Is the false notion of psychological time, our constant noise or the distortion in the way we perceive life and relate with the others? Please excuse my limitations in English writing. Angel

Angel,

The cause of division is that every man has an image of himself in his mind. He believes this image is actually himself, and he will kill and die for it.

max

Thinking=division.

Angel Miolan wrote:
Which is the major cause of division?

hello Angel!

well i would go the other way round maybe by asking what makes human non cooperative animals?
in some ways there is cooperation, look at wars !! this is cooperation,a deadly one, but cooperation : which is you die now if you don't go to war or later if you go to war, this is typical of human genius brain isn't ?
Everything produced on earth is the result of some kind of cooperation, house ,cars ,roads, electricity, food, weapons, there too there is a kind of cooperation, and the so called "elites" use that compulsory cooperation to gain power , money and so on..without any cooperation would Mr bill gates, which seems to think he is a new god, be so wealthy? no...not sure he could even do a garden...
no one can get wealthy on his behalf...
this cooperation is the combination of a group of people having the same goal in life, being wealthy, in some ways they cooperate , a deadly cooperation but...
the people of earth not on the top of pyramid are not cooperating at all, but merely forced to do whatever people in charge want them to do...
those people are more divided than the elites, how weird i think..
division in your sense is psychological as you asked the question and it means no links between people, which means nothing to share, which means we are all isolated, lost in our own conclusions which becomes like the so called Law, absolutely static, with no motion, not alive..
in some ways human are great because the all universe as it is known to us so far is in motion, is moving ,never the same, only human being succeeded in creating something totally steady from where he acts....
i often compare our brain with any tool, let me say my brain is a hammer like and yours is screwdriver, so what can a screw driver and a hammer have in common if they think in terms of hammer and screwdriver? nothing !.
But if those tools could have a whole picture they could see the differences but the common ground too, that they could act together as tools to create something voluntarily, something good, practical and so on..
we are still in the practical field of life here, a field where conclusions can be different, if you are doing practical work , you know there is not one way to do something, so conclusions in practical fields will always be in some ways different..
if life is only that, then we are caught for good in that little corner and the worse will always be there, so the suffering and so on..
At the end of the day, i will put the question like : What do we have in common to share? instead of why are we divided?
we share the planet ,are human beings, born to die, with a need for food , shelter, with huge fears , unbearable fears, so same brain lost in fear, we all have our own history, father ,mother, family ,work, all brought up in schools where we learn competition which is where we learn to be at war, we learn that when 5 years old! what a shame...!!!!
we all have this unbearable discontentment which bothers us all our life, so we all try the escape from it in various ways, whatever way it is, i won't make a check list the check list is our life !!
that is common to everyone....
like in a dream where we escape from something fearful, but we run slowly and fear is there, such a dream in itself shows us what to do which is stop running and look, this very action will produce something, whatever it is, but back to your questioning, how can i relate to you if my all life is a running to escape?
by the way it works even in a dream when you stop running, try it please, you will be surprised...i say it from experiences..
of course then we are back into the functioning of the brain, but the thing is we have to be so fed up with escaping which tired the mind so much and produces more and more pain and sorrow, that we are willing to stand, not as superman and all those stupidities, but as a simple human being who decides for once to stop running without having the clue of what is going to happen...this is something we have in common we can go into, share to some extend, and of course we still have the deadly choice to impose our own taste on others, our conclusions on others...
this computerized part of the brain, the analytical brain which come to a conclusion, by yes or no is the divider, not that it wants to divide, i have the impression that the set up of its program includes that each of its conclusion is THE GOOD ONE..
According to what i understand and see so far, it has to be like that in any practical field of life, we need a conclusion, we need opinions, and the most practical if possible and if there is one...we are the victims of a set up program calls the ego or analytical brain or self or whatever name, this program goes beyond a field where it is needed, and this is where we may put all our energy to see and understand deeply what is happening, and see for oneself if something can be done about it, and so discover for oneself if we have some other capacity for that, one needs to reach a state of mind where one is too fed up with discontentment, being so aware of never ending escapes, which, bit by bit ,bring more and more difficulties to bear one's life..and may be there can we have some huge common ground to share with everyone interested, aware that this ego/censor will act all the time because it has too for survival, but we have to find out if we have the possibility to transcend the action of the ego, and for me so far, the discovering or not by a negative seing of a different state of mind..
to be honest by luck i have been there involuntarily, so all what i say here is experiences, and i don't feel shy to mention it, i would have like k to talk much more about the things happening into his consciousness ,well don't misunderstand he has done some amazing work, and i understand the work he has done and why he was not too personal too, it would have put him on a God like position by others, and it would have been a disaster too. Having said that, his words are precious of course! but the psychological work on ones life has to be done all the time, and it will be till the end of ones life, no choice when you started the questioning of your life... do we have a choice but to know oneself?and go beyond the dictatorship of the ego/analytical brain if the capacity is there? i don't think so.
i find this position of no choice comfortable, don't you yourself ?
friendly...
well, hope it makes enough sense, i shall repeat from time to time that english is not my first language...............
ma langue maternelle est le francais

lost in tragedy...

max greene wrote:
he cause of division is that every man has an image of himself in his mind. He believes this image is actually himself, and he will kill and die for it.

