Photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons, taken by Christian Mehlfuhrer; under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 Generic License
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Site best viewed through Internet Explorer;
there are some page display issues with Chrome & Firefox
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright © 2007-2010 Daniel Marks | beyondthemind.net. All Rights Reserved.
This website went online on November 22, 2007 and is being continually developed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 |
 |
 |
Have we only ever had a partial insight into it?
Do we have - have we had - a partial insight? If one looks into oneself, one sees that indeed there are times when we see something with clarity, when suddenly something we have perhaps pondered over for some time becomes clear. There is a sudden flash of understanding, sometimes accompanied by a feeling of quietude, of liberation. The mind is clear and thought is stilled.
These experiences are transitory. One cannot hold them in the mind. They appear and then they're gone. Our life goes back to what it was. The minute we try to hold onto them we are locked into the past.
But have we ever had a total insight? This would be into the whole structure of the mind, of thought, of conditioning, would it not? A total insight would radically change us, surely. If it were a complete insight into the workings of the "me," would it not end the me?
What is an actual insight? Or more specifically, is there a precondition for an insight to arise? Here is a passage that states unequivocally that sensitivity - which comes through listening and observation - is the precondition for insight:
"First of all, one must observe, see with great care the mind and its functioning,
listen to what is within and without; out of this arises sensitivity and in sensitivity
there arises insight. That insight alone will wipe away sorrow."
(Jayakar Biography: Chapter 41, 'Learn to Die to Yourself Completely' - page 435)
The following passage also specifically addresses partial insight, as against what is called total insight:
K: "Yes. Is it possible for me, with my narrow mind, with my etc., to have this insight so that that pattern of life is broken? As we said, sir, the other day, we have tried all this – every form of self-denial. And yet that insight doesn't come about. I may have once in a while a partial insight, but the partial insight is not the whole insight, therefore there is still partial darkness.
DB: Yes, well, if it doesn't dispel the centre of the self, we said it is not adequate. It may dispel some darkness in a certain area but the source of the darkness, the creator, the sustainer of it is still there."
(The Ending of Time: With David Bohm, Dialogue 7, 1980)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What follows is another dialogue in which the nature of partial and total insight is explored:
(Krishnamurti: A Biography, by Pupul Jayakar, Chapter 43, 'How Far Can One Travel?' - pp. 453-59; ellipses added)
K: "We have posed the question whether the brain can realize the truth, that there is eternity or no eternity. How do we begin to enquire? How do you feel into this question diligently, a question that has been asked by man for thousands of years? Is man bound to time forever? Or is there - or can there be - actually within the brain a realization, for itself, that there is a state of eternity?
PJ: How do you proceed into this? You started by drawing a distinction between the brain and the mind. Would you elaborate?
K: The brain is conditioned. That conditioning is brought about by knowledge, memory, experience. The brain is limited. So to discover something new there has to be a period, even temporarily, when thought is not in movement, when it is in abeyance. ...
PJ: For us, the operation of the brain has been the operation of thought.
K: Yes, the movement of the brain, the part of the brain being used, is conditioned by thought. Thought is always limited, conditioned to conflict. ... Mind is a totally different dimension that has no contact with thought. Let me explain. The brain which has been functioning as an instrument of thought, that brain has been conditioned; and so long as that part of the brain remains in that state, there is no entire communication with the mind. So when there is no functioning of thought, there is communication, which is a totally different dimension; that can communicate with the brain using thought.
PJ: You are postulating a state outside the realm of thought?
K: That's it. That is outside the realm of time.
PJ: ... You will still use thought. Its content will undergo change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.
K: Now, thought is the chief instrument we have. After thousands of years of friction, that instrument has been made dull. It cannot go beyond its own tether. ...
PJ: ... It is only in the present that I can contact the whole of this edifice. ...
K: The present is the past and the future. The present is moving. The present is a thousand years of the past being modified, and the future is 'now,' the present.
PJ: The present is also not static... So what is it that you actually observe?
K: The fact that the present is the whole movement of time and thought. Can one see the truth of that? Can one have insight, perception into the fact, that the now is all time and thought?
PJ: Does that perception emanate from the brain? ... Does it arise within the brain?
K: Yes, or does it arise outside the brain? Is it within the sphere of the brain, or is there insight that comes when there is freedom from conditioning? This insight, this mind, is supreme intelligence.
PJ: I don't follow.
