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

Awareness .... hesitantly


Displaying posts 31 - 49 of 49 in total
Sun, 26 Feb 2017 #31
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

I remember love but I see that I cannot through desire, reason or effort summon love, I see that through will, desire, reason, choice or decision, I cannot dispel fear or jealousy --- for example.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 26 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #32
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 306 posts in this forum Offline

Thought can not see anything, thought can only understand intellectually (which is its function, and most of the times the cause for more noise) all what you say above ... And there's something you say also, that sounds very strange to me: "I remember love" ... Can love be remembered or what is remembered is just a sensation which is not love at 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)

This post was last updated by Juan E Mon, 27 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #33
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
And there's something you say also, that sounds very strange to me: "I remember love" ..

K frequently spoke of love. He must have had some memory...recollection....of love to speak about it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #34
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Can love be remembered or what is remembered is just a sensation which is not love at all?

What is remembered is just a memory, not love at all. That's exactly my point, Juan. That's part of thought understanding its limitations, that it can remember love but it cannot act to invite love, it cannot act to bring love about or to end conflict.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 27 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #35
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Thought can not see anything, thought can only understand intellectually

Thought can understand intellectually what is within its field, what is within its capabilities. I understand how to read a map, a pharmacist understands what medications are contraindicated. Yes, that is intellectual understanding and it is useful and necessary. So yes, thought can understand intellectually what its limitations and capabilities are. Then, with that intellectual understanding, thought does not try to act in the field of relationship.

In the field of relationship, thought cannot understand or act. No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 27 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #36
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 306 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K frequently spoke of love. He must have had some memory...recollection....of love to speak about it.

There's another possibility, that he would have spoken from the love he felt when he talked about it, in which case the only memory present at the time would be that of words he had to use to talk about it ... Don`t you think?

"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, 27 Feb 2017 #37
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 501 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Are you saying that it isn't the same awareness that is aware of the hum of the laptop or the sound of the birds or the movement of thought? Awareness doesn't include or exclude anything, does it? That is, does awareness make an effort to concentrate?

Huguette,

No that was not what I was saying.

There is only one awareness, which is in itself whole and can only take into account other wholes. So one cannot partly hear the sound of the bird.
Being borderless and spaceless - I realize it seems a contradiction - it can take in all the sounds and all the parts.
Or as you are saying: 'Awareness doesn't include or exclude anything'.

Also awareness doesn't make an effort to concentrate that's the me I who is at that time blocking awareness.

As I was last week talking to someone why I prefer to read K. in English than in Dutch and suddenly there was a fierce debate.
During the discussion, I saw this person was defending the translation and I tried to make clear that the title subtly did not cover the contents of the book.
It turned out that she also was a translator and was defending her field and 20 years syntactic experience and also knew the translator personally.

I had tried to explain the subtle difference in the dynamics of the English and the Dutch title.
At the end of the conversation showed that I had used in the first sentence the word 'wrong' and that was the cause of the sudden occurrence discussion and she saw that I was not so much attacking the translation or translator but clarifying my motivation to the original text.

So the whole situation became clear and not my part or her part or the syntatic part. And that's the working of awareness, which couldn't take place if one of the parts would behave as superior.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 27 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #38
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 501 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
It's my inner feeling that noise is always there, only that when there's awareness it takes care of it ... To me awareness doesn't stop the noise, it only prevents the attachment of the 'i' to that noise that comes about when awareness is not ... Otherwise awareness could never talk about noise ... But this is my inner feeling and i could be mistaken.

HI Juan,

Would you agree that this attachment to the 'I' is the noise
and the opportunity is there always ??

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #39
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Thought sees its own limits, what it can and can't do, and awareness is watching.

Hi Huguette,

Thought is only real from the illusory point of view of the separate self.

For awareness thought doesn’t exists.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #40
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Olive,

Are you sure? Isn't awareness aware of thought, just as it is aware of the sun coming out from behind the clouds, as it is aware of a toothache, and so on? I understand that self is illusion, but I don't understand thought itself being illusory.

