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

To understand the ground.........


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 83 in total
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #31
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 48 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
No joke. Where is the quote? Not that even a quote should be the last word -- the authority thing, you know. We look for ourselves.

Many have been giving, many times, by many. If you want to see a quote by K. on this subject, it is because you want to argue with him. That is not my problem. Find it by youself.. :)

This post was last updated by richard nolet (account deleted) Thu, 25 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #32
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

richard nolet wrote:
But still, there is thoughts ?

Thought cannot be separated from the thinker. When there is no self, there is no thought, and vice-versa.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 25 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #33
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

No intent to argue with anyone, Richard.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #34
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard villlar wrote:
So if there is observation (which is not thought) of the movement of thought, in this observation, there is no self. . .

max greene wrote:
This is the way I see it, too

OK max, So, the illusion can exist can move, whith awareness.

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #35
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
where I part with many here is I feel when awareness awakens to the nature of psychological time and time in general it can use time instead of time using it.

Psychological time (time projected by inter(re)acting thoughts inside the head with the desire to control/direct/interpret/conceptualize life or living) may not be be present in the state of what K referred to as choiceless awareness, George. Significance and usefulness of time in the physical/technical/mechanical world is beyond questioning.

All actions (life is action in relationships) take time the length of which is always affecting their usefulness as in "a stitch in time saves nine". :)

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #36
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
On the other hand, brain cells, arms, legs, the sky, trees are our physical world. That's what I observe.

Is the above "I" (the essence/entity and not the grammar thing) in 'I observe' psychological, Max?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #37
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 48 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
No intent to argue with anyone, Richard.

Well it seems to me that all discussion seems to end up in the same stagnation, the same subject, the same doldrums, the same argumentation of yours. Sorry, no insults intend.

And I feel that, in due respect for Patricia, one should at least go back to see what was the topic of this thread and, at least , try to stick to it.

This post was last updated by richard nolet (account deleted) Thu, 25 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #38
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
Is the above "I" (the essence/entity and not the grammar thing) in 'I observe' psychological . . .?

It's just language and grammar. There is no "I" in observation. Our language makes it difficult to actually speak without using the pronouns.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #39
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
So, the illusion can exist can move, whith awareness.

Why would there be illusion with awareness? With awareness there is the seeing of truth in the false.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #40
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
With awareness there is the seeing of truth in the false.

That's what I say, the false (illusion, thought, self) move in awareness, in observation...

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #41
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Sorry. I misunderstood, Richard.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #42
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Sorry. I misunderstood, Richard

No problem max. ..

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #43
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
All actions (life is action in relationships) take time the length of which is always affecting their usefulness as in "a stitch in time saves nine". :)

That is a very good expression. Would you say a stitch in time becomes nine when it is not shed after its use? Isn't that what happened? Man our ancestors began with what may have been good intentions crawling out of darkness on the back of time but soon forgot the world of his creation both subject and object was not separate from him. Soon he became unquestionably the accumulated self and the problems which only exist in relationship to his time bound self persona. Sure the psychologically naked man has his problems of putting a roof over his head and food to eat but I sense you would agree that the man well involved with psychological time spends most of his energy in keeping up the image, projecting and protecting. Which one of us have not fallen pray to this form of behavior. Even when alert one can find ones self under its spell. He he he :) Who is under its spell? Yes the spell creeps in the moment we have a self under the spell. That is the beauty of unconditional freedom:

"From the first not a thing is" No problem and no problem solver in the area of a psychological self. To abide unborn to time or conscious of the presence of time is to this man using time and then shedding it when it is no longer necessary in its present particular form. You put on your occupational psychological cloths and that of being a husband and a father and yet you also know that below these cloths you are the perpetual unborn presence of awareness which resides in the human body.

My old friend may say as long as there is a motive, a chooser the self is there. Yes but we are capable of knowing this and from an existential point of view understanding that this identification is the horse we are presently riding out of the darkness called the unknown. Through identification we have just invented ourselves and entered the world of form. A pretty cool by the formless :) That which has no form outside of being a quality of awareness is going to borrow a form through identification to express its self. You say your Sudhir :)

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
and he said most definitely that the one (thought) does not exist without the other (the thinker).

Can you give a definite quote on this, please Max?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #45
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
So if there is observation (which is not thought) of the movement of thought, in this observation, there is no self. . .

I seem to be seeing something new in this. So would you say, Richard, that it is always incorrect to say "I observe....."?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #46
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can you give a definite quote on this . . .

