Per Götberg wrote: A responsible therapist will serve as a midwife for truth to be safely born into the human world. What would you say are the requisites for him to succeed in this venture? What does it take?

No mind :) for the therapist. Truth Per this man would not be ready to be in such a position. There is though a sense here is there is no right way to live only different ways to live. So if one is attempting to help with a conflict between two people I can only say my feeling is that pointing toward acceptance to differences is the fasted way to peace rather then having one or another bend without understanding why.

Per correct me if I am in error but I see your time do to circumstances is to short for full blown introspection of your clients. So it would seem to me you would be forced to bandage the situation maybe only leaving it open to once again surface in the future. Because to this man true peace is only possible when a human being is complete onto themselves, meaning they do not look for another to feed there false insecurities with psychological petting. My God I do not envy your need to walk without leaving a trace of planted authority :) As said recently on a different response here: The giving of ones self absolutely and completely so one sees both clients with the same measure of heart.

Peng Shu Tse wrote: Per's role is that of a therapist, not a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst, He is not treating the severely mentally disturbed but, mostly, counselling those who come consciously seeking to understand their pain, rather than to mitigate it. It is two or more human beings, trying to understand themselves, through each other.

Hi Peng

I do understand what you have said, points well taken. This thread triggered within me thoughts of being alone, don't know exactly why but it made me think of human beings who have lost most if not all close relations possibly do to them out living their friends and family to full blown family fractures where the outcome is still the same, a person is alone. Maybe this was triggered from ones own fear from the depths of being alone, so I have been trying to examine it. Often you see a spouse die quickly after the another has died. You see human beings walk in and commit great acts of violence using guns because they have been rejected in one way or another. The reason I feel this relates to this thread is because this sense of isolation/rejection at great depth maybe responsible for so many of our human reactions. Reaction which are violent yet are really a cry for acceptance. Is having this pointed out enough or is our problem even deeper like that of being a herd animal ? We have all been the witness of picking orders, picking orders where acceptance or rejection are based on higher ranking members being aloud to control our actions through the power of being rejected from the herd. I sense most human being are unconscious of their role in these structures yet our society is ran over with them. Ran over right through government.

I ask my fellow forum members as I ask myself. Does one a fear being alone at a very deep level? It seems in the absence of such fear we would never be moved in the face of rejection but stand still in the light of understanding. Just the strange things this man thinks about.

Peng Shu Tse wrote: It is not the particular birth pangs and birthing pains that the therapist should pay homage to but the species pain that underlies it. Rumi's poem of the reed flute comes to mind, its melancholic tone crying for the reed bed from which it has been parted.

I would agree that the movements which go on within the minds content is not personal if seen deep enough. Its like all or most birds fly. Fear and its counter parts most people have them.

You mentioned Rumi, I have stumbled upon his writings here and there and enjoyed them very much.

Peng Shu Tse wrote: I share my abode with you in that lamentable space.

It is so very nice we could touch on this topic. If any thing comes to mind I will post it again.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: It does not understand that this fear of being alone will not go away by doing anything directly to end this fear..

Yes we have spoken about this before, about how running away from a given thing of fear is the production and the very fear its self.

Have you ever heard the Buddhist saying that no amount of polishing a stone or a tile will turn it into a jewel? All of our talks together are not about self improvement are they? To this man they seem to be more so a study of entity called self. What form it has taken at this present moment, how it eats and breaths and moves about. In the end we are a Dr, a scientist looking at ourselves and if so fortunate grasp the nonduality of ourselves and what we are looking at. At least that is what this man is seeing.

Im off for a few days in the wilderness, here in the states we call it boon-docking because its free and without modern improvements, except maybe a dirt road :) Talk to you soon.

Per Götberg wrote: A responsible therapist will serve as a midwife for truth to be safely born into the human world. What would you say are the requisites for him to succeed in this venture? What does it take?

One can act as a guide so long as the guide he/she himself has come upon complete liberation from unconscious attachment to form identity. Till then wont it be the blind leading the blind?

Krishnamurti's setting of man unconditionally free must of come from the gap between two thoughts if not he would of given us an image, where would be the unconditional in that be? "Who am I" or "I am that" appear to be pointing to a presence in each of us which can and does exist between two thoughts, between two attachments of who we think we are. Sense it, the gap between two thoughts, there is a presence, an awakeness which remains through the changing of thoughts, between the end of one and the arrival of the next. An awake presence which can lose its endless possibilities if any given form is taken to be its self or the world in which that self lives.

