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

Silence .... hesitantly


Displaying posts 61 - 74 of 74 in total
Thu, 09 Mar 2017 #61
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3148 posts in this forum Online

Olive B wrote:
Is in our experience having a still mind the cause of stillness?

I don't know. In what way do you find this question is important, Olive?

To quote K again from the above:

The only thing that is important is for the mind to be still. Then what takes place? That is all we are concerned with, not with what lies beyond silence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Mar 2017 #62
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 104 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The only thing that is important is for the mind to be still.

Why should K mention it if it wasn’t important.

But for me it is more a calm mind what is important, because it is impossible to quiet the mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Mar 2017 #63
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3148 posts in this forum Online

Olive B wrote:
Why should K mention it if it wasn’t important.

Why should K mention what exactly, Olive?

Olive B wrote:
But for me it is more a calm mind what is important, because it is impossible to quiet the mind.

It is indeed impossible for 'me' to quieten the mind. Clearly so, since I AM the mind, I AM the noise. However, this does not mean that mind cannot be quiet, does it? Or is this just an idea, with no reality?

Interesting and important to go into this, I feel. Two questions arise:

What is this "calm mind" that you mention, Olive?

Does "a quiet mind", if it exists, actually imply the absence of mind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Mar 2017 #64
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 104 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Why should K mention what exactly, Olive?

Why should K mention a still mind, if it wasn’t important?

Clive Elwell wrote:
What is this "calm mind" that you mention, Olive?

To me a calm mind is een mind which lets thoughts/sensations/feelings/perceptions appear and disappear without reacting on every object.

An engine that runs slowely can be better examened than an engine on high speed.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does "a quiet mind", if it exists, actually imply the absence of mind?

The mind only exists from the view point of the separate self.

From the view point of awareness/consciousness mind does not exists.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Mar 2017 #65
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3148 posts in this forum Online

Olive B wrote:
Why should K mention a still mind, if it wasn’t important?

I am sure that a quiet mind is very important indeed, as only through that can there be clear perception.

We can use the words "calm"or "still", equally.

Olive B wrote:
The mind only exists from the view point of the separate self. From the view point of awareness/consciousness mind does not exists.

I am looking at your words, Olive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 Mar 2017 #66
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3148 posts in this forum Online

I am posting here an extract from a talk (4) in Madras, Chenai, 1985. YOu will will see he goes into the relationship between silence and noise.

Now what is silence? Is it separate from sound? Have you enquired into sound? What is sound? There is sound inside your body all the time, the blood going through the veins. They have put a camera inside the body - you must have seen some of those television pictures, how there is pumping. That is noise, that is sound, when the heart is beating that is sound. You can hear another heart beating, that is sound. Right? And the sound of a tree, not when the breezes are dancing with the leaves, not when there is a great wind sweeping through it, but when the tree is very still without a single leaf moving, there is a sound in there. And we create sound all round us. Right? Next door for the last month, or another month, or whatever period they have, there is a noise going on, that's sound. Sound of a voice, the sound of music. You understand? There is sound. Why do we separate sound from silence? Because that is what you want, a silent peaceful mind, brain. And to achieve that you practise, hoping by controlling thought gradually, or eventually or in a year or two you will have complete control of your thoughts, your feelings. And you never have asked, who is the controller? Right? Will you ask that question? I want to control my thought because thought is all the time chasing everything, restless, moving from one thing to another, and I want to concentrate, I want to fix my energy on that page, or on that ledger - how to make it crooked for the government, or the tax payer. I want to concentrate, and I try to focus my brain on that, then thought comes along and says, look, and it goes off, distraction.

[K talks about distraction for a while, and then returns to the issue of silence, below]

So we must go back to the question: what is meditation? It is very easy to mesmerize oneself. Right? To say to oneself, I am achieving, I am getting nearer to enlightenment. The question arises, can there be silence which is part of sound? What we call silence is the ending of sound. Right? The sound being thought, sound being knowledge. Right? You have that silence without any disturbance. Right? And in that silence come upon something extraordinary, tremendous experience of enlightenment, or of great insight into the universe. Right? Isn't that silence related to sound? Or is sound different from silence? Or sound is silence?

Sir, have you listened to sound, not resist it? Not to say, it is ugly sound. An aeroplane passing overhead, thundering, it is a tremendous noise, sound. Lightening. Right? We are noisy, and therefore we are seeking silence. You understand? So we have separated sound, noise from silence, as we have separated death from living. Right? You understand what I am saying? So our brain, our thought rather, is separating all the time. You understand? It is the nature of thought to separate - nationally, religiously, you and I, the most learned, the ignorant - it is the activity of thought which is in itself limited, therefore whatever it does will be limited, will be separative - Jew, Arab, Muslim and Hindu, communist, socialist - you follow? All that implies a constant division. So we have separated silence from sound. Right, do you get it? If you don't separate, which is not seek silence as away from sound, then sound is part of silence. I wonder if you see this. Do you see this?

You see when you seek out silence you are creating disorder. And that disorder you call silence. Order is born out of... it comes into being when disorder ends. Right? To find out disorder first, not seek order, why our lives are in disorder, and to go into it, find out, and so on. When there is that comprehension completely of disorder there is naturally order. Now when you don't separate sound from silence there is order, complete order - like the universe, it is everlastingly in order - sun rises, sun setting, the stars, the beauty of a new moon, the full moon, the whole universe is in order, it is only human beings who are in disorder because they have lost their relationship with nature, they have no beauty. You understand?

