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

It's very simple


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 126 in total
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Q: Well I am waiting for you to explain the transformation, the insight, to the awareness of consciousness.

K: Yes, you are waiting for me to explain how transformation takes place. It's very simple. Transformation takes place when there is no control, when there is no measurement, when there is no sense of 'me' operating on things, psychologically.

-Saanen 1978 3rd Question & Answer session.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 #2
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

And then the world started to look for that simplicity through control, measurement, with the 'me' operating on things, psychologically ... and it thought that it had found it.

-Girona (Spain) 2017 1st Meditation session

"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, 25 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
And then the world started to look for that simplicity through control, measurement, with the 'me' operating on things, psychologically ... and it thought that it had found it.

Yes, this is the trap that the psyche is in. I am not sure what the "And then" refers to - I suspect thought fell into the trap right from the start, its start. Thought created the 'me', in its desire for stability, certainty, security, whatever reasons. But the me has been the cause of endless conflict destruction, illusion. And it is on the point of destroying mankind itself, and so much more. Some mistake!

Trouble is, very few people see that the self is the root cause of all the problems. The problem is seen as the wrong religion, the wrong political/economic theory, the rich and powerful........ always something other than 'me'. So very little human energy goes into solving this basic problem of the self.

I find it difficult to understand why this is so, why the self has not been widely seen as the culprit. Or perhaps it has, but people put it into the "too hard" basket. Or perhaps the problem has proved intractible because the self insists on trying to solve it.

Whatever the reasons, it is clear that this is the probem that all serious-minded people have to face. And thought, as the self, cannot solve the problem - that only leaves choiceless observation of the ways of the mind, does it not?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 25 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I find it difficult to understand why this is so, why the self has not been widely seen as the culprit. Or perhaps it has, but people put it into the "too hard" basket.

Because we don't see that it's my very consciousness right now...what my mind is doing now....the thinking mind in the realm of 'me' and 'my' life...my problem...my goals...my desires...my fulfillment....the controlling, self-enclosed center of 'my' life. Whatever my mind us doing now is what needs to be looked at...observed...not judged or analyzed.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 #5
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

I find it difficult to understand why this is so, why the self has not been widely seen as the culprit. Or perhaps it has, but people put it into the "too hard" basket.

Because we don't see that it's my very consciousness right now...what my mind is doing now....the thinking mind in the realm of 'me' and 'my' life...my problem...my goals...my desires...my fulfillment....the controlling, self-enclosed center of 'my' life. Whatever my mind us doing now is what needs to be looked at...observed...not judged or analyzed.

Thought is too busy trying to organize, improve, entertain, and fulfill itself for such trifles as 'awakening'. Thought even thinks it can somehow survive any such transformation, i.e. - 'stillness', so it can have it's cake and eat it too - hoping to attain these mystical powers that even K spoke of and be the master of destiny (the universe too of course).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Because we don't see that it's my very consciousness right now...what my mind is doing now....the thinking mind in the realm of 'me' and 'my' life...my problem...my goals...my desires...my fulfillment....the controlling, self-enclosed center of 'my' life. Whatever my mind us doing now is what needs to be looked at...observed...not judged or analyzed.

Not quite sure if I understand you, Tom. By the way, welcome – you have not been around much, of late.

Whenever I notice something in society, in others, it is a certainty that that same movement, that same trait, must be there is me. How else could it be, given that “I am the world”? So when I say in general thought, the self, has not been seen as the principle driver of man's problems, that same blindness must be in me. Is this what you are asking, Tom? Does the self in “me” not see that its actions are causing the very problems that it is trying to solve?

And is this the same question as: Does thought as the 'thinker', ie the thought that is happening NOW, not see that it IS thought, not separate from thought? This does seem to be the inherent blindness of the self. To put it another way, is the observer not always separating itself from what it thinks it observes? Seems that as long as this is not seen, the whole business, with its conflict and confusion, must continue.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
Thought is too busy trying to organize, improve, entertain, and fulfill itself for such trifles as 'awakening'. Thought even thinks it can somehow survive any such transformation, i.e. - 'stillness', so it can have it's cake and eat it too - hoping to attain these mystical powers that even K spoke of and be the master of destiny (the universe too of course).