Excellent Max,Thanks

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Thinking=division

Sir, where will 'attention' fit in this equation ? Will there be division if one is aware of the thoughts as they are arising and subsiding ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

max greene wrote:
The cause of division is that every man has an image of himself in his mind. He believes this image is actually himself, and he will kill and die for it.

Sir, what is the primary reason behind this self image formation ? Is such self image formation inevitable or not ?-Regards.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Angel Miolan wrote:
Is the false notion of psychological time, our constant noise or the distortion in the way we perceive life and relate with the others?

All the three are similar in the sense that the root cause for their appearance is same- thought process.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr. Sharma,

"What is the primary reason behind this self image formation ? Is such self image formation inevitable or not?"

I don't know, and I'm not aware of anyone who has ever determined the definitive reason we develop this image. But it appears to have started with some error in thinking, as awareness and observation should have nothing to do with the matter. I say error in thinking, as there is nothing wrong with thinking--thinking is a natural and necessary action. But thought, which is formed by the action of thinking, might be skewed, distorted, for one reason or another.

Our forbears and our environment have a lot to do with the perpetuation of the myth of the self. Since everyone else has a self, since our parents and teachers promote a self, since all of society is "I, and "me," with emphasis on the competitive excellence of the individual, the child falls early into line!

max

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Will there be division if one is aware of the thoughts as they are arising and subsiding ?

But doc, inattantion is the reason for this equation that dominates the human species. This other notion you mention "attention" is a foreign concept designed to divert attention.
Awareness of thought, is another concept, until one does it. If one has the ability to follow thoughts as they rise and fall, one does not ask questions like you just did , Mystry. Sorry to point that out so bluntly.

Randal,

You say that thinking=division, and that this equation dominates the human species.

Thinking is the act of recalling the past, as image, from memory. How does this natural and necessary act equal division? I can see where thought, which is the image or a combination of images, can lead to division, but the act of thinking is merely a function.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 26 Feb 2010.

max greene wrote:
but the act of thinking is merely a function.

Max, what exactly does this function produce? Doesn't the action of thinking produce.....thought? The action of thinking does of course have a place in the human experience, obviously. But as a form of authority and entertainment, is it an intelligent action?

Randal,

Yes, thinking produces thought. It's questionable whether thought is useful or not, but it's certainly misused. Do we need thought? I don't know. But thinking is the way we recall facts from the old memory bank, and we do need facts.

What is thought, would be a good question. Maybe thought is a simple recalled fact (nothing wrong with that) distorted by reference to the self. This would imply that if the self is gone, thought is unnecessary as well.

max

max greene wrote:
This would imply that if the self is gone, thought is unnecessary as well.

With the wild vivid imagination you possess Max, you cannot invision why/how the human species uses thinking in a helpful and useful manner? But that is not why we are here then, is it. We are here because of the misuse of thinking, aren't we?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
"attention" is a foreign concept...

Sir, what about 'attention' as a state of mind and not as a concept ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Will there be division if one is aware of the thoughts as they are arising and subsiding ?

That's a good and very valid question.

No there won't. If one is simply watching/aware without condemning or condoning, there is no division. It is like watching a film in a cinema.

John

This post was last updated by John Anderson Sat, 27 Feb 2010.

Randal,

"We are here because of the misuse of thinking, aren't we?"

Certainly the 'self' is here because of the misuse of thinking. Other than that, if you are saying that the individual creates himself with his own thinking I would say you're partly right.

Consciousness as thought and knowledge is built up--created--over a lifetime of thinking. We believe our consciousness is ourselves. But consciousness is only a part of us. It's the memory part. As living beings, we have awareness and observation also. We are not conscious of these because they come before thought and memory--and consciousness. But we use them a great deal of the time, every day.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 27 Feb 2010.

max greene wrote:
error in thinking,...

Sir, awareness and observing are possible in the Now moment only. These are natural qualities of the mind that require no effort. Thinking is also natural action as long as it is related to what is being observed in Now.Then the thoughts are arising out of seeing.

Sometimes the thoughts are not illuminated by attention. Aren't these moments of inattention the cause of error in thinking ? And isn't the only way to correct this error is to again illuminate the movement of thought process by the light of attention ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

John Anderson wrote:
If one is simply watching/aware without condemning or condoning, there is no division.

