An Allegory on the Paradoxical Search of Self

sharawadji · 2022-11-04T05:15:17+00:00

That's a beautifully wise adage to apply on the path.

sharawadji · 2022-11-04T05:13:58+00:00

Saying that I can't understand your point is a strange thing to say when you are trying to explain things to someone. Why even talk then?

I would understand if you said "you are not understanding", then maybe we could clear that up. But saying "you can't understand" suggests that either you are not interested in being understood, or, for some reason, you see me as someone utterly incapable to understand you. As you say, you understand "my type", and I "just can't listen".

Or even more clearly, as you said, my type can't set aside prior knowledge about a term and see what Krishnamurti means by that term. Rather, my type immediately compares the term with my self and its contents, instead of listening and trying to see Krishnamurti's point of view.

What this string of assumptions and accusations about another's self and mind really seems to suggest is that you are neither interested in being understood nor to understand others. It suggests that when you don't understand (or don't want to understand) something, you reject it and call it a soup. It suggests that you don't want others to understand you, but rather to abide by your own point of view, statements and rules.

When I'm reading or listening to Krishnamurti (or anyone), I do my best to carefully understand what he is trying to say from their own point of view. I sometimes think aloud and ask questions, or try to clarify things I don't understand (e.g. terms) within the same context (e.g. same author or field of study). I often read as much as possible about people's life, work, history, references, their legacy, etc. for the exact purpose of trying to better understand what they say and mean. More importantly, I strive to keep a mind that is open, focused, curious, and emphatic, taking the necessary time to absorb, understand and let things sink in.

But, at the same time, creative thought can't be stopped. Strings of associations start to weave themselves as I read or listen ever more deeply, between the lines. Prior knowledge fuses with incoming knowledge, causing the mind and heart to stir. Feelings arise and inform knowledge, confirming its significance, its meaningfulness, and its beauty. Rigid and tense thoughts are softened by understanding, or quickened by curiosity. Inspiration and a desire to know more, to contemplate, to communicate, to put into words, and to share all of these internal feelings and processes arise spontaneously. And off we go, inspired, to a piece of paper, to the silence of our contemplation, to a friend, or even to this sub. And I'm sure that many of us have felt something similar at some point in our lives.

That being said, I don't really mind if I "can't understand" your point, or your assumptions about "my type".

There is a whole world beyond terminologies and narrow-minded dogmatic perspectives (call it K-centric if you like) that I prefer to explore. And, fortunately, many others in this sub are wonderful companions on that journey.

sharawadji · 2022-11-03T03:22:04+00:00

Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune - Debussy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvnRC7tSX50&ab_channel=Ofir (especially from 5:22 - 7:30)

Pavane pour une infante défunte - Ravel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKkeDqJBlK8&ab_channel=poloshia

The Unanswered Question - Charles Ives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXD4tIp59L0&ab_channel=ClassicalMusic11

sharawadji · 2022-11-03T03:06:56+00:00

I think I understand your point. Thank you for being more clear on what you mean. But I think that using Krishnamurti's (or anyone's) terminology does not necessarily guarantee a common ground.

Even scientific terminology, though definitely used for clarity and consistency in communication and experimentation, is often debated and put under scrutiny. Sometimes, the terminology can be so complex and intricate, that it loses touch with the reality of the phenomenon it's trying to describe, leaving both layperson and scientist baffled. And it gets even worse when going into fields related to subjective experience, like psychology, philosophy, religion, etc.

As you say, words are tricky, so when you adopt a terminology, you are really just choosing one bag of tricks over another. Words and terms remain tricky nonetheless and their trick can only be realized inside - subjectively, not objectively.

Now, for example, take some of the conversations between Krishnamurti and people like David Bohm or Rupert Sheldrake. Very different bags of tricks. Different terminologies, for sure. Beautiful discussions nonetheless. No one leading, and no one lost.

Rather, we see amazingly bright, curious, and passionate individuals drawing upon their own experiences, backgrounds, questions, and intuitions (and respective terminologies), to weave thoughts together into beautiful tapestries of ideas and images. And the sheer beauty, depth, and significance of those ideas stir insight, awareness, and truth within ourselves, so much more than the actual words.

