Dialogue covers period from December 24, 2007 to May 4. 2008.
For this full dialogue up to February 2, 2008 See Archives
| There is only ever one insight (continued)
Yes, but isn't that just another ploy of the self? I'm really bored with myself, so I'll set up and pursue an idea of freedom from all that? In other words, it's all still within the same field of the self. The self has to be understood in all its limited structure, not strengthened, and not indulged in.
Is there a differentiation between intent and motive? Motive always has an end, a reward, an object in view. Whereas intent is something that exists without a motive. A negation of the ways of the self, a negation of the movement of the past. There is no motive in negation.
Paul: I don’t know anything about negation except what you’re telling me. So first I have to ask, why are you telling me about negation? Why are you telling me what to do or what not to do? I have conveyed what I feel are my motives for engaging in these dialogues. What are your motives? Leave aside the word ‘intent’ for the moment too, because that also is something I know nothing about. First I want to know why you are talking to me.
There is engagement in this dialogue for the same reason the website was set up. These talks as a whole have not been fully explored or investigated. After all these decades. Most people have taken a small slice of them and discussed these limited issues ad nauseum. Look at the extant study and discussion groups. The talks are far more important and all-encompassing than that. The intent from the outset was to take the whole of it, the totality, from the standpoint of this question: What is it all actually about? Likewise, for those who have the inner fortitude to join this forum, such as yourself, the intent is to engage these people across the broadest range possible. Otherwise, it's a sham, a waste of time. Those are the motives, as it were.
Another reason I set up this forum is because there is such a thing as exploratory dialogue, beyond mere pontificating. It's vital we partake of such dialogue, delve into all aspects of it. Set aside the personal self, let's talk about all the holistic issues. Just because something possibly may not work out doesn't mean that the attempt should not be made.
Paul: But if there were no K, no talks, no books - what then? Because it seems to me that what has to be explored here is not the talks at all.
Is there any value in pursuing that hypothetical question? It could be said that if this man had not existed then someone else would have come along with the same 'pointing out'; that is, the talks can be viewed as an inevitable evolution of humanity itself. The problem, of course, is that there are so few who are actually interested in self-knowledge.
Yes, what has to be explored here is not actually the talks but oneself, for that is what the talks are mirroring. This central interest in freedom that has been expressed above - what is your actual approach to such freedom?
Paul: We don’t know what freedom is - this is my approach - and so how are we to learn about it? Are we free to learn? Or are we so laden down with knowledge that we prevent ourselves from finding out anything new? And K represents one form of knowledge.
Yes, this always was, and is, the great danger - we have merely substituted a previous ideation based on knowledge, with another one from what we have memorized from the talks. The man becomes an authority and the talks become past knowledge or holy writ, which prevents us from seeing anew. This is the oldest trap of mankind, surely. This is precisely what they did to the Buddha, and hence the nonsense of current Buddhism, which is no different from any of the other (even extreme) organized religions. The very pointing to liberation can (and has often) become simply another burden on the mind.
This starting with freedom from the past, in order to learn, means primarily a wiping away or dying to all past psychological knowledge. Easy to say, very difficult to do. It means, does it not, complete attention to the ways of the self? Observation of the self without the self as an observer. Is this a grounding on which one can proceed?
Paul: Is any grounding necessary? Surely, one dies to all that past psychological knowledge when one sees the idiocy and the danger of possessing any type of psychological knowledge. Seeing the danger of carrying even one scrap is enough to wipe it away completely. Unfortunately, one of these scraps is a belief in complete attention and in the virtues of observation without the observer. It creeps in through the backdoor.
For what is complete attention and what is observation? These are also things about which we know nothing. Yet we know something about inattention, and it is our inattention which gives rise to the belief in complete attention. But if there is no such belief, if there is no such thing as complete attention, what will the inattentive mind then do? It seems that it wants to be fixed to something, to settle on something, to be grounded in something - this is the actual nature of the mind - and if the old habits don’t suffice then it constructs new things to play with. Everything that the mind fixes on is formed from within itself. It invents all its own saviours and panaceas. It creates all its own solutions and answers. But if the same mind denies every answer there is, what happens to the problems?
The word grounding is used in the sense of the approach to all these issues. That is, an approach without any overt or ulterior motive, which is something that can be very clearly seen in oneself. Being aware of motive is a matter of clarity and honesty.
Seeing the danger of all past psychological knowledge is certainly valid, but does one actually see the danger, or only verbalize it? Do we actually wipe it all away? We don't know what this seeing and wiping away actually is, but we can certainly theorize about the nature of such a mind-state. Similarly, the denial of every answer is also a possiblity, but not an actuality. The reality is the actuality of what the mind is - violent, envious, confused, angry, self-absorbed. This is surely where we start.
Paul: Violence, envy, anger - that whole package called the self - is a movement through conflict. It is an endless movement in conflict from problems to answers - a movement through violence to peace, through envy to fulfilment, through anger to love, through confusion to clarity. But what happens to violence when there is no thought of peace as an ideal or as an aim? What happens to confusion when there is no corresponding idea of what brings about clarity? In other words, when a confused mind has nowhere to go is it still confused? Or its whole confusion lies in the very movement away from itself towards some illusory and self-projected image. So the danger is always in the answer and never in the problem.
Yes, the self is a construct of opposites. There is the fact and then the ideal opposed to the fact. It continually sets out to become the opposite of what it is. Becoming is the crucial factor behind its structure. When becoming ceases there is only what is - no escape.
You know, this situation of the self always in a state of becoming something which it is not, is a very simple one. You can see this in the working of the mind - always trying to achieve something. It is not a complex thing that can't easily be seen. There has been so little investigation into this. And when one simply ceases becoming, sees the complete falseness of it, realizes the futility of it, then what happens to the self? But then, does not the fear of stagnation then arise - yet another opposite?