In truth it seems psychologically speaking there is from the first no therapist or clients. Possibly only the awakeness in one person knowingly playing the role of therapist/guide for the awakeness in another person who does not yet know he is only playing, is attached to the role called client :) Who would the client be if he/she woke up? Krishnamurtis hint "I don't know"

Peng Shu Tse wrote: Dear George. We are the blind. Can we bring light to each other? If there is true relationship can the light arise?

Hi Peng

When this relationship happens it is the hunch here that there is no difference between what is looking out your eyes or mine. The sense here is the separateness awareness takes on is because it comes through individual forms and becomes identified both physically and psychologically. Probably should not of put this down here but it was a revelation or an illusion I had on my camping trip. P.S. also seen a wolf drinking from a pond, cool :)

Peng Shu Tse wrote: He seems to be saying, "We are blind. Let us examine this blindness, together."

Im sure he was. Yet I also sense Per maybe that emptiness which comes through and plays the role of therapist so he can help his fellow man enjoy the freedom from identification that he does :)

Peng Shu Tse wrote: Where there is a process of identification with the psychological or the physical going on, attention is in that and a barrier arises between the inner and the outer. Awareness becomes separate as yours and mine. It is really a tremendous thing when that drops. It is an explosion, a wave. Very cathartic.

Hi Peng

Do you have anything to say about oneness? It seems the reality of it leaves no separate self from the observed to comprehend oneness, it only leaves the comprehended as the current self. "I am that"

Peng Shu Tse wrote: The oneness of mind is the sheathing of the anarchy, the bringing of order and the granting of destiny.

Hi Peng

The barking of a dog and the hearing of the barking dog is found to be not two different things. A mountain and the seeing of the mountain again one. The observer cannot exist without the other so there is no other. At least that is how it is being sensed here.

I am just now sharing some thoughts I have had about oneness. The more I have explored and looked into this matter the more I have seen my own life as an interdependent phenomenon starting from the particles which comprised the body to the particles ( other human beings) which form a part of my psychological body. It has appeared to me that there is no end to our connectedness to every thing else. And as stated above no observer without the observed.

I love it how we human beings are finding out we are dependent upon the health of our world, its health is our health and how all human beings treat it, its our health. Hopefully not to late.

P.S As it has been said some where: If one is not any one thing one must be everything.

Is it possible for an awake presence to exist within the human body, look through the bodies eyes and senses, be identified with each thought, then suddenly gain liberation not only from the accumulated thought body but from the body its self?

One can experiment with looking out through the senses and have success in bypassing identity.

lidlo lady wrote: You'll have to elaborate. This isn't clear at all.

What came to mind was just as one awakens to an identification with a given image, the noticing of the attachment is the awakening. So it seems to be the same when for instance a smell is noticed in the air and it is noticed that no self image is required to take notice of it. One could say there is a oneness between the smell and its awareness. I thought to myself it must be the same with seeing or other senses, no self history is required to notice it only to label it. And even the labeling did not require the labeling process to have a fixed identity. This man is just attempting to become more aware of the gap between two self images and understand if within this gap where one is nether this or that, if there is still an awareness which is only empty of content but present. I hope this helped.

Peng Shu Tse wrote: It would suggest to me that the presence is not awake, if it is identified. Identification suggests that the attention is asleep within a form which is not it. It 'thinks' it is that. It is comfortable in its sleep. It is rocked by the waves of the form it is immersed in and lulled.

Peng

Thank you for your wise response. It triggered in me the thought of life and death or the incarnations of this sense of presence between form identities. Surly there must be some reason for this birth and death just as with nature human physical bodies return to dust. It would seem the emptying of presence is a prerequisite for rebirth. Isn't there an old saying about those who give up everything which I guess includes ones sense of self will be given eternal life? Reason I guess no one has come back to talk about it :)

Peng Shu Tse wrote: For that presence to awaken, not from one state but from all states, from all states of identification, what would that take? Do you say it can be done through the senses? Why in that manner?

I am of coarse no authority, a few of you here make me feel like a school boy :) But I would say through the senses because with experimentation it has been noticed that attachments to a separate identity is not required for the senses to operate. One can hear a dog bark and notice that the dog barking and the hearing of the dog barking are not two separate things. This post is a rough draft inviting others to comment on a phenomenon within which is much bigger then a given identity attachment.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Do you feel that the gap between two self expressions is (or the gateway to) "silence/emptiness" of the transformed consciousness, sir? (K repeated many times that silence between two thoughts is not silence but part of noise.)

