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

We are talking of different things Clive. I am not referring to one thought dissolving into another, but of total dissolution of the self - which cannot come about without the understanding of the whole of its movement, which is the point of my (misunderstood) observation.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
f total dissolution of the self - which cannot come about without the understanding of the whole of its movement

So what does it mean, the understanding of the whole of its movement?

Obviously thought is fragmented, broken up. Where is this 'wholeness' of its movement?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Obviously thought is fragmented, broken up. Where is this 'wholeness' of its movement?

In the self Clive. Not 'wholeness' - that is your word Clive. My word was 'whole' - meaning 'everything about it'.

So to put it another way that perhaps will not be misinterpreted: Any ending requires total understanding. The self IS a movement. For the self to end, everything about that movement, no matter how unpalatable, MUST necessarily be understood.

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Thu, 18 Feb 2016.

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

Well at least 'unlearning' happens by degrees, yes ... but can it be said that 'unlearning' is 'becoming', I would say no ... unlearning is about forgetting/dropping/dissolving all the erroneous identities and opinions and beliefs etc your mind has artificially created or accepted ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Hello all :)

Long time no see. Could not but help to add a sense on this topic.

The self is nether good or bad, evil or beautiful, the self is just (time) unconsciously most often imposed on you unassociated awareness. Its hard to believe we are timeless and are that which is most pure (awareness). We do have the opportunity don't you find to come upon our essence, our truth. The truth of being the eternal unborn if it was not for the error of accumulation. Pickup just one idea or notion to who and what we are and begin the journey ever further from our truth (the timeless). But remain for a moment (unborn) yet alive and kicking and one will never again take up roots in the world of time. Rather one will remain shedding any accumulation moment to moment to moment.

I love you my friends, embrace your/our unborn/empty nature. Krishnamurti's unhardened heart.

There is no other.

George Lanroh wrote:
Long time no see. Could not but help to add a sense on this topic.

Good to hear from you George :-)

George Lanroh wrote:
The self is nether good or bad, evil or beautiful, the self is just (time) unconsciously most often imposed on you unassociated awareness.

Yes George, self is just a 'mis-take' ... an erroneous identity projected by 'time' ... and this 'mis-take' contains its self-correction which we call 'suffering' ... because of the mistake, suffering is 'needed' to correct the mistake ... and this is what happens in this world, all the suffering 'correcting' the mistakes of humanity ...

This reminds me of an old saying I often heard in my young time (no more heard so much nowadays), when some older person saw a younger one act unconsciously and selfishly, he used to say:

"A 'good' war would educate those young people"

... meaning by this, a 'good' suffering can teach them the real value of life ...

Suffering has its place too ...

ps: edited for correction: 'selfishly' not 'selflessly' :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sat, 20 Feb 2016.

Jean Gatti wrote:
This reminds me of an old saying I often heard in my young time (no more heard so much nowadays), when some older person saw a younger one act unconsciously and selflessly, he used to say:

"A 'good' war would educate those young people"

... meaning by this, a 'good' suffering can teach them the real value of life ...

Suffering has its place too ...

Now THAT is an authoritarian speaking. "Send 'em off to war - that'll teach 'em!"

And from someone who talks about 'love' and 'hope' Jean?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Now THAT is an authoritarian speaking. "Send 'em off to war - that'll teach 'em!"

No Patricia, I never said I agree with this ... I just said I heard it in my young time ... you are interpreting and making your own conclusions Patricia ... and also making things personal instead of getting the message ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

George Lanroh wrote:
Long time no see. Could not but help to add a sense on this topic.

Very good to hear from you George. Just wondering if you have posted to the thread that you intended to? Although what you say is universally applicable, like all truth.

Jean Gatti wrote:
saw a younger one act unconsciously and selflessly

I think you meant self-ishly did you not, Jean?

Clive Elwell wrote:
I think you meant self-ishly did you not, Jean?

Yes, thanks for correction Clive ... I suffer for my mistake :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
No Patricia, I never said I agree with this

But Jean you posted the story - and followed it up with the comment:

Jean Gatti wrote:
Suffering has its place too ...

which sounds a lot like approval. It certainly does not signify any awareness of the total abhorrence of war.

So I repeat:

And worse - to use the word 'love' as an excuse to NOT go deeply into the actual problem that human beings are facing - because 'love will find a way' - is quite frankly a very pathetic excuse for avoiding all that mankind just does not wish to look at.

