Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

When the mind truly sees itself, it dissolves.


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 105 in total
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4966 posts in this forum Offline

It is said that one cannot enter the same river twice, and I know I cannot now express what was clear to me last night.. So perhaps people will have patience if I struggle to express what is only dimly seen.

One of the main features of K's teachings is 'looking at oneself', is it not? But what does that really mean. And do we ever truly 'look at ourselves'? Certainly some of the mails I receive as moderator suggest to me strongly that the writers are not examining themselves at all – otherwise why would they be so concerned with the actions, the words, of others? The fact people draw images of others suggests they have not examined and understood the image making process in themselves.

But I am diverted from the essence of what I was trying to say.

Looking at oneself....... what actually is this 'oneself'? What you actually are, at any moment of looking, is the looker, is it not? The looker comes into existence when he is looking at something. Let us use the example of irritation for convenience.

What you are is the looking. What you think you are is what is being looked at – the irritation. One is not really 'looking at oneself'.

The only mind that can really see itself is one without division, which means without conflict.

Let me try another way of approaching this.

When we look (observe) we always look away from ourselves – just as our eyes do when we look optically. We see something and assume that that is what we are. But it is not, what we are is the looker – or better put, the process of looking.

Why is this important? Actually it is crucial. When one sees oneself for what one is, that is: the looker and not the looked at, the centre and not the periphery, the subject and not the object, this is an utterly revolutionary action. Because then the looker dissolves.

Feeling I have completely failed to convey the insight that came yesterday.

But please, the only valid source of replying to this mail comes from looking at oneself, from examining the process of looking. It is not worth it just discussing the issue intellectually.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #2
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 525 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What you actually are, at any moment of looking, is the looker, is it not? The looker comes into existence when he is looking at something.

Yes, when you 'look' at something then the 'looker' is created, separating himself from the 'looked', from this some 'thing' looked at ...

I see a difference between 'looking' and 'seeing' ... because looking implies a 'center', a will to focus attention on something, a will to 'grasp' some 'thing', a 'concentration' ... and concentration is NOT attention as K put it ...

In 'seeing' there is no 'seer' created, because seeing remains in the field of attention ... not trying to 'grasp' or 'seize' something ... not creating duality

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Mon, 15 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #3
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 525 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When one sees oneself for what one is ... then the looker dissolves.

Yes Clive, when one 'sees', the 'looker' disappears ... what remains is just the 'seeing' :-)

ps: sorry Clive for having deleted some words in your quote (replaced by '...') to make it clearer :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4966 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
I see a difference between 'looking' and 'seeing' ... because looking implies a 'center', a will to focus attention on something, a will to 'grasp' some 'thing', a 'concentration'

You are right, this is an important distinction to draw - I slurred over the distinction in what I wrote.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2512 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Looking at oneself....... what actually is this 'oneself'? What you actually are, at any moment of looking, is the looker, is it not? The looker comes into existence when he is looking at something. Let us use the example of irritation for convenience.

What you are is the looking. What you think you are is what is being looked at – the irritation. One is not really 'looking at oneself'.

Nonetheless the 'irritation', the fear, or anger, cannot be denied, can they? Aren't they facts for man? If someone says something that angers me, how can that anger be denied? You seem to be saying that the anger is not 'me'...that I am the looker ...the observer...of the anger. That that is what I truly am. I'M not what I'm looking at. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #6
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What you are is the looking. What you think you are is what is being looked at -- the irritation.

Not to argue, Clive, but here's how I see it: There is no "you" looking. There is never an entity with looking; there is never an entity with awareness. In observation and awareness, there is only the observed and that of which there is an awareness. Nothing else.

So when there is the observation of the irritation, the awareness of the irritation, that is all that there is. You are the observed; you are the irritation you speak of.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #7
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
We see something and assume that that is what we are.

In the seeing of something, that is exactly what we are. At the moment of sensing, there is unity to the extent of the sensing. The more sensitive we are, the wider awake we are, the wider our world becomes. We are what we sense.

We are the world. Whatever we sense, that we are. Our senses are our door to the world.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 15 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4966 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Not to argue, Clive, but here's how I see it

No problem, Max, I welcome discussion on this. As long as that discussion has its roots in observation, and not in theory, in conclusions (putting the same condition on myself).

Let us take it slowly.

max greene wrote:
There is no "you" looking.

