to us, what is the centre, we are talking about ?

Hi Ute

Congratulation for first post.:)

There is a centre for sure, but you are right that we have not clearly seen it.

I don't know

RICK LEIN wrote:
By Death? Certainly not by more thought..thought chasing after thought..producing yet more confusion

Not by more thought, yes. Question has been answered, no how, not by more thoughts.

I don't know

:-)
There is a centre for sure, but you are right that we have not clearly seen it.

there are some indications that point to a center. the feeling that we are doing things out of purpose, or that we have goals, that we want to achieve, we think we decide to act in a certain way to gain pleasure or security or protect our social image.
But either we act as a response due to our social conditioning/experience or we react directly to factual circumstance as a part of circumstance so to say. in both ways is no choice and no centre - somehow an evolving of everything . But we feel and act otherwise though we cannot get a grip on our so called center. So is there an end to something so vague, something that only shows in relation, in the nature of the act ?

This post was last updated by Ute S Mon, 01 Aug 2011.

Ute S wrote:
So is there an end to something so vague, something that only shows in relation, in the nature of the act ?

Now you are beginning to get somewhere. You only know there is a centre in relation to what is circling around it, the periphery.

In fact the so-called 'centre' does not exist EXCEPT as an imaginary point around which there is an attempt to create an order. But what sort of order and order of what?

In our everyday interactions with life, everything not understood is held as memory. That is the general accumulation of misunderstanding from which thought is generated. But this is such a chaotic, rag-bag mix of confusion that the tension it creates is overwhelming. There is an attempt within thought to create an order. There has to be a central point around which things get ordered, some guiding principle, some life strategy. Once a child has gathered enough of this guiding principle it begins to order its experiences around that. Anything that goes against the grain of that gathering order is relegated to the unconscious and is denied.

So, there is no centre as such, EXCEPT that there is a process of ordering which assumes a stable centre.

How can one 'end' a centre that does not actually exist. What exists is the effort to put what is misunderstood into an order. That operation can cease. But then you are left with the underlying chaos, which is totally disfunctional. You maintain the process of ordering in order to stave off the chaos. Who is going to choose chaos over order?

We are in the very sad situation of wanting something desperately that we are actually not prepared to pay the price for. Because there is no guarantee that 'dying to the self' will lead to anything more than madness or actual physical demise. Your whole metabolism prevents you from going that far with it.

Meanwhile, enquiry is a good life-game, if you enjoy that kind of thing.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Hello Paul, not shure if I'm getting somewhere :-)

*In our everyday interactions with life, everything not understood is held as memory. That is the general accumulation of misunderstanding from which thought is generated.

Yes, it seems like that.

But this is such a chaotic, rag-bag mix of confusion that the tension it creates is overwhelming. There is an attempt within thought to create an order. There has to be a central point around which things get ordered, some guiding principle, some life strategy. Once a child has gathered enough of this guiding principle it begins to order its experiences around that. Anything that goes against the grain of that gathering order is relegated to the unconscious and is denied.

I `d say the establishing of a central point during upbringing is the source of disorder, creating a center with qualities that are esteemed or rejected by society.

The difficulties and conflicts arise from the thought that you have to make efforts to fit in your parents and teachers image of you - you should be someone that you are not, you should be an idea of someone else..And because one wants to be appreciated, a part of something, not alone, one tries to fulfill what is expected - therefor there are effort, conflict, problems.

This post was last updated by Ute S Tue, 02 Aug 2011.

Ute S wrote:
I `d say the establishing of a central point during upbringing is the source of disorder

Certainly it is the source of the disorder at some level. But if you put all the fault with the external conditioning you exzcuse your own role in acceptiong those pressures and you reason for so doing.

The self, as a centre, is the major block we face in evcen being able to look into the underlying sensory confusion. Because it is protecting us from that. And we have to undo all the protections that we ourselves and society has put in place. And that can only be done through understanding.

But everywhere you may start, can be an adequate starting point for enquiry. The whole is in every part.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

But everywhere you may start, can be an adequate starting point for enquiry.

agreed :-)

Paul Davidson wrote:
The self, as a centre, is the major block we face in evcen being able to look into the underlying sensory confusion. Because it is protecting us from that.

Who is the "we" that is facing the self, the major block? If it is consciousness, are we sure that consciousness is not, itself, the self? What's the distinction between the two?

It would seem that the self is not so much "protecting" as it is actually causing confusion. All of our actions are taken with the self in mind - - and so all of our actions are protective of the self and limited by concern for the self.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 03 Aug 2011.

max greene wrote:
All of our actions are taken with the self in mind - - and so all of our actions are protective of the self and limited by concern for the self.

Thanks Max!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

max greene wrote:
Who is the "we"

Grammar, Max. Who ARE the we?

max greene wrote:
and so all of our actions are protective of the self

Whose actions are the "our?"

Games!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Pleaseexcuseme-myspacebarisnotworking

The-self-causes-many-problems-but-who-set-it-up-in-the-first-place-and-with-what-purpose?----Why-the-effort-to-control-thought?

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud