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

What is 'Inner division'?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 80 in total
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #31
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 882 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
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 ...

Hi Jean. This may be true but the great challenge is to discover this for yourself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #32
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 882 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
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

Hello Rich. I was paraphrasing Krishnamurti with this question. Krishnamurti said:

"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 it was Krishnamurti that put this question, not me. No doubt thought will rush in and give an explanation, a theory to answer this complex question. There are certainly no shortage of theories around. Like you said Rich, it's up to us to discover the truth of this and the other questions you asked through observation. If we have the interest and energy to do this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #33
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
This may be true but the great challenge is to discover this for yourself.

When you SEE it then you KNOW it ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #34
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 882 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
When you SEE it then you KNOW it ...

This sounds a bit like a slogan for Nike.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #35
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
This sounds a bit like a slogan for Nike.

Yes but I hold a copyright on this one :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sun, 18 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #36
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
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)

Thank for the quote Sean. My last question was : what signification do we give to the word : reality ? K. seems to use the word realty in this quote as: the truth, the truth of the matter about the ego. And that self-expansion can't lead to this reality. I have just read the all text here

(http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teach...

Her is another one with a different meaning givin to the word reality.

Krishnamurti: Everything that thought has put together is reality. This tent has been put together by thought, it is a reality. The tree has not been put together by thought, but it is a reality. Illusions are reality - the illusions that one has, imagination, all that is reality. And the action from those illusions is neurotic, which is also reality. So when you ask this question, "What is the right livelihood'', you must understand what reality is. Reality is not truth.

J. Krishnamurti Truth and Actuality Part III Chapter 10 Question from the 7th Public Talk Saanen 25th July, 1976 `Right Livelihood'

And another one with, again, a different meaning

K.: Man has throughout the ages been seeking something beyond himself, beyond material welfare - something we call truth or God or reality, a timeless state - something that cannot be disturbed by circumstances, by thought or by human corruption.K

J. Krishnamurti Freedom from the Known Chapter 1

I think it is important not to get confuse on how we use words, for the word is not the thing and can be confusing.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #37
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
K: ... Illusions are reality ...

It is a very confusing statement ... by definition an illusion cannot be real ... even if it might SEEM real for the one who experiences this illusion ... and self is this kind of illusion, it seems (or is believed to be) real but it is not ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #38
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

I would say that, beyond the words, K. want to convey, he want to include in this word reality, everything that have a result in the world , that have a consequence, everything that act; everything that is part of the chain of the cause and effect. Illusion bring a neurotic action which enter in the chain of cause and effect, then that is why he include it in the word reality, as are conflicts, war and so on.

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
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #39
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Rich Nolet wrote:

K: ... Illusions are reality ...
It is a very confusing statement ... by definition an illusion cannot be real ... even if it might SEEM real for the one who experiences this illusion

K always emphasized the importance of 'facing facts'. Maybe when discussing anger, violence, greed, illusion etc., we can use the word fact instead of reality. Would that make it more clear? The fact is that man is violent....non violence is a NON fact. Self is a fact...at least for most of us...and resistance is a fact. We can only deal with the actual facts of our daily actions. The rest are non facts...mostly illusions....like surrender... like non-violence....non-resistance...goodness...kindness...etc. Not that there isn't occasional kindness and generosity in man. But kindness and generosity are not the challenges we're facing. The challenge is violence and greed and the rest of our conflicts and misery.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 18 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #40
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
It is a very confusing statement ... by definition an illusion cannot be real ... even if it might SEEM real for the one who experiences this illusion

Here is a perfect example of Jean running into something, even something K said many times which is, that illusion is reality but reality is not truth, that doesn't match his preconceived notion of what is a fact, what is reality. He can't accept it, he is confused by it because he already believes in something else. Do you see how it is impossible to have a conversation with someone like this?

All of Jean's understanding runs on a track like a trolley, a train. If something isn't accessible to that track then it can't be a fact or reality for Jean.

There is no conversing with someone like this. He is stuck, entrenched in his beliefs and there can, for him, be no other possibility. Since Jean believes he already knows everything there is no discovery, no learning, no light for Jean. He forever, like a fly in amber, is caught in the dead past of his delusions and beliefs. He is, in effect, a cadaver that makes noise.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 18 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #41
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
I would say that, beyond the words, K. want to convey, he want to include in this word reality, everything that have a result in the world , that have a consequence, everything that act; everything that is part of the chain of the cause and effect. Illusion bring a neurotic action which enter in the chain of cause and effect, then that is why he include it in the word reality, as are conflicts, war and so on.

Yes and you expressed it very succinctly and clearly.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #42
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 882 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
I think it is important not to get confuse on how we use words, for the word is not the thing and can be confusing.

Hello Rich. Thanks for the quotes you posted. Yes, I agree with what you say here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 #43
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 882 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes but I hold a copyright on this one :-)

Ha, ha Jean. I'll respect your copyright and try not to use that line myself :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Dec 2016 #44
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
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?

... not only a conflict between thoughts, but also a conflict between the 'head' (thought ie. time) and the 'heart' (as presence and 'being')

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Dec 2016 #45
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
but also a conflict between the 'head' (thought ie. time) and the 'heart' (as presence and 'being')

Between thought and life? Is that what you're saying, Jean? Thought is always divided from the actual....'what is'....be it a tree or a cloud or our neighbor. We don't see the tree as it is, but only through the veil of thought and memory. This division between the me and the you is the cause of conflict. This is k 101, but I don't know if you are pointing to something different. Not sure what you mean by the 'heart'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 26 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Dec 2016 #46
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Not sure what you mean by the 'heart'.

