Why are you seeking at all?

One is seeking mindfullness, another the sense of I am, or short moments of awareness, or presence, or nirvana, or enlightenment, or peace, or..........

Isn't it because your daily life is unsatisfactory? Or there is memory of an unsatisfactory past, so the urge to guarantee a better future?
Unsatisfactoriness, or suffering is caused through a lack of clarity. When there is clarity one doesn't suffer!

So you see, the seeking is born out of a lack of clarity, and then not seeing this, the seeking is given great importance, and the whole circus rolls on.

This reminds me of a joke - A man is driving around unfamiliar country lanes and getting truly lost, he sees a simple local leaning on a gate and stops to ask him directions. When the local hears where the man wants to go to he replies "oh, I wouldn't start from here!".
(Please don't get caught up in the joke)

You see? You're asking the wrong question.
First, find out why you suffer!

Isn't it because you are repeatedly resisting life?
This should happen, that shouldn't happen etc. etc.

And aren't you resisting life because you have an agenda?

The central agendas are the urge for security, for pleasure, for peace.
But if you don't see that these are all projections of thought, you treat them as real, and the search goes on.
There's only 'what is', the eternal present, but you project a future that is different from now, and not seeing that it's a projection you try to act on it.

So, you have to see the nature of thought, see what it is, what it can and can't do, see how it breeds illusion. Have an insight into thought.
You can only have an insight into thought if you watch it and explore how it works. One must not condemn thought, as then you will not be able to watch and enquire with an open mind.

Freedom, clarity, peace, are all present and experienced eternally now for one not caught in illusion.
There truly is nowhere to go.
But to repeat these words when one is caught in illusion, when one is seeking, when one is trying not to try, trying to surrender, and all the other psychological gymnastics that people go through, then this just breeds more illusion.

The key is an insight into thought. Put all your spare time and energy into examining, exploring and watching thought.

Jim F wrote:
The key is an insight into thought. Put all your spare time and energy into examining, exploring and watching thought.

Ultimately...this statement too...is a trap.

Bob D wrote:
Ultimately...this statement too...is a trap.

Why make a statement without any supporting evidence?
Please expand.

Jim F wrote:
Why make a statement without any supporting evidence? Please expand.

I didnt post it to convince you of anything. I posted because that is what I see. But since you asked: You said..."Put all your spare time and energy into examining, exploring and watching thought." To me, that is just more grist for the "I" mill. Such as...Oh, "I" see. "I" need to put this system in place in order to get what "I" want. If only "I" focus on examining all these things..."I" will find peace. "I" sure would like to have me some of that peace. And hidden away is the fact that "I" sure will be disappointed if this system doesn't work for "me". Oh! Damn it! There "I" go again. "I'm not simply watching my thoughts, "I" reacted on that one. Oh well..."I'll try harder next time"

Sounds like the making of a trap to me. That's all.

By logical extension, that means that anything one does will be a trap. And so, if you continue as you have, then nothing will change.

Thought projects, that is a fact. It is very useful when planning the weeks food shopping, it's a disaster when the content is psychological. Psychological thought creates a division between what is, and what should/could be.
Watch how thought projects psychologically and see the effects of this movement.

Jim F wrote:
By logical extension, that means that anything one does will be a trap. And so, if you continue as you have, then nothing will change.

Obviously. Curious though...Is it your perception that I am arguing with you here? Considering the volatile history of some of the personalities on this board over the past 10 years...I decided I better ask.

Bob D wrote:
Is it your perception that I am arguing with you here? Considering the volatile history of some of the personalities on this board over the past 10 years...I decided I better ask.

Not arguing, no. I did wonder why you would begin on such a pessimistic footing.

Jim F wrote:
Not arguing, no. I did wonder why you would begin on such a pessimistic footing.

This may well be an example of seeing the present moment through the eyes of the past?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Jim wrote:
Not arguing, no. I did wonder why you would begin on such a pessimistic footing.

I could not read any 'pessimism' in the exchange. The fact is that there is nothing one can do. Why? Because one cannot 'do.' Because one is not 'one!'

One fragment wants to 'do' and the rest do not.

You can't half get out of bed. You have to move the whole body. Only a whole person can 'do.' There is nothing the fragments can do to become a whole.

Thinking that you are a whole being who can 'do' is indeed a trap.

But even seeing that fragmentation does not end it.

The fragmentation has to come to the end of itself. There is no other actor to 'do' it for 'us.'

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Tue, 31 Aug 2010.