Paul: From where will such stagnation arise? It is not here now while we are looking at it but it might arise tomorrow. When it arises tomorrow what will we do? Will we wait until tomorrow to find out what to do about stagnation or is it perfectly clear now what the answer is? If it is perfectly clear now then the whole problem doesn’t arise and it won’t arise tomorrow. But if instead we wait until tomorrow to find out what we are going to do about it then we have already succumbed to stagnation.
Well, fear is time, is it not? Fear is the anticipation of a future stagnation (here is the word, which is not the thing itself) and not something as an actuality in the present. This applies to all fears, which are based on what may happen (based itself on past experiences), never what is happening in the present.
So, we are left with this issue of inattention. This is the state everyone is in. Are we in this state because we don't see the danger of inattention? Seeing the danger of all self-fulfilment/becoming/time and so abandoning it? This seems to be the greatest stumbling block - that we fail to see the danger of the way we are living. If we saw the actual danger of it, we would change. The house just isn't burning. Why don't we see the danger? Is it because we are too comfortable with the way we are living now? That our minds are simply not alert enough to see the danger?
Paul: Inattention is not the danger here. We have already said that the danger lies in the promotion of ‘attention’ as an idea,
as a solution, as the cure for our inattention. The promotion of attention is real inattention. Because there is no cure for such inattention, just as there is no cure for laziness, apathy, greed, violence and all the rest of the gang. I am all that. Attention won’t fix all that; attention serves only to strengthen all that. So what is the danger? Not in words. What is the actual danger facing you and I and each one of us? The moment we name it - saying, for example, ‘The danger is X,’ - and yet still find that the danger persists, then the danger is not X. So what is the danger? When we face physical danger, we don’t stop to say, ‘The danger is X.’ Instead, we act immediately. So what is the real danger of the self?
Do you understand what I am asking? What is it that once seen will wipe away forever all self-centred activity?
Now we can begin really to enquire.
There is no ultimate solution to greed or violence? The mind is all that; the self is all that. But there is such a thing as attention, surely.
Not attention directed by the self, not attention with a motive, but just attention. It is only attention with a purpose in mind that strengthens the self. It really comes down to, does it not, the quality or nature or sensitivity of that attention?
When faced with immediate physical danger, there is no thought, only action. But all we have is thought, as there is no immediate danger.
Is there really just one thing which, when seen, will end all thought?
Paul: One thing, yes. But not to end all thought, however - to end all self-centred activity. What is the one thing that ends all self-centred activity?
No, ending all thought is precisely what this is all about. As it is, all our thought is directed from the center, from the self.
We always think from the center, not from silence. So our entire thought process must end in order to live and act in silence.
Then thought is surely of a different nature.
The one thing is the instant seeing of the falseness, the illusion, of the self.
A direct perception, an immediate, timeless insight - with no thought involved in it at all.
Paul: And the falseness of the self, what is the essence of it? What lies at the heart of this whole illusion?
The search for security. Thought recognizes its transience and so creates a 'permanent' identity. (This entity, however, is neither
secure nor permanent - hence insecurity, uncertainty, fear.) It really wants to be coccooned in this safe, secure and undisturbed image for all time, slowly progressing into something perfect. Without time, without tomorrow, the self is not. The self doesn't exist in the present.
Can you fully face the fear of not being, of no tomorrow? Of just living entirely in the present, with nothing else?
Paul: The moment we say that the essence of the self is this search for security - or this or that or something else - and we state the answer as X or Y or Z are we not falling into the very trap we are so describing? We are seeking security in the definition or description of the self. But what actually lies beneath the description? Or is the self composed of a thousand different little descriptions with nothing else at all beneath the description?
What do you say lies beneath it? The description, as stated, is needed for the dialogue to continue.
We agree it is an illusory construction of thought and so is nothing but a series of images. Ending the self is not something you do idly one day when nothing else appears interesting. The talks covered sixty years of this basic issue, yet it appears no-one has actually ended the self (with the possible exception of Tolle, but that is a separate case). It is hardwired into the brain's circuitry, and one sees how extraordinarily resilient it is, with its many guises. What does that leave us with - is there a facility within the mind that can look at the self?
Paul: There is nothing beneath the self except more descriptions. There is nothing beneath, above or beyond the self except what we invent and project. It is rather like a little dog chasing after its own tail and not realising the tail is part of the dog. That is why I am very wary of the words ‘perception’ and ‘awareness’ or of any other word that tries to capture the beauty of merely seeing what is taking place in one’s life. All that chasing around and around is what we are and what we do. It is the fact of man’s existence. It is the story of our daily living. It is plainly evident. To stop it one doesn’t need to work out more and more complicated ways to see it more and more clearly. To stop the chase one stops the movement.
So I think we have got very tied up with ways to clear away the fog of perception while still continuing for the most part to act nonsensically. Our games with perception have become a large part of the nonsense. They are merely a crafty way of delaying the obvious conclusion that everything we do comes from self-centred activity, from our own psychological ambition. Either we cease being ambitious from the beginning or we continue to harbour ambition. There is really no clever way out of this particular conundrum. The man who is trying to lose his ambitious tendencies is still ambitious, or violent or greedy or confused - it is the same thing. So I see that I am ambitious and that ambition is a waste of my life. That’s then the start of intelligent living.
~~~
Paul: All right, fear - I am afraid of the void within - and that very fear is a waste of my life, my energy and my time. But does not the fear of the void within arise only when I am ambitious? Isn’t a sense of emptiness the very same thing as a sense of ambition? So I question whether ambition arises from emptiness. To me it seems pretty clear that it is the other way around, that emptiness arises from ambition.
There are all sorts of ambitions, all sorts of pursuits, all sorts of desires - physical, sexual, intellectual, material, emotional and romantic - and they all have the same flavour of emptiness underneath. Now if I have sufficient intelligence to stop to taste, watch and listen to that emptiness, it is not then the trigger for yet another form of pointless and fruitless escaping. Instead I see that the perpetual cycle of escape is the cause of all my emptiness, all the emptiness of the world.