Sir, if one is watching the reaction of condemning and condoning, then these also can not cause division.If we place any fore condition in this matter, then division will result. Is this right ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr. Sharma,

"Sometimes the thoughts are not illuminated by attention. Aren't these moments of inattention the cause of error in thinking?"

In the state of the whole (as Elizabeth put it) or now, is there "attention," or is there simply awareness? Attention implies the need to focus, which in turn implies a differentiation or something separate. This condition does not apply to now.

It may be that attention itself--focusing and narrowing--may be the distorting factor in thought.

But what is thought? It's image and remembrance. So long as image and remembrance aren't distorted and so long as one is aware that he is dealing with image and remembrance and not the original itself, what's the harm in thought? (Krishnamurti once remarked that it didn't matter what you did so long as you were aware of what you were doing.)

max

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Sir, if one is watching the reaction of condemning and condoning, then these also can not cause division.If we place any fore condition in this matter, then division will result. Is this right ?

Nicely put. It's very subtle. Absolutely right. Now one just travels with a chuckle in your heart. No more to be said. You've got it.

Cheers

John

max greene wrote:
Attention implies the need to focus,..

Sir,I will put it like this.

Awareness is a lighted field. Attention is freely moving focus in this field.When there is need to focus, it will become concentration which involves stress and effort. If now thought also comes in, the separation is complete.Do you agree, Sir ?

max greene wrote:
It may be that attention itself--focusing and narrowing--may be the distorting factor in thought.
Sir, attention is more like focussing and moving on...moving on...moving on...This can not be a distorting factor unless a thought creeps in without coming under the light of attention.So, isn't inattention the primary cause of distortion ?

max greene wrote:
So long as image and remembrance aren't distorted...

What will cause this distortion, Sir?

max greene wrote:
and so long as one is aware that he is dealing with image and remembrance and not the original itself, what's the harm in thought?

As long as 'one' is present to understand something, the thought process will bring harm. Awareness itself is the factor that will not permit image and remembrances to cause any mischief.Is this right, Sir ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Sir, what about 'attention' as a state of mind and not as a concept

What about it? Why do you insist that there is such a phenomenon? because krishnamurti (and others) have pointed to it? That is not a good enough reason to discuss it, sorry.

max greene wrote:
we have awareness and observation also. We are not conscious of these because they come before thought and memory--and consciousness.

If you are not consciouse of them, how do you know they are there?

Randal,

"If you are not consciouse of them, how do you know they are there?" [awareness and observation]

By inference is one way. To actually "be there" is another, but this way is not for the individual.

Since we are individuals, we infer. We ask ourselves, what is the means by which we come by memory and knowledge? It would seem that one must come into contact (become aware) of something and then he must look at it (observe) before he can place it into his memory and consciousness to later bring out as image (think).

If awareness and observation are omitted from this sequence, obviously nothing happens.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 27 Feb 2010.

max greene wrote:
By inference is one way.

Since we don't roll off, we can infer that the earth is flat?

max greene wrote:
If awareness and observation are omitted from this sequence, obviously nothing happens.

Alright, that somehow, makes sense. Of what benifit is this implication, if distortion is the common theme?

Dr. Sharma.

"What will cause this distortion. . ."

That's the question: What causes thought to be distorted?

It seems to me that the functions themselves are not distorted--the functions of awareness observation, thinking. These always and only take place now, and distortion isn't possible in the action.

But regarding thought itself, here are some points we might consider:

When an image is placed into memory, we first censor it by evaluating it against our central image of the 'self.' We classify the image as pleasant or unpleasant, advantageous to our 'self' or disadvantageous. We don't accept the image "as is." This might be one source of distortion.

Another cause of distortion could be that we hold differing images of something when images of it are entered into consiousness at different times. Which of the images shall we use?

And then, when an image is recalled into the present, we are in effect recalling the past (via the image) into the present. We will always have a problem if we try to override the present with the past, as we won't be seeing things as they really are.

But as you put it, "Awareness itself is the factor that will not permit image and remembrances to cause any mischief."

Yes.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 27 Feb 2010.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
What about it?

Nothing actually if you are not ready to say anything, Sir.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Why do you insist that there is such a phenomenon?

Sir, Are you saying that there is no such phenomenon ?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
because krishnamurti (and others) have pointed to it?

Why did you bring in K, Sir ?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
That is not a good enough reason to discuss it, sorry.

By your reply the discussion moved ahead, didn't it ? Or did it ?

Regards.

P.S- One can always find faults with words because they are inadequate to describe the real things. Possibly I will also enjoy this new way of replying in some cases.(Hopefully, without being personal !).

FLOW WITH LIFE!

This post was last updated by Dr.sudhir sharma Sun, 28 Feb 2010.

max greene wrote:
When an image is placed into memory, we first censor it by evaluating it against our central image of the 'self.'

Sir, this first step is the one that is going to cause all the trouble later on. Is it possible that observation go in to the memory and censor gets no time to evaluate the data ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!