To know yourself

To know yourself is not according to any formula. You may go to a psychologist or a psychoanalyst to find out about yourself, but that is not self-knowledge. Self-knowledge, comes into being when you are aware, of your selve in relationship, which shows what you are from moment to moment. Relationship is a mirror in which to see your selves as you actually are. But most of us are incapable of looking at ourselves as we are in relationship, because we immediately begin to condemn or justify what we see. We judge, we evaluate, we compare, we deny or accept, but we never observe actually what is, and for most people this seems to be the most difficult thing to do; yet this alone is the beginning of self-knowledge. If one is able to see oneself as one is in this mirror of relationship which does not distort, if one can just look into this mirror with full attention and see actually what is, be aware of it without condemnation, without judgment, without evaluation - and one does this when there is earnest interest then one will find that the mind is capable of freeing itself from all conditioning; and it is only then that the mind is free to discover that which lies beyond the field of thought.However learned or however petty the mind may be, it is consciously or unconsciously limited, conditioned, and any extension of this conditioning is still within the field of thought. So the freedom is something entirely different. .

I'v read somewhere that we cannot know ourselves while we are in the quickened state and should relax and wait (possibly tending chickens) patiently and peacefully for death the great mirror.

In order to know ourselves, we'd likely have to familiarize ourselves with some very different concepts, such as the fact that "ourselves" include a body, a mind, and a spirit.

Then you get into all sorts of "spacey" concepts like etheral body, universal energy, 3 layers of the brain, and a lot more. Those are fascinating studies if one takes the time to consider them. But, for an average person to even approach the subject requires a more open mind than you'll likely find on the street these days.

There are many concepts and ways of looking at ourselves that are uncommon (or simply unknown) in this culture and in these modern times. Thus, the reactions you'll find would range from indifference to verbal abuse, and everything in between.

All that in spite of the fact that many of the people who would rain down abuse on your head for such far-out ideas would brand themselves as "progressives" on other subjects with which they are more familiar.

It might simply be fear of the unknown. I do know that something causes those extreme reactions, but I've never figured out exactly what it is.

countryboy,

In understanding of what I am, whatever it be--ugly or beautiful, wicked or mischievous--the understanding of what I am, without distortion, is the beginning of virtue. Virtue is essential, for it gives freedom and it is only in virtue that I can discover, that I can live-not in the cultivation of a virtue, which merely brings about respectability, not the understanding and freedom.
Obviously there is a difference between being virtuous and becoming virtuous. Being virtuous comes through the understanding of what is, whereas becoming virtuous is postponement, the covering up of what is with what I would like to be. Therefore in becoming virtuous I am avoiding action directly upon what is. This process of avoiding what is through the cultivation of the ideal is considered virtuous; but if you look at it closely and directly you will see that it is nothing of the kind. It is merely a postponement of coming face to face with what is. Virtue is not the becoming of what is not; virtue is the understanding of what is and therefore the freedom from what is. Can the immoral man who is striving to become virtuous ever know virtue? The man who is not moral can never be free, and therefore he can never find out what reality is. Reality can be found only in understanding what is; and to understand what is, there must be freedom, freedom from the fear of what is.
To understand that process there must be the intention to know what is, to follow every thought, feeling and action; and to understand what is is extremely difficult, because what is is never still, never static, it is always in movement.
The what is is what I am, not what I would like to be; it is not the ideal, because the ideal is fictitious, but it is actually what I am doing, thinking and feeling from moment to moment. What is is the actual, and to understand the actual requires awareness, a very alert, swift mind. But if I begin to condemn what is, if I begin to blame or resist it, then I will not understand its movement. If I want to understand somebody, I cannot condemn him: I must observe, study him. I must love the very thing I am studying. If I want to understand a child, I must love the child , not condemn him. I must play with him, watch his movements, his idiosyncrasies, his ways of behaviour; but if I merely condemn, resist or blame him, there is no comprehension of the child.
Similarly, to understand what is, one must observe what one thinks, feels and does from moment to moment. That is the actual. Any other action, any ideal or ideological action, is not the actual; it is merely a wish, a fictitious desire to be something other than what is.

I was me a few years ago, so I just assume that I am me now. I know myself enough to say I am different now than I used to be.
Why would I need someone to tell me how I can know myself? I live with me for Pete's sake. I should know me. lmao This Krishnamurti/Buddha/Heraclitus/etc. regurgitation is comical.
But I do like what Thoreau said once, "We are for the most part more lonely when we go abroad among men than when we stay in our chambers". I can occupy me (keep myself entertained) for hours even when I do go abroad. I can study my own reactions to having people around. lol
See? I can spout psychobabble, too.

One thing about myself that I am trying to come to terms with is that I am intolerant of people who don't know who they are and just repeat what they hear and read from others, do what others expect of them and have no idea what they want from life beyond the material stuff they see on TV.

I agree with you.

What contradiction? Cliffy knows himself enough to know he is sometimes intolerant. I see no contradiction in that.

What contradiction? Sometimes you make me very intolerant LG .

I do not follow others, it can be called stubborneness by
others. I see the same in my daughters.
It is not stubborness, it is allowing oneself to stay in
your own zone, follow your own path.
One's own zone is not within 'society' it is within themselves, and if it fits into society, fine, if not,
also fine.
It allows one to see through all of the material part of
life, the commercialism of life, and focus on life itself.
The honor just to be alive, and enjoy that part of life,
and allow the energy to flow from oneself in a more simple
way.
One can accept themselves as they would their own best
friend, and treat oneself like they would their own
best friend.
Contentment comes easily.

To know thyself is to shave the correct face, every few days.

What contradiction?

When thine socks ripen thou hast discovered thine feet.

You've been into the shrooms again? Fruit ripens. I discovered my feet as an infant.

"Feets, do your thing!"
Feet can get pretty "ripe". I had a friend a while back who could cause horses and cattle to walk away quickly when he walked close to them with no shoes on. They even grossed out my dog.