So I really see that. I don’t seek to escape from it. In ceasing to escape from it, the sense of it as emptiness is bound to disappear because it is all along tied up to my ambitions and goals. It means I am learning about desire, ambition, emptiness, fear, attachment and loneliness in this one thing: that they are all of my doing. And the world is doing it too. Now exactly what is that we are all doing? We have called it ‘escaping’ but what is the foundation upon which all of this movement is built?
We need to discern what we mean by emptiness. Are you not equating emptiness with the sense of loneliness, caused by the isolating actions of the self? The self recognizes this state and so is continually escaping from it - escaping from itself, in effect.
I am talking of emptiness as the natural order of things. An atom is 99% empty. So is a galaxy, given the vast distances between the stars that comprise it. So nature at both the micro and macro levels is emptiness (which is not our idea of it). The brain was initially silent - empty - but now is totally commandeered by self-interested thought. So the self is escaping both from its own creation of separation, and the natural state of emptiness in the brain. Self-fulfilment and all the rest is a reaction to the fact of this emptiness. Emptiness is the silent mind, and thought doesn't want anything to do with it. This is why it is so difficult to 'meditate' without thought, in the conventional sense.
In this sense emptiness doesn't arise from ambition, loneliness does. Ambition is separation, hence there is escape because one cannot live in isolation. And what is the foundation of escape? A clear inherent inability on the part of thought to face the fact of things, is it not?
Paul: I think that this is so. For whenever thought meets with a fact, it seems that the fact always gets altered in the meeting.
It is as though thought cannot deal with anything unless it builds a corresponding idea or image about it - and it then proceeds to devote all of its energies to the idea, while leaving the fact to rot. For example, it sees war in the world and then creates a dozen ideas about the opposite state of affairs, about peace and how to achieve peace. The opposite state then takes precedence over the actual state. Whether it is peace or love or harmony or something else equally marvellous doesn’t matter for the moment,
the point is that the opposite state is always idealistic, always far off.
Now is thought impelled always to act this way? And if it is, if it cannot face a fact without distorting the fact, then what does it mean really to face a fact? In other words, who or what faces the fact? If thought can’t and if the self can’t - and this seems to be what we are saying - then what is it that faces this fact of emptiness at the very deepest level? When thought faces a void it has to fill the space with something, with any one of its many inventions.
To say that nature is emptiness or emptiness is the natural order, isn’t that also another form of invention? The actuality is I am empty and devoid of significance. I can create significance for myself; I can fill the empty space with all sorts of weird and wonderful toys; but whatever I do I am still glossing over this fact that I am empty - that I am nothing. So can we get to the bottom of this fact without explaining it away? That’s all I am asking.
Does thought ever actually meet a fact at all and stay with it? The fact is in the present and thus is not in psychological time. Thought is psychological time and so cannot meet the fact in the present. By its very nature thought will always be unable to fully meet the present - this is the clear statement. Only the present can fully meet the present. What then faces the fact? It is not a matter of who or what, surely. It is a matter of a new way of looking at the fact, no longer through the abstract. Is this too hard to see, too difficult to comprehend? Is there a new way of seeing without thought entering at all?
I don't see the emptiness of nature as an invention or explanation of the mind but as a simple fact. Like the sun is a fact. Thought cannot distort the fact of nature. The issue is that thought labels everything, externally and internally, and so doesn't see the actual fact but only the word that it uses to describe the fact. So, can one deny the description and therefore only see the fact?
Paul: The fact is that I am empty, I am nothing - let's really get to grips with this. When we use this word 'I', it is being used to refer to the whole human psyche, to the psychological self of every human being. We are saying that the psychological self is really nothing at all, of no consequence, of no importance. I am nothing and you are nothing. Therefore, how are we to live in the world? Having no ambition, having no use for descriptions of any kind, but moving only from fact to fact, how shall we actually live in this world? This world which means a society where everything to do with the psyche is important. Do you follow?
What are we to do with our lives?
Can we determine that in advance? Is this not an attempt by the self, which lives in the future, to be sure in an idea of how the future will be?
When the self ends, all problems end. There is no problem in life outside the self. That being the case, should a job and a relationship end, then so be it. There is no living up to any image of how one should live, of how life should be. There is just living. In the present, which is all that there is, anyway - there actually is no future. And with full understanding of this current society in which the self rules.
People have lived in society without a self. What it essentially means, as stated, is that you are living entirely in the present. No ambition, no psychological future. Obviously, there are the essentials of food, clothing and shelter. But life carries you in regard to these things. Having no problems, you would have the innate intelligence to deal immediately with those practical and relationship issues in life that come up.
So, it seems that the real issue here is with all our pre-conceived ideas of what 'being nothing' (which is, in essence, being everything) and a way of life without a self would actually entail. Hence the question, then, is not with what we would do with our lives, but rather with all the self's inflated ideas of what a so-called proper life should be, is it not?
Paul: Not in advance, but now. You´ve already said that when the self ends, all problems end - so that´s just it.
Therefore, let´s find out what that actually means. What does it mean?
What does it mean to live life without a self and have no problems - is that the question? Until the self has actually ended - not you ending the self, which cannot happen - can we really know? One can state the obvious and say we would have an empty mind, with no attachment to anything, and we would fully respond to life in the present. We would have stepped out from the stream of consciousness that is humankind. And of course we would be a complete individual, with full creative expression. But all these are descriptions, not the actual.
Can we clarify the inquiry?
Paul: Why do we live with problems? Why do we accept any problem? And what is the self without all of its problems?
Now K was quite definite on this matter, because he said, `I refuse to have problems.´ He saw that the problem, the problem-maker and the problem-solver were just the one entity. Therefore, I am asking at this point, do we have a problem?
Is there really any problem at all?
We accept problems in the same way we accept the existence of the self, do we not? From our parents and environment (society and culture) onwards, we are conditioned into complete acceptance of problems, self-identity, and suffering. We never question their existence; they are seen as part of the natural order. And to question these things is the beginning of understanding, is it not?
