Monday 5 February 2007
Living the teachings?
Gpara: K actually said near the end of his life that nobody is living the teachings. And he said that something might happen if someone did. I agree that most people do not seem to actually do it -- there is an element of insincerity, in the sense that actions (and all of life) are not in accord with understanding. There is a sort of split personality.('fragmentation'?) He has mentioned that fragmentation can be seen as: saying and thinking one thing, and doing another. It seems that there is an opportunity both for wholeness (or non-fragmented living), and also an opportunity to explore the teachings in life, or in a more living way. This seems like a very meaningful subject. He also mentioned that the real meaning of the teachings comes alive in the living, not in the words, thoughts, etc, or in the unlived understanding. There is a related subject: K's statements about being willing to die (I haven't listened to them yet, but there are some talks on youtube about this, talks he gave in Rishi Valley). He said something similar in the book on livelihood -- the true vocation of man is to find truth; is it possible to stay with this, and not allow pressures or influences from society (and elsewhere)(our consciousness?)(desires?)(fears, security?)(ambitions, plans?) to sideline the finding of truth (or the living of the teachings)? ****Another side of this is: what is it not to live the teachings? (what actually happens in the way we live?) Are the teachings, and the study of the teachings, separated from or segregated from the rest of daily living?(Seeing these things clearly seems valuable, in understanding this subject.) ****--which brings in another point: "seeing" or "just seeing" -- sometimes it seems as if K is saying this. Clearly, though, he also indicates that living it -- not only 'understanding' (or 'seeing'?) -- is important as well. ****((--which brings up: is seeing divorced (or segregated) from living?--and is our seeing divorced from the teachings?)) ****(these subjects seem to me worth staying with for a while)(and exploring through actions and living as well as through dialogue)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
WSB: Living the teachings worries me. Are we up to following some new believe? No we are not. After having read what K referred to his teachings, we see that it is about basic facts which many admit but we fail to look at the consequences. Then living the teachings, is about looking at these consequences. In the biography of K by Mary Lutyens he asks Mary why she is not living the teachings and that he would stand by and participate if she would live the teachings. May be I recall this not very accurately. - So there are those contradictions we say something and we do something else. We know it. Nothing is done, it is taken as a fact, as a part of life. Nothing is done because there is no notion of how we can stop this. We think of terms of a technique, method. Why should I do something nobody does. Do we see what the consequence of a method is? A method denies what is, and fails to work. Can we look at a contradiction as a whole and stay with it? Not let it go. - Yesterday someone insulted me, today I see the same person. What do I do? Can I talk with him also all what happened yesterday, is still in my mind? Can we stay with the whole truth? Yes, there is desire, ambition, fear. It prevents truth? Just 'seeing' it is not enough. There is no full consideration of it.
to consider this 'living the teachings' is already a start isn't it. we bring it into our mind, we ask ourself 'am i?' or 'do i?'... and this gives us a view into our feelings about it, in relation to our actions. maybe there is not much more else to do.. because now we watch ourself how we think, how we act, and where the contradictions are.. we learn from that.. and is this 'learning', this 'exploring' not already the same as 'living the teachings'?
yes, it is hard to face someone who has insulted us, but it is possible, it has to do with understanding the situation, to see how the other is caught in his/her own violence, we don't have to blame the other for it, we can forgive, and we can love...
Watching is part of finding out, understanding. Can we watch the images and concepts which limit our actions? How far do we see that my image of one person limits my relation to that person? The images cause the fragmentation. I think most are not aware of this. How can we be aware of this? Watching the violence and how someone is caught in it. Blaming enforces fragmentation? Watching it, giving attention to it changes all. It needs great attention not to fall into this trap of fragmentation and separation. Attention is not possible when our mind is occupied.
shall we begin with giving attention to the mind and the things it is occupied with? we have to start somewhere, saying it is impossible can be an excuse for not looking at all. so first we are aware of our own awareness. i can see that my images distort reality. this doesnot mean i will see reality, but i see how i am blocked, what it is i am holding on too, maybe i can see why i am holding on to images. and seeing this could change it, i will feel less urge to hide behind concepts, i am more willing to face the truth, even when it hurts, i'll let it hurt and see why it hurts and, my experience is, the hurt will cease... a bit :)
"so first we are aware of our own awareness"
sorry, i mean aware of our unawareness... this is a good example i was definitely unaware :)
A day can pass in a lot of activity. Then when we stop the activity the mind tends to continue to occupy it self. Watching the mind, the brain is something we understand how important it is? I was thinking of intelligent systems. They always need a feed back loop. Is this what watching the mind is? Do we observe what is happening to our perception when we watch the mind? Is there an expansion of awareness? Can we just observe the mind whatever state it is in? We tent to move into a direction find a solution and analyze. But this very action of moving away is in fact preventing change? It is not about moving away but about awareness and perception of what is. For this we do not have confidence. When I am blocked, holding on to, can I watch this in its own right? Can I see what is behind this all? Watching what is behind all this not looking for any solution. Seeing and perception is the change. There is no escape from truth. Once I see this there is no escaping from it.
