It is a fact we get offended,why? It is a fact we defend our statements which reflect who we Think we are,Why?Why do we protect our idea's.our personal sense of self,Why? What are we afraid of?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Rick, if someone in this forum were to give you the answer to your question, would you know whether it's the correct answer or not? Isn't this a question that only you can answer? Will you be satisfied with the answer that Ms. Hemingway, or Mr. Shacklett, or the Doctor, or some other know-it-all is only too eager to provide you with?

You've posed a good question, Rick. Take it seriously. Don't just toss it out for the parrots. Keep it to yourself. Ponder it. This forum exists to show you how limited and insufficient this forum is. No one knows better than you what you need to do for yourself, and if you haven't realized yet how no one in this forum can help you, God help you.

nick carter wrote:
ou've posed a good question, Rick. Take it seriously. Don't just toss it out for the parrots. Keep it to yourself. Ponder it.

Thank you Nick,I ask because of the very facts you mention.Self knowledge. The challenge being do I see,at all? Or is every thing distorted by self concern?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

nick carter wrote:
and if you haven't realized yet how no one in this forum can help you, God help you.

Yes Nick,was not looking for help.Help is hope is it not? Rick has no hope,or as some might say "Rick is hopeless"!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

nick carter wrote:
This forum exists to show you how limited and insufficient this forum is.

Nick this forum exist to show us our shared conditioning,does it not? It is exposing ones self to challenge as well.That is why Rick started this thread. Self image is the block which keeps us blind to our own conditioned reactions is it not?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Thanks Rick, for a thoughtful theme. I found myself wanting to answer some points but I find it is really too 'sacriligious' to do so because it would probably be the self doing the answering, covering up again.

Nevertheless . ..

It's an instinct for survival that kicks in and defends. There's a short-circuit up there somewhere! Instinct and thought have locked themselves together in a very vicious circle. How come seeing this is not enough to dispell it?

What are you waiting for?

RICK LEIN wrote:
What are we afraid of?

One reacts aggressively when one's ideas are challenged because it is a painful experience. Each one of us not only wants to be somebody but also wants to be better than the next fellow in all coveted fields.

The mind abhores and fears the idea of being nobody/nothing and it has got only ideas to show for its worth. So, ideas become life line for it and it has no option but to defend them at any cost.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
The mind abhores and fears the idea of being nobody/nothing and it has got only ideas to show for its worth. So, ideas become life line for it and it has no option but to defend them at any cost.

But I do not agree that the mind inevitably has to abhor or fear. The function of thought must be orderly, in its right place. Thought was not designed to create confusion? It is correct to state the fact that thought does abhor and fear but that statement in itself demands further inquiry. Why has fear and hate taken hold?

Surely the mind has adopted the wrong functions for itself? Or, we are doomed. (Probably we are)

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 23 Aug 2010.

Paul Davidson wrote:
It's an instinct for survival that kicks in and defends.

O.K.,survival of what I am not disagreeing.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
fears the idea of being nobody/nothing and it has got only ideas to show for its worth. So, ideas become life line for it and it has no option but to defend them at any cost.

Agreed,however why does the self image think,believe it has no option,other than reaction?Fear of being nothing,ues o.k. Why does the mind always seek it self interest,is it a primitive survival instinct? Krishnamurti did say we are primitive,even answering one fellows request of what we were by replying we are monkeys.Still we are left with the question of why,why does the human being react with fear of being nothing,is it death?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
So, ideas become life line

So we fear death of idea's?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

RICK LEIN wrote:
O.K.,survival of what I am not disagreeing.

Well, the body wants to survive . . . not the body but the whole being. Somehow an attack (verbal) on the self-image may be being taken as a fight or flight situation. A neurologist might say that the hypothalmus has grown a feedback loop through to the frontal cortex and limbic system. (I've no idea what that means, by the way . . . in case you'd ask!)

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Somehow an attack (verbal) on the self-image may be being taken as a fight or flight situation.

Why? Why do we think that.It is not logical.Words are not the thing.Why do we take words personally?It is said in the Bio's of M.L.that R.R.would berate K,and K sat still,did not react,did not defend himself.It made her even more furious,why?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
So, ideas become life line for it and it has no option but to defend them at any cost.

How are idea's formed? Is it when we are not giving the moment our complete attention? Is it our conditioning? Do we not but create further conditioning when we form images?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
One reacts aggressively when one's ideas are challenged because

One is a state of fear? But we are speaking of words,images conjured up by our own minds,a self created fantasy? Isn't that insane?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

nick carter wrote:
This forum exists to show you how limited and insufficient this forum is.

Hi Nick,this forum exist as a tool for self exploration. It is neither good,or bad.which is nothing more than a value judgment.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Is it not this self image which passes judgment? Is not at the root of self image a collection[accumulation] of Idea's we entertain as being who we are? Is not self image but a collection of reactions stored in memory,which is the past? Can the eyes of the past look undistorted on what is?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

RICK LEIN wrote:
Why? Why do we think that.It is not logical.Words are not the thing.Why do we take words personally?It is said in the Bio's of M.L.that R.R.would berate K,and K sat still,did not react,did not defend himself.It made her even more furious,why?

Why should it be so? Quite! But is there an assumption that we are logical?

Certainly the intellect is a logic machine . . . but what programs it? The machine is motivated by desires, urges and instincts, which apparently arise outside of it and pre-empt its action. It has no inner motivation of its own at all, like a computer. But it does seem to want to stay logical. It values logical order. So why does it fall into illogic?

