Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

What is 'Inner division'?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 80 in total
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #1
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

I was discussing this issue earlier with Jean and Jack on another thread, and Jack suggested that the discussion belonged on a different thread, so I'm starting a new one. It was in one of K's talks that I first came across the idea of the inner battle between 'me' and 'not me'.....between what is and what should be....the actual and the ideal. So what is meant by 'inner' division?

To continue where I left off with Jean:

Jean Gatti wrote:

Inner division (which is also resistance and suffering) is a consequence of identification (ie 'outer' division), when there is no identification nothing is resisted ... therefore there can be no inner division

Tom: Can you expand upon this, Jean. I was speaking about the division in consciousness....between ideas in consciousness. Are you saying this doesn't exist....the 'good' me battling with the 'bad' me.....the 'inner' conflict between one thought and another.....thought fighting thought?

If anyone feels it's worthwhile pursuing this topic, jump right in...

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 16 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #2
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 274 posts in this forum Offline

Sir this fight, of thought, is in thought as time becoming, this becoming is illusory in nature, as past becomes, an illusion as self is there just like a Tv picture

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #3
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 575 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Tom,

The subject of inner division reminds me of the two wolves Cherokee tale:

A grandfather is talking with his grandson and he says there are two wolves inside of us which are always at war with each other.

One of them is a good wolf which represents things like kindness, bravery and love. The other is a bad wolf, which represents things like greed, hatred and fear.

The grandson stops and thinks about it for a second then he looks up at his grandfather and says, “Grandfather, which one wins?”

The grandfather quietly replies, the one you feed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

david sharma wrote:
Sir this fight, of thought, is in thought as time becoming,

And time, past(thought) reacting to time/thought....it's a battle like the outer battles between 'me' and 'you'. Thought is the root of it all as thought divides 'externally'....and is divided 'internally'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 16 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
The subject of inner division reminds me of the two wolves Cherokee tale:

Yes, I know the tale. But this feeding or not feeding is only another idea, right? An ideal of 'not feeding'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #6
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Thank you Tom. And for what it may be worth I think you are on to a very interesting subject.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #7
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 575 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yes, I know the tale. But this feeding or not feeding is only another idea, right? An ideal of 'not feeding'.

Hi Tom. I'm not sure the tale is relevant to this discussion but it does perhaps make one wonder why qualities such as kindness, compassion, greed and hatred are more or less present in some people than in others. I mean, you do meet people who are really kind and compassionate and you wonder why they're like that. You also meet people who are greedy or full of hate and I suppose it may be experience and conditioning that makes them that way but different people react differently to the same experience. So anger, hatred, love, greed and compassion probably exist in all of us but they become more accentuated in some and less in others. The tale suggests this is because we "feed" them in some way and that the development of these qualities may be conscious at some level. That's what I understand. So I think this is interesting but may not really be what you're focussing on here on this thread.

On another note it seems that Krishnamurti, even as a boy, somehow was minimally affected by conditioning. At least that's what he said in Mary Z's unfinished book. I seem to remember him reflecting on this with Mary Z and others and wondering why this was so. I'm not sure how the search engine on my Kindle works so I haven't got the quote here I'm afraid.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #8
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Can I add my two cents worth? The "self", "ego", "center", and "I" and the other names is result of thought believing that it is unique, individual. The self is thought and thought is real. So to say that the "self" doesn't exist is ridiculous.

The self seems to be the basic unit of division in the world. To believe the self is separate from all other individuals is to believe that your brain, your consciousness is separate and unique from all others. We simply can see that this is not a fact.

All humans share a conditioning, a consciousness, a brain that has been forming since the beginning of humanity. Our brains have been hardwired through a million years of living to respond to the world in a way that is geared to maximized survival and also in ways that are very destructive. For example, it is accepted by paleontologists and anthropologists that prehistoric people living in North America caused the mass extinction of certain large mammals. Mammoths for example.

Ultimately, and I presume most of us agree on is this the self is the invention of thought. Outwardly this division is expressed in different political parties, organized religion; one is a Christian, one is a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist and so on. Also one is an American, an Englishman, a Spaniard and so on. The inward division and the outward division are rooted in thought which seeks security and a permanence it will never find as long is there is this fact of separation. All this division leads, inevitably, to conflict and insecurity. The ultimate paradox.

