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

International Day of Happiness ...


Displaying all 9 posts
Page 1 of 1
Mon, 20 Mar 2017 #1
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Today has been the Int.Day of Happiness, which brought about the following questions in me ...

Can there be happiness without a deep understanding of unhappiness?
If not, what happiness have we lived then before we die?
If yes, why bother at all about consciousness, thought and all the rest, then?
And in any case, what does it really mean "a deep understanding of unhappiness?

Listening to your feelings!

"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
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 #2
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Juan,

Some 'feelings' started coming after reading your post here.

Something along these lines, if put into words:

For as long as 'unhappiness' and 'happiness' are held apart, and they can only be held apart as ideas of both, we cannot realise that it is in the heart of being complete unhappy that lies true happiness, and not as separate from it, but as one with it.

This, for me, is what the 'deep understanding of unhappiness' is about.

By the above it is also pointed out that in the state of separation, as a thinker supposedly separate from thought, contradiction between ideas is inevitable. "Happiness" and "unhappiness" remain just ideas, and also opposites. This is the state of the mind, which, being divided, can never live anything fully.

And it is in the living fully that true happiness (true anything) can flower.

Love
M

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Wed, 22 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 #3
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Again, i would like to ask ... What relation has aloneness with that happiness which is not division from unhappiness?

"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, 23 Mar 2017 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Can there be happiness without a deep understanding of unhappiness?

Isn't the pursuit of happiness one of the most destructive things? Even though it is written into the American constitution and has been pin-pointed as one of the basic elements of living by many phiolosophers?

For one thing, its pursiut must necessariy be the pursuit of an image only, surely? All pursuits are pursuing what we think about, what we imagine, and are the pursuit of image, no?

Then, the idea that "I should be happy" is a sure-fire recipe for unhappiness, is it not? Because one is not happy (one wouldn't be pursuing it if one was) and there is a feeling one should be happy. That one is somehow inadequate if one is not happy? A strong element in this, of course, is comparison. Both comparing oneslf to the idea that one should be happy, and comparing oneself to the idea one has that other people are happy.

Instead of pursuing ideas of what we should be (which is a strong part of our conditioning), why can we not be what we are? Why can we simpy not face what we actually are, with no movement away from it?

This is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. Why?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 #5
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Juan E wrote:
Again, i would like to ask ... What relation has aloneness with that happiness which is not division from unhappiness?

M: When it is said that happiness is in no division from unhappiness, what is meant in other words is that the observer is in no division from the observed. This does not mean that they exist, but in no division, but that they do not exist at all. (since they only come to existence through and in the division that they are)

This means that IDEAS of happiness and unhappiness, do not exist. This means that the one to be happy or unhappy, as some idea of oneself, does not exist. So there is no movement from any imagined state (unhappiness) to another imagined state (happiness).

That is the ending of pursuing, becoming, moving in ideas and under the impression that there is someone going somewhere, someone to whom something is happening, etc, which are all experiences created by thought, lived by thought.

That which remains when this movement of pursuing for oneself (even if only an idea), is not active, is what I call aloneness.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Fri, 24 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 #6
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
That which remains when this movement of pursuing for oneself (even if only an idea), is not active, is what I call aloneness.

Thanks Mina! ... Now, from where arises the wish of telling others about love, from that aloneness or from outside that aloneness? ... What would you say?

"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
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #7
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Juan E wrote:
Now, from where arises the wish of telling others about love, from that aloneness or from outside that aloneness? ... What would you say?

Mina: Love has no knowledge of itself, it is not knowledge. To have no knowledge of itself means innocence, not knowing. It is only knowledge that is able to create division between oneself and another, and in this division only could one 'tell others about love' (about an image of love, knowledge of it, if the division is talking!!) as if something separate from what one, or the other, IS.

So, as a reply to your question about from where the wish of telling others about love arises, I need to say that whatever wish might appear in love (wholeness, aloneness, call it what you want, it is no word in essence), is also love. In love there is nothing but love. There is no one there to have desires, but love is its own desire, its own wish. (to use the words you were wondering about)

And because in love there is only love, nothing else, no other, (it never splits into two or more), IN IT no question about whether it comes from 'aloneness' or 'outside aloneness' arises. There is no inside or outside in love, that is why.

I could also say that 'of course it comes from the aloneness', as a reply to your question, but that could be misleading in the sense that it could strengthen ideas of 'aloneness' versus 'not aloneness'. But yes, I can reply that way also, if I say that yes, it comes from aloneness, but that the aloneness is all there is. It is not 'aloneness' as opposed to 'the lack of it'. It is simply beyond thought/opposites.

Love
m

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #8
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
But yes, I can reply that way also, if I say that yes, it comes from aloneness, but that the aloneness is all there is. It is not 'aloneness' as opposed to 'the lack of it'. It is simply beyond thought/opposites.

In total communion with 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)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #9
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Silenced by your words. Thank you from heart.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 9 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.)