Having a fully developed self, we do have problems - violence (stored anger) and envy (comparison), for starters. These are undeniable, one can see them in oneself. They are the cause of external, social and global problems. And they must be fully understood - you cannot dismiss them out of existence. Which means, does it not, that we need to completely understand the workings of the self? And is the central feature of the self, time? In the present, in awareness right now, there is no problem. But bring in time and all the problems arise, do they not?
Paul: Therefore I won’t take time to understand the workings of the self. I won’t take time to solve violence or envy or greed or fear, because while I am dealing with one contentious part of my life the rest of the cauldron continues to bubble. So I refuse to take time over any problem in my life. This doesn’t mean that I just ignore the problem, brushing it under the carpet, suppressing or repressing it. To me, the solving of any problem must be immediate and total; otherwise I am always going to have problems in my life. And why should I have problems? Everyone around me may have problems, society may be built on problems, live on them, feed on them - but why should I have a single problem?
What does it mean to live life without a self and have no problems - is that the question? Until the self has actually ended - not you ending the self, which cannot happen - can we really know? One can state the obvious and say we would have an empty mind, with no attachment to anything, and we would fully respond to life in the present. We would have stepped out from the stream of consciousness that is humankind. And of course we would be a complete individual, with full creative expression. But all these are descriptions, not the actual.
Can we clarify the inquiry?
Yes, the mind itself feeds on problems, have you noticed that? Thought always wants to be occupied with something or other and problems (and worry and negativity) suit it down to the ground. Thought actually fears a life without problems as this would leave it unoccupied, would it not? Thought fears its own ending as what would be left in place of it? - nothing but emptiness.
Do we actually refuse to have anything to do with time when dealing with problems, or anything else? Is the mind not caught in a continuum of past, present and future, where the present is only a means to an end? It really thinks that everything will be solved one day.
So, can the mind accept a life without time? Insight is not of time; therefore, can the mind have a total insight into itself?
Paul: My question is a little different. I am not concerned with total insight. I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean. Perhaps I’ll never know what it means. What concerns me instead is this very simple question - why should I have a single problem? Why should I accept any psychological problem in my life? Not that I should or should not accept problems, but why do I accept them? Why as human beings do we accept such things? You have problems in your own life, don’t you? Now, why? Very simply, why is anything ever a problem?
I have not looked at this question in this way before. It's true that we accept problems in life as though they are as tangible as night and day.
Generally speaking, we don't question this. It is as if problems go with thinking itself. Does not a problem arise when we don't accept the fact of the moment as it is? That we are trying to change that fact into something it is not? Are we capable of fully accepting the fact of life in the present moment, or are we always trying to escape from it?
Unless one has ended the self one will have problems of one form or another. To say otherwise is to be self-deceptive. But what actually is what we call a problem? You see, even this man had a problem in life. 15 years of ongoing fractious litigation against an intractable Rajagopal was a problem in anyone's language - the relevant biographer's book makes that very clear. But this is not to say it was a psychological problem for him. It was a practical relationship problem but that doesn't mean he suffered over it; he didn't carry it over from day to day.
Does a problem really only exist when you suffer because of it? And it is only the self that suffers, is it not?
Are all psychological problems in fact a product of one's self- image?
Paul: That’s just it. The moment I say, ‘This is a problem, what shall I do about it?’ I have already brought in the past, and the past then takes over. But if, instead of trying to solve one particular problem, I question the very nature of what constitutes my problems then something entirely different comes into the game. First of all, there is the realisation that I have never looked at this question before even though it is a fundamental question in my life. It’s not a trivial or superficial question; it’s a question that affects every corner of my being. It affects my daily life, my relationships with others, my work, my leisure, every part of existence.
But when I ask myself, ‘What is a psychological problem? Why is anything in life ever a problem for me?’ what am I going to do with such a question? Bearing in mind I am used to giving superficial answers to superficial questions, now what will I do? The habit has always been to find an answer - verbally, intellectually, do you follow? - but that same old habit can’t help me here. The superficial response is to think about it, chew it over, play around with a few ideas and then eventually come up with an answer about which I feel relatively comfortable. But if I refuse to be comfortable about this thing, what happens? I still have problems in my life - lots of problems or a few problems, doesn’t matter - and I am still asking myself, ‘Why is this a problem for me?’
It is clear that psychological problems cannot be ended by the state of mind that created them. That is, the intellect cannot solve the problems created by itself. A new approach is needed, and that new approach is holding a question in the mind, without seeking an answer - which is only more of the same. The point is that it has to be a right question, otherwise it will have no effect. And a right question in this case, it appears, is to question the root origin of all problems, not singling out any particular one of them.
This right question actually has no answer. The question itself is sufficient, for it alters the state of the mind of the questioner, does it not? This is hard to understand, and may in fact be where the trouble lies, for the mind is trained throughout life to only seek an answer.
But I have another question, at this juncture. Is the self composed entirely of problems alone, or is there more to its nature than that?
Paul: What is a problem? At a very simple level, a problem is an obstacle in my path; it is something that prevents me from moving forward. But what does it mean to move forward? It is obvious what it means to move physically forward. But to move psychologically forward, is there really such a thing? Is there such a thing as completion, fulfilment, achievement or resolution? Or the self being incomplete has invented the idea of completion. The self being violent has invented the ideal of peace. The self being lost has invented the idea of direction. And therefore each and every psychological problem reinforces that idea of psychological direction.
In other words, without our psychological problems we are quite lost. It is as though we depend upon our problems for proof of our own existence. So it is not just that the self is composed of problems; it is also that the self composes the problems. The self
is therefore only ever a problem-solver - that is the only life it has. That’s a totally artificial life. It is something invented, manufactured; it’s something abominable. And yet is there a life outside of all that, a life without any of these artificial problems? Is there a way of living without this monstrous structure of the self?
That is, a life where one is completely lost and yet seeking no direction.
(For continuation Archives 4)
For this full dialogue up to February 2, 2008 See Archives
| There is only ever one insight (continued)
Yes, but isn't that just another ploy of the self? I'm really bored with myself, so I'll set up and pursue an idea of freedom from all that? In other words, it's all still within the same field of the self. The self has to be understood in all its limited structure, not strengthened, and not indulged in.