Living the teachings (or living by the deepest truth from moment to moment?)(or by one's seeing?, or the truth of the seeing?) -- it may mean putting one's life on the line.
It may also mean really sinking one's teeth into it.
It may mean giving up or losing, (or seeing through or dropping) much of what we call ourselves or 'life'.
There is also the issue of which of the (various, many) teachings one is living. K says many things.
One teaching, or a central part of the teachings, is -- he uses different words for it -- motiveless awareness; simple observation without interpretation; silent looking; 'attention'; and others.
There are two problems that often seem to come up in relation to this. One is that it is somewhat subtle, and not something that most people do most of the time. It is not always easy to see what he means. There is not often correct understanding of what he is talking about.
Another problem is that one does not stay with it.
Even the matter of attention to inattention -- we may read it, may even try it a bit, may even do it a bit -- but does one really stay with it?
Also, he makes it clear that this 'attention' that he talks about is not a matter of effort.
Yet we live in a culture of effort, or a cult of effort.
It seems to me that we do not stick with it and see it through.
(Also, a multiplicity of teachings can result in not living any one teaching thoroughly -- one can become divided among the various different teachings or experiments or approaches. -- especially if one has heard K say many, many things.)
If one simply stayed with it (one experiment or teaching), and actually experimented with it thoroughly, and saw it through -- if one actually did it, it would be a living experiment, or a living of the experiment.
I suppose one could ask why (and it probably relates to having various other projects and interests and (pre)occupations in life) -- why one does not do it.
There is another side to it: instead of asking why (or in addition to asking why), just going ahead and 'doing it'.
(However, it still seems crucial to have right understanding; otherwise one is 'doing' something else....)
It seems to me that motiveless, effortless attention is both very natural, and yet also very unnatural -- unnatural in the sense that society, education, and conditioning have pushed us into other habits and ways.
Unlearning the unnatural (which has become natural in the sense of habitual) may be part of allowing the motiveless.
Attention to inattentiveness may involve attention to preoccupations.
K and Anderson touch on the point several times in their dialogues -- it is not a matter of effort and trying, but is another kind of attention.
Efforts seem like further preoccupations....
effort seems to get us nowhere, the only little force i seem to make is saying 'hello' to myself.. 'what are you doing now'.. indeed, looking at the mind and how it is occupated with all sorts of things.. really all sorts of things from great to small and from futile to very important. but then again, why do i think something is that important? looking into these things tells me so much about myself and about how the brain works.. it is reading the book of self, as K adviced us to do, lots to learn from it and one could even ask what else there is to learn from...
but i shall not forbid anything, no pressure, no bounderies, let the mind wander around, let it run free, as long as it is all inside there is nothing wrong with any of the thoughts.. only when i start to act, express, bring it into relationship.. there i have to be more carefully.
In understanding do we put our life on the line? No. Is loss or a gain depending on our understanding? Yes. So once we understand what we called a loss; it might be a gain. Living the teachings is not following a path, but seeing the facts K is pointing out and not escaping from the consequences but facing them. I think we can only go into what he is talking about by stopping to follow intellectually but explore it on our own and then come back and see what does he say? This gives a different approach. The real thing are not the words. The real thing is, what is happening to us and to our understanding. It is true there is running away from it. Only in a sort of crisis we do it. If we look at one thing why should we look on something else? Is this not already part of the projecting and running away? Just watch the mind. Can we stay with it simply? Society does not appear to give space for being on our own. – Watching the mind yes, we start to see so much about our functioning. This is well formulated: ‘.... it is reading the book of self, lots to learn from it and one could even ask what else there is to learn from...’ There is nothing wrong in watching in observing and being conscious what is happening. Expression and action is always a crude simplification of something much wider. This simplification can be understood differently and care is needed to prevent conflict.