I think this is right, Rip. Thought is very busy, from morning till night, with all these things. Mostly it is occupied with the incredible thing it has created, the future, where it is eventually going to be fulfilled, be at peace, be secure, etc.

But why doesn't it see through the illusions that it has created? It is so clever in other areas, in the technical field. Is it because thought has created this thing called the self, the me? And there is the illusion that the self is a living thig, an entity, and like all living things, it will cling to its own existance at all costs?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But why doesn't it see through the illusions that it has created? It is so clever in other areas, in the technical field. Is it because thought has created this thing called the self, the me?

It can't see through it because it is constantly creating it, yes.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 27 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #9
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does thought as the 'thinker', ie the thought that is happening NOW, not see that it IS thought, not separate from thought?

Yes....you make some good points in post #6...thanks. will read over your post again later when I'm not pressed for time.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It can't see through it because it is constantly creating it, yes.

Yes, this is a better way of putting it that I did.

So the me is the thought that is happening in the present moment. Seems to me this is a tremendously important realisation. Because any thought of a 'me' that this thought has, can only be precisely that - a thought, an image. So what the real me (can I call it that) is thinking about, or more particularly what it is trying to influence, trying to control, is not the real me at all. It is only an image, and can an image be changed? (one image can be replaced by another image, but that is not real change, that is not transformation).

So the whole movement of controler/controlled is false. When it is seen as false, can it continue?

I am now relating this insight (it feels like an insight) to the original words by K in #1

Transformation takes place when there is no control, when there is no measurement, when there is no sense of 'me' operating on things, psychologically.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Mar 2017 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Good post, Clive! #10 Going to re read it later. Got to make dinner.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Mar 2017 #12
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
can an image be changed?

Yes, that's the whole point Clive! ... This is what the world is doing all the time after having listened to Jesus, Buddha, K, or whoever else no matter how many times they can tell us "the word is not the thing" ...

So, the world is delving with images all the time, and our whole history is made of those images!

Now, what prevents most of us, human beings, to see the thing without any image? ... Is it because we don't realize that we are already listening to those mentioned above through images, just to create new images after that?

You asked me in a recent e-mail exchange "Have you come up against any conflicts in your relationship yet, if one may ask?" ... And this could be a good opportunity to speak about it because it is quite related somehow to your question above ...

She use to tell me "I don't know if what i give you is enough for you", and no matter how many times i tell her "It is more than enough to me, because everything you give me is without me asking for it", she tells the same once and once again ... So, eventually she has begun to feel the tremendous weight of such effort wanting to please me, and she has begun to disappear in the name of her own freedom

Now how she will be able to see that everything is no more than an image she has of me, of her, and of what she thinks i think of her? ... Or let me express it much better through something i wrote last sunday on WhatsApp to a good friend of mine while observing it during a walk alone by the sea walk:

"Walking by the sea-walk and asking me (asking you) ... How many things you do along the day in which others do not influence your thought in any way? ... And not precisely because as many people say "I don't mind what others may think about it!", but because there's no space at all in the mind for this influence to manifest in you ... In few words, how many times along the day are you really free? ... And in any case, does it really exist a freedom like that, in which there's really not a feeling of approval or rejection of others and which sees things as they really are without any judgement for or against them?"

So the real point is: can i see who am i without the help of any image at all?

K, Buddha, Jesus,... talked because they felt somehow that any human being could do it so, even if they knew quite well how difficult is to observe the images we have of everything (including of ourselves) without any image at all ... Even if all of them knew quite well how difficult is to have a direct seeing of those images without any image at all ...

To me, when K said "nobody has understood the teaching!" before his death, he was saying in fact that "nobody has had a direct seeing of the teachings" ...

So, let me ask: how many of you think that K was not fully aware of the danger of all the images that listeners of his words could create through their listening? ... And how many of you think that unfortunately there's no other method than words to communicate something which is beyond words? ...

