K was like a signpost. We don't worship a signpost, we don't believe in a signpost, nor do we hang around a signpost. You set out alone in the direction suggested, and in essence the direction suggested came down to this:

When asked how he learnt what he did, K said:

By watching my mind...without condemning or condoning.

There's nothing there you and I can't do.

Now that doesn't mean instant nirvana, peace which passes all understanding, a blinding flash of understanding which transforms everything etc. in fact, there's every chance you might get even more discontented!

John Anderson wrote:
in fact, there's every chance you might get even more discontented!

Sir, one kind of discontentment is when we are running to fulfill our desires and to achieve our innumerable goals in the outer world. Sooner or later one also notices that each completed goal and fulfilled desire will generate ten more and one is never satisfied as this is an unending race.

When one starts understanding the pain producing nature of desire, then the accumulation of knowledge about the self becomes important and another race starts.One very easily becomes the follower of a book, or a guru or a religion. if one is intelligent and sensitive enough, Then one realises sooner or later that the pain, sorrow, fear etc.are not going to end in this manner also.

In both instances, one is moving and making efforts to achieve contentment, happiness, peace etc. in life, but the results are always opposite to one's expectations.

One can also easily observe and see that life is also moving and flowering moment to moment and except human beings, no other form of life shows psychological discontentment.

Could there be a lesson for all of us in this ? Could we discuss the nature of these Two different Movements ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Could there be a lesson for all of us in this ? Could we discuss the nature of these Two different Movements ?

Dr Sharma. Post 2

I always have a fear of getting too cerebral in these matters. I'm going to take this slowly for myself. There are huge pauses here as I type this........

I think you hit it when you said:

In both instances, one is moving and making efforts.

(This is all that matters) In doing that, one is moving away from the self and not letting it tell it's story. If one lets it flower, in that choiceless awareness, one may be seeing/learning some very unsavoury things about yourself.

However...In doing this, you are putting your house in order. Forget Nirvana, peace of mind etc. One is a million miles from that without this order.

John Anderson wrote:
If one lets it flower, in that choiceless awareness, one may be seeing/learning some very unsavoury things about yourself.

Sir, in that seeing/ learning, will there be any criticism and categorisation as unsavoury or good things about 'yourself' ?

John Anderson wrote:
In doing this, you are putting your house in order.

Sir, why does the observation of 'disorder' equals 'putting your house in order' ?- Regards.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

John Anderson wrote:
a blinding flash of understanding which transforms everything

Unless one comes to this, one is not watching the mind without interpretation. One is simply dreaming that they are.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Sir, in that seeing/ learning, will there be any criticism and categorisation as unsavoury or good things about 'yourself' ?

Dr. Sharma Post 4

That's a great question. Watch me struggle???? This is immensely tricky.
It relates to your other question

When watching, you are watching your response to a challenge. Not the challenge where someone says to you, does 2 X 2 = 5?

It's in that psychological realm where the self jumps into play. That self, positive or negative in it's response...isn't needed to meet the challenge. In fact the self is a distortion in response to the challenge. Or put it this way, the response to the challenge is always inadequet when the self responds, positive or negative.

Awareness, seeing, watching, call it what you want, allows you to see that immediately and puts a spanner in the works of the self.

But hey, we're not always aware. There are great gaps. Challenges to which the self has responded. In that state I hurt and get hurt in response to challenges etc.

But awareness of this unawaredness acquaints me very keenly with the operations and subtlty of the self. I may well apologise to the person I made suffer when I was unaware and responded from the self. That's an ethical catch up.

What do you think?

John Anderson wrote:
When asked how he learnt what he did, K said:
By watching my mind...without condemning or condoning.
There's nothing there you and I can't do.

But just what is "you" and "I"? Can there even be a you or an I without condemning and condoning? Is not the you and the I a product of culturally conditioned thought distinguished by what it condemns and condones?