I am not being personal Jean, but simply illustrating the trap that the 'love-peddlers' constantly fall into. You said it - I just pointed it out.

To clarify a little more.

Talking about love as the solution to everything is NOT to understand. It may sound lovely, and make the one who advocates 'the love' feel really good and honourable, but it avoids facing the fact of what is.

Facing the fact of what is may well lead to the understanding of what is, and only through that complete understanding can ANY genuine change come about.

And the fact of what is happens to be very bleak indeed. It was bleak when K was alive and speaking about it, and it is very bleak today. Anyone have to courage to face it?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
which sounds a lot like approval.

beware to draw conclusions founded on mere assumptions Patricia ...

Better stick to facts ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sat, 20 Feb 2016.

George Lanroh wrote:
The self is nether good or bad, evil or beautiful, the self is just (time) unconsciously most often imposed on you unassociated awareness.

Yes George,

Only by give it a name and or quality one introduce time.
it's neutral in itself

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

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Jean Gatti wrote:

Suffering has its place too ...

Patricia: which sounds a lot like approval. It certainly does not signify any awareness of the total abhorrence of war.

Thank you, Patricia. I was just reading yesterday the biography of Albert Speer...one of Hitler's closest associates. Reading about the unfathomable suffering these two and their cohorts inflicted upon those who were used for slave labor to mine the stone to build the roads and immense buildings and monuments to the Nazi ego...not to mention the armaments... one was so totally sickened. Thousands of them were literally worked to death.....not even mentioning the mass exterminations we all know of all too well. Suffering such as this has its place? Interesting point made by the author....Speer grew up as a child in a household with very cold and unloving parents. He must have suffered terribly. So we see how suffering mostly perpetuates itself....rather than leading to enlightenment.

Today's QOTD:

"To be aware of what is and not escape into fanciful illusion is the beginning of understanding."

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 20 Feb 2016.

George,

Glad to see you posting again. As pointed out, we probably should have this somewhere else, but this is in response to your post.

So let us not call the self "evil," and influence ourselves before looking at the facts. Just the facts; forget about assigning names or characteristics to the self and move into looking at what the self has done or accomplished.

I would say that what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Papa Doc brought about was due to personal ambition and a personal desire to shape nations and people. The self.

We have been fighting wars for thousands of years, and these wars have increased in virulence and suffering. We have arrived at the point where we are threatening mass destruction. The self.

Only the above two comments come easily to mind. Perhaps someone can cite contrary facts, where the self has brought unity and peace on just as large a scale.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 20 Feb 2016.

Jean Gatti wrote:
"A 'good' war would educate those young people"

... meaning by this, a 'good' suffering can teach them the real value of life ...

Suffering has its place too ...

Hi Jean

I understood the intent of your above words. Yes one who has suffered the gaunlet of true deep introspection and found no self which has not been put together (time) has most likely also embraced such suffering understanding it was necessary for most of us. Necessary to keep the dog from chasing its own tail :)

There is no other.

Wim Opdam wrote:
Yes George,

Only by give it a name and or quality one introduce time.
it's neutral in itself

Can one have a sense, come upon that one is that quality (awareness) which is timeless in less we/it identifies with time?

There is no other.

George Lanroh wrote:
Can one have a sense, come upon that one is that quality (awareness) which is timeless in less we/it identifies with time?

How does that 'sense' you speak of come about George? Can thinking bring it about? Wouldn't one necessarily have to think...speculate...about this awareness....conceptualize it? Which wouldn't make a lot of sense, as it's only more thought...unawareness. The QOTD again: "To be aware of what is and not escape into fanciful illusion is the beginning of understanding."

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 20 Feb 2016.

Tom Paine wrote:
. So we see how suffering mostly perpetuates itself....rather than leading to enlightenment.

From K:

After all, what is suffering?
Suffering is a shock to awaken you, to
help you to understand life. When you
experience death, you feel utter
loneliness, the loss of support; you
are like the man who has been deprived
of his crutches. But if you
immediately seek crutches again in the
shape of comfort, companionship,
security, you deprive the shock of its
significance. Another shock comes, and
again you go through the same process.
Thus, though you have many experiences
during your life, shocks of suffering
that should awaken your intelligence,
your understanding, you gradually dull
those shocks by your desire and
pursuit after comfort.