Is there a differentiation between intent and motive? Motive always has an end, a reward, an object in view. Whereas intent is something that exists without a motive. A negation of the ways of the self, a negation of the movement of the past. There is no motive in negation.
Paul: I don’t know anything about negation except what you’re telling me. So first I have to ask, why are you telling me about negation? Why are you telling me what to do or what not to do? I have conveyed what I feel are my motives for engaging in these dialogues. What are your motives? Leave aside the word ‘intent’ for the moment too, because that also is something I know nothing about. First I want to know why you are talking to me.
There is engagement in this dialogue for the same reason the website was set up. These talks as a whole have not been fully explored or investigated. After all these decades. Most people have taken a small slice of them and discussed these limited issues ad nauseum. Look at the extant study and discussion groups. The talks are far more important and all-encompassing than that. The intent from the outset was to take the whole of it, the totality, from the standpoint of this question: What is it all actually about? Likewise, for those who have the inner fortitude to join this forum, such as yourself, the intent is to engage these people across the broadest range possible. Otherwise, it's a sham, a waste of time. Those are the motives, as it were.
Another reason I set up this forum is because there is such a thing as exploratory dialogue, beyond mere pontificating. It's vital we partake of such dialogue, delve into all aspects of it. Set aside the personal self, let's talk about all the holistic issues. Just because something possibly may not work out doesn't mean that the attempt should not be made.
Paul: But if there were no K, no talks, no books - what then? Because it seems to me that what has to be explored here is not the talks at all.
Is there any value in pursuing that hypothetical question? It could be said that if this man had not existed then someone else would have come along with the same 'pointing out'; that is, the talks can be viewed as an inevitable evolution of humanity itself. The problem, of course, is that there are so few who are actually interested in self-knowledge.
Yes, what has to be explored here is not actually the talks but oneself, for that is what the talks are mirroring. This central interest in freedom that has been expressed above - what is your actual approach to such freedom?
Paul: We don’t know what freedom is - this is my approach - and so how are we to learn about it? Are we free to learn? Or are we so laden down with knowledge that we prevent ourselves from finding out anything new? And K represents one form of knowledge.
Yes, this always was, and is, the great danger - we have merely substituted a previous ideation based on knowledge, with another one from what we have memorized from the talks. The man becomes an authority and the talks become past knowledge or holy writ, which prevents us from seeing anew. This is the oldest trap of mankind, surely. This is precisely what they did to the Buddha, and hence the nonsense of current Buddhism, which is no different from any of the other (even extreme) organized religions. The very pointing to liberation can (and has often) become simply another burden on the mind.
This starting with freedom from the past, in order to learn, means primarily a wiping away or dying to all past psychological knowledge. Easy to say, very difficult to do. It means, does it not, complete attention to the ways of the self? Observation of the self without the self as an observer. Is this a grounding on which one can proceed?
Paul: Is any grounding necessary? Surely, one dies to all that past psychological knowledge when one sees the idiocy and the danger of possessing any type of psychological knowledge. Seeing the danger of carrying even one scrap is enough to wipe it away completely. Unfortunately, one of these scraps is a belief in complete attention and in the virtues of observation without the observer. It creeps in through the backdoor.
For what is complete attention and what is observation? These are also things about which we know nothing. Yet we know something about inattention, and it is our inattention which gives rise to the belief in complete attention. But if there is no such belief, if there is no such thing as complete attention, what will the inattentive mind then do? It seems that it wants to be fixed to something, to settle on something, to be grounded in something - this is the actual nature of the mind - and if the old habits don’t suffice then it constructs new things to play with. Everything that the mind fixes on is formed from within itself. It invents all its own saviours and panaceas. It creates all its own solutions and answers. But if the same mind denies every answer there is, what happens to the problems?
The word grounding is used in the sense of the approach to all these issues. That is, an approach without any overt or ulterior motive, which is something that can be very clearly seen in oneself. Being aware of motive is a matter of clarity and honesty.
Seeing the danger of all past psychological knowledge is certainly valid, but does one actually see the danger, or only verbalize it? Do we actually wipe it all away? We don't know what this seeing and wiping away actually is, but we can certainly theorize about the nature of such a mind-state. Similarly, the denial of every answer is also a possiblity, but not an actuality. The reality is the actuality of what the mind is - violent, envious, confused, angry, self-absorbed. This is surely where we start.
Paul: Violence, envy, anger - that whole package called the self - is a movement through conflict. It is an endless movement in conflict from problems to answers - a movement through violence to peace, through envy to fulfilment, through anger to love, through confusion to clarity. But what happens to violence when there is no thought of peace as an ideal or as an aim? What happens to confusion when there is no corresponding idea of what brings about clarity? In other words, when a confused mind has nowhere to go is it still confused? Or its whole confusion lies in the very movement away from itself towards some illusory and self-projected image. So the danger is always in the answer and never in the problem.
Yes, the self is a construct of opposites. There is the fact and then the ideal opposed to the fact. It continually sets out to become the opposite of what it is. Becoming is the crucial factor behind its structure. When becoming ceases there is only what is - no escape.
You know, this situation of the self always in a state of becoming something which it is not, is a very simple one. You can see this in the working of the mind - always trying to achieve something. It is not a complex thing that can't easily be seen. There has been so little investigation into this. And when one simply ceases becoming, sees the complete falseness of it, realizes the futility of it, then what happens to the self? But then, does not the fear of stagnation then arise - yet another opposite?
Paul: From where will such stagnation arise? It is not here now while we are looking at it but it might arise tomorrow. When it arises tomorrow what will we do? Will we wait until tomorrow to find out what to do about stagnation or is it perfectly clear now what the answer is? If it is perfectly clear now then the whole problem doesn’t arise and it won’t arise tomorrow. But if instead we wait until tomorrow to find out what we are going to do about it then we have already succumbed to stagnation.
