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

What to do with understanding?


Displaying all 11 posts
Page 1 of 1
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

You do not respect your understanding. You would like to store understanding, like knowledge, in memory. But you can't store understanding in memory, either it is lived, or it escapes you.

From Vimala Thakar's "Songs of Yearning"

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 05 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Jan 2017 #2
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Yes, you cannot do anything with understanding, simply because you ARE it, fundamentally. You are in no separation from it (because understanding is not thought and only thought creates the illusion of sepaeration, from itself), but rather it acts and lives through you. And I say THROUGH exactly because it is not of time/memory/thought and therefore cannot be stored in the brains. It is always new, fresh, alive, without past/future/thought.

Being the understanding, it is beside the point WHAT it may be doing, at the level of content. Just like nothing can be done with it, because you can only BE IT, (or then not) whatever it does, is an expression of this understanding. It could be anything at all, its roots always being in that which is beyond the manifested, the known.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Fri, 06 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Jan 2017 #3
Thumb_img_1496 Per . Sweden 96 posts in this forum Offline

Under-standing probes deep, beyond the word, beyond thinking into being and "wat is". Beyond the mind. What the mind is busy with when searching for explanation is more like over-standing.

Yes. You are understanding or it is lost on you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Jan 2017 #4
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

Mina,

When you say “you ARE fundamentally understanding”, who or what is the you who IS understanding?

Clearly, you don’t mean the you/me which consists of fragments of knowledge and imagery which is put together by thought. THAT you/me cannot understand, can it? And strangely enough it WANTS to understand… “strangely” because how can a thing which does not in fact exist WANT anything? But the intellect/thought CAN understand its own abilities and limitations, can’t it? ..... I can’t flap my arms and fly. I can’t flit like a bee from brain to brain to see the particular thoughts and imagery arising in a particular brain. I can’t make something appear or disappear by wishing it. I can't feed my hunger by looking at a picture of food. And so on.

Thought doesn’t need to remember these facts. They can be seen at any moment. Which is not to deny that memory has its proper and essential purpose.

Either there is understanding or there is not. Isn’t it enough just to understand? There is observation, awareness, attention, understanding, intelligence, love. They just ARE, aren’t they? Do “I” have to BE any of them? Do I have to BE anything? AM I anything?

If there actually is understanding, there is no NEED to store, attribute it (or respect) it.

DOES the intellect really understand the nature of self? IS self in fact a psychological conglomerate made up of a vast collection of psychological fragments and not a distinct, separate entity? If it is so, it can be seen at any moment. And where something is not seen or understood, isn’t it the beginning of wisdom to say “I don’t understand”?

Anything I say is not intended to have finality. It is all said hesitantly.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 06 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Jan 2017 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

If you live your understanding, then it becomes the substance of your being, the essence of your being, and never leaves you.

Tragically, modern life encourages you to arrive at scientific, intellectual understanding of truth, but discourages you from living that understanding. Your understanding is not allowed to grow spontaneously in relationship, it is prevented by internal, external factors. You present excuses to your understanding and intelligence. You say to yourself, “Please we can't live according to our understanding because … “ and you give reasons and excuses. And in the time lag between understanding and action you ferment discontent, misery and suffering.

From Vimala Thakar's "Songs of Yearning"

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jan 2017 #6
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette . wrote:
Mina,

When you say “you ARE fundamentally understanding”, who or what is the you who IS understanding?

Mina:Yes, of course I do not mean thought of oneself by the personal pronoun 'you'. I was writing about understanding as the timeless, thoughtless, essense of 'oneself'. Talking about it as the 'substance of your being', as in Vimala Thakar's quote Clive has posted below.

Huguette:>Clearly, you don’t mean the you/me which consists of fragments of knowledge and imagery which is put together by thought. THAT you/me cannot understand, can it? And strangely enough it WANTS to understand… “strangely” because how can a thing which does not in fact exist WANT anything? But the intellect/thought CAN understand its own abilities and limitations, can’t it? ..... I can’t flap my arms and fly. I can’t flit like a bee from brain to brain to see the particular thoughts and imagery arising in a particular brain. I can’t make something appear or disappear by wishing it. I can't feed my hunger by looking at a picture of food. And so on.

Mina: Yes, of course do not mean thought or its desires, as was said.

Huguette:>Either there is understanding or there is not. Isn’t it enough just to understand? There is observation, awareness, attention, understanding, intelligence, love. They just ARE, aren’t they? Do “I” have to BE any of them? Do I have to BE anything? AM I anything?

Mina: Yes there is understanding or not. Yes, it is 'enough', nothing is lacking in it.It is not thought. There is no 'me' in it to be 'anything'. It is whole by its very nature, nothing outside of it, nothing excluded, (or included in any sense of dualistic, dividing action that all comes from thought) to be desired, experienced as a lack etc.

Huguette:>If there actually is understanding, there is no NEED to store, attribute it (or respect) it.