Clive Elwell wrote:
From K:

After all, what is suffering?
Suffering is a shock to awaken you, to
help you to understand life.

Excellent quote Clive ... exactly what I mean when saying that suffering has its place too ... but of course a high price to pay for freedom ... nobody said that lessons of life are cheap ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sat, 20 Feb 2016.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Suffering is a shock to awaken you, to
help you to understand life.

Interesting excerpt...thanks for sharing. K actually said the opposite on at least one occasion.....that suffering only hardens one...makes one put up stronger defenses. Sorry, but I don't have the reference for that...only going from memory.

Let it Be

Tom Paine wrote:
K actually said the opposite on at least one occasion.....that suffering only hardens one...makes one put up stronger defenses. Sorry, but I don't have the reference for that...only going from memory.

Yes it can lead to this Tom, it depends on how you deal with suffering ... do you face it for what it is (and 'get' its message) ? or do you look for escapes (in distractions, entertainment, conflicts, violence etc) ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
We are talking of different things Clive. I am not referring to one thought dissolving into another, but of total dissolution of the self - which cannot come about without the understanding of the whole of its movement, which is the point of my (misunderstood) observation.

Clive Elwell wrote:
So what does it mean, the understanding of the whole of its movement?
Obviously thought is fragmented, broken up. Where is this 'wholeness' of its movement?

I have not noticed that you replied to this, Patricia. Can we go into this further? Does this apparent difference exist? Is not the dissolving of one thought the dissolving of all thought?

And also, the trouble is, I find that whenever one tries to talk about this dissolving of thought, and the space between thoughts, people invariably respond "Ah! But it comes back".

I find something not right about this statement.Thought is time, and when thought dissolves, time dissolves. The issue of 'thought coming back' is not longer there! That has also dissolved.

If one talks about thought will come back, it is precisely because thought has not dissolved.

Jean Gatti wrote:
it depends on how you deal with suffering ..

And there is a right way to 'deal with' suffering? You seem to be implying that there is...,that there is an alternative to 'what is'.

Let it Be

Tom Paine wrote:
And there is a right way to 'deal with' suffering?

Yes Tom, when you don't resist it ... when you don't try to escape from it ... when you 'get' its message ... when you pay attention to it ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

max greene wrote:
George,

Glad to see you posting again. As pointed out, we probably should have this somewhere else, but this is in response to your post.

Max, Clive

Maybe I am mistaken but I felt writing about unassociated awareness in a thread that spoke of the self ending when seen was spot on. Excuse me old friends if I errored :)

To this man awareness expressing its self through the human form is capable of identifying with endless possibilities forged in time as to who and what it is. Hitler, Stolin, Pol pot to this (awareness) represents just a few of the examples of awareness's ability to unconsciously accumulate an identity and remain totally in the dark to its presence acting as a filter upon all perception.

My question to my friends and forgive me if I am moving this thread off topic. Can you, can I, be that awareness which inhabits a human body and remain at heart unconditionally free of psychological time? If not free, can one be aware that one is appearing in this world as an awareness not separate from that accumulated content now responsible for forming our opinions.
One must agree that the accumulation of psychological time has painted an overlay upon our world, a map but not the true territory. Hasn't it also painted a map of who and what we think we are? Below that map to this man lies you/me not as self, but as unassociated awareness, and when self realized is unborn to the self of time.

I can hear awareness now: " Let me just put myself aside for a moment :)"

On a more serious note: If an when through awakening awareness puts its accumulated self aside then would not this be awareness unborn to time yet maybe for the first time conscious of the implications of its involvements with time? Can awareness be nobody? Or be somebody and know its only for a short time playing somebody? Now awareness is no longer fooled by temporary masks made of time. Can we ever look at each other the same way again?

Ever heard the saying: "I can look straight through you?"

There is no other.

George Lanroh wrote:
Maybe I am mistaken but I felt writing about unassociated awareness in a thread that spoke of the self ending when seen was spot on. Excuse me old friends if I errored :)

It's ok George, I won't ban you :-)

Tom Paine wrote:
K actually said the opposite on at least one occasion.....that suffering only hardens one...makes one put up stronger defenses. Sorry, but I don't have the reference for that...only going from memory.

Yes Tom, I know that you are right. Does it not all depend on how we RESPOND to suffering?