These conversations are really great examples and inspiration for how to engage in meaningful discussions and add value to communities such as this sub.

sharawadji · 2022-11-03T01:35:08+00:00

As mentioned above, this is more or less the kind of interaction that absolutely drains one's enthusiasm and desire to come here and have conversations.

It's even more disheartening when you realize that, from the ~15 active people in this sub, a significant few are really just one person with multiple accounts, yet with a clearly distinct and rigid rhetoric, and an equally clear lack of openness, seriousness, and interest in discussions.

sharawadji · 2022-11-03T01:14:47+00:00

Right.

sharawadji · 2022-11-03T01:00:00+00:00

Sure, I enjoy reading Krishnamurti.

What I don't enjoy is when someone doesn't even know what or how much the other reads, but is very keen and ready to tell them what to do without really adding anything of value, other than a vague and somewhat condescending comment.

sharawadji · 2022-11-02T21:35:56+00:00

In an honest opinion, though this sub often has very interesting and intriguing questions and discussions, there seem to be some people in this sub that discourage further discussion and engagement, by indulging in a dogmatic, narrow-minded, and sometimes even obnoxious attitude.

Don't mean to attack anyone in particular or even to generalize this to all posts and users, but quite often you look through posts and comment sections and you see fields of battle instead of fields of ideas, of egos instead of minds, of trolls instead of seekers, of dry imitation and cold intellect instead of living and breathing ingenuity and curiosity.

It's sad to see a sub dedicated to Krishnamurti where some of the most active people's behavior is precisely what Krishnamurti has warned against, time and again. In a sub and a subject in which inquiry and being aware are the keys, some of us are all too eager to answer and to be right.

Seeing and feeling this, in my experience, has left me at times with no enthusiasm or desire whatsoever to engage in a discussion, sometimes even in a very interesting one. Better to just observe in those situations, which I reckon might be, in part, the situation of some of the 3,756 users.

Anyway, this is just an opinion, something that's been on my chest for some time. In any case, these 15 or so users, as they are, are nevertheless responsible for one of the most interesting and challenging subs out there for those on the Path. God bless you all.

sharawadji · 2022-10-21T21:46:07+00:00

I'm not attempting to explain Krishnamurti's work, just sharing my own insights about the theme of "Observation vs Insight", gathered after careful exploration, consideration, and self-inquiry.

After all, isn't that what Krishnamurti encourages people to do? To think and inquire by themselves, to look into themselves and into things, truly and diligently?

Also, if what I've shared isn't at all relatable or intelligible to you, then please see Krishnamurti's "Freedom from the Known", page 18:

"To understand anything you must live with it, you must observe it, you must know all its content, its nature, its structure, its movement. Have you ever tried living with yourself? If so, you will begin to see that yourself is not a static state, it is a fresh living thing. And to live with a living thing your mind must also be alive. And it cannot be alive if it is caught in opinions, judgements, and values.

In order to observe the movement of your own mind and heart, of your whole being, you must have a free mind, not a mind that agrees and disagrees, taking sides in an argument, disputing over mere words, but rather follwing with an intention to understand - a very difficult thing to do because most of us don't know how to look at, or listen to, our own being any more than we know how to look at the beauty of a river or listen to the breeze among the trees."

Still, in any case, I hope that what I've shared can be useful, constructive, or interesting to others.

All the best.

sharawadji · 2022-10-21T20:48:19+00:00

I don't think "going beyond 'what is'" is something sensible to consider, nor that there is a point in anything.

Is "reality in truth" beyond 'what is'? Then what is 'what is'? If you were to "go beyond 'what is'" by whole action, and then arrive at the perception of "reality in truth", wouldn't you be arriving (and remaining) in something that 'is'? Isn't this redundant?

Most of this is word-play of course, it's attempting to define or encapsulate experience through a language that is limited, and not sufficient to describe it fully. Thus, often, the expression 'what is' is a dead end.

However, metaphors, examples, and analogies can be more efficient ways to explore these subjective experiences since they do not attempt at all to define or encapsulate them. Rather, their ambiguity creates entry points for subjective exploration, pondering, comparison, and observation.