Thought comes into action with desire, urge and (instinctive) drive. Thought is logical but desire etc., is not. Thought therefore, at its inception, is driven by illogic. It tries to make logic from illogic. Not only that but many contradictory desires are motivating the development of patterns of thought from various directions and so the overall output is bound to become one of total irrationality.

Part of this output is the self-image, which is part of the irrationality. That is an explanation. I agree, it is not the thing and may hardly be helpful. But it is there.

More important to investigate . . .what exactly is the self-image? Not your or my particular image (which is also important) but the whole business.

Can we look into that? After all, it was your first question.

RICK LEIN wrote:
Is it not this self image which passes judgment? Is not at the root of self image a collection[accumulation] of Idea's we entertain as being who we are? Is not self image but a collection of reactions stored in memory,which is the past? Can the eyes of the past look undistorted on what is?

Here we have some important clues.

It seems that thought/feeling collects all limited and contradictory experiences and personalises them. This collection becomes our personality. It is who we are.

Is not the self-image an idealised or censored image of that overall confusion? Do not thought function from that image because it generates the semblance of order that the brain needs in order to function? Is that it?

If that is the case, thought creates a sanitised illusion about who I am and I believe I act from that. Whereas in actuality I act from my whole personality, which includes all the contradictory materials that I have excluded from the image I hold of myself. I may have an image that I am non-violent (like Sadhu) but underneath that I AM violent. I do not see the duplicity but others may.

And when it is pointed out to me that my actions are not so pretty as I believe, my sanitised self-image is exposed as a self-serving illusion.

It is then that something rises in defence of the self-image. Why? Well, if the above is correct, the whole body of thought has an instinctive understanding that it needs order to function and that even this fig-leaf image of order provided by the self-image is 'good enough' and without it thought cannot function. And, for thought, thought is all there is. I think, therefore, I am!

For thought, the maintenance of a self-image which serves as a basis for order against the background of disorder, is its prerequisite for survival.

The self-image is therefore a necessary outcome of the fact of the dominance of thought. Continuation of that dominance demands defence of that self-image.

It seems all to depend on thought imagining itself as the central pivot of everything, that all life depends upon it. Is this not a kind of meglamania? What is it about thought that leads it to such disturbing conclusions?

What are you waiting for?

The creation of a self image is the first movement of illusion.
Not seeing that it's purely a fiction we then seek security for that projected image.
All the confusion and conflict follows on from this.

Jim F wrote:
The creation of a self image

from seeing in a objective mirror and before that? Does not self form out of desire.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Does not self form out of desire.

Hi G.B. yes,could it be that self image is desire? The avoidance of what is,in the desire for what is not?Can we say then that in order to escape fear,in that desire,the illusion of self is maintained? So then the self image is a protective device against being nothing,the fear of being nothing at all?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Jim F wrote:
The creation of a self image is the first movement of illusion.

Hi Jim.Can we say then that fear of the unknown,and the desire for the comfort of the known gives life to self image?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

RICK LEIN wrote:
Hi Jim.Can we say then that fear of the unknown,and the desire for the comfort of the known gives life to self image?

Hi Rick
Thinking about myself (psychologically) creates the image.
Desire for comfort of the remembered, and fear of the discomfort of the remembered breathes life into it.

There is no fear of the unknown, is there?

Jim F wrote:
Desire for comfort of the remembered, and fear of the discomfort of the remembered breathes life into it.

or is it due to the fear of the unknown.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
from seeing in a objective mirror and before that? Does not self form out of desire. gb

I am talking about a psychological self image, not a physical one.
Thinking about myself psychologically creates that image.
Desire for security and pleasure breathes life into that image.

Jim F wrote:
There is no fear of the unknown, is there?

I don't know,it seems though that since the self is the known,anything other than self may be the unknown,so we are fearful of non self,of non being,and in this way of the unknown. What I am trying to say is we are fear,although fear has many expressions it seems to have one source. The illusion of self?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Jim F wrote:
from seeing in a objective mirror and before tha

wanted to add the psychological image also in the mirror of relationship.Thank you.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Jim F wrote:
There is no fear of the unknown, is there?

Hi Jim,since the unknown by it's very nature is just that,unknown,we can not know it,and there in lies the fear?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

It's the thinking about myself psychologically that actually creates the insecurity and the urge for control.
When there is no thinking about myself, there are no problems to solve!

Thinking about myself psychologically creates psychological time.
When there is no thinking, there is no psychological time.
Nowhere to go and nothing to solve!

Jim F wrote:
I am talking about a psychological self image, not a physical one. Thinking about myself psychologically creates that image. Desire for security and pleasure breathes life into that image.

In some of the posts above there seems to be no clear distinction made between the self and the self-image. But are they the same?

Ganesan is correct that the self is formed from desire. Desire is the outcome of the senses and the instincts. Seeing, touching, wanting. And it all gets automatically recorded. The totality of all our recorded experiences makes up the personality or self, from which we act. It is a fragmented, limited and conflictual thing, reflecting the nature of sensory experience itself.

But the self-image seems to me to be a more specialised function. The self-image is a sanitised version of all that recording. Any unwanted marerial is shunted down into an unseen area, which psychologists have unfortunately called the unconscious. The self-image is the picture we hold of ourselves, of an imaginary person who we believes acts.

There is therefore a constant state of contradiction between the self, as personality, and the self-image, as the imaginary 'me.'

Lastly, as may be seen, the self-image, the imaginary 'I', is a differentated function within the self/personality. They are not two separate things.

What are you waiting for?