K: ... You may have an occasional insight, but this insight we speak about is the comprehension of totality, a perception of completeness... That insight is part of that brain which is a different dimension. ... Insight cannot arise so long as there is time, thought.
PJ: Which comes first? I cannot start with insight. I can only start with observation.
K: You can only start by seeing that psychological time is always limited, and so whatever it does will be limited. Time and thought have brought havoc in the world. You can see that. The question is, can that limitation ever end? Or is man to live forever in that condition? ... Look, Pupul, let us be simple. Time and thought have divided the world. Can't you see the fact of that?
PJ: No, Sir. I don't see the fact. The moment I see the fact, I would stop time and thought. If it such a simple thing - but it is not....
K: Can you have an insight that the movement of thought and time... is the realm of endless conflict?
PJ: You can see it outside in the world.
K: If you see it outwardly, then inwardly can you see that the psyche is time and thought? The divisive psychological movement has created the outer divisive fact. ...
PJ: ... One can see it as a movement of time, thought, but within it all, there is a sense of 'I exist.' That is essentially the problem. Why don't I see it?
K: Because I have thought of the psyche as other than the conditioned state. I have thought there is something in me, in the brain, which is timeless, and if I could reach that then everything would be solved. ...
PJ: What is the nature of the ground from which insight springs?
K: Insight can only take place when there is freedom from time and thought.
PJ: This is an unending process.
K: No, it is not ...
PJ: Is it the brain that listens to what you say?
K: Yes. Then watch what happens.
PJ: It is quiet. ...
K: When it is quiet and listens, then there is insight ...
PJ: Is there anything further?
K: Oh yes, there is. A great deal more. Is listening a sound, ... or am I listening to what you are saying without the verbal sound? ...The present is the 'now.' In that is the whole movement of time thought, the whole structure of time - thought ends. The 'now' then has a totally different meaning. "Now,' then, is 'nothing.' Nothing in the sense that zero contains all the numbers. So 'nothing' contains all. But we are afraid to be nothing.
PJ: When you say nothing contains all, does it mean the whole racial environmental - nature - cosmos?
K: Yes, yes. Do you see the fact that there is nothing? The self is a bundle of memories; memories that are dead. They function, but they arise from a past that is over. If I have insight into that, it ends. I see that in the 'now' there is 'nothing.'
...Becoming is the accumulation of memory. This we call knowledge. So long as that movement exists, there is fear of being nothing. But when one sees the illusion of becoming... there is an ending of that. ...
'Nothing' then contains the whole universe. Not my petty little fears, anxieties, sorrows. After all... nothing means the entire world of compassion. Compassion is 'nothing,' and therefore that 'nothingness' is supreme intelligence. ...
Astrophysicists are trying to understand the universe. They can only understand in terms of the material world.... But they cannot understand the immensity of it; immensity as a part of the human being; not only there but here" - he placed his hands on his chest - "which means there must be no shadow of time and thought. That is real meditation. ...
*****
PJ: ... The most difficult thing in the world is to be totally simple.
K: Yes. If one were really simple, from that one could understand the whole complexity of life. But we start with complexity and never see the simplicity. We have trained our brain to see the complexity, and try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don't see the extraordinary simplicity of facts.
... Why have human beings not faced the fact and changed the fact? Is it because we are living with ideas, ideals - unrealities? ... Mankind is me, and the 'me' is endless sorrow and so if you want to end sorrow there has to be an ending of the 'me.'
... A doctor in New York said the fundamental issue is whether the brain cells, which have been conditioned for centuries, could bring about a mutation. I said it is possible only through listening. But no one is willing to listen in its entirety. ...
You listen to the sound of the waves, of strong wind ... you get used to it all.
But if you don't, then sound has an extraordinary meaning. Then you hear everything afresh. You tell me time and thought are the whole movement of man's life. You have communicated a simple fact. Can I listen to it without the sound of the words?
Then I have captured the depths of that statement, and I can't lose it. I have listened to it in its entirety. ..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another conversation with David Bohm, where the nature of insight, and its possible rejection by the mind, is discussed:
DB: "Let's consider a certain point, that there is an insight about the nature of thought, that the observer is the observed and so on.
K: That's clear.
DB: Now in some sense thought must accept that insight, carry it, respond to it.
K: Or the insight is so vital, so energetic, so full of vitality, that it forces thought to operate.
DB: All right, then there is the necessity to operate.
K: Yes, the necessity.