Mina: Clear..that which is timeless, thoughtless and whole, has no needs which are created by thought/time/duality. You are not separate from it for those needs you describe above, to exist. "You are understanding", in my previous reply, means really, in other words, that there is nothing but understanding in understanding.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jan 2017 #7
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

You can only LIVE your understanding if you LEAVE your understanding. Is it so? That is, you are not living it where you are trying to propagate it, striving to hold onto it, referring to it, canonizing it, attributing significance to it, analyzing it, and so on. Just let understanding be. If it fades, it fades. If you cling to it, it has already disappeared and you are the prisoner of knowledge. Whether it has disappeared or not disappeared, action in relationship can only start from nothing, no knowledge, no?

Action has the quality of its source, doesn't it? Where there is understanding or love, understanding or love pervades whatever action comes from it. Just as where there is anger or confusion, anger or confusion pervades whatever action comes from it. Where there is understanding, the action which comes from it is not engendered by the fragmented “entity”, by self. If understanding is false - i.e. knowledge based - action must be false, no? Is all this so?

SELF - desire, fear, anger, bitterness, jealousy, ambition, etc. - is the factor which distorts and fragments action, which puts together false understanding, isn’t it? Then my only concern is to observe “myself” - for the brain to observe itself - to see the very moment where the distorting factor arises; to see the very moment where action is engendered by division, the moment where relationship is hijacked by knowledge. And to let THAT go. Isn't perception of the moment understanding?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jan 2017 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
You can only LIVE your understanding if you LEAVE your understanding. Is it so? That is, you are not living it where you are trying to propagate it, striving to hold onto it, referring to it, canonizing it, attributing significance to it, analyzing it, and so on

Teaching or preaching understanding is equally suspect...not just because K said it, but we can see that it has already become an idea if one plays the role of guru. 'The guru exploits the follower and the followers exploit the guru.' (A paraphrase of K)

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jan 2017 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Action has the quality of its source, doesn't it? Where there is understanding or love, understanding or love pervades whatever action comes from it. Just as where there is anger or confusion, anger or confusion pervades whatever action comes from it. Where there is understanding, the action which comes from it is not engendered by the fragmented “entity”, by self. If understanding is false - i.e. knowledge based - action must be false, no? Is all this so?

It feels to me that it is indeed so, Huguette, and it is a very important point. It seems to hint at some wholeness that is not normally there when our understanding is uncomplete or non-existent.

Huguette . wrote:
SELF - desire, fear, anger, bitterness, jealousy, ambition, etc. - is the factor which distorts and fragments action, which puts together false understanding, isn’t it?

Again I would say yes, it is so, and this is another very important point. It is relevent to a question that has been with me for a long time - why does the self corrupt everything it touches?

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't perception of the moment understanding?

Which seems to suggest that there is no cotinuity at all in understanding, does it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jan 2017 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

More from Vimala Thaker:

Being an inquirer means living one's understanding, however little that may be, without any thought given to the possible consequencies.

It implies that one is loyal and faithful to one's understanding, insuring that there is no time lag between understanding and action.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 07 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jan 2017 #11
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette,

Huguette:>You can only LIVE your understanding if you LEAVE your understanding. Is it so? That is, you are not living it where you are trying to propagate it, striving to hold onto it, referring to it, canonizing it, attributing significance to it, analyzing it, and so on. Just let understanding be. If it fades, it fades. If you cling to it, it has already disappeared and you are the prisoner of knowledge. Whether it has disappeared or not disappeared, action in relationship can only start from nothing, no knowledge, no?

Mina: Right, beautiful. Living is leaving, in the sense of understanding never turning into an idea/knowledge. Yes, once there is any separation from it, once the thinker/thought/knowledge is there, it is no longer alive in the moment, timelessly, but has turned into dead knowledge. -Yes, when there is no accumulation of any ideas, we are always here, relating from not knowing, and that is understanding in action. That is where the absolute newness and beauty of communion with another, true sharing, takes place.

Huguette:>Action has the quality of its source, doesn't it? Where there is understanding or love, understanding or love pervades whatever action comes from it.

Mina: Absolutely...interesting, a similar thought came to mind last night...something like this: "Whatever words are spoken in understanding, the words are being imbued by it..." (even if words by themselves remain limited)

Huguette: Just as where there is anger or confusion, anger or confusion pervades whatever action comes from it. Where there is understanding, the action which comes from it is not engendered by the fragmented “entity”, by self. If understanding is false - i.e. knowledge based - action must be false, no? Is all this so?

Mina: Absolutely..

Huguette:>SELF - desire, fear, anger, bitterness, jealousy, ambition, etc. - is the factor which distorts and fragments action, which puts together false understanding, isn’t it? Then my only concern is to observe “myself” - for the brain to observe itself - to see the very moment where the distorting factor arises; to see the very moment where action is engendered by division, the moment where relationship is hijacked by knowledge. And to let THAT go. Isn't perception of the moment understanding?

Mina: Exactly!!! How utterly beautiful and true!! Thank you!!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 11 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.)