Yogi,

It seems to me that emotion is always identified with the "I," the self. Speaking for myself, emotion seems to be the reaction (either consciously or, upon subsequent reflection, sub-consciously) to everything I sense. First thing is, "How is this - - good, pleasant, wrong, right. And, how does this affect me?" All of that seems to be thought. At the center of thought, perhaps hidden behind other emotions, is the primal emotion of fear - - fear of harm to the self.

Mood, I believe you are saying, is continued (the grabbing force) emotion, which causes suffering. I would say this is right. Suffering, for me, is the emotion caused by the sense that the "I" is being harmed in some way. All emotion appears to spring from the basic fear of harm to the self.

Anuruddha,

It seems that in our concern over dealing with the self, with following out all of the details of mind, emotion, meditation, mood, and so on, we may be missing the mark. Are we making unnecessary complications? After the simple realization that there is no psychological "I" except as an imaginary entity of our own making, what more needs be done?

With this realization, there is then nothing between us and the moment. Whatever is at hand, we are with it, there being no choice in the matter. We are in the moment with whatever is - - in the hackneyed phrase, we are one with it.

It appears that our problem is that we cannot truly come to this realization. We say we do and we think that we do, but we do not.

Anuruddha,

"I want to deal with this thought of 'self' or 'ego' or 'I', because it has some seemingly special attributes."

Yes, I agree it should be dealt with directly as the idea of the self is at the center of nearly all of our problems. It has occurred to me that the thought (idea) that there is an individual is, in and of itself, the self.

Dhirendra,

I recall Krishnamurti said that there isn't any time, either psychological or chronological. He said there is only sequence.

Parroting it may be, but this is also the way I see it. Psychological time is merely worry or anticipation, and chronological time is an invention for the measurement of sequence. Chronological time is similar to mathematics - - both are human inventions useful for measuring and analysis. The universe doesn't give a soft white damn about either of these.

Dhirendra,

You wrote (post #9), "I think it will be good if you write more about the need or no need of chronological time to see the truth . . . "

It seems to me that there is no time but the present moment - - which is actually timeless.

And it also appears to me that what we think of as time is, instead, the sequence of events in the evolutionary chain. We confuse measurement (time) with the measured (the sequence of events). We want to analyze and measure events; we want to know where they stand in the chain of events, and what significance this might have - - so we invent seconds, minutes, days, years, as a means of ordering and placing events. We call this invention chronological time.

Paul Davidson wrote: We live in three dimensions, in a three-dimensional world. But there must be movement for such a world to exist.

I would say that we exist in a three dimensional world, just as the world exists in three dimensions. But living is not existing, as living is possible only in the moment - - the present - - and the present is timeless and before existence. We are living, together with existing physical bodies.

So for the living, there is no time. For that which exists, there is one condition after another, one event after another. Perhaps it's moot whether this movement is called chronological time or chronological sequence. The real point is that for the living there is only the present.

Paul Davidson wrote: The year is not memerly a sequence it is a repeated and ordered and pattened sequence, otherwise we would have spring, summer, autumn, winter, what? And it is the repetition which we mirror in thought and give the word 'time' to, not just the sequence.

What do you say to this, Paul: It is we who see order and pattern, note the seasons and so identify these and give names to them. So far as the universe is concerned, these conditions and movements are just a matter of necessity and sequence, with no consideration of a concept called "time."

Dhanan,

You wrote (post #42): "Observation is in the PRESENT and is timeless and Truth/actuality is only in the PRESENT. And if we are able to be in the PRESENT at all times . . . we would be able to SEE through the veil of time."

The present, as you say, is timeless. Truth is only in the present because the truth is what IS - - and "what is" can only be in the present - - otherwise we have "what was."

Living, just as with truth, can only be in the present. We are living beings, and our living is in the present. It is impossible to be alive in the past, so we are alive, living, 100% without pause or intermission. Living is timeless, it is not created, and therefore it is not caught in time, sequence, and ultimate decay and disintegration

But we are also a physical body, and the physical body - - the entire physical universe - - is caught in time, sequence and decay.

You say, "Once the present moment is understood to be the only reality, does it leave space for time in whatsoever manner?"

Bravo!

As I see it, there is the Real, which I would take as the present moment. Then there is the created - - created out of the present moment - - which is Reality and which I take to be all that exists - - all of which is subject to time and sequence.

"We" are a Real living present moment together with a physical body - - an existing Reality.

The questions I have are: Why isn't all of this more easily understood? Why do we get so bogged down in the existing Reality to the nearly total exclusion of the living Real?

"The present is of the highest importance; the present, however tragic and painful, is the only door to reality . . . "

This is Krishnamurti speaking, as quoted earlier by Dhanan.

We've been talking about chronological time, sequence, psychological time. Time and sequence are not the present and they have no effect on the present - - the present, which "is of the highest importance." I would say this should be kept in mind.

Paul,

I wrote, " Time and sequence are not the present and they have no effect on the present," which you say is merely a conclusion.