DB: But you see, generally speaking it doesn't have that vitality. So in some indirect way thought has rejected the insight, at least it appears to be so.
K: Most people have an insight, but habit is so strong they reject it.
DB: I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, to see if we can break through that rejection.
K: Break through the rejection, break through the habit, the conditioning, which prevents the insight. Though one may have an insight, the conditioning is so strong, you reject the insight. This is what happens.
DB: I looked up the word "habit" and it says, "A settled disposition of the mind", which seems very good. The mind is disposed in a certain fixed way which resists change. Now we get caught in the same question: how are we going to break that "very settled disposition"?
K: I don't think you can break it, I don't think thought can break it.
DB: We are asking for that intense insight which necessarily dissolves it.
K: So, to summarize: one has an insight into truth and reality. One's mind is disposed in a certain way, it has formed habits in the world of reality - it lives there.
DB: It's very rigid.
K: Now suppose you come along and point out the rigidity of it. I catch a glimpse of what you're saying - which is nonthinking - and I see it.
DB: In a glimpse only.
K: In a glimpse. But this conditioning is so strong I reject it.
DB: I don't do it purposely; it just happens.
K: It has happened because you helped to create that happening. Is that glimpse, first of all, strong enough to dissolve this? If it is not so strong, then it goes on. Can this conditioning dissolve? You see, I must have an insight into the conditioning, otherwise I can't dissolve it." (Truth & Actuality: pp. 31-33; see also Awareness & Insight}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commentary:
#1: In the first dialogue with Jayakar there lies the central themes of the talks. At the core is the following exchange:
K: "Insight cannot arise so long as there is time, thought.
PJ: Which comes first? I cannot start with insight. I can only start with observation.
K: You can only start by seeing that psychological time is always limited, and so whatever it does will be limited."
This statement of the limitation of thought/time is fundamental, appearing throughout the entire talks. It is clear that if one does not 'see' this fact directly then there is an inability to grasp the essence of the talks themselves. This 'seeing' is not an intellectualization, it is not through words. It is a direct perception, an instant realization that arises from a quiet mind, unencumbered by the thought process.
This seeing also appears to be analogous to insight, which throws into stark relief Jayakar's question - Which comes first: observation or insight?
There follows this exchange:
K: "The present is the past and the future. The present is moving. The present is a thousand years of the past being modified, and the future is 'now,' the present.
PJ: The present is also not static.... So what is it that you actually observe?
K: The fact that the present is the whole movement of time and thought. Can one see the truth of that? Can one have insight, perception into the fact, that the now is all time and thought?"
Observe the fact of it. That comes first.
~~~~~~~~~
#2: Also contained in this passage is the tremendous significance of listening. This is passive listening of the highest order, a passivity that is hard to fathom with a mind concerned with constant action and reaction. For what is being posited is the extraordinary statement that it is the state of complete listening that is all important - not what one is listening to. The very listening itself to the fact of life - whatever that may be - is sufficient.
All reactions of the mind to what one is listening to block true listening.
~~~~~~~~~
#3: The zero contains all the numbers states clearly that nothingness, or emptiness, contains all. So the actual fear we have of being nothing is completely unwarranted and illusory. The fear is based on the word itself - nothing. The connotations and associations of the word mean we have an inbuilt resistance to it. In this goal-oriented society, to be "nothing" is the very antithesis of everything society and your peers say you should strive for.
There is an extraordinary irony here. The very thing that the self is determined to escape from is everything we have been searching for over the millennia. It is everything that the self is not. It is near, not far. It is within - which implies it is also without. The treasure is within, thus you are a light to yourself.
Can a single insight into the limitation of time/thought bring it about? Yes. And it is sensitivity that brings about this insight.
#4: Partial ... or total insight? In the last dialogue with Bohm, this same issue comes up: is the insight intense enough to break through the conditioning? If it is not, it is a partial insight. If it is a partial insight, the conditioning continues as before, which is what occurs with all of us. Do you see it? - it all comes down to a total or complete insight, which breaks through the conditioning, and that in turn is dependent upon the sensitivity of the whole being. This insight in turn arises through observing the barriers to it - such as fear. When you observe fear and how it distorts observation, then an insight may -or will - occur.
These experiences are transitory. One cannot hold them in the mind. They appear and then they're gone. Our life goes back to what it was. The minute we try to hold onto them we are locked into the past.