Well, fear is time, is it not? Fear is the anticipation of a future stagnation (here is the word, which is not the thing itself) and not something as an actuality in the present. This applies to all fears, which are based on what may happen (based itself on past experiences), never what is happening in the present.
So, we are left with this issue of inattention. This is the state everyone is in. Are we in this state because we don't see the danger of inattention? Seeing the danger of all self-fulfilment/becoming/time and so abandoning it? This seems to be the greatest stumbling block - that we fail to see the danger of the way we are living. If we saw the actual danger of it, we would change. The house just isn't burning. Why don't we see the danger? Is it because we are too comfortable with the way we are living now? That our minds are simply not alert enough to see the danger?
Paul: Inattention is not the danger here. We have already said that the danger lies in the promotion of ‘attention’ as an idea,
as a solution, as the cure for our inattention. The promotion of attention is real inattention. Because there is no cure for such inattention, just as there is no cure for laziness, apathy, greed, violence and all the rest of the gang. I am all that. Attention won’t fix all that; attention serves only to strengthen all that. So what is the danger? Not in words. What is the actual danger facing you and I and each one of us? The moment we name it - saying, for example, ‘The danger is X,’ - and yet still find that the danger persists, then the danger is not X. So what is the danger? When we face physical danger, we don’t stop to say, ‘The danger is X.’ Instead, we act immediately. So what is the real danger of the self?
Do you understand what I am asking? What is it that once seen will wipe away forever all self-centred activity?
Now we can begin really to enquire.
There is no ultimate solution to greed or violence? The mind is all that; the self is all that. But there is such a thing as attention, surely.
Not attention directed by the self, not attention with a motive, but just attention. It is only attention with a purpose in mind that strengthens the self. It really comes down to, does it not, the quality or nature or sensitivity of that attention?
When faced with immediate physical danger, there is no thought, only action. But all we have is thought, as there is no immediate danger.
Is there really just one thing which, when seen, will end all thought?
Paul: One thing, yes. But not to end all thought, however - to end all self-centred activity. What is the one thing that ends all self-centred activity?
No, ending all thought is precisely what this is all about. As it is, all our thought is directed from the center, from the self.
We always think from the center, not from silence. So our entire thought process must end in order to live and act in silence.
Then thought is surely of a different nature.
The one thing is the instant seeing of the falseness, the illusion, of the self.
A direct perception, an immediate, timeless insight - with no thought involved in it at all.
Paul: And the falseness of the self, what is the essence of it? What lies at the heart of this whole illusion?
The search for security. Thought recognizes its transience and so creates a 'permanent' identity. (This entity, however, is neither
secure nor permanent - hence insecurity, uncertainty, fear.) It really wants to be coccooned in this safe, secure and undisturbed image for all time, slowly progressing into something perfect. Without time, without tomorrow, the self is not. The self doesn't exist in the present.
Can you fully face the fear of not being, of no tomorrow? Of just living entirely in the present, with nothing else?
Paul: The moment we say that the essence of the self is this search for security - or this or that or something else - and we state the answer as X or Y or Z are we not falling into the very trap we are so describing? We are seeking security in the definition or description of the self. But what actually lies beneath the description? Or is the self composed of a thousand different little descriptions with nothing else at all beneath the description?
What do you say lies beneath it? The description, as stated, is needed for the dialogue to continue.
We agree it is an illusory construction of thought and so is nothing but a series of images. Ending the self is not something you do idly one day when nothing else appears interesting. The talks covered sixty years of this basic issue, yet it appears no-one has actually ended the self (with the possible exception of Tolle, but that is a separate case). It is hardwired into the brain's circuitry, and one sees how extraordinarily resilient it is, with its many guises. What does that leave us with - is there a facility within the mind that can look at the self?
Paul: There is nothing beneath the self except more descriptions. There is nothing beneath, above or beyond the self except what we invent and project. It is rather like a little dog chasing after its own tail and not realising the tail is part of the dog. That is why I am very wary of the words ‘perception’ and ‘awareness’ or of any other word that tries to capture the beauty of merely seeing what is taking place in one’s life. All that chasing around and around is what we are and what we do. It is the fact of man’s existence. It is the story of our daily living. It is plainly evident. To stop it one doesn’t need to work out more and more complicated ways to see it more and more clearly. To stop the chase one stops the movement.
So I think we have got very tied up with ways to clear away the fog of perception while still continuing for the most part to act nonsensically. Our games with perception have become a large part of the nonsense. They are merely a crafty way of delaying the obvious conclusion that everything we do comes from self-centred activity, from our own psychological ambition. Either we cease being ambitious from the beginning or we continue to harbour ambition. There is really no clever way out of this particular conundrum. The man who is trying to lose his ambitious tendencies is still ambitious, or violent or greedy or confused - it is the same thing. So I see that I am ambitious and that ambition is a waste of my life. That’s then the start of intelligent living.
~~~
Paul: All right, fear - I am afraid of the void within - and that very fear is a waste of my life, my energy and my time. But does not the fear of the void within arise only when I am ambitious? Isn’t a sense of emptiness the very same thing as a sense of ambition? So I question whether ambition arises from emptiness. To me it seems pretty clear that it is the other way around, that emptiness arises from ambition.
There are all sorts of ambitions, all sorts of pursuits, all sorts of desires - physical, sexual, intellectual, material, emotional and romantic - and they all have the same flavour of emptiness underneath. Now if I have sufficient intelligence to stop to taste, watch and listen to that emptiness, it is not then the trigger for yet another form of pointless and fruitless escaping. Instead I see that the perpetual cycle of escape is the cause of all my emptiness, all the emptiness of the world.
So I really see that. I don’t seek to escape from it. In ceasing to escape from it, the sense of it as emptiness is bound to disappear because it is all along tied up to my ambitions and goals. It means I am learning about desire, ambition, emptiness, fear, attachment and loneliness in this one thing: that they are all of my doing. And the world is doing it too. Now exactly what is that we are all doing? We have called it ‘escaping’ but what is the foundation upon which all of this movement is built?