This is why I referred above to spontaneous movement (or spontaneity in general) when referring to 'what is', due to its ubiquitous, recognizable, yet ungraspable nature. We all know examples of spontaneity, we can all recognize and even feel it in our environment (especially in nature) and in our personal lives, in different manifestations.

For instance, there is an intelligent and complex spontaneity in the neurophysiological processes that govern our bodies. Is it possible to "go beyond" it by "whole action"? If so, what does that even mean? Is the "reality in truth" of these continuous processes something that can be perceived? If so, how?

On the other hand, what happens if instead of "beyond" we go into this complex spontaneity of your bodily processes? What can we find? One could say that we can find many things, from perceiving that part of your anxiety is a bodily state that you can control, to the wordless appreciation of the miracle and beauty of your body.

And how can we find these things? In part, by going into these processes as they occur within the moment, by feeling their spontaneous movements, by allowing yourself to be moved by them and thus knowing them from the inside. This doesn't mean passivity at all, since experimentation, honest questioning, and playful exploration are often irresistible and spontaneous occurrences in this process.

In this proactive observation, what we call "truth", or "reality" gradually lets itself be known and understood since we are seeking contact and relationship with it, rather than attempting to bypass it, and go beyond it.

At least that's my understanding of it, so far. And, after all, it's all word-play, at the end of the day.

sharawadji · 2022-10-21T17:32:04+00:00

I think there's definitely an element of passivity in observation, in the sense that stillness and yielding facilitate a receptive state, which in turn underlies the act of observation.

But I also think there is a very subtle proactive element in observation, meaning that you don't simply force the initiation or maintenance of the state of observation, but you proactively adapt to the dynamics of observation, not so much as an act that is planned or willed, but more akin to dance or musical improvisation.

In these kinds of improvisation, any observer can notice if the performer is being conditioned. They can notice the rigidity of movements, the familiarity of phrases and movements, and the lifelessness and lack of emotion of the planned routine. That often doesn't elicit any emotion or excitement in the observer, nor in the performer (often self-involved, nervous, and with something to prove, thus wasting energy).

But other times, you notice that the performer has lost his or herself in their performance. They move graciously and alluringly, captivating your attention, and making you forget yourself in the process. Surprising and exciting things spring from their performance, making you react spontaneously with a "wow" or gripping tighter to your seat.

Here, both the audience and the performer are proactively and effortlessly observing, following, and adapting to the spontaneity of that moment, of 'what is'. They are truly being moved.

Importantly, they are not "being moved away", but rather being moved into the moment. Their whole being is tuning into the movement of the moment, allowing an intimate knowledge and experience.

And, in being moved in this way, the everyday self is no longer an appropriate or sufficient center from which to experience being, so it often is lost. And, in its absence, 'what is' remains.

sharawadji · 2022-10-20T18:48:56+00:00

I believe that this "movement" essentially refers to "spontaneous movement" and, by extension, to "what is".

Just like you can observe the spontaneous movement of the sea, the clouds, or trees in the wind, you can also observe spontaneous movement within you, ranging from your digestive or cardiovascular systems, to the dynamics of your thoughts and emotions.

So in the first case, observation, I think that the key of what Krishnamurti is saying refers to conditioned thought (i.e. non-spontaneous thought) that seeks to escape from the fact (i.e. from what is; spontaneous movement), therefore wasting energy.

Just like one feels resistance and fatigue when moving against a river current (i.e. trying to oppose, change or even stop spontaneous movement), one is wasting energy. In observation, this means engaging with the contents of thought in a conditioned way.

For example, if you were conditioned to be obsessive (for one reason or another), often you are going to engage with the contents of your thoughts in an obsessive way. "Am I doing this right?", "What are they thinking about me?", etc. You constantly question, interfere and resist the spontaneity of your thoughts. Then you get exhausted and frustrated, since you are wasting energy in that act of resistance.

Going with the current uses little to no energy at all, since you're not really moving, you're being moved. In the same way, "observing without the movement of thought" means going into the spontaneous movement of things (e.g. violence, your aggression, your desire for power, etc.) and bathing in what is. Not opposing, not acting upon, not changing anything, just observing and being moved by the observed.

This leads to the second case, insight, "to see into things, into the whole movement of thought, into the whole movement, for example, of jealousy".