Possibly, or it can be as you pointed out, more noise. I remember the Buddhist teachings pointing out the idea of emptiness is to miss emptiness. What I am seeing now is the being of nothing between to thoughts which is important to see. This is not to make a thing out of it but to put ones attention on the gap and notice the gap holding a mystery which when left as a mystery reflects the truth of our innocence.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Ractions as thought/images make for identification. What would "bypassing identity" imply here?

As in my last response bypassing identity is seeing how identity had came about by examining/seeing the attachment process. The key here and I am of coarse open to have error pointed out, is the awakeness which is seeing, understanding what is going on. This true self for the lack of better words is formless, only an awake mystery though self aware of its nature being a mystery till personified through some identification. I will stop here and ee what you have to say :)

Patricia Hemingway wrote: What K referred to as 'the love of the universe' - that surely cannot be 'owned'! Not by the self - not by thought.

I don't know your post triggered the seeing that when I have no idea or notion to over come I have realized that the idea or notion was my child in the first place. It just seems to me that love has this no distance thing between subject and object.

At this moment love appears to me as the recognition that any investigation is into ones self, there is nothing else to investigate because all is self, so no self. So to me the love of the universe or to shorten it the love of the world is when its the world looking out through the eyes and not a false sense of distance. Patricia I confuse myself with what I am trying to say :) I just wanted to share this with you.

Harendra Desai wrote: In this awareness itself, perhaps, disidentification happens. Then bye and bye may come the Great Awakening leading to freedom.

Welcome to the forum.

With the many post and replies read, it has appeared to me once again that I am the source of the dream that I am not already awake/enlightened. For a moment perfection, peace is present because nothing has been born of this mind separate to create any lacking, any obstacle to over come. It is our own inner divison that is the cause and effect of seeking yet the source is one don't you sense?

"From the first not a thing is"

Patricia Hemingway wrote: And I thank you George for sharing. Did doing so clarify anything for you? :)

I think so :) coming to the forum here or if I was so fortunate to be able to go to the gathering I would hope to understand myself better. I do feel coming here and speaking with others has helped me to realize that I have at times (often) gotten caught up in a story being manufactured in thought. I have listened and hopefully heard correctly Mina and your points toward the absolute view though not in your words my (interpretation) that within the domain of thought there is really no place to go and no one to get there. Yet in this light every day life goes on. I would love for example to meet you in person and just talk things over.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: On the other hand if the movement of attention is allowed a free flow through/in this gap, then it may become the vhicle on which mystery rides...the self will not enter to capture or describe this immensity (resistance) only if it has become wise enough (by understanding the total range of its activities) to surrender and merge in this flow.

Dr sudhir

Yes wise, the surrender is what allows what was once the seeker to be the sought openness It has been the openness, the mystery which makes it openness that innocence and the eternal anew is revealed to its self.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Seeing/understanding/examining are some words that keep coming up regularly in discussion here. What would be the nature and contents of 'integrated seeing' as opposed to 'divided seeing' with which we are all familiar, sir?

Beleave it or not I am absolutely exhausted from the last reply :) Integrated seeing is seeing that the seen is a response from ones own conditioning. This being seen any conflict is coming from ones self. IN other words all is happening under the one roof. Please correct me if I did not understand the way in which you pointed.

Peng Shu Tse wrote: I am saying that the human brain has an advanced capacity for proprioception but has made limited use of it. It creates more than it understands and thus becomes alienated from its own creations. But it does observe some things that it does.

Yes I find that the more it understands the less it creates which is needless. It seems to me the moment of reckoning is where seeing without redecoration comes in. At that moment the brain seems to understand that no new conceptualization is not going to be the birth of its self image, that which has harness it to the plow of time. IN a sense and I am only sharing my own experience one begins to realize as Dr Sudhir pointed out leaving it as a mystery which is the same as the brain being timeless.

saravana kumar wrote: why one needs marriage? is it compulsory for everyone? necessary for physical security?

My father put it well once. He said of coarse that the papers were silly and all the other mumble jumbo. He said we have our instincts and then we have two people who have come together in the light of living life together is a stronger situation through helping one another. In other words life is better because the team has been formed. I sense this is how countries have been formed but that is unions and there size getting out of control. Has anyone noticed how hard it is do perform task alone at times? Weather it is same sex or opposite sex sharing a common life situation can be a great thing just not for every one. They will have to find other ways to meet life's demands.

Mina Martini wrote: The intellect/thought can be so sharp, react so quickly, always creating the distance, the barrier, between me and you, by creating the ideas of both...