So the end of the matter is when there is no self, self-centredness, there is something which is totally orderly and that order is silence and sound, and then there is that thing that man has sought, which is timeless. Unless you do this, all this is verbal nonsense. Unless you put your mind and heart to understand your own life, why you live this way, why you have to go to the office day after day, why you have to quarrel with your wife and husband, the jealousy. All that destroys love, and without love there is no order. And where there is love there is compassion. And where there is compassion there is supreme intelligence. Not the artificial intelligence of a computer, nor the artificial intelligence or powerful intelligence of thought. But when there is that quality of the brain, which has understood the whole business of conditioning and is free, and silence is part of that enormous sound of the universe, and where there is the end of sorrow, there is passion. Compassion is that passion, and it is that intelligence, and then beyond that there is total nothingness.

Madras 1985

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 Mar 2017 #67
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 104 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Now what is silence? Is it separate from sound?

Hi Clive,

This is the very first sentence of your K extract, and by asking the right question, K is pointing the way to come to the right answer.

In my post # 54, I asked you a somewhat similar question.

Hi Clive, I don’t want to be a pest but is there in your experience a distance between an outward noise and an inner quietness. Check it for your self.

And this was your answer:
“My point was that when there is outer noise there IS no inner quietness.”

Here you are separating (see K’s extract)the outer noise, which is for you outside the body, from the inner quietness, which is for you inside the body.

There is no outside the body and inside the body.

In fact we are experiencing the noise and the quietness in the same consciousness/awareness/space. Check it for your self.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Mar 2017 #68
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3148 posts in this forum Online

Olive B wrote:
“My point was that when there is outer noise there IS no inner quietness.”
Here you are separating (see K’s extract)the outer noise, which is for you outside the body, from the inner quietness, which is for you inside the body.

You are right, Olive, I was seeing quietness and noise as sort of opposites, or at least one necessarily excluding the other. Now, as a result of contemplation, as a result of discussion on the forum, and as a result of reading this extract from K, I am looking at things anew.

I don't want to instantly draw some new conclusions, so taking time to be with this new perspective.

As you imply, it is necessary to "check it oneself".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Mar 2017 #69
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 198 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
As you imply, it is necessary to "check it oneself".

In which way it was checked before that what is seen now was not seen before? ... Is noise related to it somehow?

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don't want to instantly draw some new conclusions, so taking time to be with this new perspective.

Why you don't move with it and share your perceptions in the present and not in the past? ... Do you get what i mean? ... There's no need for a conclusion in a living thing, just moving with it discovering and seeing ...

"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 Fri, 17 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #70
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3148 posts in this forum Online

Juan E wrote:
In which way it was checked before that what is seen now was not seen before? ... Is noise related to it somehow?

Clive: Not sure that I follow you here, Juan. “Checking” - we are using that word to mean watching, observation – is an ongoing process, is it not? It is not a series of conclusions.

Juan E wrote:
Why you don't move with it and share your perceptions in the present and not in the past? ... Do you get what i mean? ... There's no need for a conclusion in a living thing, just moving with it discovering and seeing ...

In a way that is what we do on the forum, is it not? But, as Huguette says, hesitantly.

And yet ….. also it is often impossible to share perceptions – because those perceptions are constantly ending, dying. And in their ending is revealed their limitations, their true nature. This is another way of expressing what I was trying to get at in the thread “Thought and the space between thought”. It is the ending, the dying that reveals the space between – let us try the word “behind” rather than “between” thought.

Looking again at your last question – when one really moves with it, is there any “it”? Or does the appearance of “its”, of things, appear only in separation from them? So in moving with things, there is nothing to share?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Mar 2017 #71
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 198 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
In a way that is what we do on the forum, is it not? But, as Huguette says, hesitantly.

Yes, that's what i was referring to: why this hesitation?

Clive Elwell wrote:
also it is often impossible to share perceptions – because those perceptions are constantly ending, dying.

They never die when one doesn't do anything to stop them and just perceive ... Then from its own movement words can flow to be shared with another fellow human being ... But thought constantly stops them with its desire to understand them, that's why they constantly end, die ... never of their own accord to end, to die.

Clive Elwell wrote:
So in moving with things, there is nothing to share?

No ... that's what we never understand from those who talk to us about us ...

We think that they are sharing, but it's just because the division between us and him or her ... Why someone who is supposed to be sharing something with us was going to say "I am not teaching you (sharing with you) anything !!!" (as K said many times) if not?

"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 Tue, 21 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Mar 2017 #72
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3148 posts in this forum Online

Juan E wrote:
Yes, that's what i was referring to: why this hesitation?

Why should we not be hesitant? I take the opposite of hesitancy to be surity, certainty. This implies the lack of inquiry, does it not?

Anything we say could be wrong - does it not behove us to doubt?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 #73
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 198 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Why should we not be hesitant?

Why not simply be, neither hesitant nor certain, and go on from there?

Clive Elwell wrote:
I take the opposite of hesitancy to be surity, certainty. This implies the lack of inquiry, does it not?

To someone who moves in such duality as hesitant/certain it may imply a lack of inquiry, but it is not so for someone who moves with the inquiry itself, neither hesitantly nor certainly ...

"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 Fri, 24 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 #74
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3148 posts in this forum Online

Juan E wrote:
Why not simply be, neither hesitant nor certain, and go on from there?

What do you mea by "simply be"? And can one choose to be that? or become that by some effort of will? The mind that I see is full of becomming.

Juan E wrote:
To someone who moves in such duality as hesitant/certain it may imply a lack of inquiry, but it is not so for someone who moves with the inquiry itself, neither hesitantly nor certainly ...

Yes, this "one" is part of a mind that moves in duaity. It does not seem accurate to say there is a lack of inquiry, however. But I am not sure what you mean by "moving with the inquiry", please explain.

Also you talk of another 'one' who apparently is not in duality. So according to you where is the transition from duality to non-duality?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 74 of 74 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.)