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

Image, Relationship, Love


Displaying all 21 posts
Page 1 of 1
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3036 posts in this forum Offline

Image, Relationship, Love

At the moment one thread is being used as a catch all for the discussion, so I thought I would start a new thread specific to this issue of image making.

We have said (Juan and I) that there can be no love when there are images in relationship. It came to me to ask, when all image in relationship has ended, is what is left the state of love? There is a feeling that this is so.

In any case, the ending of images seems to me the basic, fundamental challenge facing us. This challenge should not be interpreted as “me ending images” of course.

K has asked can we even look at a tree with the image of the tree intervening. And he has also asked if image can play no part in relationship. I think the implication is: to the extent there is image, there is no relationship.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3036 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
One has to be really honest to become aware that most of the times one is only seeking psychological security in the relationship.

I think this is the value of an affectionate open, inquiring relationship - there is the space for two people to go into these issues, not to accept the status quo, not to draw conclusions about what is love. To see things as they actually are in relationship without fear and without the relationship being fundamentally threatened.

You are pointing to this, Juan, when you write:

Juan E wrote:
Again, honesty and aloneness (which doesn't mean at all being divided from others) to actually see all that is the beginning of a love we don't know ...

Yes, this is a very important point. We do not KNOW love, it cannot be KNOWN. What we know is not love. Would you agree?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #3
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 103 posts in this forum Offline

Good morning Clive, et Al. ...

Clive Elwell wrote:
I think this is the value of an affectionate open, inquiring relationship - there is the space for two people to go into these issues, not to accept the status quo, not to draw conclusions about what is love. To see things as they actually are in relationship without fear and without the relationship being fundamentally threatened.

I don't have so much time as i must leave for work in a few minutes ... But i wouldn't like to leave without saying something about those two people you put in the middle of our inquiring about love ...

As i have said, love is companion with aloneness, or in other words the one who loves is alone within that love ... Of course, we would like the other to accompany us with our inquiring/discovering of what love is, but usually this is not the case, which most of the times this is translated into images of the other in the one who supposedly is inquiring into love ...

I'm sorry i have not more time, but i think you'll get a glimpse of what i want to convey ... Anyway i'll elaborate on that this evening when i come back home.

Leaving for work in a hurry (as always ;-)

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #4
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
To see things as they actually are in relationship

I suggest to keep “relationship” in general, object-subject body-tree, body-body.

Who is viewing?

What is viewed?

If we view a tree in a landscape, what are we viewing?

The form of the tree, the landscape, green leaves, sky, air on the skin, sounds, thoughts, sensations, etc.

Thus the viewer is in the viewed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #5
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 103 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Who is viewing?

What remains there when the 'me' has ended with any resistance, with any identification ...
This are not mere words, but an actuality.

Olive B wrote:
What is viewed?

Nothing, and yet everything is seen

Olive B wrote:
If we view a tree in a landscape, what are we viewing?

Some of us will see nothing, some others will see just the tree, some others will see the tree and the landscape as two, some others will see the tree and the landscape as one, and some others will see that there's nothing to see and within that not-seeing they will see everything: themselves, the tree, the landscape, and the universe without no name and therefore neither as one nor as two, neither as existent nor as non-existent ... But the fact is that all of us do see something, therefore to say 'i see what others don't see', is the same as to say 'i don't see what others see', or what is the same 'i'm not different from those who don't see what i see even if i pretend to be' ...

Only those who see that there's nothing to see, do actually see ... and strangely enough, they never put themselves above those who dare to say that they see what others don't see ...

p.s.: ... and don't take my words as personal, because i'm neither talking about you, nor of anybody else here in the forum ... i'm just stating a fact, that's all.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Feb 2017 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3036 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote, in "The Pedestal" thread:
And our whole society, world wide, is based upon these kind of images, isn't it? It's something I'm aware of quite a lot lately....how people I meet immediately form an image of me, good or bad or indifferent. I'm probably doing the same....not sure. It may be going on on an unconscious level, which makes it hard to see. Going to look further into this.

listening yesterday to K speaking on violence. The meaning he puts on it casts a very wide net indeed – not just the conventional idea of violence, which recognises physical and emotional violence to others directly, and to oneself. In violence K includes comparison, obedience, conformity, becoming ….