The present is considered timeless because it cannot be analyzed into seconds or into any fraction of a second. This is not metaphysical, nor is it theory. It simply can't be done.

Time, on the other hand, is measurable. So long as there is any fraction of a second, that fraction is time.

So it is obvious that the two states, the present and time, are separate.

All of existence - - all that has been created - - is governed by time. That which exists comes into being, then waits through time for its inevitable end.

The present, obviously, is the source of the created - - creation can't take place in the past or in the future. Creation takes place NOW, in the present.

That which has already been created cannot once again reach into the present, so time cannot affect the timeless. However, the present - - creation - - can affect that which already exists, and it can do so with thinking. Thinking is an action in the present (just as observation is possible only in the present) that can recall an image of the past and so modify it. This is the only way that I can see that the past can be said to affect the present.

Paul,

" 'How is this movement of the past which is creating the present, modifying itself as it moves, and which becomes the future, to end?"

I would say that my last paragraph in my last post relates to this question.

dhirendra singh wrote: Ego want to postpone this hardest work, Ego is against acting now, ego want to make a plan, because it is Ego's survival.

Ego can't demand enlightenment now, because it's death of ego, and ego can't demand enlightenment, because it don't know what enlightenment is.

For ego nothing is now.

Paul Davidson wrote: Oh no, it is exactly what ego demands. It demands the unattainable so that it can then denounce the unavoidable failings of its own deluded posturings. It says, "Give it to me now." just so that it can follow up with, "There, I told you so."

Can the ego act on its own? Isn't the ego merely a psychological construction? It would seem that the ego is set up as a straw man to deflect our responsibility from ourselves.

Paul,

You wrote, " . . . the man we are talking about has allowed a state of fragmentation to progress in him. He is not able to respond to anything so long as that fragmentation is dominant. . . He is in the curious position of being responsible yet unable to respond."

Yes, he is unable to respond because a lack of intelligence prevents him from seeing "every desire, every thought, every urge, sentiment, idea, sensation, emotion" for what it is. He is torn between all of them and tossed about by choice and indecision regarding them.

Through everything, he is the one acting or not acting. He may be influenced by what we have named, but all of what may influence him is inactive and passive. He is the only life, the only actor/action in his self-constructed psychological world.

We are not controlled by our desires, emotions and so on, but we are influenced by them. The extent to which we are influenced is the measure of our intelligence.

Paul,

Yes, there is the fragmentation of which you speak. Here's the way I see this fragmentation.

At the moment of anger, for instance, one IS anger. There is no someone who is angry, there is simply anger. The same goes for any emotion, idea, attitude, or whatever comes to mind. At the precise moment of whatever it is, one is that, he is one with it. This change in the psychological from moment to moment is the fragmentation. There is no constant psychological being; there is no continuing ego or self, no separate entity that feels anger, has an idea, etc.

It seems to me that all emotion, idea, attitude, thought stems from the past. All such has its base and point of referral from something previous, some incident or happening along the way. The more intelligence one has the more free of the past he is. Intelligence is the seeing of things as they are, now and actual. With understanding there is a present that is not influenced by the past - - the past may be referred to but the past does not exert influence. With intelligence the present moment is spontaneous and creative, and reflects the past only as necessary for existence.

So it would appear that the individual is not only the physical body but is also an intelligence that brings understanding. This intelligence is not psychological.

What is the ego and what is fragmentation, in your view?

Rick,

We name things because we want to be able to remember them. Naming is done with a future in mind. There is no need to remember if there isn't any future. When there is just the present, that's the end of it.

Physically, the name is a categorizing and classifying tool. There is use in this naming, physically, because whatever is named can be identified and used in the future.

We try to do the same thing, psychologically. We name emotions, feelings, opinions, and so on so that we can use them in a psychological future.

If we can see that there isn't any psychological future, does the question of naming arise?

Paul,

"It is not spontaneity we need but clarity."

What brings about clarity? Does applying past knowledge to the present bring clarity to the present - - the new - - or does it merely paint over the present new circumstances with what was clear in the past?

Mina,

Your post #15: ". . . in that divided state we ARE the word, the thinker. There is no option or possibility therefore for the THINKER to NOT take the word for the thing."

Yes, if the divided state is the created, individual state. Actually, can't the same be said for observation?

In the undivided state, there would seem to be no differentiated observation or thinking, as such. It gets back to this: the ACTS of observation and thinking are the created, Reality. The ACTIONS of observation and thinking are the Real. In the divided, individual state, we are aware only of the acts, never the action itself.

"Note, once you have any idea of having seen something, you have already 'done something'."

When something is 'seen,' or otherwise sensed, one is aware only of what is sensed. He is never aware of the ACTION itself, the action of observing or sensing. Action is with the timeless, and can never be 'known.' Only the result of an action can be known.

Paul Davidson wrote: The self, as a centre, is the major block we face in evcen being able to look into the underlying sensory confusion. Because it is protecting us from that.

