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

Why does the self persist?


Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 217 in total
Thu, 11 May 2017 #181
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So the 'me' lives even when we're active, I think. Only it's temporarily dormant.

I think you are right Tom. Even if the self is not fully active, it is always there just below the surface, so to speak, suspicious, aways ready to react, to defend itself. it is there potentially.

Thinking of an analogy of some cats I have known. While they are being stroked, petted, they relax, purring with pleasure. But the moment one stops, or the touching is not to their satisfaction, they are ready to lash out.

However, the issue of whether the self is continous is still a question with me. Remembering the quote that was given recently:

"Each experience has its own experiencer"

So is the self an entity or a movement? Perhaps an habitual movement will give the impression of an entity (like a whirlpool moving down a river).

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #182
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Why that fear to be what we actually are (i.e.: nothing)?

It seems to be a characteristic of all life, all living things, that they cling to living, that they intrinsically want to continue living, to stay alive. While the self is not a living thing, it thinks it is, it acts on the assumption that it is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #183
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
If you don't mind i would like to know what makes you think that the self is dormant while "there's a great joy in my golf game", or while skiing or cooking a meal ... because to me to think that it is so is the greatest of all illusions (sorry to say that)

Do you not accept, Juan, that 'below' the movement of the conscious mind, below the thoughts and feelings we may be aware of, there is a whole of subconscious or unconscious movement going on, which may be driving the conscious mind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #184
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Cutting out the reference to reality, K said, as I quoted above:

“ Surely freedom from the self …. is the true function of man? “

I feel there is something in this statement/question that is eluding me, and I don't know how to probe into it.

Of course, at a practical, immediate level, there is no doubt that the self, the me, is the fundamental problems that we humans need to solve. Urgently. But is there a far vaster, deeper dimension to the issue?

Does it suggest that mankind evolved in order to perform a function of becoming free of the self? . . . . but that presupposes that the self already existed before man started to evolve into this possibility of freedom. That seems almost paradoxical.Does not the statement contradict the idea, that was at least floated in “The Ending of Time” dialogues, that the self, the me, was some sort of mistake that happened when the cortex started its development.?

Let me be completely fanciful and probably ridiculous for a moment. Could the self be some sort hitch that developed in,(or has always been a part of), Universal Consciousness. And we, human consciousness, are the Universal Consciousness's response to the problem? The attempt to solve the problem?

Sorry! Sounds like something from “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy” :-)

But I can't dismiss the idea. Would be grateful for any input.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #185
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
is there a far vaster, deeper dimension to the issue?

Yes Clive,
It is that what is everpresent, our true nature(function) is infinite limitless everpresent awareness/consciousness.

It doesn’t come and go, appear and disappear, grow old and die like the separate self.

It doesn’t need to evolve because it IS.

The separate self can evolve but from the point of awareness there is no evolution.

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don't know how to probe into it.

By exploring the separate self.

And don’t prevent that by convincing yourself interllectuelly there is nobody to explore, because that is a superimposed non-dual belief.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #186
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
You think it's dormant just because it does not manifest as conflict, that's why you say that is not active while enjoying playing music ... But perhaps it is because you're completely lost in the music that you're playing that you have lost your attention in the activities of the self while enjoying things, and not only when it manifest itself as conflict ...

Seeing the self as dormant while enjoying things is an illusion that inevitably will be the cause of a future conflict ...

There's some confusion I think. By dormant, I mean that the self exists, but it is not actively in control. For a moment we totally lose ourselves in joy...in creativity...in being 'one with' the ocean wave when we’re surfing. I was speaking about moments when there's momentarily a loss of time...when one is totally in the 'now'. Some great athletes have spoke of this....musicians too I think. At least this musician has :) It's not really important....the important issue is that the self is, most of the time, in control....and man continues to live in conflict and misery. Look at N. Korea....the Middle East...Africa....my own neighborhood, with the alcoholics and drug addicts and street crime. And the average upstanding citizens as well....like those who voted in Trump....who are opposed to universal health care. I'm not separating myself as somehow superior from any of these.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #187
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

is there a far vaster, deeper dimension to the issue?

Yes Clive,
It is that what is everpresent, our true nature(function) is infinite limitless everpresent awareness/consciousness.

C: What I was asking was is there a deeper aspect to this problem of the human self.

It doesn’t come and go, appear and disappear, grow old and die like the separate self.

C: I question this, Olive. Does the self come and go, does it grow old and die? The body grows old and dies, of course, but does the self, the me, the ego?

It doesn’t need to evolve because it IS. The separate self can evolve but from the point of awareness there is no evolution.

C: Again, I question this. Does the self/me/ego evolve? I see no evidence that it does.

It seems to have been a constant factor in the human race for time immemorial.

