I have been thinking about a walkthrough, as you have suggested, and I am still thinking of the best way to deliver. That sort of thing might go better as a podcast. Even if I wanted to make it a normal post, I would still probably record it first, then transcribe it for the blog.

I’ll think on it. What would you say?

Takuin

After that, you’ve sort of lost me. What happens then? How do I see how that relates to all the things you mention?

Thanks again for your time Takuin – I always appreciate it a lot.

The self always takes things personally, because that is the only way it can operate. It is always relating those things to whatever it views as important.

For its own security, the self gives everything permanence. Life, experience, nearly everything (and quite possibly, EVERYTHING). But there is great security in that permanence. If the self is convinced that things are the way they are and that is it, then that gives a feeling of certainty. It KNOWS that it can expect things in a certain way, and therefore, feels secure.

And what happens when something contrary to the solidified fantasy occurs? Conflict. And why is that? Because the self cannot let go of what it has built up to be real. It can only see things the way they should be. And when something runs contrary to what is believed, it cannot really consider that it (the self) might be wrong. It is too dangerous to consider.

After all, if the self is wrong about what it believes, what else could it be wrong about? And could the entire notion of the operation of the self be useless?

This is a sequence similar to what happened to me last December. Questions just kept coming, one after another. I wasn’t really aware of the source of the questions, either. But for whatever reason, I just hit the mark and everything exploded.

When you hit at the core of an issue, it is like pulling out the wrong block in a game of Jenga; it all falls to pieces.

Takuin

Could it be that understanding through knowledge is not enough? That “knowing it” is not the same as “living it”?

Do we “understand” through what we know? One’s definition of that word might be “to grasp with the intellect,” which would seem to imply, seeing with knowledge. But if one sees through intellect, or knowledge, what is being seen, other than a memory? If that is the case, then knowledge, and understanding, can only take us back to what we already know, and cannot reveal to us what is beyond it.

So, if we are in agreement so far, then what is to be done? There are several questions one could go into at this point; perception, understanding, knowledge, seeing, the “I” movement, and so on. I would take all of them, and more, in turn, and question them; find out what is at the core. I usually look up a word in a reputable dictionary to see the etymology and the various meanings. Then I see how it relates to memory, action, movement, stillness, etc.

But when I relate these things, I do not start from the idea that I am right. Or that I have the right idea that everything should be compared to. It is more of a matter of seeing how one’s mind works. How the knowledge contained therein is used, accessed, and stored. How our prejudices dominate over all things.

It seems daunting, and diligence IS needed, along with a certain amount of sincerity and seriousness. But if it is what you are interested in, go for it. The time will pass anyway, so what would you like to do with it?

You always give me a lot to write about, Albert. Keep it coming.

Takuin

Someone might consider self-inquiry to be “seeking,” and I can see that. But the emphasis is that there is no reliance on outside authority.

With inquiry you niether accept or reject anything. It is just there. You see it for what it is, but if your thoughts are involved, with your preferences and prejudices, you are still enslaved to an outside authority.

Does that make sense?

Things are not rejected because of what you know. Rather, they fall away on their own, when seen as they are.

That is a question I have asked myself; Do we really listen? What is it to listen? Can there be an interpretation? If so, what is it that does the interpreting?

After all, the ears are mere instruments. They cannot measure, calculate, or differentiate. They can only hear.

I wonder why we cannot.

Takuin