Watching the mind we can see that there are those things like ideas, beliefs, religious, political and personal. They all can come easily in the way when interacting with other humans, because someone else might have a different idea or belief. Holding on one of the ideas or beliefs creates this separation and potential conflict. There is no communication. Communication appears to require that we do no hold on any of those ideas or beliefs. With nothing in common there is no exchange possible and words have then a different meaning. They are used to defend and create the separation. Not holding on to ideas and beliefs is this possible? Is this self destroying or does it free the mind?
maybe that is the main problem, it feels as if we destroy something, when we let go our own 'position', our believes, ideals, opinions... we have to destroy that 'holding on', the attachment.. and then there is freedom, not being attached is being free.
isn't it the thought/idea/concept itself which is holding on? it is not me, but i have identified myself with it, it is the attachment, the idea that my experience of reality is the only reality... lost in the translation..
the power of these attachments are enormous, somehow i understand this human tendency to be a natural phenomenon, with the same structure as all other manifestations of life... so in the first place there is the strive for survival, to fulfil its potential, to hold on...
so when i do not hold on to my ideas, believes and experiences, it feels like selfdestroying, but it is freedom..
other question, when i do not hold on, will they disappear? this feeling of loosing precious memories and my individual experience of life, i cannot bear it... but i suspect it is again a trick of the mind, an attempt to hold on, because why should it disappear? we have recorded it all, it can be there without causing trouble, it even can be used when appropriate, same as using your finger to touch the keyboard, using your ear to hear someone is calling, using your eye to see who it is..
but.. can i live without conflict ?
One problem seems to be that we give our own versions of reality (or truth) extra status. Our versions are the true versions. Or the superior versions. Or the best versions. (or most intelligent, most enlightened, deepest, most accurate, most promising, .... )
These conflict with other 'true versions'.
(There seem to be many 'true versions' floating around)(in human brains?)
Wars and conflicts -- between individuals, groups, cultures, nations, races, etc., etc. -- seem often to be based on this.
(even within ourselves?)
The mind does seem to tend to think (or assume) that its perceptions of reality are reality....
Its versions and interpretations are taken as, or assumed to be, absolute, or something akin to absolute.
(And maybe it is not entirely wrong to stand up for what is true or right. The problem seems to be more in taking non-truth as truth, or being very sure....)
multiple versions?
yes..
all seems to be varieties on the same theme..
is it possible to play our tunes in harmony ?
(even within ourselves.. true)
So we do not want to destroy, we keep on holding on ideas and images and we cannot let go. Seeing that my experience of reality is not reality, or seeing that the reality is that I am only holding on my experience with reality, that I am sort of lost in this process of translation does bring change. We think it is important for survival to hold onto these images. There is no freedom in holding onto those images. Not holding on and the fact that they might disappear frightens us? Do we control memory? Is not a good part disappearing each night? Is this a contradiction that we hold on our individual experience and this holding on actually prevents us to experience life? Letting go is like to let the past die and let the now to be born? But is it not a fact not recording images, ideas they are still here when needed? Do we see this fact? In fact we are starting to see and remember things we were not able to see when holding on? There is no freedom in holding on images and they do cause conflict. – Our memory, images of reality are different from others. This brings comparison and conflict. We are not aware of the fact that we have different images of reality. There is the confusion between reality and the images of reality. Can there be one true image of reality? Why do we have different images of it? Is it a question of communication? To tune in we need to really communicate and not confuse it with giving statements and defending those statements. – Conflict is there whenever there is this not giving in and holding onto something. Meaning also not opening up and explain why this is not a good thing.
Can we go into this which part of what K calls the teachings?
'His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.'
There is the question what is consciousness and its content, the concepts established in the mind, what we call our existance, the possibility of freedom from the content of consciousness. In this freedom there is no individual. Can we grasp anything of this?
for me it is the most difficult thing to grasp, i am thinking and feeling about it a lot.. the individual.. and i still have not figured out how i should read the words from K about this.
probably there is a fundamental resistance to the freedom in the sense K talked about it, in the context of the individual.
often i do question how much it must have influenced him that he was seen as the new world-teacher.. what a strong conditioning that must have been..
maybe this gave K the confidence to let go everything. surely he understood a lot, if not all, about life.. but imagine what it would do to you if so many people adore and worship you, that is a great recognition of the individual.. one could spend a lifetime on that 'flow'.. maybe.
Let us explore what K is writing. There is consciousness. We observe, we are aware, we see, we are conscious. This is true for all of us. Now how does this connect to our existence to our perception? As soon as I observe something I relate it to what I know. So perception is related with what I know which is part of the consciousness. All this is common to all of us. The content is different but perception is always connecting in the same way. The difference is that I was born here and you were born there and my parents were like this and your parents were like that. You had a brother or sister and I only had one brother and so on. This is what is different and this makes the individual. But the rest the functioning, the basic facts are the same and common to all humans. Now K points out, that humans can be free of the content of consciousness. I can meet somebody on the street and I completely forget who I am and what I know. In fact is it not that the instant we talk to somebody there is nothing else then the thing we talk about and the other person. So when we communicate during those instants we are not individual.