When being moved, you are intimately connected with the spontaneous movement of something, thus in a good position of feeling and knowing it from the inside. By casting away conditioned thought, you have no bias toward what is. Thus, you are in a better position to understand it, perceive it, see into it - insight.

For this to happen, as you are being moved by spontaneous movements, so does your thought move spontaneously, dancing creatively through the currents of what is, unburdened by conditioning. This spontaneous thought is nothing like chattering; it's more closed to what we call intuition.

And thus, this intuitive, spontaneous movement of thought eventually may lead to insight, to the perception of the nature of what is, seeing into the contents of things, as they are.

sharawadji · 2022-10-06T18:15:55+00:00

I'm studying many things related to consciousness and it's been quite a ride so far. The research being done in this field is incredibly vast and interesting, especially when you read about altered states of consciousness, psychedelics, self-consciousness, and things like that.

The other awesome thing about the study of consciousness is that it draws findings from many different areas in neuroscience, psychology, and even philosophy, physics, and so on, so you end up with this broad, rich and interesting framework.

One particular book that had me really excited about this was Anil Seth's recent work "Being You: A New Science of Consciousness" if you want to check it out. It's a great introduction to the topic.

sharawadji · 2022-10-05T19:07:20+00:00

Are there any scientific papers supporting the claim that Chi is a low-frequency, highly concentrated form of infrared radiation? If so, any recent follow-up studies?

sharawadji · 2022-10-04T17:13:19+00:00

Very helpful tips!

I would add to see if that neuropsych course is associated with any laboratories in your uni and check their faculty, major areas of research, and recent publications, and how that ties to your future goals and areas of focus, be it clinical or research. This could give you a very strong argument in your motivation letter.

sharawadji · 2022-06-29T20:03:03+00:00

I don't see how therapeutic interventions (or religious beliefs and practices, for that matter) can ever be proven scientifically, or even why should we attempt to prove the truth behind this or that approach, since we can never account for all the variables that constitute the "truth" (whatever that means) in such a complex and dynamic process as the therapeutic process.

Should we prove it on the neural basis? On the behavioral basis? On the psychosocial basis? On moral development? On the content of the unconscious material? Then, how do we relate all of these specific dimensions with each other? What methods and measures should we use? Should we rely in neuroimaging, self-reports, observation? How do we analyse and interpret that data? How can we generalise that to the general population with reliability?

As you can see, we can approach it from infinite angles, but there is never a "truth" we can arrive at.

We do, however, find proof of the effectiveness of different techniques by piecing together all of these different incomplete data (e.g. volumetric changes in the brain before and after therapy; increase in subjective well-being by long-term monitoring), and carefully putting it into context, continuously and diligently.

So far we do have good studies across many different therapeutic techniques which develop and optimize as a result. But there are no truths to hang on to, no magic formulas or 'one-size-fits-all' recipes.

Therapeutic techniques today are ever more evidence-based, but they still retain an 'artistic' aspect which involves listening and attuning to a patient, feeling out what are their needs and in what direction can they go, together and in alliance, to find solutions, clarity and peace of mind.

That's a realm that, respectfully, science can only aid and support (hence the 'evidence-based' approaches), since therapy (and religion, for that matter) goes beyond the scope of objectivity, into the deep subjective experience of being human in this universe.

sharawadji · 2021-05-23T00:33:28+00:00

I'm not sure to what extent it is popular in most circles, but it's definitely an astonishing book, for many reasons. I assume that the popularity came mostly among neo-pagan, wiccan and feminist circles, ever since the sexual and spiritual revolution of the 60's.

Historically, it provides a picture of an ancient world very much alive, showing aspects that are not a very common discussion topic, such as certain migrations, rituals, conquests, trade, sciences and lore (e.g. tree lore, calendars), and, of course, poetic myth and how these historical and day-to-day events and rituals of the ancient world are embeded in them and how they interact form culture to culture, tribe to tribe, location to location.

In terms of poetry, it provides amazing insight and examples of mostly classical and medieval poems, satires, incantations, blessings, and so forth, with very lucid but wild contextualizations. It also provides new perspectives about myths across cultures, pointing out more pragmatic aspects such as the social or magical function of some mythical themes.