I am feeling that there is a misconception about the me. It is generally considered that we all have separate selfs – my self, your self, the other's self. But is this the case? Or is there only one self, the common human self, arising from the common human consciousness?

Is not the movement of the self that manifests in you (assuming that it does) the same movement that arises in me? So that, in fact, the very terms “you” and “me” are questionable.

Clive Elwell had written: I don't know how to probe into it.

By exploring the separate self.

C: Of course one needs to do that. But I was asking about exploring this question if the self/me is not ultimately, primarily, a problem in the Universal Consciousness, rather than the particular human consciousness. And that human consciousness is the the Universe's attempt to solve that problem.

And don’t prevent that by convincing yourself interllectuelly there is nobody to explore, because that is a superimposed non-dual belief.

I would say there is only the exploration, not the explorer. The moment the explorer enters, then there is accumulation of what is being explored (as knowledge), and that is the end of exploration.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #188
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 871 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I would say there is only the exploration, not the explorer.

'Exploration without the explorer' so that everything is seen through fresh eyes...The model that I see, and it is only that, is that what we, you, are,is pure 'being'. The 'self' or the 'me' has been created by the brain for whatever reason. It is of course limited in each of us by our experiences, knowledge etc. The 'self' through its 'fear' of 'not being' denies and obscures what we are in fact, pure 'being'. This we cannot 'grasp' because we are it. We cannot 'experience' it, because we are it. Man's sorrow lies here. He struggles to be what he already is. He struggles to be an 'image' of what he 'thinks' he is. He 'accumulates' for security when the 'only' security lies in being 'no-thing'. He wants to 'taste' the 'timeless' but he lives, trapped in 'time', in 'desire', in becoming...fear of being nothing keeps the 'self' intact. Not escaping from that fear, facing it, 'mirroring' it (in its "solitude") will reveal it to itself.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #189
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
'Exploration without the explorer' so that everything is seen through fresh eyes..

Clive: That's right. The explorer, the analyser, the observer, the thinker, etc, is never fresh – he is really just a collection of memories, of experiences, and is always based firmly in the past

Dan McDermott wrote:
The model that I see, and it is only that, is that what we, you, are,is pure 'being'. The 'self' or the 'me' has been created by the brain for whatever reason. It is of course limited in each of us by our experiences, knowledge etc. The 'self' through its 'fear' of 'not being' denies and obscures what we are in fact, pure 'being'. This we cannot 'grasp' because we are it. We cannot 'experience' it, because we are it. Man's sorrow lies here. He struggles to be what he already is. He struggles to be an 'image' of what he 'thinks' he is. He 'accumulates' for security when the 'only' security lies in being 'no-thing'. He wants to 'taste' the 'timeless' but he lives, trapped in 'time', in 'desire', in becoming...fear of being nothing keeps the 'self' intact. Not escaping from that fear, facing it, 'mirroring' it (in its "solitude") will reveal it to itself.

Clive: I lay down to take a rest today, and immediately the self started up with its endless, duality, its endless discontent with what is, all its “should be's”, all its attempts to become other than it is. But it turned out not to be endless, because all the habitual movement was seen for what it was, at a glance. In the light of that seeing, it instantly ended.

Then there was ….... well, firstly, a state of peace. A sense of pure well-being. A contentment that was somehow creative, full of potential …. ready to act when action was needed, but feeling no need to initiate action.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #190
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 871 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Are you absolutely sure that it is not actively in control?

Without 'fear' the whole fortress of the 'self' would collapse. The 'self' is like a spectrum from the deepest darkest fear to the relative lightness when things are going 'well'. When it is not realized what we are, in fact, fear is there. It is in thought trying to continue its charade as an 'individual'. It is thought always trying to 'catch up' to the endless movement, the spark, the flame, the light of 'Creation' within us. It is thought projecting a future unsatisfied with the 'mirroring' of the present (though its attempt of 'projecting' can be seen in the 'mirror' as well.) The mirror is pure Perception, the pure "unadorned" Awareness that we really are, always have been and always will be.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #191
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

By dormant, I mean that the self exists, but it is not actively in control.
Are you absolutely sure that it is not actively in control?
Or do you think it is so, just because it seems not to be actively in control to you?

I can't prove it to you, Juan, nor would I try. K did speak about brief moments of joy when the self is totally absent. But again, these are not the salient issue. They can take care of themselves. The self that returns to create chaos and suffering is the fact we're discussing here. Miles Davis, the great jazz artist, may have spoken about moments of creation when he played something totally new, and then later he packs up his trumpet and returns home and abuses his wife.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #192
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:

What is the meaning of using wonderful words to to describe what i'm not NOW?
How can i "know" about my-self if i'm not looking at it totally naked of the words of others?

