no pattern P.S. P.S2 - further consideratons.

[Guest guest]

....further consideratons... the list is silent anyway...

==================

 

Geo -

 

Good point.

 

Teachers generally point out to a group of people how they need to look at

their me's.

 

This is the job of a teacher, I suppose.

 

However, it is misleading.

 

Because one can't see another in one's view who has a me, without having a

me to oneself.

 

" It takes one to know one. "

 

It takes a me to relate to a me, it takes a me to " call out " a me.

 

geo> But this is totaly theoretical. Once the mechanism of image making is

understood, where is the impediment to see the same mechanism in others?

There is no entity. It is just a conditioning. What you see in others is a

result of their identification with the body, their fear, their anguish,

their searching, their need of becoming. Time is clearly understood only

from a timeless perspective...agree?

 

The only 'me' that really requires being addressed is the one here, now.

 

Not 'out there' belonging to someone else.

 

geo>I feel that from the correct perspective there is the seeing of both.

There is no me to be seen anywhere of course. What is seen is the

consequences of my eventual identification with my body, and their

identification with theirs. Now I hear one saying " hei, there is no here and

there, me and they " . True, what is seen are the results of such illusion. In

a direct confrontation with another human being, through a process of

feed-back, one is more..... or less aware of these conditionings.

Why not?

 

So, however great the teacher was at pointing out other people's me's, I now

let go of that urge to tell someone else about his or her me.

 

geo> I dont know who you are referring to here. Nis.as far as I have read

him, never did that. Krishnamurti says clearly that there is no " I " .

Gurdjieff would say be aware of " I am " ... but that is not the ME we are

talking about here.

 

This is necessary at the point where only this 'me' here is involved in

being understood, directly.

 

Here is where it gets interesting.

 

One looks into this 'me' and understands it for what it is, an activity, an

attempt to hold on, and therefore understands what it is not. It is not an

actually existing thing, being, or center.

 

Through this very clarity, the 'me' no longer is able to function here as a

center. This has nothing to do with proving anything to anyone " else. " It

has nothing to do with proving I'm unselfish, not greedy, will give away all

my possessions, etc. There is nothing to prove. It is not about how the

world (other people) judge whether or not there is a self to a person. It is

a matter of vision, of awareness.

 

And there is no 'me' anywhere in the universe.

 

Not here, now, so not there, then. Now/then is undivided, in here/out there

undivided.

 

Although one notices activities happening, as if there were an attempt to

hold, as if there could be a 'me' somewhere. These activities are the

unfolding of the human being as the human being manifests as lives through

time.

 

One understands that all activities of holding unwind, it's just a matter of

time.

 

And one's time is timeless, one's life is being lived through and there is

no 'me' center found anywhere.

 

Not inside or outside.

 

And therefore, the awareness inside and the awareness outside has no

division.

 

-- Dan