If this conflict doesn't end it will surely end us and life as we know it even as it appears to be doing now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #9
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Are you saying this doesn't exist....the 'good' me battling with the 'bad' me.....the 'inner' conflict between one thought and another.....thought fighting thought?

I am saying that inner division does not exist when there is no 'outer' division created (like a center, a 'me' and a periphery, some outer reality) ie. when no separate identity is created ... we are not separate from the whole Tom, we are not separate beings ... this division is a mind-created concept ... an illusion ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
I am saying that inner division does not exist when there is no 'outer' division created (like a center, a 'me' and a periphery, some outer reality) ie. when no separate identity is created

You seem to be saying that there is no inner....that literally, "I am the world". But to say that this inner battle doesn't exist would be absurd. I realize you're not saying that, but 'what is'...the actual fact of consciousness in man.... is this division...thought divided from thought. All just ideas, yes. It's the apparent reality of these concepts, ideas, ideals, and beliefs that needs to be addressed, I think.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #11
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But to say that this inner battle doesn't exist would be absurd.

No Tom, this inner battle does indeed exist ... but is a consequence of 'outer' division ... in other words when no outer division is created then there can be no resistance to 'what is' (no anger, greed etc) ...

As I said ealier 'inner' division is only the second step of the process ... the first step being the appearence of resistance in the form of an emotional reaction (like anger, greed, jealousy etc).

So how can we say "yes" to 'what is' ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
No Tom, this inner battle does indeed exist ... but is a consequence of 'outer' division ... in other words when no outer division is created then there can be no resistance to 'what is' (no anger, greed etc) ...

As I said ealier 'inner' division is only the second step of the process ... the first step being the appearence of resistance in the form of an emotional reaction (like anger, greed, jealousy etc).

The emotional reaction/resistance is a product of thought. Both apparent divisions... inner and outer...are created by thought. I don't see any fundamental difference between inner and outer division.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #13
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I don't see any fundamental difference between inner and outer division.

Inner division is a logical consequence of identification (ie 'outer' division) ... both of course are the product of thought ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:

So how can we say "yes" to 'what is' ?

'We' obviously cannot when we are constantly creating division. Without understanding THAT action, to imagine....think about... some other possibility is totally meaningless.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Inner division is a logical consequence of identification

With ideas....beliefs...conclusions, right?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #16
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
With ideas....beliefs...conclusions, right?

Yes, the essential idea/concept being the separate 'me' ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #17
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes, the essential idea/concept being the separate 'me' ...

I don't know if that's the root cause of division or not. It's obviously one cause...one image or concept. Perhaps others will share their view here.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #18
Thumb_stringio Brian Smith United Kingdom 212 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

To me it's a tricky one. I think we're all looking at it from a wrong angle. I think we're using wrong frame of reference. If I identify the self as the self then the identifier as the self ad infinitum. I, the self, never understood this but then when I do I'll realise I haven't.

This post was last updated by Brian Smith (account deleted) Fri, 16 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #19
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 575 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Can I add my two cents worth? The "self", "ego", "center", and "I" and the other names is result of thought believing that it is unique, individual. The self is thought and thought is real. So to say that the "self" doesn't exist is ridiculous.

The self seems to be the basic unit of division in the world. To believe the self is separate from all other individuals is to believe that your brain, your consciousness is separate and unique from all others. We simply can see that this is not a fact.

A very clearly put summary which I completely agree with.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #20
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
A very clearly put summary which I completely agree with.

The unihorn is thought and thought is real. So to say that the "unihorn" doesn't exist is ridiculous.

Would you agree with this statement too Sean ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sat, 17 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #21
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
So to say that the "unihorn" doesn't exist is ridiculous.

The thought of the unicorn does exist, however. It exists as much as our thoughts of right vs wrong, good vs. bad, Christian and Jew....i.e., the self.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 17 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #22
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The thought of the unicorn does exist, however. It exists as much as our thoughts of right vs wrong, good vs. bad, Christian and Jew....i.e., the self.

This is exactly the point I have been making. Thinking is real. To say that thought and all of the things thought invents don't exist is not only ridiculous but lacks understanding of what thought is.