You see, human being is trapped in images no matter if (s)he is listening to Hitler or K, to Stalin or Buddha ... So, what will do then to leave a better world to our sons (i have none) before we die? ... In which way human being will be able to see directly what is happening without any crotches (words and images created through those words) to fully change at that very moment? ... Because until we don't have such a direct vision, the world will continue deteriorating ... And this is an absolute fact (at least to me).

Thanks for listening whoever you are who read this words today!
A big hug from Spain! ... juan.

"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, 28 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Mar 2017 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

I am sure when I looked earlier there was a post from Dan here, although I only glanced at the time. Did you delete it, Dan? Wondering why?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Yes, that's the whole point Clive! ... This is what the world is doing all the time after having listened to Jesus, Buddha, K, or whoever else no matter how many times they can tell us "the word is not the thing" ...

So, the world is delving with images all the time, and our whole history is made of those images!

Yes, And the content of 'my consciousness' is also a series of images. I say “a series” because there is not necessarily identification with those images. And I put the phrase 'my consciousness” in inverted commas because it is not really mine. It is the consciousness of the world, manifesting in this brain.

To talk about “my images” infers that there is a me that has those images – but any such thought, assumption, is yet only another image, is it not?

Now, what prevents most of us, human beings, to see the thing without any image? ...

This is a question that has been approached several times of late on the forum, in different threads, in different guises. Yes, is there a seeing that is not image based, that is somehow “beyond” thought, that is free of thought?

Is it because we don't realize that we are already listening to those mentioned above through images, just to create new images after that?

Are you saying that we don't see because we are all the time deluded that the image making IS seeing?

You asked me in a recent e-mail exchange "Have you come up against any conflicts in your relationship yet, if one may ask?" ... And this could be a good opportunity to speak about it because it is quite related somehow to your question above ...
She use to tell me "I don't know if what i give you is enough for you", and no matter how many times i tell her "It is more than enough to me, because everything you give me is without me asking for it", she tells the same once and once again ... So, eventually she has begun to feel the tremendous weight of such effort wanting to please me, and she has begun to disappear in the name of her own freedom
Now how she will be able to see that everything is no more than an image she has of me, of her, and of what she thinks i think of her? ..

I think I understand your question, I think that I can relate to it. And this response comes – that perhaps the only way to break the image another might be holding is to end any image that we ourselves might be holding. Does this break any impasse?

So the real point is: can i see who am i without the help of any image at all?

Yes, this is a fundamental issue. Is there is a seeing beyond image, a seeing that is not subject to the fragmentation of thought, and so whole, complete?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 #15
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
So the me is the thought that is happening in the present moment. Seems to me this is a tremendously important realisation. Because any thought of a 'me' that this thought has, can only be precisely that - a thought, an image. So what the real me (can I call it that) is thinking about, or more particularly what it is trying to influence, trying to control, is not the real me at all. It is only an image, and can an image be changed? (one image can be replaced by another image, but that is not real change, that is not transformation).

So the whole movement of controler/controlled is false. When it is seen as false, can it continue?

I am now relating this insight (it feels like an insight) to the original words by K in #1

Transformation takes place when there is no control, when there is no measurement, when there is no sense of 'me' operating on things, psychologically.

Clearly put. It is always the image trying to edit it's own projections. Seeing the futility of this is it's end. Then it tries to edit one of it's own projections again, which is seen, and so on...

Understanding K's words are not particularly important, being simply the observation of what he was seeing/relaying at the time. In 'stillness' this is all clear and although it could also be relayed in ways such as K did, it doesn't really seem to help, primarily since the actuality is beyond the reach of thought. Another way to say it - words do not seem to elicit 'transformation'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 #16
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
is there a seeing that is not image based, that is somehow “beyond” thought, that is free of thought?

I would say that seeing has nothing to do with thought, that thought steps-in later into the scene trying to rationalize what has happend few seconds ago and within that rationalization is that the me thinks that it has seen and from this follows all division, the 'me' being itself divided.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Are you saying that we don't see because we are all the time deluded that the image making IS seeing?

Yes, that's what i'm saying ... The me, or image maker, thinks that it's it who sees, that the seeing belongs to it, therefore the image is created through the rationalization of what has happend few seconds ago, and this image is compared and made to fit into other images that are already there, or rejected if it don't fit.

