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

Stay in me and I will stay in you (and there is only ONE really)


Displaying all 16 posts
Page 1 of 1
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #1
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I would like to share further on this from another thread:

For as long as we do not realise that there is only ONE world, in other words we do not fully understand that we ARE the world, (and this understanding cannot come from division which is thought)apparent duality will be experienced.

-Wanted to add that this ONE world, as it cannot be perceived by the mind because the mind always sees/is two (or more), is NOT the world that the mind has created, which is that of sorrow, contradicition, comparison, hatred, grudge, revenge, protection, resistance, desire, and any other expressions that have their origin in the mind.

It is ONE world untouched by all that distortion.

Just feeling very strongly the nature of the ONE, the undivided, and how the mind/thought, if in its service, can appear to say something, but obeys in it, which means that it immediately returns to the silence (which is its own true origin) instead of continuing itself and thus creating time/divison/sorrow/its own separate existence. I feel this is what also K was saying when talking about thought as the tool that is used and dropped instantly when not needed.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #2
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 740 posts in this forum Offline

Yes Mina only love can see ,nothing else jk

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #3
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 740 posts in this forum Offline

Mind a time bound entity can not see this , as time is limited, love cannot be limited,

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #4
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 740 posts in this forum Offline

Love covers whole,

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #5
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

david sharma wrote:
Yes Mina only love can see ,nothing else jk

m: Yes, only love sees, and what it sees, is love. Only love, no subject/object, no division. That is the only Reality.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #6
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

david sharma wrote:
Mind a time bound entity can not see this , as time is limited, love cannot be limited,

Yes. That is why time must end for timeless to be.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #7
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

david sharma wrote:
Love covers whole,

Yes, love is wholeness, holiness.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #8
Thumb_stringio David T United Kingdom 150 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Hi Minnie,
Just a few thoughts in responce.
Thought is a tool that should not rule.
Fragmentation is the consequence of thinking. Thought can not end itself as that would only be more fragmentation. What is to be done to negate the unnecessary thought,it has to be an action not an activity. If one is to avoid the beginning of thinking then one has to first end thinking. This is done by the effortless action,as K used to describe it. Let's call the effortless action the one breath door. It is noted that the duration of any thought is always less than a single breath. The silence that follows the negation(de-energising)of thought allows the choiceless awareness to re-emerge. Choiceless refers not to a choice between one thing or another,as that would infer a chooser,but to the choice not to think. To be or not to be is the question.
So where do I go from here?

I am a figment of my and your imagination

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 #9
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 368 posts in this forum Offline

Mina,

In my understanding “I am the world” means that just as the world is divided, fragmented, in conflict, so am “I”. Conversely, just as I am divided, fragmented, in conflict, so is “the world”. So “I am the world” is the perception and understanding that the same process is responsible for division inwardly and outwardly.

To say that there is only ONE world is, to me, another idea. To me, duality does not end when the process introduces the idea of only one world. Doesn't duality end when the thought process that puts together all forms of thought is understood by the thought process itself?

One sees that the process of psychological duality is the cause of all conflict. So isn't the important thing for duality to end, for time and self to end? And for that, doesn’t thought have to understand its own processes? And then, isn’t that understanding what K calls “the dawning of intelligence”? That is, it is no longer seen as “my” intelligence. Then thought is silent except where appropriate.

I’m not opposing you. I see it differently and am submitting it for consideration.

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1910 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
One sees that the process of psychological duality is the cause of all conflict.

Right. It's the same process, whether it's the me thought/image (Christian, for instance) divided from the thought/image of you (Muslim or Jew), or the me image/thought looking at what I'm doing or thinking....my behavior or emotion... as if I'm separate from it....analyzing, condemning, or judging.

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 #11
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette,

Thank you for your reply. Just letting you know that I feel the need to go into this more with you, but working throughout the weekend so I am not able to do so as of yet. Mina

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Dec 2016 #12
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

David T wrote:
Just a few thoughts in responce.
Thought is a tool that should not rule.
Fragmentation is the consequence of thinking. Thought can not end itself as that would only be more fragmentation. What is to be done to negate the unnecessary thought,it has to be an action not an activity. If one is to avoid the beginning of thinking then one has to first end thinking. This is done by the effortless action,as K used to describe it. Let's call the effortless action the one breath door. It is noted that the duration of any thought is always less than a single breath. The silence that follows the negation(de-energising)of thought allows the choiceless awareness to re-emerge. Choiceless refers not to a choice between one thing or another,as that would infer a chooser,but to the choice not to think. To be or not to be is the question.
So where do I go from here?

Mina: Thank you David. Yes, well phrased, "choiceless refers not to a choice between one thing and another', as that would imply a chooser, but to the choice not to think." This is what I was meaning when talking about choice...choice that has a fundamental meaning, the 'choice not to think', as you said, and that choice is not the conventional one, it does not come from thought and the choices it makes within its own limits.

The only thing I personally find redundant and unnecessary, is your last question.:-) In the subsiding of thought and the emergence of silence, that happen together and yet only the silence remains, no questions or answers (thought)can survive..

Merry Christmas to you and your family, to Enzo especially! :-)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Mon, 19 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Dec 2016 #13
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette,

I am glad I can now have the opportunity to reply to your post.

Huguette says:>In my understanding “I am the world” means that just as the world is divided, fragmented, in conflict, so am “I”. Conversely, just as I am divided, fragmented, in conflict, so is “the world”. So “I am the world” is the perception and understanding that the same process is responsible for division inwardly and outwardly.

