Are you aimless?

a wholeness of the living moment, which, from their perspective is always, already, the case, and cannot be reached through a gradual movement toward it.

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/krishnamurti_moller.htm

Not entirely OT, I was once advised by a shrink that the same principle applies to analysis, that is you can’t get it out of a book but only through interaction

Fres what thinkest thou

I think that those "shrinks" who embrace the concept of spontaneous gestaltist cognitive restructuring (by general self observation) have a point to make. But those who advocate "a method" or "a therapy" to bring about such restructuring fall into the futile "becoming" trap.

I totally, completely and unequivocally reject that notion as patently absurd. Being IS a constant and continuous process of becoming.

...but what is becoming ?

Anything that remains constant, that doesn't change, is dead. Life is a process of constantly becoming something else. Whoever typed those first words of this post is not the same person who is typing this.

Thank you Fres for those terms. I save such, using whenever feasible. According to the general observation that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, there’s something to be gained from almost any sort of self-help; though participation and interplay are the ultimate teachers

Therapy however might entail both

Also, Nietzsche.
But I suspect that while for Nietzsche a being (a static "thing") is illusory because everything is in process of change, of becoming other than what it is now. Heideggar may have used Being as a gerund verb that functions like a noun: Be-ing is a process of existence.

Correct...but what is "it" that recognizes that. Krishnamurti (et al) might have argued that this is the transcendental/spiritual sense of "being".

I could be misreading Krishnamurti. Or itcould be a less than felicitous translation. But the way your quote phrases is it makes it sound as though he is speaking for some sort of "being" which, finally, involves no change. Maybe that's just too mystical for my understanding.

As I understand it, Heidegger supports Lustig's point that "Being" (of Dasien)emerges from worldly interaction. However he reserves the term Existenz for the quality of the contemplative/evaluative state of Dasein.

The question we (meditators) might ask is therefore: Is the "transcendental state" merely a cognitive restructuring of "ordinary consciousness", or is it a form of communion with "holistic consciousness" ? The Krishnamurti quotation points to the latter.

See my reply to JLN, and ask yourself who/what measures "change".

I agree with both. JK is saying (I think) that beings qua things do not exist and that the processes that appear to be things are the latter's ontological denial. This also sounds like Nietzsche and Heracleitus. But as LA is suggesting (I think) one can use term, "being", as a "constant and continuous" process. So much depends on our definitions.

Lusty says that what remains constant is dead. In a way that's so. By definition it's no longer growing or fulfilling its teleological potential (like the acorn and the tree). But change occurs nonetheless: just watch a compost heap.
I tend to think that what is truly constant is the virtually unimaginable cosmic process itself which constitutes something like a dynamic system of co-determining changes.

What a cognitive puzzle, Fresco. What is the subject of the "transcendental state" of mind? To me it's definitely not some kind of transendental-ego--even though that's suggested in some mystics' reference to "true Self". I prefer the zen principle that "zen mind" is equal to "ordinary mind", but considered in the right light, a non-dualistic light--the same light that sees Nirvana as equal to Samsara.
As I see it, you and I are empty of all traits considered absolutely; we are empty and free processes, expressions of Brahma which is the only posible absolute.

Who knows?

I realize that my last post smacks of "private" religious cognition. It IS purely speculative sans "public" empirical evidence, but I'm confident that people who follow a track of meditation in pursuit of a non-dualist perspective know what I mean. To that extent my comments have a public value.

My ultimate purpose in life... I had an arrow. I aimed it at the sky, shot... and missed.

That's what you think, but what actually happened was I took an arrow to the knee!

Sorry, but I couldn't resist the arrow in the knee joke.

Bullseye: my arrow fell to earth hitting my ego. I wasn't aware it was my target.

Dys, I wonder. Is it possible to miss? (or hit for that matter).

Your arrow metaphor is such a temptation to make things up, with a feeling that something important will be said.

I've been thinking of this for a long time and the only answer that make me
a bit satisfied was "understanding the complexities of myself" more and more.
In my view all the other aims are absurd and are limited to my necessity.
Following my philosophical questions and the sciences results about life and
human!