Let me ask some question that has arised while writing all this: can the seeing be understood, or the seeing is something that has no need to be understood? ... Is not the me in it's trying to understand that seeing who creates all the images, all the division?

I think that K never wanted us to understand what he was talking but just see it ... Do you see the difference? ... Do you see how images are created in our eagerness to understand?

"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, 29 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 #17
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And this response comes – that perhaps the only way to break the image another might be holding is to end any image that we ourselves might be holding.

This could be really worth to go into it, but before we can do it i would like to ask you to elaborate this a little further to understand you fully, because i'm not sure i get fully what you mean ...

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is there is a seeing beyond image, a seeing that is not subject to the fragmentation of thought, and so whole, complete?

As i've said in my later post this noon, to me "seeing" is always beyond any image, thought comes later wanting to prolong what is not already there through understanding ... therefore creating an image of what was there few seconds ago which will be stored in the personal image store making "me" to think that it's me who has seen.

Now, some interesting questions that have come about from what i've just written:

If thought as the me is not the seer, who sees?
Is that seeing which has nothing to do with thought recorded somewhere?
Is that recording what thought as me uses to create an image of it to understand?
Are images the only tool that thought can use to understand anything?
Is that something who sees able to stay there constantly in that seeing?

Going for a short night walk alone by the sea-walk, to observe all these questions ...
Listen to you when i come back (perhaps with more questions), if someone post anything! ;-)

"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, 30 Mar 2017 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
It is always the image trying to edit it's own projections. Seeing the futility of this is it's end. Then it tries to edit one of it's own projections again, which is seen, and so on...

So, Rip, you say that “Seeing the futility of this is its end. Then it tries to edit one of it's own projections again, which is seen, and so on...”. So the word “end” has a peculiar meaning here. It ends, but does not end. It ends, but starts up again. But I see that taking this perspective, as if I am somehow above it all, seems to indicate that something has not ended.

Can we say that this ending is not in time?

Yes, “Trying to edit its own projections” is a striking and accurate phrase. A projection trying to edit its own projection! But strange how much destruction such a fantasy has wreaked.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
Seeing the futility of this is it's end. Then it tries to edit one of it's own projections again, which is seen, and so on...

I was going to write something like:

"This process is tedious (I think K once used that word). But the idea of tedium is just another projection of thought"

but now I am questioning this. Tedium, like any feeling, has a certain reality, does it not? Are feelings, although they accompany thought, merely projections of thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
can the seeing be understood, or the seeing is something that has no need to be understood?

What is meant by “understood” here, Juan? This is a long standing question with me Do you mean can thought cast a net of words around the seeing?

Juan E wrote:
. Is not the me in it's trying to understand that seeing who creates all the images, all the division?

I think the word “seeing” has to reserved for an action that is free of thoughts, uninfluenced by words.

Yet as you say, thought may try to somehow grasp that seeing, communicate that seeing. So that implies there is some sort of communication between the seeing and thought. Or the seeing manifests in thought.

Juan E wrote:
I think that K never wanted us to understand what he was talking but just see it ... Do you see the difference? ... Do you see how images are created in our eagerness to understand?

Yes, K often said that the only thing necessary was to listen. And listening does not involve the interpretation of thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
In which way human being will be able to see directly what is happening without any crotches (words and images created through those words)

Emm ...... Crutches, Check it out :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
You see, human being is trapped in images no matter if (s)he is listening to Hitler or K, to Stalin or Buddha ... So, what will do then to leave a better world to our sons (i have none) before we die? ..

Yes, we trapped in thought - if one can say that, when it seems that the one who is trapped is actually a creation of thought.

So yes, I would say to be free of thought, or rather to have thought acting in its right place, is the number one challenge we face. A "better world" cannot come about without a fundamental change in human consciousness; I don't see how this can be denied.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: And this response comes – that perhaps the only way to break the image another might be holding is to end any image that we ourselves might be holding.

Juan: This could be really worth to go into it, but before we can do it i would like to ask you to elaborate this a little further to understand you fully, because i'm not sure i get fully what you mean ...

