The material presented here comes from the comments on the post, Is Relationship Based on Memory? This was originally posted around one year ago, and as I sit here now, have no memory of writing it. I can be fairly certain it is my writing, but there is no closeness or association that brings it up as something of "MINE."
Upon re-reading this work, I felt compelled to question the writer on what was said. But sadly, he is no longer available. Haha.
Anyway, have a look at the original article and be sure to check out the comments, as it may bring you closer to the material at hand.
If someone calls you a dickhead, and you get mad, do you ever ask why? Why does this cause anger? What is going on here? It is such a simple question, but no one ever asks.
Many of us are prone to violence of this kind, so you would think the question might come up at some point. But it rarely ever does.
The anger helps to solidify the self. YOU (the self) never feel more real than when you are angry. It weighs heavy in the mind, and seems to slow time.
Have you noticed this for yourself? When you are angry, you are very compressed. There is definitely a center that is projecting. The thoughts that race through your mind almost seem solid. Everything is tight, and not only physically. It effects the movement of the organism greatly, right down to the cell. Holding this violence in the mind is one of the most destructive things we do to our own bodies.
That question, “If you have no belief, can you be offended,” leads one into other questions. If one realized the answer to this question, I am not sure that it would lead to a transformation. Dealing with belief is important, but it is still on a superficial level of sorts.
One might start with, “What is belief?” “How is belief projected?” “Can one have a belief without conflict?”
One of the most important questions one might ask is, “Can one be free of belief completely?”
One thing important to consider is, you cannot really answer these questions. You cannot say yes or no. I am not trying to sound enigmatic, but if you have a conclusion, how did it arrive? You can only have a conclusion through knowledge, no? If you say YES or NO, how did you get there? What is it that answers the question?
One might ask, “ Why should I ask these question if I cannot answer them?” That is something that one might want to go into. Why do you need an answer? Any conclusion you reach will be made through belief or knowledge. So where does that put you? If you are answering based on belief or knowledge, that is just more of what you already have.
This is a very heavy subject that one has to face at some point. But only if they are serious about it.
Looking at the world, as it is, one can easily see the suffering brought about by belief. It is not a secret, and there is nothing really cryptic about it.
But if one sees this, what happens? Do they say, “That is so awful,” then go back to their own violent life? Or does it touch them in such a way that a fundamental change takes place? Do they see the danger then say, “That is it. Never again will I live my life in this mechanical way,” or not?
That is one thing I cannot understand; if one knows fire burns, why do they keep sticking their hands in it?
It all leads back to the monument of the self. Such an impressive, yet precarious, structure of thought exists. And this structure of experiences and thought - the self - has grooves that run deeper than any habit. But the danger, and the structure, is there to see. The problem arises with the way of seeing.
How does one see it all? Are they looking with their conclusions and experiences? If so, it is the structure, the monument, the self, that is seeing. And the self is only capable of seeing what it feels is important; from its own point of view.
It is the greatest difficulty one might come up against; how to see.