We need to discern what we mean by emptiness. Are you not equating emptiness with the sense of loneliness, caused by the isolating actions of the self? The self recognizes this state and so is continually escaping from it - escaping from itself, in effect.
I am talking of emptiness as the natural order of things. An atom is 99% empty. So is a galaxy, given the vast distances between the stars that comprise it. So nature at both the micro and macro levels is emptiness (which is not our idea of it). The brain was initially silent - empty - but now is totally commandeered by self-interested thought. So the self is escaping both from its own creation of separation, and the natural state of emptiness in the brain. Self-fulfilment and all the rest is a reaction to the fact of this emptiness. Emptiness is the silent mind, and thought doesn't want anything to do with it. This is why it is so difficult to 'meditate' without thought, in the conventional sense.
In this sense emptiness doesn't arise from ambition, loneliness does. Ambition is separation, hence there is escape because one cannot live in isolation. And what is the foundation of escape? A clear inherent inability on the part of thought to face the fact of things, is it not?
Paul: I think that this is so. For whenever thought meets with a fact, it seems that the fact always gets altered in the meeting.
It is as though thought cannot deal with anything unless it builds a corresponding idea or image about it - and it then proceeds to devote all of its energies to the idea, while leaving the fact to rot. For example, it sees war in the world and then creates a dozen ideas about the opposite state of affairs, about peace and how to achieve peace. The opposite state then takes precedence over the actual state. Whether it is peace or love or harmony or something else equally marvellous doesn’t matter for the moment,
the point is that the opposite state is always idealistic, always far off.
Now is thought impelled always to act this way? And if it is, if it cannot face a fact without distorting the fact, then what does it mean really to face a fact? In other words, who or what faces the fact? If thought can’t and if the self can’t - and this seems to be what we are saying - then what is it that faces this fact of emptiness at the very deepest level? When thought faces a void it has to fill the space with something, with any one of its many inventions.
To say that nature is emptiness or emptiness is the natural order, isn’t that also another form of invention? The actuality is I am empty and devoid of significance. I can create significance for myself; I can fill the empty space with all sorts of weird and wonderful toys; but whatever I do I am still glossing over this fact that I am empty - that I am nothing. So can we get to the bottom of this fact without explaining it away? That’s all I am asking.
Does thought ever actually meet a fact at all and stay with it? The fact is in the present and thus is not in psychological time. Thought is psychological time and so cannot meet the fact in the present. By its very nature thought will always be unable to fully meet the present - this is the clear statement. Only the present can fully meet the present. What then faces the fact? It is not a matter of who or what, surely. It is a matter of a new way of looking at the fact, no longer through the abstract. Is this too hard to see, too difficult to comprehend? Is there a new way of seeing without thought entering at all?
I don't see the emptiness of nature as an invention or explanation of the mind but as a simple fact. Like the sun is a fact. Thought cannot distort the fact of nature. The issue is that thought labels everything, externally and internally, and so doesn't see the actual fact but only the word that it uses to describe the fact. So, can one deny the description and therefore only see the fact?
Paul: The fact is that I am empty, I am nothing - let's really get to grips with this. When we use this word 'I', it is being used to refer to the whole human psyche, to the psychological self of every human being. We are saying that the psychological self is really nothing at all, of no consequence, of no importance. I am nothing and you are nothing. Therefore, how are we to live in the world? Having no ambition, having no use for descriptions of any kind, but moving only from fact to fact, how shall we actually live in this world? This world which means a society where everything to do with the psyche is important. Do you follow?
What are we to do with our lives?
Can we determine that in advance? Is this not an attempt by the self, which lives in the future, to be sure in an idea of how the future will be?
When the self ends, all problems end. There is no problem in life outside the self. That being the case, should a job and a relationship end, then so be it. There is no living up to any image of how one should live, of how life should be. There is just living. In the present, which is all that there is, anyway - there actually is no future. And with full understanding of this current society in which the self rules.
People have lived in society without a self. What it essentially means, as stated, is that you are living entirely in the present. No ambition, no psychological future. Obviously, there are the essentials of food, clothing and shelter. But life carries you in regard to these things. Having no problems, you would have the innate intelligence to deal immediately with those practical and relationship issues in life that come up.
So, it seems that the real issue here is with all our pre-conceived ideas of what 'being nothing' (which is, in essence, being everything) and a way of life without a self would actually entail. Hence the question, then, is not with what we would do with our lives, but rather with all the self's inflated ideas of what a so-called proper life should be, is it not?
Paul: Not in advance, but now. You´ve already said that when the self ends, all problems end - so that´s just it.
Therefore, let´s find out what that actually means. What does it mean?
What does it mean to live life without a self and have no problems - is that the question? Until the self has actually ended - not you ending the self, which cannot happen - can we really know? One can state the obvious and say we would have an empty mind, with no attachment to anything, and we would fully respond to life in the present. We would have stepped out from the stream of consciousness that is humankind. And of course we would be a complete individual, with full creative expression. But all these are descriptions, not the actual.
Can we clarify the inquiry?
Paul: Why do we live with problems? Why do we accept any problem? And what is the self without all of its problems?
Now K was quite definite on this matter, because he said, `I refuse to have problems.´ He saw that the problem, the problem-maker and the problem-solver were just the one entity. Therefore, I am asking at this point, do we have a problem?
Is there really any problem at all?
We accept problems in the same way we accept the existence of the self, do we not? From our parents and environment (society and culture) onwards, we are conditioned into complete acceptance of problems, self-identity, and suffering. We never question their existence; they are seen as part of the natural order. And to question these things is the beginning of understanding, is it not?
Having a fully developed self, we do have problems - violence (stored anger) and envy (comparison), for starters. These are undeniable, one can see them in oneself. They are the cause of external, social and global problems. And they must be fully understood - you cannot dismiss them out of existence. Which means, does it not, that we need to completely understand the workings of the self? And is the central feature of the self, time? In the present, in awareness right now, there is no problem. But bring in time and all the problems arise, do they not?