I don't know if I can elaborate, Juan because what I said is not a theory, not an idea, but something that I observe in relationship.

An image is a sort of conclusion As such, holding an image of another is a block to inquiry. If we hold a counter image, the result is inevitably conflict. If one drops all image, even if that image is a few seconds old, somehow this unblocks the energy. Then one can start again, take a fresh look.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #24
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Juan E wrote:

In which way human being will be able to see directly what is happening without any crotches (words and images created through those words)

Emm ...... Crutches, Check it out :-)

:-))))) ... my face is completely red now ;-) :-) :-)))
Thanks for correcting me!

"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, 30 Mar 2017 #25
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
So, Rip, you say that “Seeing the futility of this is its end. Then it tries to edit one of it's own projections again, which is seen, and so on...”. So the word “end” has a peculiar meaning here. It ends, but does not end. It ends, but starts up again. But I see that taking this perspective, as if I am somehow above it all, seems to indicate that something has not ended.

Can we say that this ending is not in time?

There is no question in silence, when the futility is seen it ends effortlessly. The seeing is the action and nothing more need be done.

And life goes on, thought engages one to accomplish the 'arduous' tasks of making a living, raising kids, maintaining a home, etc. One can easily get caught up in demands that can be extremely stressful, i.e. - accident, job loss, illness.

Daily life is what's arduous and what draws one into the apparent mess of living, not the pampered life K enjoyed. K had no responsibility other than wandering from one luxurious compound to another, wearing free clothes, eating free food, enjoying free health care, and so on.

All he had to do was dispense 'wisdom', to 'Rock Star' adulation, so it was 'effortless' to go for hours or days without being disturbed by something like abusive parents, a mother coming down with Alzheimer's, an incessantly complaining wife, a friend struggling with drug addiction caused by irresponsible drug companies and a greedy health care system.

The view thought has of all this may be illusory but the actuality continues to bombard in a near continuous stream.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
An image is a sort of conclusion As such, holding an image of another is a block to inquiry. If we hold a counter image, the result is inevitably conflict. If one drops all image, even if that image is a few seconds old, somehow this unblocks the energy. Then one can start again, take a fresh look.

I can't 'prove' any of this, Juan. But then what we can prove in this life? Just some observations from relationship, do not know to what extent they apply generally.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
when the futility is seen it ends effortlessly.

But my question is, (ok, not from silence) if the futility keeps reappearing, can it be said to be 'ended'?

But I see that ending does not ask this question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 #28
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
But my question is, (ok, not from silence) if the futility keeps reappearing, can it be said to be 'ended'?

But I see that ending does not ask this question.

Thought will keep trying to come in and direct, organize, take charge, especially in seemingly stressful situations, but to clarify, there is a fundamental change. Even when a period of inattention occurs it can't be as consuming since it's as though 'the door is open'.

As K pointed out, seeing inattention is attention. What do most do with that simple insight? Start thinking about it. It's as though one keeps stepping back through the door to try and grasp what's going on. And that is seen, and so on.

Ultimately there is no permanent state, silent or not, awake or not, or as is the case here - delusional or not. ;-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 #29
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
K had no responsibility other than wandering from one luxurious compound to another, wearing free clothes, eating free food, enjoying free health care, and so on.

All he had to do was dispense 'wisdom', to 'Rock Star' adulation, so it was 'effortless' to go for hours or days without being disturbed by something like abusive parents, a mother coming down with Alzheimer's, an incessantly complaining wife, a friend struggling with drug addiction caused by irresponsible drug companies and a greedy health care system.

In which way would you connect what you say with the well known question put by K so many times about "Why do you accept this way of living"?

Continuing with my daily round with letters and parcels after this short stopping

"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, 31 Mar 2017 #30
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you mean can thought cast a net of words around the seeing?

Yes, thought cast a net of images around the seeing in it's wanting to understand that seeing ... Let's say that there's some seeing about relationship, not about my or your relationship with another but just relationship ... Does not thought try to fit certain images it has to what has been seen in order to understand the seen with the images i have of my particular relationship? ... And would not that mean that we are evolving all the time around images? ... And is that what "intellectual understanding" really means?

"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, 31 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 126 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.)