But have we ever had a total insight? This would be into the whole structure of the mind, of thought, of conditioning, would it not? A total insight would radically change us, surely. If it were a complete insight into the workings of the "me," would it not end the me?
What is an actual insight? Or more specifically, is there a precondition for an insight to arise? Here is a passage that states unequivocally that sensitivity - which comes through listening and observation - is the precondition for insight:
"First of all, one must observe, see with great care the mind and its functioning,
listen to what is within and without; out of this arises sensitivity and in sensitivity
there arises insight. That insight alone will wipe away sorrow."
(Jayakar Biography: Chapter 41, 'Learn to Die to Yourself Completely' - page 435)
The following passage also specifically addresses partial insight, as against what is called total insight:
K: "Yes. Is it possible for me, with my narrow mind, with my etc., to have this insight so that that pattern of life is broken? As we said, sir, the other day, we have tried all this – every form of self-denial. And yet that insight doesn't come about. I may have once in a while a partial insight, but the partial insight is not the whole insight, therefore there is still partial darkness.
DB: Yes, well, if it doesn't dispel the centre of the self, we said it is not adequate. It may dispel some darkness in a certain area but the source of the darkness, the creator, the sustainer of it is still there."
(The Ending of Time: With David Bohm, Dialogue 7, 1980)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What follows is another dialogue in which the nature of partial and total insight is explored:
(Krishnamurti: A Biography, by Pupul Jayakar, Chapter 43, 'How Far Can One Travel?' - pp. 453-59; ellipses added)
K: "We have posed the question whether the brain can realize the truth, that there is eternity or no eternity. How do we begin to enquire? How do you feel into this question diligently, a question that has been asked by man for thousands of years? Is man bound to time forever? Or is there - or can there be - actually within the brain a realization, for itself, that there is a state of eternity?
PJ: How do you proceed into this? You started by drawing a distinction between the brain and the mind. Would you elaborate?
K: The brain is conditioned. That conditioning is brought about by knowledge, memory, experience. The brain is limited. So to discover something new there has to be a period, even temporarily, when thought is not in movement, when it is in abeyance. ...
PJ: For us, the operation of the brain has been the operation of thought.
K: Yes, the movement of the brain, the part of the brain being used, is conditioned by thought. Thought is always limited, conditioned to conflict. ... Mind is a totally different dimension that has no contact with thought. Let me explain. The brain which has been functioning as an instrument of thought, that brain has been conditioned; and so long as that part of the brain remains in that state, there is no entire communication with the mind. So when there is no functioning of thought, there is communication, which is a totally different dimension; that can communicate with the brain using thought.
PJ: You are postulating a state outside the realm of thought?
K: That's it. That is outside the realm of time.
PJ: ... You will still use thought. Its content will undergo change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.
K: Now, thought is the chief instrument we have. After thousands of years of friction, that instrument has been made dull. It cannot go beyond its own tether. ...
PJ: ... It is only in the present that I can contact the whole of this edifice. ...
K: The present is the past and the future. The present is moving. The present is a thousand years of the past being modified, and the future is 'now,' the present.
PJ: The present is also not static... So what is it that you actually observe?
K: The fact that the present is the whole movement of time and thought. Can one see the truth of that? Can one have insight, perception into the fact, that the now is all time and thought?
PJ: Does that perception emanate from the brain? ... Does it arise within the brain?
K: Yes, or does it arise outside the brain? Is it within the sphere of the brain, or is there insight that comes when there is freedom from conditioning? This insight, this mind, is supreme intelligence.
PJ: I don't follow.
K: ... You may have an occasional insight, but this insight we speak about is the comprehension of totality, a perception of completeness... That insight is part of that brain which is a different dimension. ... Insight cannot arise so long as there is time, thought.
PJ: Which comes first? I cannot start with insight. I can only start with observation.
K: You can only start by seeing that psychological time is always limited, and so whatever it does will be limited. Time and thought have brought havoc in the world. You can see that. The question is, can that limitation ever end? Or is man to live forever in that condition? ... Look, Pupul, let us be simple. Time and thought have divided the world. Can't you see the fact of that?
PJ: No, Sir. I don't see the fact. The moment I see the fact, I would stop time and thought. If it such a simple thing - but it is not....
K: Can you have an insight that the movement of thought and time... is the realm of endless conflict?
PJ: You can see it outside in the world.
K: If you see it outwardly, then inwardly can you see that the psyche is time and thought? The divisive psychological movement has created the outer divisive fact. ...