Paul: Therefore I won’t take time to understand the workings of the self. I won’t take time to solve violence or envy or greed or fear, because while I am dealing with one contentious part of my life the rest of the cauldron continues to bubble. So I refuse to take time over any problem in my life. This doesn’t mean that I just ignore the problem, brushing it under the carpet, suppressing or repressing it. To me, the solving of any problem must be immediate and total; otherwise I am always going to have problems in my life. And why should I have problems? Everyone around me may have problems, society may be built on problems, live on them, feed on them - but why should I have a single problem?
What does it mean to live life without a self and have no problems - is that the question? Until the self has actually ended - not you ending the self, which cannot happen - can we really know? One can state the obvious and say we would have an empty mind, with no attachment to anything, and we would fully respond to life in the present. We would have stepped out from the stream of consciousness that is humankind. And of course we would be a complete individual, with full creative expression. But all these are descriptions, not the actual.
Can we clarify the inquiry?
Yes, the mind itself feeds on problems, have you noticed that? Thought always wants to be occupied with something or other and problems (and worry and negativity) suit it down to the ground. Thought actually fears a life without problems as this would leave it unoccupied, would it not? Thought fears its own ending as what would be left in place of it? - nothing but emptiness.
Do we actually refuse to have anything to do with time when dealing with problems, or anything else? Is the mind not caught in a continuum of past, present and future, where the present is only a means to an end? It really thinks that everything will be solved one day.
So, can the mind accept a life without time? Insight is not of time; therefore, can the mind have a total insight into itself?
Paul: My question is a little different. I am not concerned with total insight. I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean. Perhaps I’ll never know what it means. What concerns me instead is this very simple question - why should I have a single problem? Why should I accept any psychological problem in my life? Not that I should or should not accept problems, but why do I accept them? Why as human beings do we accept such things? You have problems in your own life, don’t you? Now, why? Very simply, why is anything ever a problem?
I have not looked at this question in this way before. It's true that we accept problems in life as though they are as tangible as night and day.
Generally speaking, we don't question this. It is as if problems go with thinking itself. Does not a problem arise when we don't accept the fact of the moment as it is? That we are trying to change that fact into something it is not? Are we capable of fully accepting the fact of life in the present moment, or are we always trying to escape from it?
Unless one has ended the self one will have problems of one form or another. To say otherwise is to be self-deceptive. But what actually is what we call a problem? You see, even this man had a problem in life. 15 years of ongoing fractious litigation against an intractable Rajagopal was a problem in anyone's language - the relevant biographer's book makes that very clear. But this is not to say it was a psychological problem for him. It was a practical relationship problem but that doesn't mean he suffered over it; he didn't carry it over from day to day.
Does a problem really only exist when you suffer because of it? And it is only the self that suffers, is it not?
Are all psychological problems in fact a product of one's self- image?
Paul: That’s just it. The moment I say, ‘This is a problem, what shall I do about it?’ I have already brought in the past, and the past then takes over. But if, instead of trying to solve one particular problem, I question the very nature of what constitutes my problems then something entirely different comes into the game. First of all, there is the realisation that I have never looked at this question before even though it is a fundamental question in my life. It’s not a trivial or superficial question; it’s a question that affects every corner of my being. It affects my daily life, my relationships with others, my work, my leisure, every part of existence.
But when I ask myself, ‘What is a psychological problem? Why is anything in life ever a problem for me?’ what am I going to do with such a question? Bearing in mind I am used to giving superficial answers to superficial questions, now what will I do? The habit has always been to find an answer - verbally, intellectually, do you follow? - but that same old habit can’t help me here. The superficial response is to think about it, chew it over, play around with a few ideas and then eventually come up with an answer about which I feel relatively comfortable. But if I refuse to be comfortable about this thing, what happens? I still have problems in my life - lots of problems or a few problems, doesn’t matter - and I am still asking myself, ‘Why is this a problem for me?’
It is clear that psychological problems cannot be ended by the state of mind that created them. That is, the intellect cannot solve the problems created by itself. A new approach is needed, and that new approach is holding a question in the mind, without seeking an answer - which is only more of the same. The point is that it has to be a right question, otherwise it will have no effect. And a right question in this case, it appears, is to question the root origin of all problems, not singling out any particular one of them.
This right question actually has no answer. The question itself is sufficient, for it alters the state of the mind of the questioner, does it not? This is hard to understand, and may in fact be where the trouble lies, for the mind is trained throughout life to only seek an answer.
But I have another question, at this juncture. Is the self composed entirely of problems alone, or is there more to its nature than that?
Paul: What is a problem? At a very simple level, a problem is an obstacle in my path; it is something that prevents me from moving forward. But what does it mean to move forward? It is obvious what it means to move physically forward. But to move psychologically forward, is there really such a thing? Is there such a thing as completion, fulfilment, achievement or resolution? Or the self being incomplete has invented the idea of completion. The self being violent has invented the ideal of peace. The self being lost has invented the idea of direction. And therefore each and every psychological problem reinforces that idea of psychological direction.
In other words, without our psychological problems we are quite lost. It is as though we depend upon our problems for proof of our own existence. So it is not just that the self is composed of problems; it is also that the self composes the problems. The self
is therefore only ever a problem-solver - that is the only life it has. That’s a totally artificial life. It is something invented, manufactured; it’s something abominable. And yet is there a life outside of all that, a life without any of these artificial problems? Is there a way of living without this monstrous structure of the self?
That is, a life where one is completely lost and yet seeking no direction.
(For continuation Archives 4)
 |
 |
 |
“We are always in conflict between what is and ‘what should be’.”
{Book of Life, The disorder that time creates, March 29 2008}
{Book of Life, The disorder that time creates, March 29 2008}
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Note: Site best viewed through Internet Explorer; there are some page display issues with Firefox.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright © 2007/2008, beyondthemindsite. All Rights Reserved.
This website went online on November 22, 2007 and is being continually updated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~