The 'heart' is an inner feeling of peace (and you can indeed easily feel the physical heart beating in your chest) ... when thought occurs, a stress is generated and this feeling of peace disappears ... and is replaced by mind activity and inner tension in the body ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Dec 2016 #47
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5742 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
The 'heart' is an inner feeling of peace (and you can indeed easily feel the physical heart beating in your chest) ... when thought occurs, a stress is generated and this feeling of peace disappears ... and is replaced by mind activity and inner tension in the body ...

And so the BS continues as another year approaches. Jean divides everything up into dualities. Never seeing anything as a whole. When you divide everything into two or more parts that's where conflict begins. Now he has a conflict between brain and heart, thinking and feeling which is pure crap. Feeling is not apart from thinking

Mina, another cross-over from Tolle's site, is also spreading her own bran of manure on another forum. Both of these people just say anything that comes into their heads without any thing to support what they are saying. Apparently the only criteria they need to validate this rubbish is that if they believe it, it must be true.

If anyone really cares about this website and the reason it is here you need to stand up to these propagandists and not accept their twisted and skewed views of life.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 26 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Dec 2016 #48
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
The 'heart' is an inner feeling of peace (and you can indeed easily feel the physical heart beating in your chest) ... when thought occurs, a stress is generated and this feeling of peace disappears

And when there's anger and hate, that's the actual fact...reality....'what is'. Peace is a non-fact, right? An idea....not different than the ideas which generate the anger or fear. The ideal/idea of peace/heart only divides one further from the fact of conflict that he is experiencing.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 26 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Dec 2016 #49
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And when there's anger and hate, that's the actual fact...reality....'what is'. Peace is a non-fact, right?

Yes under the stress of emotional reactions there is no inner peace ... quite obvious indeed :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Dec 2016 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes under the stress of emotional reactions there is no inner peace ... quite obvious indeed :-)

Then why bring in the image/idea of the heart? Is it a reality when theres inner conflict? Or an ideal or goal....or what?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Dec 2016 #51
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Then why bring in the image/idea of the heart?

Because thought is conflicting with the heart ... can you observe this in yourself ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Dec 2016 #52
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Because thought is conflicting with the heart

That's a nice idea, but do you actually observe this yourself? Seriously...do you observe these two forces(thought and heart/love) in conflict/battle within you? Thoughts are just ideas...images. they don't do any actual conflicting, I don't think, because they're just passive images....images, however, which can create great fear which leads to violence and all the misery man lives with.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 26 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Dec 2016 #53
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
That's a nice idea, but do you actually observe this yourself? Seriously...do you observe these two forces(thought and heart/love) in conflict/battle within you?

Yes Tom, this is something you have to observe within yourself, otherwise indeed it will remain a "nice idea" ...

also do not make of 'heart' another concept, another idea ... 'heart' is not a 'force' but rather the opposite (so to say), it is peace, it is stillness, it is presence ... and thought (which is time and becoming) is conflicting with presence ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Dec 2016 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
heart' is not a 'force' but rather the opposite (so to say), it is peace, it is stillness, it is presence ... and thought (which is time and becoming) is conflicting with presence ...

Yes, I know what you mean now with this word, heart. I wouldn't use it myself, but walking in nature I often used to disappear into this presence....what I would call the timeless ....nowness. I still find your usage of the word 'heart' as something in 'me' as misleading. At least how you've been using it in this thread, seems false.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Dec 2016 #55
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I still find your usage of the word 'heart' as something in 'me' as misleading.

The fact is that the 'heart' is the core of who you are Tom ... this is precisely why it is called the 'heart' ...

(nb: in French 'heart' is translated as 'coeur' which has the very same etymological root as 'core')

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Dec 2016 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
The fact is that the 'heart' is the core of who you are Tom ... this is precisely why it is called the 'heart' ...

Did you make up this fact....or read it in a book...or? I would say something a little different....rather, that heart/awareness/presence is when I am NOT.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Dec 2016 #57
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I would say something a little different....rather, that heart/awareness/presence is when I am NOT.

Well Tom it is not different at all, it is exactly the same: the heart IS when thought (ie. the identified 'I') is not ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Dec 2016 #58
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I still find your usage of the word 'heart' as something in 'me' as misleading.

First of all the 'heart' we are referring to is not physical, so it is not 'something' ... and as it has no 'form', it is not limited and cannot be 'inside' something ...it is unlimited and formless ...

It is the essence of who you are.

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Dec 2016 #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
it has no 'form', it is not limited and cannot be 'inside' something ...it is unlimited and formless ...

It is the essence of who you are.

OK Jean, thanks for sharing your view. We've discussed this previously, and how it seems to contradict totally what K pointed to...that 'you' are the self..the ego....with all its suffering and attachments and fears, beliefs, opinions, conclusions, ideals, etc. I don't want to reopen that can of worms at the moment, so won't say more. I see that today’s QOTD might be relevant here, so I'll share an excerpt:

" Reality is the unknowable and you cannot imagine it or put it into words. It is the unknown. Therefore any positive approach to the unknown will make the unknown knowable and therefore that is not the Truth. Truth is when the known ceases to be. The Eternal is approached not through time. The Eternal is when time ceases, that is when thought which is the result of time comes to an end. So, religion is not the positive; it is not dogmatic, assertive or convertive; it is not the worship of images." K.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 28 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Dec 2016 #60
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
'you' are the self..the ego....with all its suffering and attachments and fears, beliefs, opinions, conclusions, ideals, etc.

Yes, this is what you think you are ... go deeper Tom ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 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.)