PJ: ... One can see it as a movement of time, thought, but within it all, there is a sense of 'I exist.' That is essentially the problem. Why don't I see it?
K: Because I have thought of the psyche as other than the conditioned state. I have thought there is something in me, in the brain, which is timeless, and if I could reach that then everything would be solved. ...
PJ: What is the nature of the ground from which insight springs?
K: Insight can only take place when there is freedom from time and thought.
PJ: This is an unending process.
K: No, it is not ...
PJ: Is it the brain that listens to what you say?
K: Yes. Then watch what happens.
PJ: It is quiet. ...
K: When it is quiet and listens, then there is insight ...
PJ: Is there anything further?
K: Oh yes, there is. A great deal more. Is listening a sound, ... or am I listening to what you are saying without the verbal sound? ...The present is the 'now.' In that is the whole movement of time thought, the whole structure of time - thought ends. The 'now' then has a totally different meaning. "Now,' then, is 'nothing.' Nothing in the sense that zero contains all the numbers. So 'nothing' contains all. But we are afraid to be nothing.
PJ: When you say nothing contains all, does it mean the whole racial environmental - nature - cosmos?
K: Yes, yes. Do you see the fact that there is nothing? The self is a bundle of memories; memories that are dead. They function, but they arise from a past that is over. If I have insight into that, it ends. I see that in the 'now' there is 'nothing.'
...Becoming is the accumulation of memory. This we call knowledge. So long as that movement exists, there is fear of being nothing. But when one sees the illusion of becoming... there is an ending of that. ...
'Nothing' then contains the whole universe. Not my petty little fears, anxieties, sorrows. After all... nothing means the entire world of compassion. Compassion is 'nothing,' and therefore that 'nothingness' is supreme intelligence. ...
Astrophysicists are trying to understand the universe. They can only understand in terms of the material world.... But they cannot understand the immensity of it; immensity as a part of the human being; not only there but here" - he placed his hands on his chest - "which means there must be no shadow of time and thought. That is real meditation. ...
*****
PJ: ... The most difficult thing in the world is to be totally simple.
K: Yes. If one were really simple, from that one could understand the whole complexity of life. But we start with complexity and never see the simplicity. We have trained our brain to see the complexity, and try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don't see the extraordinary simplicity of facts.
... Why have human beings not faced the fact and changed the fact? Is it because we are living with ideas, ideals - unrealities? ... Mankind is me, and the 'me' is endless sorrow and so if you want to end sorrow there has to be an ending of the 'me.'
... A doctor in New York said the fundamental issue is whether the brain cells, which have been conditioned for centuries, could bring about a mutation. I said it is possible only through listening. But no one is willing to listen in its entirety. ...
You listen to the sound of the waves, of strong wind ... you get used to it all.
But if you don't, then sound has an extraordinary meaning. Then you hear everything afresh. You tell me time and thought are the whole movement of man's life. You have communicated a simple fact. Can I listen to it without the sound of the words?
Then I have captured the depths of that statement, and I can't lose it. I have listened to it in its entirety. ..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another conversation with David Bohm, where the nature of insight, and its possible rejection by the mind, is discussed:
DB: "Let's consider a certain point, that there is an insight about the nature of thought, that the observer is the observed and so on.
K: That's clear.
DB: Now in some sense thought must accept that insight, carry it, respond to it.
K: Or the insight is so vital, so energetic, so full of vitality, that it forces thought to operate.
DB: All right, then there is the necessity to operate.
K: Yes, the necessity.
DB: But you see, generally speaking it doesn't have that vitality. So in some indirect way thought has rejected the insight, at least it appears to be so.
K: Most people have an insight, but habit is so strong they reject it.
DB: I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, to see if we can break through that rejection.
K: Break through the rejection, break through the habit, the conditioning, which prevents the insight. Though one may have an insight, the conditioning is so strong, you reject the insight. This is what happens.
DB: I looked up the word "habit" and it says, "A settled disposition of the mind", which seems very good. The mind is disposed in a certain fixed way which resists change. Now we get caught in the same question: how are we going to break that "very settled disposition"?
K: I don't think you can break it, I don't think thought can break it.
DB: We are asking for that intense insight which necessarily dissolves it.
K: So, to summarize: one has an insight into truth and reality. One's mind is disposed in a certain way, it has formed habits in the world of reality - it lives there.