This puzzled me at the time. But now I am seeing – seeing very directly – that his formation of image is the very essence of violence..

Let us focus on the forming of an image of another It puts ….. how to put this? …... it creates a prison of words for the other person. It says “In my mind you are this”, but in actual fact the other person is not that. The other person is a constant flow of thoughts and feelings. A constant movement. This is our natural state. But an image, if accepted, rips us from that natural state. It states “No, you are THIS. You are fixed, you are this now, you were the same yesterday perhaps, and in my mind you will be the same tomorrow”.

This is a very serious business indeed. One sees how the process extends to nationality, and brings about war. But I think it is just about impossible to convey this to the average person. The average person who has been raised in images, who sees the world through images, who sees himself through images. He cannot see beyond those images; to him the world IS a series of images. It is the only way he can function. And if I say to such a person “look, I am not the images that you form about me, he will just form another image of me as someone who is denying the truth.

In saying all this I am not denying there are such things as facts. Certain things happened, “I” (this body really) have done certain things, carried out certain actions, have said certain things. These are facts, But it is not a fact to say :I am …... the dots representing some image. Actually there is only change. Change that includes this whole succession of thoughts, coming into existence in the mind, disappearing from existence in the mind.

The very phrase “I am” is false, unless the "I" refers to the body.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Feb 2017 #7
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 86 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
But the fact is that all of us do see something,

So, all views of the tree are unique.

They, who are considered to be the viewers of the tree, are part of the view.

Thus, each view of the tree is a unique view of a tree-person.

In other words there is no unique viewer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Feb 2017 #8
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Let us focus on the forming of an image of another It puts ….. how to put this? …... it creates a prison of words for the other person.

With forming an image of another it creates a prison for the one who is forming the image, not for the other.

When I say “K is a fantastic dude” I am not creating a prison for K, but for my self.

Clive Elwell wrote:
The very phrase “I am” is false, unless the "I" refers to the body.

Sorry to disappoint you Clive, but the I in “I am”is not refering to the body.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3036 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
With forming an image of another it creates a prison for the one who is forming the image, not for the other.

Welll that is a good point, Olive. Others may form images of me, but with intelligence and alertness, I do not have to accept such images as being me. I do not have to identify with those images. And yes, one can say that the image maker is imprisoned by the images he makes, whether those images are or another, of of himself.

I am asking myself whether the difference between a "me" and a "you" is only a matter of image.

Olive B wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you Clive, but the I in “I am”is not refering to the body.

No image of disappointment whatsoever, Olive :-). I have no problem at all with being shown my words are wrong, when they are.

I was saying that "I am suffering from cancer" has a real meaning - it reflects a state of the body (although it does not necessarily imply that I am identified as a cancer sufferer). But the statement, to use your example, "I am a fantastic dude", or as someone said to me recently "I am an expert in enlightenment" is purely image, and has no real meaning.

Perhaps you would explain how you see the meaning of the "I am that" of Nisargadatta, Olive?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 #10
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am asking myself whether the difference between a "me" and a "you" is only a matter of image.

Only from the point of view from the separate finite self is there division, a me and you.

Clive Elwell wrote:
has no real meaning

Take the thought 2+2=4

Take the thought 2+2=5

The fact that one is right, and the other is wrong is irrelevant, both thoughts are made out of the same “stuff”.

The thought "I am suffering from cancer" contracts the body, because you have seen en heard (on tv) all the things that happen to people who were suffering form cancer.

"I am suffering from cancer" and "I am a fantastic dude" are both thoughts made out of the same stuff.

Clive Elwell wrote:
the meaning of the "I am that" of Nisargadatta

“I am that” ,“That” is refering to the body “I am this (body)”

“I” or “I am” is the name we give to awareness/consciousness

Just a quote from N’s “I am that” to clarify

“ ‘I am this, I am that' is dream, while pure'I am' has the stamp of reality on it. You have tasted so many things -- all came to naught. Only the sense 'I am' persisted -- unchanged. Stay with the changeless among the changeful, until you are able to go beyond.”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 #11
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 216 posts in this forum Offline

#10:

Olive B wrote:
Take the thought 2+2=4

Take the thought 2+2=5

The fact that one is right, and the other is wrong is irrelevant, both thoughts are made out of the same “stuff”.

