Site best viewed through Internet Explorer;
there are some page display issues with Chrome & Firefox
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright © 2007-2009 Daniel Marks | beyondthemind.net. All Rights Reserved.
This website went online on November 22, 2007 and is being continually developed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We are going together to journey into this enormous complex problem of understanding oneself. Please see the absolute essential necessity of it, that nobody can teach you about yourself except yourself. ... Awareness is not a matter of accumulation; it is learning, being aware from moment to moment. When you are not aware, don’t bother. Begin again so that your mind is always fresh. ..."
One must look at oneself as though for the first time, and look at it for the first time each time, and therefore never accumulate. ..."
(Inward Revolution: Madras Talk, 13 January 1971; KFT Newsletter, Spring 2006)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A note on the practice of anonymity on the web:
Dialogue groups on the net have a serious flaw in that they allow anonymity of their contributors. Those who abnegate their responsibility for what they contribute by using a handle or avatar or username and not their full name (in addition to withholding their private email addresses) allow themselves a convenient get out to withdraw at any time from dialogues, or to throw around claims and counterclaims with impunity. (This also includes Administrators/Moderators of these groups, some of whom also hide behind the 'security' of anonymity.)
This anonymous comforting wall results invariably in dialogues of superficiality, aggression and oneupmanship, hence conflict (thus the inevitable demise of the old Kinfonet study group - the newly renovated discussion forum on the site is, for the time being, self-moderated; it, now, only requests full names and doesn't prevent the use of usernames). In actual fact, the ubiquity of this evasive practice of anonymity throws into stark relief the clever masks that the self puts on to avoid facing up to things. It is simply game playing, which dominates the entire Internet, along with the incessant demand for distraction and entertainment.
If you take full responsibility for what you write, and you are serious about it, and what you write is worthy enough for others to read, you would have no qualms whatsoever in putting your full name to it, would you not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One must look at oneself as though for the first time, and look at it for the first time each time, and therefore never accumulate. ..."
(Inward Revolution: Madras Talk, 13 January 1971; KFT Newsletter, Spring 2006)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A note on the practice of anonymity on the web:
Dialogue groups on the net have a serious flaw in that they allow anonymity of their contributors. Those who abnegate their responsibility for what they contribute by using a handle or avatar or username and not their full name (in addition to withholding their private email addresses) allow themselves a convenient get out to withdraw at any time from dialogues, or to throw around claims and counterclaims with impunity. (This also includes Administrators/Moderators of these groups, some of whom also hide behind the 'security' of anonymity.)
This anonymous comforting wall results invariably in dialogues of superficiality, aggression and oneupmanship, hence conflict (thus the inevitable demise of the old Kinfonet study group - the newly renovated discussion forum on the site is, for the time being, self-moderated; it, now, only requests full names and doesn't prevent the use of usernames). In actual fact, the ubiquity of this evasive practice of anonymity throws into stark relief the clever masks that the self puts on to avoid facing up to things. It is simply game playing, which dominates the entire Internet, along with the incessant demand for distraction and entertainment.
If you take full responsibility for what you write, and you are serious about it, and what you write is worthy enough for others to read, you would have no qualms whatsoever in putting your full name to it, would you not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| There is only ever one insight (excerpts)
DM: ... 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 Dimmock: 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? ... (Archives3)
----------------------------------------------------------
"There is only one fact: impermanence."
(Book of Life Daily Meditations: August 10, 2008)
"There is only one fact: impermanence."
(Book of Life Daily Meditations: August 10, 2008)
Reflections, questions, criticisms, suggestions, essays, etc - all are welcome.
(Please provide your full name - see the note on anonymity at the bottom of the page)
What is the nature of open dialogue? Surely, the first requirement is to actually listen to what the other is saying. Listen to both what is being said (or written), as well as listening to your reaction to it. A strong reaction indicates that you have identified with some conclusion that is being challenged by what is said or written, does it not? Can there be a meeting of two or more minds in a dialogue without at least an awareness of one's conclusions, identification with ideas, and emotional reactions?