K was no ordinary human being. He was selected by Leadbeater and the Theosophists because he was extraordinary, exceptional, a veritable mutant. Just because it was possible for him to observe without culturally conditioned judgement doesn't mean it's possible for you and I...and it's that impossibility that must be seen.

John Anderson wrote:
Awareness, seeing, watching, call it what you want, allows you to see that immediately and puts a spanner in the works of the self.

The only thing that's going to put a spanner in the works of the self is the self. By catching itself in its conditioned movement, the self may be more conscious of itself, more determined to bring about a change in itself, but all it's actually doing is modifying and updating itself. Not that one shouldn't do that, but it would be foolish to think of that activity as transformative.

nick carter wrote:
K was no ordinary human being. He was selected by Leadbeater and the Theosophists because he was extraordinary, exceptional, a veritable mutant. Just because it was possible for him to observe without culturally conditioned judgement doesn't mean it's possible for you and I...and it's that impossibility that must be seen.

So who is putting K on a pedestal now? AND using it as a convenient excuse no to do the work?

Worshiping the man and ignoring the message. Easier that way perhaps? - and when really frustrated K can be one's punching-bag as well - the fallen idol! Happens all the time on these forums.

Nick,

". . . the self may be more conscious of itself, more determined to bring about a change in itself, but all it's actually doing is modifying and updating itself."

Isn't the self merely a construct, a fabrication made by the mind? Unless the self is alive, how is it capable of taking this action? Is the self alive?

max

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
So who is putting K on a pedestal now? AND using it as a convenient excuse no to do the work?
Worshiping the man and ignoring the message. Easier that way perhaps? - and when really frustrated K can be one's punching-bag as well - the fallen idol! Happens all the time on these forums.

Poor Patty, misunderstanding again. And what "work" is it that you're doing so diligently?

To say that K was a freak is not to put him on a pedestal.

max greene wrote:
Isn't the self merely a construct, a fabrication made by the mind? Unless the self is alive, how is it capable of taking this action? Is the self alive?

Max, knowing how obsessed you are with your idea of now, and how nothing that is not now is not alive, I can only say, "Now, now, Max".

Nick,

But the questions are certainly worth looking into. Is the self able to act on its own? That's a pretty important question.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 04 Mar 2010.

nick carter wrote:
To say that K was a freak is not to put him on a pedestal.

Of course it is! But one that you can kick him off and attack him whenever it suits you. And it is an excuse not to do the work for yourself to call K a freak.

What work? Watching the disorder as it occurs - not in anyone else - in oneself. Then one can speak from there without personal attack on another - or on K.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
What work? Watching the disorder as it occurs - not in anyone else - in oneself. Then one can speak from there without personal attack on another - or on K.

Patty, you silly girl. If you were watching your own disorder you wouldn't be such an expert on others'.

max greene wrote:
Is the self able to act on its own? That's a pretty important question.

Is the self an actuality or an illusion? If the former, it can act. If the latter, there's nothing there to initiate action.

Nick:

The self is perhaps an actuality, but does that necessarily mean it can act? I don't see that it can, as it appears to be no more than an idea or a thought. The physical person does the acting. He may be influenced by his idea of a 'self,' but he is the actor and the one responsible for action.

See? No now nohow.

max

nick carter wrote:
Just because it was possible for him to observe without culturally conditioned judgement doesn't mean it's possible for you and I...and it's that impossibility that must be seen.

K was not interested in the self improvement process,but he did in fact say it was possible for others to see what he pointed to, in the teachings!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
What work? Watching the disorder as it occurs - not in anyone else - in oneself. Then one can speak from there without personal attack on another - or on K.

Bingo!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

RICK LEIN wrote:
but he did in fact say it was possible for others to see what he pointed to, in the teachings!

So why won't we/you do it??!!!???!!????????????!!????????????????????

Randal Shacklett wrote:
So why won't we/you do it??!!!???!!????????????!!????????????????????

Fear!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

nick carter wrote:
Patty, you silly girl. If you were watching your own disorder you wouldn't be such an expert on others'.