The thought "I am suffering from cancer" contracts the body, because you have seen en heard (on tv) all the things that happen to people who were suffering form cancer.

"I am suffering from cancer" and "I am a fantastic dude" are both thoughts made out of the same stuff.

Olive,

IS it irrelevant (that 2+2=4 is right and 2+2=5 is wrong, i.e. thought), or is it relevant and useful in its proper context? When used in its proper place without division and conflict, it is understood that thought has no moral significance and no ultimate value as a fundamental measure of “truth”, isn’t it? So you might say “4” and I might say “5” without there being conflict - where we simply put our heads together and figure out which is right and appropriate for our purpose. Then thought is useful and it doesn’t leave a psychological mark which lingers beyond its usefulness; then thought is not a problem. Isn’t it so?

“I have cancer” means I must decide whether or not to go through treatment, or I might have to leave my job, or if it is known to be terminal I must put my affairs in order, and so on. No? “I have cancer” can be a statement of fact without self-pity or anger, or it can be self-pity and anger, etc., isn’t it so?

The important thing is to understand the working of our own minds thoroughly, isn’t it? That is, to be aware of the associations, meanings, measures, interpretations, beliefs, significance, we attribute to our thoughts. Then in the context of self-understanding, only understanding is relevant, not right and wrong. We’re not saying that thought has no place in life, are we? And if it is active in its proper place, then it does not create a prison or conflict, does it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 #12
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 216 posts in this forum Offline

#10:

Olive B wrote:
“I am that” ,“That” is refering to the body “I am this (body)”

“I” or “I am” is the name we give to awareness/consciousness

Just a quote from N’s “I am that” to clarify

“ ‘I am this, I am that' is dream, while pure'I am' has the stamp of reality on it. You have tasted so many things -- all came to naught. Only the sense 'I am' persisted -- unchanged. Stay with the changeless among the changeful, until you are able to go beyond.”

I understand “I am this, I am that” to mean much more than the body. “This” and “that” mean so many things, don’t they? “I am a visual person”, “I am ambitious”, “I am American”, “I am authoritarian”, “I’m a person who likes to win” - the list is countless. Even “I am male/female”, “young/old" - which ARE physical facts - can be merely statements of fact or they can be part of the psychological image or persona, no? I could be mistaken about N’s meaning.

And then, even “I am” without qualifier can become an idea or ideal which is divisive and conflictual, can’t it? Or it can be perception, awareness.

I admit that I'm not very familiar with Nisargadatta, so I apologize if I have distorted his meaning or intruded.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 #13
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 103 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote (quoting Nisargadatta):
“ ‘I am this, I am that' is dream, while pure'I am' has the stamp of reality on it.

Pure 'I am'?! ... Oh my goodness!

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Wed, 08 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Feb 2017 #14
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1495 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Pure 'I am'?! ... Oh my goodness!

Seems like this 'I am' might just be another hiding place for 'me'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 #15
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 86 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
thought is not a problem

Hi Huguette,

It is merely to come to the understanding that every thought has the same source.

The right or wrong, sick or healthy is the cover which the seemingly separate self puts on the thought.

Huguette . wrote:

“I am”

Yes Huguette, there is “a world” of difference between “I am this body” and “I am”.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 #16
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 103 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Yes Huguette, there is “a world” of difference between “I am this body” and “I am”.

Both share an 'I' identifying itself with something, where is the difference?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 #17
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 216 posts in this forum Offline

#15:

Olive B wrote:
It is merely to come to the understanding that every thought has the same source.

The right or wrong, sick or healthy is the cover which the seemingly separate self puts on the thought.

