getting back to the centre (((Re true by definition

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

>

> > > Apparently what you *meant* to say was, " No empirical statement

> > > is ever true by definition. " Is that right?

> >

> >

> > Yes, it´s right.

> >

> >

> > > If that *is* what you meant, which why you didn't make that

> > > clear when I had already made a distinction between

> > > grammatical statements and empirical statements, is beyond

> > > me.

> > >

> > > And, if " " No empirical statement is ever true by definition, "

> > > *is* what you intended to say, then *that* statement is true

> > > by definition.

> > >

> > >

> > > Bill

> >

> >

> >

> > And now? what?

> > What´s the point of it all?

> > Being right or wrong?

> > Or do we have some really interesting issues to talk about?

> > Where did we start anyway?

> >

> > Len

> >

>

> So glad you said that!

> I was thinking the same thing.

>

> We were talking about the notion of " centre " .

> You were saying that there cannot be " conditioning "

> without a " centre " . I was disagreeing with that.

>

> We don't have to get hung up on that point.

> The important point is the matter of the

> " imaginary centre " being at the root of confusion.

> Is that making sense so far?

>

> We have been talking about " conditioning " as

> central to the discussion, and yet have we really

> defined it? Perhaps it is important to do so.

>

> I tend to see conditioning on a very " micro level " .

> Reflecting just now, really any movement in consciousness

> I regard as due to conditioning. Any observed transition

> is due to conditioning, in my view. What else could it

> be due to? For any " observed transition " to occur, there

> must be some mechanism to make it occur. That is my

> assumption, anyhow.

>

> That would seem to imply that conditioning is all that

> there is. But it is not, really. It is only what is

> *observable*. What is observable pertains to phenomena.

> But it isn't necessary to assume that phenomena is

> all there is.

>

> Somehow there is a connection between conditioning

> and attention. I'm saying this on the fly, as have never

> thought of it this way before. But it seems to me that

> the key is in paying *absolute attention* to what

> " is observable " . When attention is completely open

> -- without a centre -- then the " centre " is no longer

> *fed*. That is just a momentary speculation...

>

> I just stumbled across the following from David Bohm's

> forward to *The Future of Humanity* (which consists

> of dialogs between Bohm and Krishnamurti on that topic):

>

> ...as Krishnamurti points out, psychological time, or

> " becoming, " is the very source of the destructive

> current that is putting the future of humanity at

> risk. To question time in this way, however, is to

> question the adequacy of knowledge and thought, as a

> means of dealing with this problem. But if knowledge

> and thought are not adequate, what is it that is

> actually required? This led in turn to the question

> of whether mind is limited by the brain of mankind,

> with all the knowledge that it has accumulated over

> the ages. This knowledge, which now conditions us

> deeply, has produced what is, in effect, an

> irrational and self-destructive programme in which

> the brain seems to be helplessly caught up.

>

> If mind is limited by such a state of the brain, then

> the future of humanity must be very grim indeed.

> Krishnamurti does not, however, regard these

> limitations as inevitable. Rather, he emphasizes that

> mind is essentially free of the distorting bias that

> is inherent in the conditioning of the brain, and

> that, through insight arising in proper undirected

> attention without a centre, it can change the cells

> of the brain and remove the destructive conditioning.

> If this is so, then it is crucially important that

> there be this kind of attention, and that we give to

> this question the same intensity of energy that we

> generally give to other activities of life that are

> really of vital interest to us.

>

> That puts the crux in a nutshell rather nicely, in my

> view.

>

> I have just a bit to add to that:

>

> It has occurred to me recently that the challenge with

> paying *complete attention* is that material will come

> up that is " uncomfortable " . There is a tendency to move

> away from discomfort, it seems, and that tendency must

> be overcome. The *magic* is that when discomfort is

> attended to deeply and completely... it *changes*. This

> is not to say that it goes " poof! " ... but the stalemate

> is broken when What Is is truly faced with " unconditional

> attention " .

>

>

> Bill

 

 

I would even say that it does go " poof! " ;-)

The word " magic " is definitely appropriate here.

There is intelligence beyond all conditioning which has a natural

understanding of things, which doesn´t need to think and analyse to

know without a slightest doubt what the right action is.

On top of it the attention is itself this intelligent action, no

effort required for things to go exactly in the most natural and

perfect way.

 

Len