I would say that is so, there is a 'process' of looking, is there not? An action of looking. This action does not imply an actor, an entity who has an independent existence from the looking.

Nevertheless, looking is. I was talking about a state of looking in which there is absolutely no separation.

Need to do something, I will return to this, unless you do.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4966 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Whatever we sense, that we are

I am not at all sure about this statement. Above and beyond that, are we not the sensing, the awareness, that is needed to sense anything?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #10
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 804 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Because then the looker dissolves.

Hi Clive

I question this " dissolves " it's seen as going up in a higher level.
within the seeing the looker is still there but not as such distinguishable.

Jean Gatti wrote:
when one 'sees', the 'looker' disappears ...

do you mean:
In the sense that the appearance seems not there, but is now part of a whole?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Tue, 16 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #11
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 525 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:

Jean Gatti wrote:

when one 'sees', the 'looker' disappears ...

do you mean:
In the sense that the appearance seems not there, but is now part of a whole?

No Wim, I mean that 'seeing' implies that there is no 'seer', no 'looker' because there is absolutely no resistance in the act of seeing ... just total attention ... no 'focus' on anything (no 'con-centre-ation' ie. no 'center') ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #12
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
'seeing' implies that there is no 'seer', no 'looker' . . .

Right. With seeing -- which is sensing, awareness -- there is no entity who sees. There is only that which is seen -- that which is sensed. We are what we perceive.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #13
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

In seeing there is emptyness seeing. I say there is the empty seer. It has nothing identifiable in it. No form, no content. Personhood is absent. No past in that moment.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 16 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #14
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

We are that emptyness. Not persons.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #15
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Thank you love for the post.

"The only mind that can really see itself is one without division, which means without conflict."

Mina: Right, this is it. Now, this 'seeing mind' is not the mind where the looker and the looked at (observer and observed, division) look and act and at the same create this reality.

It is a new mind, a completely different mind, it is really awareness...There are no limits to this mind that is talked of here..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #16
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

With awareness, there is no entity, there is no separate "mind." It would seem that "we" and "mind" come into existence only when awareness is interrupted or stops.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 16 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #17
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 804 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
No Wim, I mean that 'seeing' implies that there is no 'seer', no 'looker' because there is absolutely no resistance in the act of seeing ... just total attention ... no 'focus' on anything (no 'con-centre-ation' ie. no 'center') ...

Jean,

What does this 'NO' means??

Do You see it otherwise or it is otherwise??
In the last case you're behaving like an authority and not as an investigator.

for me it seems otherwise and I don't mind if you see it otherwise, but let me try to explain how it's seen by me.

Take for example the event of the rainbow.

With awareness it is still in need for the sun and weather situation with lot of water in the air needed. Also the person seeing the rainbow must stand in a special objectief towards the sun and the clouds.

take away any of the components who together make it possible for the event to take place and there is no rainbow at all.

one can imagine without a person the rainbow is still there but how would you proof that and not to speak of the sun blasted away.

So in my vieuw all the components must be there and with awareness taking part of an event of a higher order where the components in itself are not longer as such distinguishable.

All the components are playing their part in the whole of the event.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Tue, 16 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #18
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
We are that emptyness. Not persons.

m:this is so, thank you

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #19
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
We are that emptyness. Not persons.

m:this is so, thank you

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #20
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

There is no part, no point in the mind, the mind which is made up of image and the known (knowledge), that could see the whole of the mind. To realise this is an action in wholeness, in awareness, in which the mind cannot survive because the limited mind is only mainained by itself, by partial action.(reaction)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Tue, 16 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4966 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
I question this " dissolves " it's seen as going up in a higher level.
within the seeing the looker is still there but not as such distinguishable.

Hi Wim,
Slight problem with your English here - or maybe my comprehension. Can you rephrase.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4966 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
one can imagine without a person the rainbow is still there but how would you proof that and not to speak of the sun blasted away.

Very interesting what you describe, Wim. Yes, it seems to me the rainbow is somehow a whole- and included in the whole there must be a looker, with a consciousness to be aware of the rainbow.

Is this not what has been discovered in Quantum theory?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4966 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
There is no part, no point in the mind, the mind which is made up of image and the known (knowledge), that could see the whole of the mind. To realise this is an action in wholeness, in awareness, in which the mind cannot survive because the limited mind is only mainained by itself, by partial action.(reaction)

Yes, nicely put Mina

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4966 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Nonetheless the 'irritation', the fear, or anger, cannot be denied, can they? Aren't they facts for man? If someone says something that angers me, how can that anger be denied?