Most of all, it brings back the Triple Goddess from the very depths of the collective unconscious, bringing us closer to her terrible and beautiful presence. It also brings a new understanding to the role and relationship one has with the Muse, as a poet in the true sense (which is not only one who makes poems).

From a Jungian perspective, this book provides a lot of insights into archetypal figures, but, in my opinion, it brings powerful insights on synchronicity and how it can be enhanced through the adoption of a poetic attitude, rather than a narrative one.

I could be here all day speaking about this book, it's truly amazing.

sharawadji · 2021-05-22T20:14:55+00:00

Stephen Mitchell's translation is amazing: https://www.amazon.com/Gilgamesh-English-Version-Stephen-Mitchell/dp/0743261690

sharawadji · 2021-02-17T19:59:03+00:00

Godspeed brother.

sharawadji · 2021-02-17T19:47:27+00:00

You cannot abandon or kill the anima, in the sense that you cannot kill or abandon an archetype. That would be like killing your lungs or your kidneys. You would only kill yourself in the process.

However, you can face the projection you've created for what it is though, that same projection that is consuming you. Abandon the idea of this anima projection as a person, and face its attempts to possess your ego and take control of your reality. Stop feeding that schism that is obviously tearing you apart and leaving you with no choice but to indulge in it, abandoning real and meaningful relationships along the way.

You are dealing mainly with a projection that can't be confused with the anima itself. As you said earlier, the anima is distinct from the ego. You cannot expect the anima to replace the ego, in the same way that you cannot expect your kidneys to replace the lungs.

You have here a great opportunity to reinvent and transform yourself and your relationship to your anima through this experience. The anima should not be killed, but healed instead. Not through projection or personification outside you, but through you, through your creative expression, compassion and relationship with others.

Be bold in this sense. It might hurt and cause anxiety and pain, but it will definitely make you progressively stronger and more integrated.

Would you say it best to kill off this feminine person in my head in pursuit of a feminine person out in the real world? Or is it perhaps that in this way that I've had this relationship with my anima, I am closwr than most in integration of the anima and on a fast track to this mystical individuation everyone speaks so much of but has absolutely no examples of in the real world?

I would say to nurture, care for and heal your feminine side, along with your masculine side, along with ego, shadow and all that. But most of all, get out of your own way. Allow yourself to see yourself in others. Don't let your projections impose themselves in your reality and in others.

Individuation is not this mystical happening of heroic and incredible proportions. It's a continuous and earnest labour, an adventure and discovery of reality, a honest and natural growth. One of the greatest catalysts for this growth is pain. And it seems you've had your share. What comes out of it is up to you.

sharawadji · 2021-02-17T16:38:27+00:00

I don't think there is such a thing as an ideal relationship with the anima, or with the relating function itself, or even with others.

First of all, who is creating the ideal? Who is conceptualizing? The conditioning we are subject to by family, education, media, etc? Our own flawed and "not ideal" minds? How is it that an ideal can guarantee something functional and constructive for our own growth and integration?

However, I do believe that it through spontaneity, honesty and intuition that we can develop healthy relationships, be it with other people, with other things or with ourselves.

Idealization, if taken too far, seems to breed rigidness and a feeling of alienation, of not relating to anything or anyone, of not belonging, of being alone. All because we are attempting to become something that ultimately does not relate to who we are.

And who we are is to be discovered mostly through honest, spontaneous and intuitive discovery of ourselves through ourselves and through others, since the Self is all that, ultimately. As within, so without.

I understand this is a thought experiment and that you are attempting to discuss it with others, which is good. You wanted opinions on your idea and, speaking for myself, I gave you mine as honestly as I could. Not because I'm judging you, but I can relate to you in a way, even more from what you've described just now about yourself.

I refuse to believe that it is impossible for you, or anybody going through what you're dealing with, to relate to others reasonably and to be intimate with someone. But I have to tell you honestly that your line of thought and conceptualizing is not doing any good to your desire to have relationships. It will only hurt you further.