Paul Davidson wrote:
RICK LEIN wrote: Not arguing, no. I did wonder why you would begin on such a pessimistic footing.

Rick never said that. He quoted Jim. Pay attention to what is right in front of your face or don't talk about attention! :)

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Paul Davidson wrote:
I could not read any 'pessimism' in the exchange.

Which means what?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Paul Davidson wrote:
But even seeing that fragmentation does not end it.

The fragmentation has to come to the end of itself.

How and why would fragmentation come to the end of itself?
True seeing does give birth to insight, and it's insight that resolves the fragmentation.

Your belief above Paul, is probably the reason that you are so dismissive of others. It doesn't allow the possibility that they may see something more clearly than you.

Dean R. Smith wrote:
Rick never said that. He quoted Jim. Pay attention to what is right in front of your face or don't talk about attention! :)

I so much appreciate your compassionate response to a typographical error, Dean . . . which I have corrected.

But for your own information I did not say Rick said it. It is what hapens automatically when you quote what one person is quoting of another. It was inattention to the technical side of this forum posting business, not a misreading of Rick, Dean, Jim, Rag, Tag or Bob-tail.

I hope you accept my full apologies for causing you such consternation. And you have a good day.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote: I could not read any 'pessimism' in the exchange. RICK LEIN wrote:Which means what?

Which means that Jim said there was pessimism and I couldn't see any. Which means what?

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 01 Sep 2010.

Paul Davidson wrote:
I so much appreciate your compassionate response blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... accept my full apologies for causing you such consternation. And you have a good day.

The reality is that it was your confusion. Just pay attention.

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Jim F wrote:
How and why would fragmentation come to the end of itself? True seeing does give birth to insight, and it's insight that resolves the fragmentation. Your belief above Paul, is probably the reason that you are so dismissive of others. It doesn't allow the possibility that they may see something more clearly than you.

I do not believe I have dismissed anyone Jim. But I have questioned the beliefs of others.

But yes, Jim, you seem to be right, it is insight that brings the process of fragmentation to the end of itself. Insight cannpt come from thought, which is the fragment and the very process of fragmentation. Insight. That is the how and the why.

But have you had that insight or are you in the same boat as me . . . working on it?

Seriously though, K has a point to say that there is nothing we can do to create insight. Thinking, writing and explaining to each other, cudgoling (?) and correcting, does not bring us any closer. The opposite, probably!

But, going back to the beginning of this, you stated, "Put all your spare time and energy into examining, exploring and watching thought." Bob retorted that that statement too is a trap. He wasc a little strong there.

It would only be a trap if one believed that by the examination of thought, conducted by thought itself, one could come to an insight.

Then you said this was a pessimistic view.

I said I did not note pessimism. What I did note, however was Bob over-egging the pudding.

But it would benefit the investigation if you made clearer how you think energy could proceed in examining thought. Is that energy outside of thought? Are you talking to 'observation without the observer?'

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
But have you had that insight or are you in the same boat as me . . . working on it?

That insight has occurred here, yes.

Paul Davidson wrote:
It would only be a trap if one believed that by the examination of thought, conducted by thought itself, one could come to an insight.

Thought is an image, a reflection, it can never examine anything.
Observation is how insight may come about.

Jim F wrote:
Observation is how insight may come about.

Maybe. Who are what is conducting the observation?

K says that observation by the observer is thought looking at itself. One thought looking at another. One fragment trying to control another.

K says there can be observation without the observer and there can be observation where the observer is the observed. Two types of observation, one from the present and one through the eyes of the past.

I just read it once again in the talks with Anderson.

Is it K's teaching that says thought cannot look at itself or is it an interpretation. I am asking factually, not to score points. But I have heard it said like that on this forum before and I would like to know where it comes from. It does not sound correct or in keeping with the teaching somehow. Maybe it has grown up in these discussions. Can you recall?

Jim, you say that you have had true observation leading to an insight that has resolved fragmentation. Is this correct? Are you no longer fragmented?

I have had 'partial insights,' that is, insights along one direction. I have changed my life several times because of insights and one set of fragments or another have dissolved into themselves. But fragmentation itself remains and unfolds in different, new areas, such as this forum. I see it.

What are you waiting for?

Jim F wrote:
Thought is an image, a reflection, it can never examine anything

I think K says that when observation is by the observer it is thought dividing itself into an observed and an observer and one fragment looking and trying to control another. Is not this right? It seems what happens.

'Thought is an image,' yes. But it is the images that relate to each other in what passes for relationship, K says.