Mina I loved this. Two images in conflict which sap life of its joy. This may sound like a paradox yet I know I still have much to learn about the behavior going on in the human mind. The sense here is one keeps on learning till what one has learned is thrown away because even that to has been only a tool. Sometimes the very coming here is a meditation for me where the walls of my own mind falls and I have the mind give or take :) of all the forum members. What I mean by give an take is: It is my suspicion that I have not yet grasped all the pointers of some who have mutured in a given area of the journey into self understanding.

Robert Clarke wrote: I feel not so much that something has died but that something new has been born.

Is that the sense of being disarmed? When I feel disarmed I notice my heart becoming free of its protective barricades, I understand it has been my own barricade which has closed it off, hurt it. It is hard even for me to realize it is not another who hurts me but me.

Hi friends

Could not help but feel Mina's post "The invitation to die" to be an invitation to be completely open. With every form of resistance I feel myself closing as if my heart was enclosed by a Venus fly trap. Without the many identifications acting like trigger fingers I feel my heart would remain open as the love Krishnamurti spoke about, all inclusive.

It came to mind that we are all including myself at different points on our journey of self understanding. Is it not helpful to keep this in mind? I laugh at myself because I know if for a moment one thinks he is ahead one is behind :)

Mina Martini wrote: Mina: Laughed at this too. This is so. To have any image of oneself (beside the point really what the image is!) means there is no longer openness.

Oh Mina feeling this so deeply today in the way of seeing any image as the loss of openness. Correct me my friends if I am in error but the openness its self and not its image is becoming most sacred to me as it is the eternal anew. I beginning to understand by understanding what true openness is why no amount of effort or conceptualization can touch it but only put clouds over it.

Mina Martini wrote: Was wondering what it is in us that can experience the other as 'someone else' in the psychological sense, and then say things to this imagined other, as from a distance. Distance psychologically IS of course the same as resistance.

What I seen within myself as I read your point above was my own fragmentation. Wow is it hard to accept that if one is to wake up, really be awake one will need to turn the way one looks at things totally upside down. Can I accept for example me having a wife that my unhappiness with an action of hers is not coming from her but from the illusions in which I have brought to our marriage. This I see at this moment to extend to all my relationships including here at the forum. It is ones hope one can arrive here empty handed/headed :)

Robert Clarke wrote: But I don't succeed all the time.

Pavani and Robert.

Must admit I also fail more often then succeed. Often for me it is the members here which turn back on the light for me.

Robert Clarke wrote: It seems that we have lost Peng. I mourn his passing.

I enjoyed his presence also. I never know the reason why at times that accounts are deleted. Sometimes it is the member themselves who delete their own and sometimes it is the members activities unbeknown to me.

ganesan balachandran wrote: I think he really wanted to contribute something to the topic and experimenting out.

I could feel that also.

It has been becoming more apparent to me that Krishnamurti and for that matter any spiritual teacher who themselves is not lost, are talking about one thing, the opening up of our minds. I was meditating this morning on Krishnamurti and his pointing towards negation. It occurred to me that in essence he is asking for us to first take notice if a thought item is necessary, if not throw it out. With each attachment we release I took notice that our mind opens up. Its like an aperture in which the further we are along on our journey of awakening the greater the opening of the mind, the less resistance to what is.

What I am seeing right now is, the more one resist letting go of ones idea and beliefs the slower the the invitation is sent out for the timeless to arrive. What else is no self but that of a mind so wide open that not one border can be found.

Often I see many who drop by the kinfonet forums say all there is is talk and talk gets nowhere. Is that not the holding fast of the aperture of the mind? I find every attachment exposed through our talks is like opening ones mind a little more.

All end this with this question: Is there a point where lets say a commitment must be made to its invitation by the total acceptance of what is by embracing through absolute attention to anything but what is essential?

Sorry to go on but I would like to point out that in the end know it or not. We are all here for one thing through the conflicts or the communions and that is to open up.

Mina Martini wrote: Mina: Yes. When one sees and experiences 'only talk', when that is a reaction, conclusion, then that comes from the state of 'only talk' in itself. :-)

Hi Mina

It is nice to share this insight together. It seems possible to move toward openness because one is starting to understand how one has become closed.

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote: True ,to let the thought slip without appearing again as reaction would enable one to be free from sorrow.

I could be in error because I am learning, yet it seems the deeper the understanding of how we have narrowed ourselves down through attachments to illusions/beliefs. The less it would seem that the false would rise as reaction. It just seems to be that understanding would take the wind out of the sails of reaction as the answer to a life challenge. In responding to you now this man is watching how the self can appear here through the image of timelessness. Is oneness the seeing that any thing short of total openness of the mind is self?