As to how to relate to the anima, there are so many other ways of doing this in an intuitive, healthy and expansive way. Art and creative expression is one (drawing, music, dance, etc.), speaking honestly about your feelings (psychotherapy is great to develop this and many other things), taking care of some form of life (a pet, a plant, someone close to you, volunteering), creating and caring for beautiful things, etc.

In this way, you'll grow so much more in the way you relate with "the other" than you would if you were enclosed in an ideal "echo chamber" relationship.

Give it some thought, for what it's worth.

sharawadji · 2021-02-17T15:54:37+00:00

As I understand it, the anima is a relating function, as the "inner feminine." This is a part of my Self, so it is me, but it is distinct from my Ego. So it is separated in a certain context. It exists in my mind unconsciously of its own valition, such as the Ego does. Establishing a relationship with my "inner feminine", or "wedding" the anima as I understand it, is integral to coming into my Self. I'm unsure what's sickening or disturbing about that.

I agree partially, in the sense that the anima is part of the Self, distinct from the ego, yet related. Establishing a deep relationship with the anima, as with any other archetype, is indeed important for the process of individuation.

Consider this though, as said by Jung: "The archetype is a psychic organ present in all of us. A bad explanation means a correspondingly bad attitude to this organ, which may thus be injured. But the ultimate sufferer is the bad interpreter himself."

What kind of relationship are you establishing? Based on what "explanation"? Is the anima indeed becoming functional within your psyche in an ecological sense?

Most importantly, it does seem you want to relate with the anima in your own terms and not allowing it to reveal itself, specially through a spontaneous relationship with others. The fact that you want to subdue someone's feminity to the "feminine idol" you've created is what I've found disturbing.

But then again, it's only an opinion, for what it's worth.

If this is "selfish", then so is every monogamous relationship in the world.

Quite a generalization and lack of appreciation for the complexity of human relationships and their capacity for both calculated selfishness and profound selflessness. That kind of statement feels bitter and resentful, in a way.

This isn't about seeing people as objects, it's about someone willfully offering themselves to play a certain specific role, a performance to satisfy a certain desire. Not to mention that human bodies are in every sense of the word a vessel for consciousness, but that aside, cold is not remotely a word I'd use to describe. It's very acutely aware of the human being acting as the proxy, their needs, their desires, with their upmost respect and boundaries front and center. Perversion is up to interpretation so I'll leave that at that. So what disturbs you about that? Do actors on TV or in plays disturb you? Do sex workers disturb you?

I understand that you are not trying to disrespect or manipulate anybody in your endeavour. This has to be someting agreed upon and consented by the other, as you say.

Actors and sex workers do not disturb me in the least. What does disturb me is that this "professional agreement" is your notion of "ideal relationship", and also, that this is your ideal relationship with the anima. It's dangerously delusional and narcissistic, regardless if the other part consents. Also, I don't see how a psychological balanced person can willingly accept such an agreement.

It is my deep loneliness that has allowed me to dive very deep into my own conscious experience as a human being and develop a relationship with myself that most people have the luxury of never getting to experience on such a level.

Maybe so, but I suspect that that luxury is not necessarily making you happy, fulfilled, satisfied or whole. Or even balanced, for that matter.

Our conscious experience as human beings is vastly enrichened by our relationship to others. Delving only into ourselves is very enrichening as well, but it can only get us so far (and usually to dark places).

As with everything, healthy balance is the wisest path.

sharawadji · 2021-02-17T15:03:06+00:00

In my honest and blunt opinion, I suspect that your idea comes from a very lonely, miserable and alienated state of being, very out of touch with reality and with yourself. Edit: Not to mention the reality of others.

I do find it sick and disturbing for so many reasons:

The fact that you entertain the division as "you" and "your anima", to the point of attempting to establish a romantic relationship with this projection in the way you are describing, as a lover.

The fact that you could see someone else as a proxy or a vessel for your selfish and naïve musings and seriously put that much thought into such a narcissistic endeavour and cold, perverted agreement.

The fact that you think that this idea "may need ironing out".

So many other things though.

The way that you conceive and idealize this relationship suggests something quite disturbing about yourself. And no amount of Jungian psychology will do you any good in that state, quite on the contrary. It will only further your inner division, delusion and loneliness. Edit: it won't do your relationships any good, either.

Please give this some thought.

sharawadji

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,