Thought is a natural and necessary activity of human beings and perhaps other animals. To simply disavow thought, to say it doesn't exist or that it is always divisive is a baseless ideal.

Thought is a tool. It can be used to do all of the practical things we have to do in our lives to survive and to maintain ourselves. It has also created countless problems. It doesn't really require a deep and discriminating mind to see the difference in the usages of thought.

The problem is when a person only thinks in concepts, ideals and believed in conclusions then there is a problem. It's like having a lot of pieces to a jigsaw puzzle and trying to put the pieces together even though they don't fit.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sat, 17 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #23
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Here is a demonstration of thought that is real: We got hit by a "polar vortex" last night after a warm, windy day yesterday. High 50's F. Now it is 1 degree F and there are three or four inches of snow on the ground and still snowing. I'm thinking about how I am going to make some buttermilk pancakes infused with fresh/frozen blueberries (which I have thawed out) covered with butter and maple syrup and washed down with a hot cup of green tea.

And then I think I'll light a fire in the fireplace in my small, cozy oak trimmed library and read some books I've been meaning to open and occasionally think about how, in ten days or so, I will be back in Southern California basking in warmth and sunshine and picking oranges, tangerines and avocados for the rest of the winter and well into spring.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sat, 17 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
The problem is when a person only thinks in concepts, ideals and believed in conclusions then there is a problem. It's like having a lot of pieces to a jigsaw puzzle and trying to put the pieces together even though they don't fit.

Good analogy! That's what we do in our relationships too....try to get others...our wife or girlfriend, for example...to live up to our image of them...of what they are or should be. When they don't conform to our expectations trouble starts. When I think I should behave according to the ideals of the Catholic church and try to fit myself into that mold, of course there's conflict.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #25
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 575 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
The unihorn is thought and thought is real. So to say that the "unihorn" doesn't exist is ridiculous.

Would you agree with this statement too Sean ?

Well Jean, many things only exist in people's thought. What's your point here Jean? That the self doesn't exist?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #26
Thumb_stringio Brian Smith United Kingdom 212 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I saw a unicorn once, I think.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #27
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
What's your point here Jean? That the self doesn't exist?

My point is that saying that something does exist because it comes out of thought is an absurdity ...

Self is a product of thought (which is real as a material process), this does not prove that self is real ... the fact is that when you look for the self you find ... nothing at all ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #28
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 575 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Self is a product of thought (which is real as a material process), this does not prove that self is real ... the fact is that when you look for the self you find ... nothing at all ...

Here's a quote from K, Jean:

"Must we not first have freedom to discover? There can be no freedom if our action is ever enclosing. Is not the action of the ego, the sense of the 'me' and the 'mine', ever a process of limitation? We are trying to find out, are we not, if the process of self-expansion leads to reality or if reality comes into being only when the self ceases."

Krishnamurti, Reflections on the self (para 4)

So the question is this: If the self ceases, does reality come into being?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #29
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
So the question is this: If the self ceases, does reality come into being?

Reality is already being here and now Sean ... it is just 'hidden' by the false idea of a self (and remains 'covered') ... like when clouds clutter the sky, people say there is no sun, but this is uncorrect as the sun is already always there behind the clouds ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #30
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 223 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
So the question is this: If the self ceases, does reality come into being?

Hi Sean again. No sure the question is ask from the right angle here. Not sure it is like one thing after the other. If one observe one self, and the world around, we can start to learn about what we call the self here. Strangely, the question has become: is it real, does it have any realty, is it something or nothing. That is not the right question. Arguing about if a thought has realty or not till the end of time will not help in anyway to understand ourselves. When one see the limitation of thought as the self, don't we ask: what then is freedom ?

When you ask: if the self ceases, does reality come into being ?, isn't it thought asking ? Isn't it a conditioned response , an intellectual question ? Do one see the self in action would be the first question

There is no quick answer to that enormous question. It require a deep observation without interest, without wanting to find some pseudo reality , or pretending that there is such a thing. The self is a limitation. He want succes, social recongnition, he want to be rich and famous. It have a million face. It have to be unroot in every moment, in its many ways, without asking anything in return, if I may say.

And what is reality ? What signification do we give to the word ? The reality of our lives as it is now ? Or something outside , something else, that we don't know nothing ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 18 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 80 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)