Olive,

Isn’t thought itself the source of the seemingly separate self? Isn’t self “made of” thought, put together by thought - as memory, time, idea, ideal, belief, conclusion, interpretation, measure, judgment, conclusion, image, explanation, analysis, and so on? So self is not “the source” of thought, is it? It is not self but thought itself - divided thought - which “puts a cover” on what is, isn’t it? Self, time, the cover, thought - isn’t it ALL thought?

So yes, all thought is “made of the same stuff”, but the source of all thought is not one, is it? Isn’t it relevant to observe and understand the source of a thought and the thought process?

The source of a thought like “I have cancer” is the fact of cancer and understanding the fact of it. It is not putting a cover on it, not saying it is good or bad, not taking a measure of its goodness or badness. Just stating the fact of it.

The source of a thought like “you are an idiot” is time/thought, isn’t it? It might evidence fear. Does it evidence understanding?

What about statements such as the following one (picked at random):

We want to hold that which cannot be
held; we want to remember that which
is not the stuff of memory. All this
wanting, pursuing, reaching, which is
the desire to be, to become, makes for
contradiction, the building up of the
self.

(Commentaries on Living Series III Chapter 47 'Desire and The Pain of Contradiction')

Is the source of it the same one as for thoughts which express jealousy, conceit, self-righteousness, anger, fear, and so on?

Am I saying too much? Maybe.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 09 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Feb 2017 #18
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The source of A THOUGHT LIKE "I HAVE A CANCER" is the fact of cancer and understanding the fact of it. It IS not putting a cover on it, not saying it is good or bad, not taking a measure of its goodness or badness. JUST STATING A FACT OF IT.

Hi Huguette! ... Your words made me ask to myself (and to you too): are the words stating a fact (which accordingly to K is what is happening now) really a thought? ... I would say they are not, what is your feeling?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Feb 2017 #19
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 86 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t thought itself the source of the seemingly separate self?

Hi Huguette,

Awareness/consciousness is the source of thought.

Limited thoughts are made of unlimited awareness/consciousness.

Awareness/consciousness can take the shape of the thought 2+2=4

And two minutes later the shape of the thought 2+2=5

Awareness/consciousness cannot share the limits of any particular thought.

Huguette . wrote:
Is the source of it the same one as for thoughts which express jealousy, conceit, self-righteousness, anger, fear, and so on?

Yes, jealousy, conceit, self-righteousness, anger, fear, is thought.

Huguette . wrote:
We want to hold that which cannot be
held

What is that, that we want to hold which cannot be held…. Awareness/consciousness

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Feb 2017 #20
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 216 posts in this forum Offline

#18

Juan E wrote:
Hi Huguette! ... Your words made me ask to myself (and to you too): are the words stating a fact (which accordingly to K is what is happening now) really a thought? ... I would say they are not, what is your feeling?

Hi Juan!

Isn’t verbalization dependent on memory, vocabulary? Can there be verbalization or language without a material movement taking place within the brain? To utter anything is to put into motion the mental mechanisms and processes which produce language and reasoning, isn’t it? That’s how I see it. So to me, any statement is thought. But what lies beneath thought, what fuels or drives thought - isn’t that the essential thing to understand about thought?

That is, isn’t the essential question whether or not the movement of thought is motivated by the desire to acquire, to impress, to accomplish, to intimidate, to bully, to hurt, to escape fear and suffering, and so on? Such desires are not statements of understanding, are they? They are time-based, they are the result of accumulation. There is no awareness or understanding expressed in self-centred thought, is there?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Mar 2017 #21
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So to me, any statement is thought. But what lies beneath thought, what fuels or drives thought - isn’t that the essential thing to understand about thought?

Sorry for the delay, Huguette ... Yes, we are talking about the same things with different words ... Agree with you that any verbalization is thought, and that which lies beneath thought and fuels or drives those words expressed through thought is another completely different thing to be understood about thought ... And that's precisely what lies behind the statement K (and many others) have made about the word not being the thing ...

Now the question, and this is a question that K put many times in his private talks to others, is: in which way that which lies beneath those thought-words can reach the listener beyond those very thought-words (i.e.: that the listener do not interpret those words as being the thing)?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Sat, 11 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 21 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.)