Really - if I wanted to play silly games of put-down rather that just watch my own disorder I could - let's see - I could write on here: "Nicky - you silly boy - misunderstanding again!"

But honestly - who would choose to sink to such depths of pettiness? :) Boom-boom!

Randal Shacklett wrote:
So why won't we/you do it??!!!???!!????????????!!????????????????????

Why make the presumption that no-one does?

nick carter wrote:
you wouldn't be such an expert on others'.

To have an understanding of the movement of thought is not to set oneself up as an 'expert on others' unless one chooses to indulge in personal attacks and image-making.

Apart from a small diversion into exploring the possibility (above #22 - which showed clearly how cheap and easy it is to do) I choose not to indulge in personal attack. Anything I say on here is about the movement of disorder and never personal at all.

Can't you perceive the difference?

nick carter wrote:
K was no ordinary human being. He was selected by Leadbeater and the Theosophists because he was extraordinary, exceptional, a veritable mutant. Just because it was possible for him to observe without culturally conditioned judgement doesn't mean it's possible for you and I...and it's that impossibility that must be seen.

Hi Nick

Nick we tend to block ourselves when we think like that. It makes K into a demi God. He wasn't. Nor was he special. But that is what is so terrific about all this. He said many times, especially in his later years as he matured, I learnt all this by watching my mind.

He articulated brilliantly psychological insights which people throughout the world, no matter what the culture, consider worth exploring. These insights have been seen by sages in past ages, but became so embroiled in religious overtones of various kinds that nowadays they fail to resonate with people like you and me.

If again we start to load these psychological insights with religious overtones..... and treat with hallowed reverence the messenger, then the whole circus begins again. K was desperate to avoid that.

It's a fabulous and wonderful starting point.

Mind: his, yours and mine, desperately need these insights. We're all in the pot together.

This post was last updated by John Anderson Thu, 04 Mar 2010.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
What work? Watching the disorder as it occurs - not in anyone else - in oneself. Then one can speak from there without personal attack on another - or on K.

Yes!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

John Anderson wrote:
But awareness of this unawaredness acquaints me very keenly with the operations and subtlty of the self.

Sir, in the instant when one becomes aware of the activity of the self, is there any self ?

Take the example of throwing a burning stick in to the river.Is there any burning stick in the instant the two meet ? Isn't it same with the self coming under the light of awareness ? In the example only the extinguished stick remains. Similarly, only the thought may remain when one becomes aware. The emotional content won't be there.

Sir, in awareness, the self is absent.So, the question of getting aquainted with its activities will not arise. Whatever later becomes knowledge about self is likely to strengthen the self further.

What do you say to this, Sir ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

John Anderson wrote:
Nick we tend to block ourselves when we think like that. It makes K into a demi God. He wasn't. Nor was he special.

K was an oddball, a mutant, a freak - not a demi-god, a holy man, or a saint, but "special". Furthermore, there's no indication that studying or parroting his teachings has done anything to change the human condition or "awaken intelligence", but playing K-cheerleader can be gratifying.

nick carter wrote:
K was an oddball, a mutant, a freak - not a demi-god, a holy man, or a saint, but "special". Furthermore, there's no indication that studying or parroting his teachings has done anything to change the human condition or "awaken intelligence", but playing K-cheerleader can be gratifying.

Nick....Given that. Why bother to be here? Maybe the answer hinges to some extent on your understanding of what is meant by "awaken intelligence" Do you fancy having a stab at that?

PS: I am not asking you to be cheerleader, just help me explore this.

Cheers

This post was last updated by John Anderson Thu, 04 Mar 2010.

John Anderson wrote:
When asked how he learnt what he did, K said:
By watching my mind...without condemning or condoning.
There's nothing there you and I can't do.

As I pointed out earlier, this is not true. The culturally conditioned brain cannot watch its own movement without condemning or condoning because it is conditioned to condemn and condone. Who knows if K could really do it? If you could, you wouldn't need to refer to K to give authority to your words.