OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TEACHINGS
wim
This is an essay I wrote about 3 years ago. I think what is in the essay is essential but it is not the last thing that has been said about this issue.
I started with Internet forums early 2009. Participation has varied considerably overtime. Sometimes people looked at it and discussed it. At other times this did not happen. Some discussions were of a high quality with not much participation. What has become clear is that there is unwillingness by thought to get at the root of it? This is not only due to a lack of seriousness it is also part of the very nature of thought. What needs to happen is very clear the basic issues of the teachings need to be covered and what their significance is for the real world. What has become clear to me is that thought does everything to avoid that its security is shattered. Some of the methods thought uses to achieve this is that it comes up with excuses, starts quarrels and only discuss the issues that suits thought.
The excuses are often related to the teachings or to the nature of society. If K says that one should not quote then thought will use this not to discuss the issue. The other issue thought often comes up with is its own limitation. Thought is limited we cannot look at it. Examples of social excuses are we cannot do anything about the world crisis; people are selfish and will always be like this. Some of the arguments used by thought at this stage are valid but what is important here is the reason why thought uses them.
Quarrels and heated debates are sometimes good and necessary and a forced peace is hypocritical. What is important here is that thought starts quarrels because it does not want to look at its nature and responsibility for the world crisis?
Finally, the selection of issues is important. If an issue does not suit thought then it will not go into the issue. K networks are wonderful for thought then it can go from issue to issue without ever seeing the whole. This selectivity of issues almost certainly strengthens the ego. The Google group has tried to get around this by dividing the teachings in 4 basic issues. These are well known to you it is about the inner on its own, how the inner influences the outer, the reverse of it and our relationship with nature.
Once one gets around these escape mechanisms then it becomes clear that it is valid to look at the teachings as a whole. Once one sees this then the issue of what to do with it is important. First it is important to realize that what K said was real for him. The important thing is that it becomes real for us as well. If the things K says are not real for us then it is important not to take them on board otherwise they become conditioning with the same consequences as other types of conditioning. Once we see that the whole of the teachings are real then almost certainly we stop using effort.
Wim Jenniskens