There was no suggestion whatsoever of denial in what I wrote, Tom. Denial merely continues the divided mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4966 posts in this forum Offline

The JK Online daily quote seems to support what I was trying to express in my first post. Not that that proves it true!

There is no knowledge of tomorrow,
only conjecture as to what might
happen tomorrow, based on your
knowledge of what has been. A mind
that observes with knowledge is
incapable of following swiftly the
stream of thought. It is only by
observing without the screen of
knowledge that you begin to see the
whole structure of your own thinking.
And as you observe - which is not to
condemn or accept, but simply to watch
- you will find that thought comes to an end. Casually to observe an
occasional thought leads nowhere. But
if you observe the process of thinking
and do not become an observer apart
from the observed, if you see the
whole movement of thought without
accepting or condemning it, then that
very observation puts an end
immediately to thought - and therefore
the mind is compassionate, it is in a
state of constant mutation. -
Krishnamurti, Saanen 4th Public Talk
14th July 1963

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Feb 2016 #26
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 804 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, it seems to me the rainbow is somehow a whole- and included in the whole there must be a looker, with a consciousness to be aware of the rainbow.

Is this not what has been discovered in Quantum theory?

I don't know much about quantum theory only that it describes reality by
statistics and not by causality is clear to me.

My point is simple that the smaller wholes does not disappear or dissolve totally, but that they are partaking in a larger whole, which if the greater whole disintegrates are just the intact parts again as wholes and not as fragments.

see it as an egg which become back an egg if the cake is disintegrating.;-)

even the naming as "rainbow" is not present in the event only 'awareness', so not with the consciousness to be aware of the rainbow.

So it seems to me, Jean and Max are not totally wrong but also not totally right in their descriptions.

your reply #25 with the quote of K. is speaking of seeing the whole structure

quoting K.:
if you observe the process of thinking and do not become an observer apart
from the observed, if you see the whole movement of thought without accepting or condemning it, then that very observation puts an end immediately to thought -
and therefore the mind is compassionate, it is in a state of constant mutation.

so not analysing it in fragments but seeing the movements of the wholes within the whole.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 17 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Feb 2016 #27
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 125 posts in this forum Offline

Clive - Re "When the mind truly sees itself, it dissolves".

Far more relevant is the action of 'really seeing itself' than the projected end-result of its dissolution surely?

Yet this is so rarely explored in great depth. K explored it, but on these forums it would seem there is far more interest in what-it-would-be-like to succeed. "Forget the process - we want, and are only interested in, the final reward!" The projected outcome can only pollute truth.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Feb 2016 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4966 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Far more relevant is the action of 'really seeing itself' than the projected end-result of its dissolution surely?

Nice to see you back, Patricia.

The words above seem to suggest some cause-effect relationship. I feel the seeing and the dissolution are really one movement.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Yet this is so rarely explored in great depth

This is very hard to communicate about. Really the only exploration is the doing of it. But "doing" does not imply any effort, any direction, any positive action at all. If one has to use words, I would say it is a negative movement, or to use the word we have already used a dissolution. When the limits of all movements of the mind are seen.

For me, this is the essence of K's teachings - a bold statement indeed! :-)

If two people are each 'exploring' this movement, this psychological dying, then a sort of communication about it between them may be possible - but all assertions are quickly seen not to be it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Feb 2016 #29
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 125 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The words above seem to suggest some cause-effect relationship.

Not at all Clive. Simply questioning the wisdom of projecting a destination - ie dissolution of the mind.

Is there no capability of exploring the movement of the self without the expectation of some final result?

The fact is: the mind has NOT dissolved. So dissolution IS a projection. Therefore the inquiry - the exploration - is polluted by that projection, that 'hope' of dissolution.

Or are you claiming that dissolution happens by degrees? Becoming?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Feb 2016 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4966 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Or are you claiming that dissolution happens by degrees? Becoming?

Gosh, I do not want to "claim" anything! I am only exploring.

Is there not a space between thoughts? Does not one thought dissolve, making way for another thought?

And no, I do not see any becoming in this 'process' (if that is the right word). It is the very ending of the becoming process. Neither is it a gradual process. It is like being cut off by a sharp knife.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 18 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 105 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.)