I AM the 'words of others'. That's what the self is....the conditioning one receives via the words(used to describe the experiences of) of others..from the political experts...the psychologist....the gurus...our parents and peers... and so on. We're never new...meaning totally free of that brainwashing. Well, perhaps for a few moments when playing the trumpet or surfing.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #193
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 871 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Is there anybody really interested on all this?

I think so. But it's very 'dangerous'. We're very cunning. To see ourself complaining about the 'words' of others. To see our own frustration with 'others' who are not as 'serious' as myself. To see my own frustration that 'others' won't go into all this as 'deeply' as I do. etc.,etc. To see ourself as we are from moment to moment is, to use someone else's word, "arduous".

(It's 'dangerous' because every 'foot-hold' we find turns to 'sand')

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #194
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
An illusion to think that some times the self has left us for an instant making us to touch the heaven? ..

It's not an illusion. I've said it before and I'll say it again. :) You are free to disagree....But you're in disagreement with K as well. However, as we agreed, it's immaterial. The issue is the presence of the self, not its absence.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #195
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Now, why do we accept (or reject) the words of another?
Is it because we think that we have actually seen what they mean?

You ask a question and immediately answer it. Do you ever ask a question that you don't already know the answer to? Now, why do we accept, when told as a child, that Jews are inferior to Christians? Or that my family is more important than my neighbor's family? It's a really good question....why does the child accept the brainwashing of the school teacher, the parent, the priest? This may be related to the questions that you yourself raised.

Juan: "Do we see that most of the times we're moving in the field of words and not of an actual seeing?"

Yes...this is certainly important to realize, I agree. But its difficult to realize when our whole being is tied up with words, images, concepts, beliefs, attachments. Can we raise kids without all the brainwashing? Not if we ourselves are brainwashed, I don't think.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 14 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #196
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
I have a question about this ...
How long has took for the previous movement of the self to come back?

I think this is a misleading question, Juan.

The previous state did not come back as such. The actuality was: someone came into the room to get me, because we were going somewhere. The mind instantly moved into a new state, the state, the challenge, of reating to another. It became active rather than entirely passive.

It was not that conflict came flooding into the brain again.

But even to think in terms of 'states of mind' is misleading. As Wim said recently, there is only constant movement.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #197
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
.why does the child accept the brainwashing of the school teacher, the parent, the priest?

Is it not that the brain wants to be secure, that is its most fundamental movement? It thinks security lies in conformity to what is arund it. At least it fears that going against the social grain, not accepting the words and actions of others; it will stand out, and be attacked.

I am not saying that children think this out, of course. It is pretty much instinctual.

Of course it is a myth. The wider picture is that there no security in conforming, in trying to belong to particular groups, cultures. But how can children, or the immature, have this wider picture? It does not seem possible when there is no wider picture around them, no contact with it.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #198
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is it not that the brain wants to be secure, that is its most fundamental movement? It thinks security lies in conformity to what is arund it.

As you said, the small child doesn't actually think this out. But when the mother says, "You are a good boy, Tom", the child feels a sense of acceptance and security. If he's told, "You are a bad boy", he feels terrible insecurity. What damage is done to little brains by thoughtless psrents!

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 14 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #199
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Personally, i have never accepted that so-called brainwashing, having seen at very early age (3/4 years old) the falsity and hypocrisy of it

That's quite a statement, Juan! Do you mean to say that, like K, you were never conditioned? Had no notions of right vs wrong, good vs evil, sacred vs profane, sinner or saint...no group identity at all...religious...national...family...political? No beliefs, ideals(shoulds) or conclusions? Never believed in God or Buddha or Jesus? You never tried to fit in with your peers? Tried to impress a young lady? Tried to be 'cool' or hip or clever?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 14 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #200
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Do you ever ask a question that you don't already know the answer to?
Well i simply put one question after the other ... the second is not an answer, it doesn't say "Is it NOT because...?", but "Is it because...?", which to me is slightly different giving space to inquire further if it is so

Thanks for explaining. I didn't see that you were questioning...exploring. It felt like you were trying to teach a lesson in school. Possibly I wasn't reading carefully enough.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #201
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

That's what the self is....the conditioning one receives via the words(used to describe the experiences of) of others..from the political experts...the psychologist....the gurus...our parents and peers... and so on.
I wouldn't say that words condition Tom, but our accepting (or rejecting) them, does

So why does the little child accept the words like good and evil...God and the devil...that the parent uses? Is it because he sees the parent as an all knowing being? As the ultimate authority in life who he depends upon for his very survival....physical security? The very small child knows nothing at all 'psychologically' speaking. He doesn't know he is good or bad or right or wrong...or Jewish or Muslim... American or Russian...until he is told so by the parent.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #202
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is it because he sees the parent as an all knowing being? As the ultimate authority in life who he depends upon for his very survival....physical security?