*******
You only attack the speaker when you disagree with, are annoyed by, or simply don't like what he/she has to say. Disagreement and annoyance arise because you are comparing what he/she says with conclusions you have already drawn, does it not? If you agree with the speaker, he/she becomes a favorite, thus no attack. So, dialogue comes down to mere agreement or disagreement, hence no learning.
*******
So much dialogue is mere grandstanding, which is self-aggrandizement. One has a particular viewpoint to get across and there is a tendency to repeat and ram this conclusion down another's throat. Then, if the intended recipient doesn't react satisfactorily, hackles arise and the stage is set for a badgering, sniping, circular discussion. What all this amounts to is nothing more than a clash of egos. There is only value in such a dialogue when one becomes aware of one's reactions; that is, the dialogue becomes a mirror in which one observes the movement of the self.
Daniel Marks
Melbourne, Australia
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
"To know, to be aware of the limitation of thinking is the beginning of intelligence."
(First Question & Answer Meeting at Brockwood Park: September, 1980)
(First Question & Answer Meeting at Brockwood Park: September, 1980)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons; taken by Simon Koopmann, under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5
"There is no understanding without self-knowing; learning about the self is not accumulating knowledge about it; gathering of knowledge prevents learning; learning is not an additive process; learning is from moment to moment , as is understanding."
(The Notebook: London: Victor Gollancz, 1985, page 135)
(The Notebook: London: Victor Gollancz, 1985, page 135)
(40-Page site - Page last updated July 18, 2009
Total Page Loads: > 46,000)
Total Page Loads: > 46,000)
 |
|
 |
February 17, 2008
A Summation of the central Themes of the Talks:
NOW OR NEVER ;
INTELLIGENCE ;
YOURSELF ;
TO LIVE WITH DEATH
- Compiled by Pradeep Apte
~~~~~~~~~
February, 2009
Two free e-books written by Dr Gordon Coates:
"Wanterfall: A practical approach to the
understanding and healing of the emotions of everyday life"
"Notes on Communication: A few thoughts about the way we interact with the people we meet"
Discussing verbal and non-verbal communication
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 5, 2008
| Listening without words - David Kolody
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 11, 2008
| The nature of silence and "serious intent" - Lyn McCormack
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began March 16, 2008
| What is communication? - Gerard Hughes
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began December 24, 2007
For this full dialogue up to May 4, 2008 See Archives & Archives 3 & Archives 4
| There is only ever one insight - Paul Dimmock
~~~~~~~~~
December, 2008
| What is the "Flowering of Goodness"? - Edgardo Francisco Mendoza
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 6, 2009
| 'No-one has the physical capacity to do it' - Mark A. Wood
~~~~~~~~~
| What is a Fact? - Joseph R. Cleary
March 14, 2009
~~~~~~~~~
| A Plea for a Healer for a Dying Son
February 5, 2009 - George Kinkela
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Summation of the central Themes of the Talks:
NOW OR NEVER ;
INTELLIGENCE ;
YOURSELF ;
TO LIVE WITH DEATH
- Compiled by Pradeep Apte
~~~~~~~~~
February, 2009
Two free e-books written by Dr Gordon Coates:
"Wanterfall: A practical approach to the
understanding and healing of the emotions of everyday life"
"Notes on Communication: A few thoughts about the way we interact with the people we meet"
Discussing verbal and non-verbal communication
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 5, 2008
| Listening without words - David Kolody
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 11, 2008
| The nature of silence and "serious intent" - Lyn McCormack
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began March 16, 2008
| What is communication? - Gerard Hughes
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began December 24, 2007
For this full dialogue up to May 4, 2008 See Archives & Archives 3 & Archives 4
| There is only ever one insight - Paul Dimmock
~~~~~~~~~
December, 2008
| What is the "Flowering of Goodness"? - Edgardo Francisco Mendoza
~~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 6, 2009
| 'No-one has the physical capacity to do it' - Mark A. Wood
~~~~~~~~~
| What is a Fact? - Joseph R. Cleary
March 14, 2009
~~~~~~~~~
| A Plea for a Healer for a Dying Son
February 5, 2009 - George Kinkela
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