"The thinker [the self] and his thought are a unitary process. Neither has an independent existence." (Commentaries on Living, Series 3, Chapter 12)

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The thinker [the self] and his thought are a unitary process.

So are the parentheses yours or K's

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #48
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

You asked for a quote, I provided it. Are you trying to trap?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Are you trying to trap?

Gosh Max, no. It was a simple honest question. I did not know what exactly was the quote. I guess I can look it up.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #50
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Sorry, Clive. That was a little testy and defensive. The quote is the twelfth paragraph up from the end of the chapter.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #51
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 125 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
"The thinker [the self] and his thought are a unitary process. Neither has an independent existence." (Commentaries on Living, Series 3, Chapter 12)

Max - what do you think this actually means?

It is only about psychological thought as psychological time.

It is NOT a statement about thought per se as technical thought - it refers to psychological thought. Yet again you appear to mix up what were very clear factual distinctions made by K.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #52
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 125 posts in this forum Offline

richard nolet wrote:
Well it seems to me that all discussion seems to end up in the same stagnation, the same subject, the same doldrums, the same argumentation of yours. Sorry, no insults intend.

And I feel that, in due respect for Patricia, one should at least go back to see what was the topic of this thread and, at least , try to stick to it.

Yes that would be good wouldn't it! So much for living a religious life!

Thank you Richard for staying with the topic.

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Fri, 26 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #53
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 125 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
So, there is a movement of thought in right place and another which is out of place. Is there a way to find/notice/observe this difference which is not just more words as explanation/logic/reasoning etc?

Yes Sudhir - but it is not going to happen without an insight into what constitutes living a 'religious life'.

Asking if there is a 'way' is like asking if there is a path to truth...no there is not.

But that said - perhaps a good question to ask is: What is "thinking" in its place?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #54
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
it is always incorrect to say "I observe....."?

Oui bien sûr. ;-) yes of course. .. and clive, for all it is the same but we don't see/look clearly. . For exemple: "I'm walking".. there is a walking. Even if there are again words, that's a better "label".


The thinker [the self] and his thought are a unitary process. Neither has an independent existence." (Commentaries on Living, Series 3, Chapter 12)

Again, here, we have have to be very careful. To say that the self is thought, is correct, self can't exist without thought, but here the sentence doesn't say that thought is self. And secondly, there is no self in thought (nowhere lol), but an idea/belief of a self. .. when the movement is in observation, the thought and what is evoked inside by a brain élaboration (ex, a self) is seen. The movement of thought can be and be seen whith an idea/belief of self.

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #55
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 525 posts in this forum Offline

richard nolet wrote:
And I feel that, in due respect for Patricia, one should at least go back to see what was the topic of this thread and, at least , try to stick to it.

I question this very idea of 'sticking' with a topic ... isn't it also important to observe the movements of self in relationships, even here, when we have some opportunity to do so and learn something from this observation ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #56
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 48 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
I question this very idea of 'sticking' with a topic ... isn't it also important to observe the movements of self in relationships, even here, when we have some opportunity to do so and learn something from this observation ?

Yes Jean. I understand. My point was simply to not lost completely track about the starting point. By the way, excuse my english, must sounds funny sometimes. But I am learning :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #57
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 525 posts in this forum Offline

richard nolet wrote:
By the way, excuse my english, must sounds funny sometimes. But I am learning :)

No problem Richard, you are welcome, my english is far from perfect either :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #58
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote (post 51):
"The thinker [the self] and his thought are a unitary process. Neither has an independent existence." (Commentaries on Living, Series 3, Chapter 12)
Max - what do you think this actually means?
It is only about psychological thought as psychological time.

I think it means what it says.

Your opinion is that it is "only about psychological thought," but nowhere in the Commentary could I find either the word "psychological" or the word "technical."

And anyway, Isn't all thought psychological? It may be a technical matter we are thinking of, but isn't all thinking a psychological process of creating thought and the self?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #59
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
To say that the self is thought, is correct, self can't exist without thought, but here the sentence doesn't say that thought is self.

I can't see that it makes much difference. The point is that there cannot be one without the other. We can see it for ourselves simply as a matter of logic: If there is no thought, there is obviously no thinker. If there is only a "thinker," how can he be called "thinker" if there isn't any thought?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #60
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
There is no "I" in observation

Observation of inner world finds a thought movement as "I should not be late for the meeting" or as " I am going to impress each and everyone in the meeting today".

There is "I" in both the examples of observation of thought movement. Can you explain such presence of "I" in inner observation, Max?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 83 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.)