Mina: Absolutely! This is seen here also as its meaning. Let us look further.

Huguette:>To say that there is only ONE world is, to me, another idea. To me, duality does not end when the process introduces the idea of only one world. Doesn't duality end when the thought process that puts together all forms of thought is understood by the thought process itself?

Mina: No, for this person saying that there is only one world was not some 'new' idea introduced, it was the very living of the ONE world (undivided world) that was being expressed as action, also in the form of words.

Now, saying the above, does not have much meaning, since only seeing together is the fundamental concern here, but I still felt the need to phrase it, because it is part of one's need to be truthful.

So, let me try to approach this ONE WORLD again..perhaps we can tune together..

The phrase I AM THE WORLD, as agreed, describes the fact of the so called outer world being a direct reflection of the so called inner world. In reality there is NO DIVISION between the two. So the inner IS the outer. Or, in other words: I AM THE WORLD, without division.

Now, thought can never see the truth of this, since thought IS the division between me and the world, or between the inner and the outer, or between the observer and the observed. (all these examples mean exactly the same)...ONLY THE ONE, the undivided, can see this, BY BEING IT. This was the ONE WORLD I was talking about, it is no other that the action of intelligence. As it is NOT the outcome of thought, and its limitation, it creates a totally different world that it IS. (there is no becoming, no time, no division, no limit in it)

The One that is talked of, is not a unison of course between the inner and the outer (which would be thought doing something, more ideas, on already existing ones), but the ending of both. When the inner and the outer are SEEN as one, neither of them can survive. The world created by thought cannot survive in other words!

So, the ending of the world of division/thought IS the emergence of the ONE WORLD. Of course it is always there, but hidden from the mind which can never SEE IT OR BE IT.

Thank you so much..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Mon, 19 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Dec 2016 #14
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 368 posts in this forum Offline

Mina,

The conditioned brain thinks that “I” can find some sort of a haven from the world, the brain thinks that “my” problem is “the world” outside of me, that I and the world are separate --- “the world” being the psychosocial, collective global network of relationships, which watches in horror, in hope, in fear, in outrage, which condemns, gossips, goes to war, follows trends and celebrity, the world of sports, of fashion, of politics, “the Asian world, the developed world, the Arab world”, and so on --- all of which is the handiwork of thought. (Of course, "my" problem is also fragments within.)

K likened the relationship between the outer and the inner to a tide which comes in from the environment shaping the psyche, and goes back out to the environment shaping the outer. It is a movement back and forth, in and out.

We both actually see all this, don't we? It is not Mina or Huguette seeing it, it is the human brain, the brain of our species, which is fundamentally the same brain, just as the nervous system, the kidneys, guts, blood circulation are fundamentally the same. It is not the brain of a butterfly. There are diseases, anomalies, differences, we are not identical, but fundamentally all humans function in much the same way. The brain which is not divided can observe and reason sanely, can't it?

So this is what we are seeing, hesitantly, cautiously --- the illusory divisions fabricated by thought, the nature of self and time. We are sensitive to hints from the unconscious which we have been educated to ignore. We understand that the word is not the thing, and so on.

The world and I are ONE in disorder, there is ONE disorder. Where there is no disorder, there is no "me" and no "world" in the sense we have been talking about. This fact is actually seen, observed, looked at. But I don’t see ONE world. I still don’t understand what that means.

There’s a jump or leap from saying there is NO ACTUAL DIVISION --- no “me” separate from thought or separate from the world --- to saying that the inner is the outer, that the world is all ONE. You are going from seeing the ONE disorder to saying there is ONE WORLD, which I just don’t see, which is just a concept, an idea to me. What do I actually look at to see ONE WORLD?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 20 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Dec 2016 #15
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Huguette,

I again want to come back to you, thanks a lot for replying. However, there must be some time to do that. Just letting you know that I will come back to you as soon as possible. Merry Christmas to you!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Dec 2016 #16
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette >The world and I are ONE in disorder, there is ONE disorder. Where there is no disorder, there is no "me" and no "world" in the sense we have been talking about.

Mina: Yes, one disorder. Yes, when there is no disorder, there is no me, no world. This is what I have meant by the 'one world'. Perhaps better say just ONENESS.

Huguette:This fact is actually seen, observed, looked at. But I don’t see ONE world. I still don’t understand what that means.

Mina: If you really actually see the 'ONE DISORDER', but not intellectually, not from the division of the mind, (it is fairly easy to recognise intellectually that the human problems are common to all etc, and in this manner to talk about 'one disorder') then that very seeing comes from a place without division. Not taking any leaps into ideas of 'one world' as separate from the actual seeing of the fact 'one disorder'..no, the leap, the transformation is IN this very realisation of the 'one disorder'. It is only total order (not that of the mind which is disorder) that can really see the whole of disorder!!! The leap is in the very realisation of this.

"Seeing the false IS seeing what is true." Only one seeing, so in this sense 'only one world'

Huguette:>There’s a jump or leap from saying there is NO ACTUAL DIVISION --- no “me” separate from thought or separate from the world --- to saying that the inner is the outer, that the world is all ONE.

Mina: For me there IS leap, but not the kind you are suggesting, not made of time, not a conclusion. It was just described above.

Huguette:You are going from seeing the ONE disorder to saying there is ONE WORLD, which I just don’t see, which is just a concept, an idea to me. What do I actually look at to see ONE WORLD?

Mina: You do not look at anything to see oneness, (one world).It is discovered as your very essence, no 'looking at something'. No me or the world, as thought-creations are there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 16 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)