when i talk with somebody, where do the words come from? there is the other and there is me and together we communicate... are there not two individuals relating with eachother that moment? ... do i forget myself.. or am i more with my whole being present that moment.
there is no feeling of seperation, because we are completely living that moment.. i understand that you are an individual with its unique content, and i am with mine, and we share life, we share the varieties of contents, we share the same consciousness.
that is a relationship with true communication, an exchange with meaning, and depth.
the word 'individual' is used in many different ways.. it seems we even talk about the opposit when using that word.. i.e. the personal freedom to make a choise for the benefit for oneself.. but that benefit is translated in society-standards.. like having a big car to distinguish oneself with.. all sorts of animalistic herd, hierarchical and territoty-feelings are confused with the term 'individuality'... totally topsyturvy.
When we communicate there is the sharing there is no consciousness, there is no separation, there is only living the moment, yes. The other is an individual with its unique content, yes. Talking about individual we talk about personal freedom. Is it that we think we need to create this personal freedom and we need this distance to others? Yet we never watch with care what is happening to the mind, the inside. It is always there but unwatched. Is this personal freedom we want to have, something we create parallel to the inside? Like a superficial version of it which needs to be compatible with the values of society? There is this contradiction to want to be individual and then we want to be compatible with society’s values. Looking at the human condition I see that there is always the mind, the inside. I cannot be somebody else. Every person is unique and has it’s own character. Is it that we fear of not being individual because we never watch the mind, the inside?
and here i would ask: is it that we are afraid to be our true individually self ? the one who we really are when we watch the mind ? and because we do not watch ourselves, do not know who we are, we escape in the other, the society, a superficial idea we have made up, something we think we 'know', the safe way, the repetitive way, the imitative way, the way society has lived us for ages... when do we start to live by ourselves ?
Yes we are afraid. We are most of the time on the surface and stay with what others say and ignore our mind, our inside. We see it as save but it brings conflict. We start to live by ourselves when there are relations, when there is communication? Because then I cannot repeat anymore, I cannot show off any more, I cannot hide. Being on the surface is also connected with hiding. Now I see this and stop this escape. Do I always see this? To discover this never ends?
especially when we are live communicating there is a very quick responding.. is my experience..
there is no time to watch the mind, i react almost immediately on the incoming information, the words from the other, and my reaction is much influenced by all sorts of circumstancial conditions.. the state of my mind, the mood i am in, the perception of the other, mixed with my ideas/images about the other, the matter we discuss, associative feelings.. all happens so quickly.. this is probably my true me in action..
while it is happening, i can see myself in action..
is this the mirror K talked about?
i see myself in action and i learn from that.
A colleague at work looks at me. That look contains all, all his judgment about me, my work. There is reaction, there is anger about this. Watching this I see, why do I have to defend? I am what I am now. Watching is the mirror, this is the change. This attention is not unnoticed, it transforms. All this is very subtle. We are quickly vulnerable, not looking at all this. Why do we judge? We like to make images of somebody. This saves us of actually looking. This is part of the superficial life we live. Image making is not living. Watching with attention transforms. Is it related to the state of meditation?
yes, i think the watching is related with meditation as K was pointing it out.. this is an ongoing process, not depending on a decision like 'now i shall meditate for an hour'... no, all the movements of the mind can be observed, all the time... i can only speak for myself, but when someone is approaching me from an image he/she made out of me, i can see that too, yes.. and responding with anger will not do any good, it will even strengthen the false image probably.. so can we accept this approach, and not feel addressed by it? why should we force anything? it will have the opposit effect... can we act free from defensiveness ? when we understand that the image is not me, why should i feel offended? the problem lies with the other.. the only thing we can do is be ourself, show them who we really are...
Yes, this watching, total watching is meditation. It can be there and it might be gone. It is a difficult step to refrain to react to someone’s image about whatever we feel is wrong. It needs all the watching of all this or awareness, not to react. Reacting does have the opposite effect. We need to observe this. There is this temptation to react because it is not part of my image of things. Can we let go of all those images? The images are not what is real.
I am buying a sandwich fur lunch in a shop. A person comes in and takes a newspaper from the stand and asked whether one has to pay for it. The answer was no. The person puts the newspaper back and walks off. I paid and waited for the cheese sandwich to be heated. Then I buy the newspaper. The shop person makes a joke to me about paying the newspaper. I said nothing, yet she sensed I was realizing all this. And we both had a laugh. How is it we appear to know instantly whether a person is realizing something?
Now what is living the teaching? Observation of the facts and awareness of it? Observation of thought? Watching thought we find that all is connected? Doing all this does affect my life? This total watching not getting lost in images and thought is intelligence, the revolution?
I think it is.
Post a Comment