20 minutes later:

.... unless by "thought" you mean the actual content, image, idea. For me "thought" includes reasoning, the whole process which puts together the image and the idea. Even then, the memory which is recorded in the brain is not an illusion. It's physically stored in the brain, isn't it? Otherwise it could not be recalled.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 27 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #41
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't awareness aware of thought, just as it is aware of the sun coming out from behind the clouds, as it is aware of a toothache, and so on?

It is not possible for awareness to know a finite object, it is only from the view point of a seperate self that finite objects exist.

You are mixing things up, the sun is infinite awareness, and toothache is a finite object.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #42
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 306 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
For awareness thought doesn’t exists.

Could you tell us please, what is observed by awareness then?

"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, 27 Feb 2017 #43
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 306 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
It is not possible for awareness to know a finite object

If that is so, how would you explain that people like Buddha, K and the rest related to a finite object as it is the human being if their awareness could not know finite objects? ... Or in other words, what is the meaning of having compassion, or even (true) love for a finite object which compassion in fact can never know according to you?

"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 Mon, 27 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #44
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 306 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
You are mixing things up, the sun is infinite awareness, and toothache is a finite object.

Could you explain why a finite object like the sun can be infinite awareness?

"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, 27 Feb 2017 #45
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 306 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Would you agree that this attachment to the 'I' is the noise and the opportunity is there always ??

Do you mean that the opportunity to be attached is always there?

My own observation (because i'm actually living and observing that movement from very near in my own relation with another person right now) is that noise is always there, that there are moments of complete freedom in the relation with the other, and despite that noise still arises, only that at those moments ... how to say that? ... it is not believed, and therefore suffering in oneself and in the other do not arise ... But at other times it is fully believed and then suffering arises again in oneself and in the other, until one realizes that all that, to which one is beginning to be attached at the time (mainly own thoughts), is nothing but a mere baseless imagination ...

Many have said that spiritual combat never ends, meaning that one has to be always watchful to that noise until the end of one's life without the slightest judgement for or against it ... How would you explain if not, that K retired some times to inquire himself why he was giving teachings, or if he was dependent on it or not, and many other things we can listen him to explain about himself from time to time in public talks, or private meetings?

So yes, if you mean that the opportunity to be attached is always there, i would agree with you because my feeling right now, is that noise is always there waiting patiently to get us caught in its trap, mocking at us for our lack of watchfulness/awareness, when finally it gets control on us.

20 minutes later: (sorry to stole your header, Huguette! ;-)

The world doesn't believe in love, yet it looks for it all the time!
This is the biggest contradiction in us human beings ...

That's why all that noise in our heads that prevents us from knowing something more than an imagined love that eventually lead us to say that a true love cannot exists ... Without never discovering that love never will come from the outside but just from the inside towards everything outside ... once noise is fully loved and therefore understood.

"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 Mon, 27 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #46
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette (#21). wrote:
I’m NOT saying it’s useless to talk about awareness.

On this forum, and I think in our own lives, there is no certainty of knowledge. We are exploring, we are venturing into unknown territory. And so yes, there is no room for conclusions, no room for definitive statements about the nature of reality, the nature of the mind.

We may in the process of investigation discover certain things, but then we cannot turn these discoveries into conclusions, into immutable truths. Thus the mind is always free to look afresh – and on this basis we can examine this issue of awareness, I feel, Huguette. And we may – and almost certainly do – make mistakes, get 'carried away' by thought-feeling, but these mistakes are not irrevocable..

Huguette . wrote:
I AM saying that it’s useless to talk about what awareness IS, to try to encapsulate it ...

Yes, I find this a meaningful distinction, Huguette.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #47
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Could you tell us please, what is observed by awareness then?

Hi Juan,

Fore awareness there is only infinite awareness.

Juan E wrote:
Could you explain why a finite object like the sun can be infinite awareness?

The sun is infinite awareness, (and even that is not totally true, but for the sake of the conversation)not a finite object.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #48
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 306 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Fore awareness there is only infinite awareness.

Beautiful but empty words telling nothing, Olive ...
And don't take it personal, 'cause i'm not talking about you but about the words you have written

"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, 28 Feb 2017 #49
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 501 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Do you mean that the opportunity to be attached is always there?

Yes, I meant that but also the opportunity to be detached is always there,
only this last one comes to us, one can't invite IT to come to you !!

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 49 of 49 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.)