Images are not passive. Thought is not passive. It acts. Bohm and K discussed this out. Bohm's Thought As a System (discussions at Brockwood Park) deals with this in more depth. But K was agreeing with it in Ending Of Time.

Thought means, seeing the world through the eyes of the past.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Which means that you said there was pessimism and I couldn't see any. Which means what?

Paul again with the misquote,Rick never said that as Dean pointed out. If you would kindly pay attention to post #9 you will see the fact of authorship.No typo there,just inattention.It means pay attention to what is written,and by whom before responding,a lot less confusing.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

This post was last updated by RICK LEIN Tue, 31 Aug 2010.

Paul Davidson wrote:
Maybe. Who are what is conducting the observation?

There is a person named Jim here typing these replies onto a keyboard. That is who. He is observing, without thinking about what is being observed.

Paul Davidson wrote:
K says that observation by the observer is thought looking at itself. One thought looking at another. One fragment trying to control another.

K says there can be observation without the observer and there can be observation where the observer is the observed. Two types of observation, one from the present and one through the eyes of the past.

I just read it once again in the talks with Anderson.

Is it K's teaching that says thought cannot look at itself or is it an interpretation. I am asking factually, not to score points. But I have heard it said like that on this forum before and I would like to know where it comes from. It does not sound correct or in keeping with the teaching somehow. Maybe it has grown up in these discussions. Can you recall?

It's a careless/inaccurate/unfortunate use of language by K. Thought cannot look at anything. Thought isn't a doer. If I attribute characteristics to thought that are inaccurate then much confusion is caused. It's not unlike a driver trying to get his car started and saying that the engine is stubbonly refusing to start! It assigns attributes that are simply untrue.

This inaccurate use of language is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for those that engage with K's work.

When there is insight into the nature of thought, this all becomes very simple indeed.

Paul Davidson wrote:
But for your own information I did not say Rick said it.

Please re read post # 15, a simple thing like acknowledging a mistake may end the need for further sarcastic rebuttals?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Jim F wrote:
There is a person named Jim here typing these replies onto a keyboard. That is who. He is observing...

What is 'he'?

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Dean R. Smith wrote:
What is 'he'?

self is very quick. it occupies with a speed more than that of light:)
gb

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

Dean R. Smith wrote:

What is 'he'?

2 arms, 2 legs, etc. etc.
I don't know what you're expecting, but when psychological time ends, there's still a living being. This one happens to be named Jim and has all the usual body parts.

This post was last updated by Jim F Wed, 01 Sep 2010.

Jim F wrote:
2 arms, 2 legs, etc. etc.

1.The Man has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet. He pervaded the earth on all sides and extended beyond it as far as ten fingers.The Hymn of man.

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

Jim F wrote:
2 arms, 2 legs, etc. etc. I don't know what you're expecting, but when psychological time ends, there's still a living being. This one happens to be named Jim and has all the usual body parts.

If you look at it in terms of expectation, a delusion was expected. Certainly, when psychological time ends, there is still a physical world, inc. the body, but you are not the body. Thought has identified with the body. The great majority of the human race suffers the same delusion.
God only knows what it is that you call 'insight', because whatever it is; it has only reinforced an illusory state. There is a body and the psyche, the psychological phenomenon, aka 'consciousness'. That consciousness is what you are. It is the movement of memory, which is thought and like the wind, it does not exist without the movement that it is. Every desire calls itself 'me'.

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Dean R. Smith wrote:
Certainly, when psychological time ends, there is still a physical world, inc. the body, but you are not the body.

Wouldn't it be that there is no 'you' to be the body. The body 'is.'

But I can't help feeling this is just an argument in logic. Show me it! Yes, of course, it is up to me!

Dean R. Smith wrote:
There is a body and the psyche, the psychological phenomenon, aka 'consciousness'. That consciousness is what you are.

This seems true to me. And the body and the psyche are one movement, one wave. The psychological movement of the brain is also physical, a movement within the cells of the brain. Can one separate the two? One can discern a difference in function and a difference in organisation and structure, but all within the same organism, the physical body, with its brain. It is what you are, as Dean says . . . until 'you' are not.

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 01 Sep 2010.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
The Man has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes,

No Ganesan, that can't be true. Surely, if he had one thousand heads he would have two thousand eyes, no?

What are you waiting for?

Paul,

The absence goes without saying.

Obviously, there is no psyche without a physical body, but they are not one movement, nor one and the same.

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."