Who is the "we" that is facing the self, the major block? If it is consciousness, are we sure that consciousness is not, itself, the self? What's the distinction between the two?

It would seem that the self is not so much "protecting" as it is actually causing confusion. All of our actions are taken with the self in mind - - and so all of our actions are protective of the self and limited by concern for the self.

Paul,

"Whose actions are the 'our'? Games!"

Not a game, really. When I say "our" I am speaking of the individual, that is, the physical body together with that which is in and of the present moment - - these two components. The individual's psychological "self" and the psychological world he has put together have no reality other than what he gives to them and believes that they have.

Paul,

Your post #96: "We have created the senses and the 'I' arises from that creation, imagining itself to be all."

It would seem that our parents create our senses when they create our physical bodies. The "I" is our own creation. It is a psychological construct.

I would question whether this construct has the power to "imagine itself to be all," as constructs are not able to think or act on their own.

It is we who do the imagining. The individual believes the construct, the "I," is actually himself, and he goes through life accordingly.

Who are "We"? We are existing physical organisms together with intelligence/action/love (the "other"?) in the present moment. We live in the present moment. If we are alive, there is no choice. If there are intelligence, action and love in the universe, here, also, there is no choice - - they, too, must be in the present moment. Voila!

Paul,

"This 'other' (intelligence/action/love), is it part of the material universe in the view you are putting . . . "

No, it isn't. The material universe exists. The material universe was created and here it is, a reality. We are part of that reality.

But there is the present moment, that as living beings is also a part of us, which was not created and which will not be created. In fact, "the present moment" is the moment of creation itself. It cannot be the created. It does not exist, as the universe exists.

The present moment has to be the moment of intelligence/action/love since none of the three can "be" in the past or in the future. (Actually, there is unity in the present moment, and the three are one.)

Intelligence/action/love (the "other") are in and of the creative present moment, and are not at all a part of the created, existing universe.

Paul,

Your post #107 for Rick: "I am asking what precedes the ego?"

I would say that nothing precedes the ego. The ego is simply a psychological construction. "I think, therefore it is."

Paul,

You asked, "[A]re you saying at the same time that existence is part of the present and that existance is apart from the present?"

Creation takes place in the present moment, and the created is separate from the creator. (If the created is not separate from the creator, then there is unity, and no actual "creation" has taken place.)

If there is a universe - - and from looking around it would appear that there is - - the universe exists. Although its sequence of events through the aeons can be measured by time, it is impossible, on the other hand, to "measure" the present moment. The present moment cannot be bracketed or pinned down, and yet existence can be created only in this non-measurable, non-existent present moment. Existence is separate, apart, from the present moment. The created is not the creator.

A final comment. It is impossible to know about or to be aware of anything that isn't already in existence. To be "already in existence" means to have been created some time in the past. The past obviously is not the present moment. The created cannot once again be brought into the present.

"But, Ravi, you know as well as me that all candles are already lit."

Grammar, Paul.

"If they don't stone you with semantics they stone you with grammar!"

Sorry. There was a touch of irony in my last post. I was returning the favor.

"Can there be Truth without struggle, without putting your snout in the shit and rooting it out?"

A better question is, "Is truth ever to be found in struggle?"

So long as we struggle, we are the struggle. We are consumed by the struggle, and the struggle is us. It is only when struggle ceases that we are free to move on.

Does one "struggle" against an attack? The attacker struggles; when the one who is attacked does what is necessary, this is not the same as struggling.

" . . .there will be a struggle with old ideas, methods and habits of thinking. At the heart of it is this, we are habitually stuck in our intellects and that habit keeps pulling us back there. There is bound to be effort and struggle involved in breaking with that."

Does understanding come about through struggle? Struggle is necessary when there is a resistance that requires effort. Understanding requires communion, love, oneness and all of that. It would seem that struggle, resistance and effort are opposite from these. As opposites, would they not act as deterrents to understanding?

"Every disturbance to the balance of the mind is met by a hurried response of thought to come up with a way back to equilibrium. . . The momentum of that inertia confronts us at each stage. And it has to be fought."

With regard to fighting, which is struggle, this is from J. Krishnamurti Eight Conversations 4th Conversation: ". . . to do nothing, to have the feeling that you don't have to fight it [habit], is the greatest action of intelligence."

In other words, rephrased, Krishnamurti is saying that to see the uselessness and harm in struggle is intelligence.

Is "hard work" the same as struggle? It would seem to be only if one does not enjoy the work he is doing. There is no struggle in enjoyment, but without enjoyment there is resistance and effort - - struggle.

Rick,

"If there is a struggle..it is the I who struggles..seeing that..is it's ending!:)"

Yes, it is the "I" as the cause of the struggle, but I would say that the individual is the struggle itself. The living being, the individual, is influenced by thought (fact + self-image = thought) and in the moment the individual is struggle itself. In the moment, the individual is one with his action.