DB: It's very rigid.
K: Now suppose you come along and point out the rigidity of it. I catch a glimpse of what you're saying - which is nonthinking - and I see it.
DB: In a glimpse only.
K: In a glimpse. But this conditioning is so strong I reject it.
DB: I don't do it purposely; it just happens.
K: It has happened because you helped to create that happening. Is that glimpse, first of all, strong enough to dissolve this? If it is not so strong, then it goes on. Can this conditioning dissolve? You see, I must have an insight into the conditioning, otherwise I can't dissolve it." (Truth & Actuality: pp. 31-33; see also Awareness & Insight}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commentary:
#1: In the first dialogue with Jayakar there lies the central themes of the talks. At the core is the following exchange:
K: "Insight cannot arise so long as there is time, thought.
PJ: Which comes first? I cannot start with insight. I can only start with observation.
K: You can only start by seeing that psychological time is always limited, and so whatever it does will be limited."
This statement of the limitation of thought/time is fundamental, appearing throughout the entire talks. It is clear that if one does not 'see' this fact directly then there is an inability to grasp the essence of the talks themselves. This 'seeing' is not an intellectualization, it is not through words. It is a direct perception, an instant realization that arises from a quiet mind, unencumbered by the thought process.
This seeing also appears to be analogous to insight, which throws into stark relief Jayakar's question - Which comes first: observation or insight?
There follows this exchange:
K: "The present is the past and the future. The present is moving. The present is a thousand years of the past being modified, and the future is 'now,' the present.
PJ: The present is also not static.... So what is it that you actually observe?
K: The fact that the present is the whole movement of time and thought. Can one see the truth of that? Can one have insight, perception into the fact, that the now is all time and thought?"
Observe the fact of it. That comes first.
~~~~~~~~~
#2: Also contained in this passage is the tremendous significance of listening. This is passive listening of the highest order, a passivity that is hard to fathom with a mind concerned with constant action and reaction. For what is being posited is the extraordinary statement that it is the state of complete listening that is all important - not what one is listening to. The very listening itself to the fact of life - whatever that may be - is sufficient.
All reactions of the mind to what one is listening to block true listening.
~~~~~~~~~
#3: The zero contains all the numbers states clearly that nothingness, or emptiness, contains all. So the actual fear we have of being nothing is completely unwarranted and illusory. The fear is based on the word itself - nothing. The connotations and associations of the word mean we have an inbuilt resistance to it. In this goal-oriented society, to be "nothing" is the very antithesis of everything society and your peers say you should strive for.
There is an extraordinary irony here. The very thing that the self is determined to escape from is everything we have been searching for over the millennia. It is everything that the self is not. It is near, not far. It is within - which implies it is also without. The treasure is within, thus you are a light to yourself.
Can a single insight into the limitation of time/thought bring it about? Yes. And it is sensitivity that brings about this insight.
#4: Partial ... or total insight? In the last dialogue with Bohm, this same issue comes up: is the insight intense enough to break through the conditioning? If it is not, it is a partial insight. If it is a partial insight, the conditioning continues as before, which is what occurs with all of us. Do you see it? - it all comes down to a total or complete insight, which breaks through the conditioning, and that in turn is dependent upon the sensitivity of the whole being. This insight in turn arises through observing the barriers to it - such as fear. When you observe fear and how it distorts observation, then an insight may -or will - occur.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Have we ever had a complete insight into the nature of the mind, of the process of thought
- or have we really only ever had a partial one? And is this because we are really not interested in understanding ourselves, and that we do not have the intensity to find out?
- or have we really only ever had a partial one? And is this because we are really not interested in understanding ourselves, and that we do not have the intensity to find out?
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(Site exploring the content of consciousness;
Page last updated January 2, 2010)
Page last updated January 2, 2010)
Life after Death: A Most Extraordinary Discussion -
on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
"The thinker and his thoughts are the outcome of desire; and without understanding desire, which is the self placed at any level, high or low, the mind is ever caught in ignorance."
(Commentaries on Living: First Series, 'Stillness and Will' - page 212)
(Commentaries on Living: First Series, 'Stillness and Will' - page 212)
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
"What takes place when thought is aware of itself?"
(The Transformation of Man: Dialogue 111, Bohm & Shainberg, May, 1976, p. 61)
(The Transformation of Man: Dialogue 111, Bohm & Shainberg, May, 1976, p. 61)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
* * * * *