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

Negation of the false


Displaying all 12 posts
Page 1 of 1
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #1
Thumb_ws_hp-wave_2560x1600 Mina Martini Finland 572 posts in this forum Offline

It is not possible for the content of consciousness (the content IS the consciousness) to understand or touch that which is beyond it, but it is possible that the content dissolves in silence. (silence=that which is beyond thought/consciousness)

Any movement of the content to understand is the very denial of understanding.

The content exists only in separation from itself, as the thinker and the thought.

Any movement of the content, in any direction, positive or negative, adds to itself, continues itself.

The seeing of the truth of the above without a seer, and so not from the content, IS the dissolution, the negation of the false, the negation of division and suffering.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3353 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Any movement of the content to understand is the very denial of understanding.

Because understanding lies only in silence, isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #3
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 280 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The seeing of the truth of the above without a seer, and so not from the content, IS the dissolution, the negation of the false, the negation of division and suffering.

The seeing of the truth without a seer is neither dissolution, nor negation of the false, nor negation of division and suffering which are all still in the field of duality, and therefore of thought ... For a seeing without the seer, they never existed, nor exist in the now, nor will exist in the future.

"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, 13 Apr 2017 #4
Thumb_ws_hp-wave_2560x1600 Mina Martini Finland 572 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
The seeing of the truth without a seer is neither dissolution, nor negation of the false, nor negation of division and suffering which are all still in the field of duality, and therefore of thought ... For a seeing without the seer, they never existed, nor exist in the now, nor will exist in the future.

Mina: I did not mean any duality (which takes two or more thought-fragments to relate and react to each other) by the words 'negation', 'dissolution'. On the contrary, those words were describing what is happening to duality when the light of choiceless observation (I might call it awareness or attention just as well) is shining on it...

But yes, absolutely, in pure awareness suffering/duality/time NEVER EXISTED. Thank you!

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 13 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #5
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 280 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
those words were describing

Yes, i understood you already, Mina :-) ... I just wanted to point out that any description is always in the field of duality, and as such we run the risk to make something which is non-existent, existent and start a discussion about how it exists ;-) ... You get what i mean.

"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, 13 Apr 2017 #6
Thumb_ws_hp-wave_2560x1600 Mina Martini Finland 572 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Yes, i understood you already, Mina :-) ...

-Thank you! Any moment of sharing understanding with another is a precious gift...

..

Yes, description/thought/language is always in duality, simply because that is its nature. At the very moment that the word is taken for the thing, this 'building on image' starts taking place. It is possible to keep not taking that first step in image, which carries all other steps and the whole world created by thought, in its womb already.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 13 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #7
Thumb_ws_hp-wave_2560x1600 Mina Martini Finland 572 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Any movement of the content to understand is the very denial of understanding.

Because understanding lies only in silence, isn't it?

m: Yes, but just clarifying that the silence does not lie somewhere at a distance from the realisation that 'any movement of the content to undertand is the very denial of understanding'. The realisation IS the silence. Seeing the false as false IS seeing the true as true.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #8
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 280 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Seeing the false as false IS seeing the true as true.

Which is seeing nothing at all, but just seeing ... That's it!

"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, 17 Apr 2017 #9
Thumb_ws_hp-wave_2560x1600 Mina Martini Finland 572 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Seeing the false as false IS seeing the true as true.

Juan:Which is seeing nothing at all, but just seeing ... That's it!

Mina: Absolutely, that is it!

Thought, which IS both the experiencer and creator of all division, could only see the false as something separate from the true.

And also, it can only see and deal with IDEAS of both, as opposed to each other, but never with the real thing.

The SEEING of the true and true and false as false therefore means that there is neither true or false, as creations of thought.

This is the 'seeing nothing at all', or the 'negation of the false', as it was put in the initial post.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 17 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #10
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 280 posts in this forum Offline

No Mina, this ...

Mina Martini wrote:
'seeing nothing at all'

... it's not the same as this ...

Mina Martini wrote:
'negation of the false'

One is what one sees when all division ends, the other is that one "descending" to the field of thought to talk about it to those who live in that field ... The one who talks knowing his words as being utterly empty.

But of course, this have to be explained some way ... That's why all those who talk about it insist in saying that "the word is not the thing" ('The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao' just to quote someone other than K).

But it is also the reason why we get caught in words, up to the point we dare to point out some inconsistencies in the words of those who use words to talk about the wordless, involving ourselves in all kinds of senseless theories about those words and perpetuating confusion as we can see along the human history since the beginning up to the present.

But sure you already know all that.

"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, 17 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #11
Thumb_ws_hp-wave_2560x1600 Mina Martini Finland 572 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
One is what one sees when all division ends, the other is that one "descending" to the field of thought to talk about it to those who live in that field ... The one who talks knowing his words as being utterly empty.

Mina: For or in emptiness, there is no real difference between one and the other.

Love the way you put it, as 'the one who talks knowing that his words are utterly empty.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Apr 2017 #12
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 280 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Love the way you put it, as 'the one who talks knowing that his words are utterly empty.

Which means that we have understood one each other and there's nothing more to add ... ;-)

"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, 17 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 12 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.)