As a child I ertainly accepted adults as all-knowing, even as all powerful. I can remember being completely accepting of the adult world; there was the asumption they knew what they were doing. Even a sense that everything was in order, everything made sense. I never really questioned the world, it just WAS.

I am making up for this lack of questioning now ::-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #203
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
have a nice day with that constant movement, Clive.

Is this sarcasm, Juan? - I can't tell if it is or not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #204
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Even a sense that everything was in order, everything made sense. I never really questioned the world, it just WAS.

Same here. Probably the reason that the self persists...it gives us a sense of order..of things being in their proper place. The good folks go to heaven and the bad folks go to hell. Punishment and reward still makes sense to a whole lot of people. One reason we have jails and police...to maintain order...and protect personal property, of course. No one shall touch what is MINE.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #205
Thumb_stringio Link Smickman United States 54 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
The self. The self is suffering. The self is disappointment.

The self is the pursuit of pleasure, desire and hope – these things always being in the future, and remaining there.

The self is satisfaction, but always with the shadow of dissatisfaction, frustration.

The self, as I see it, is basically pain. Given that, why does it persist? This seems a reasonable question. Something that has brought about so much suffering, so much misery to the human race; perhaps, for millions of years, somehow has never seen its own consequences. Why? It continually operates in hope it will "succeed" in the future, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Why? Why?

Its because you only hear what you want to hear. People cannot communicate with you because you dont want disturbance. For a person to communicate with you they would have to say things which you get offended by and you cant handle that. Thats why you need a safe space. You sound like you put more importance over politics then you do Krishnamurti. You ignore what doesnt line up with what you want to hear and scorn everything else. Where did you get the idea that Krishnamurtis silent mind meant to block out what you dont like? Krishnamurti meant nothing like that.. There was no resistance or withdrawl. When we speak of a quiet space with an over-zealous moderator is that any different from the borders and divisions you are against? Krishnamurti talked about balance. Balanace doesnt mean being a hardcore SJW leftist or an alt-righter who hates blacks. You all sound fairly politically biased. You all sound like these foolish people who go to these gender riots and wind up killing themselves.

In all honesty i dont have this misery or conflict you speak of nor do i have the i which persists.. I take a beating but i use my understanding of Ks teaching and i dont accumulate the hurt. I could also easily fit in with the lefties and be friends with them and dress like them without being like that inwardly, but im not going to accept something which i see is false nor will i go to extremes to play along with something false. K wouldnt either thats why he said he would be fearful in communism and that means he wouldnt survive.. he would be a dissenter.

I dont feel hurt or sad or angry or fearful but i do realize when people project that onto me. I do realize when i would have an image of myself if i didnt understand how those things worked. If my mind was like yours and everyone elses then i would have an image and its resulting response such as low self esteem. I dont have these things and i realize clive is very political and the rest of these people are not really serious. They dont actually want to understand their suffering. What a strange bunch.

Dont like that? Then ban me.. Its no problem..I dont get my head misled like that but what i see is what i see. As krishnamurti has clearly pointed out, it is only the few who are true revolutionaries, it is only the few who have true initiative that hold onto what they see. K said that the seeing is the doing.

Why do we wipe our butts all over this message? I bet clive has a asymetrical bob with one side shaved and a nose ring. LOL. Dont like words huh? Then why dont you inquire into your inward state and reactions. Im not going to cut my humor off just because you are sour, sir. You can ban me if you want i dont care. Even if i died i would not be able to be happy either way and i would do what i do until i died. Getting banned from this forum doesnt mean much to me.

Like i said in my other post, what is keeping these people from learning about Ks message first hand? Why do they keep asking overly simple questions that would be obvious if they were genuinely interested in the root of Ks teaching and not shallowly dancing around the rim of it with esoterics? Its because they dont actually want to learn or understand.

I guess that insults them, i dont care.. Not even a little. If i did i would be departing from compassion.

Is not the very desire for a quiet space the factor which keeps the mind unalert, wondering why it still has problems but cant grasp anything? Youve shielded yourself from these things which would make you alert and dont know what to make of it. I noticed youre a little mad about it. I actually think its kind of funny, not in an unfriendly mean way but in a friendly way like someone taking a crud in a porta-potty and the porta-potty tipping over on then and them running out of it all angry. Its pretty funny but i insist that there is no malevolence in that. I just think its funny.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #206
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 719 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
It seems to me that we're always looking at the gross level ...
... but what about the deeper level?

How deep you wanna go, Juan ??
Until nothing's left just observation of all what's moving ?
Or even behind that ??

And what could describe such an event ??

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, 15 May 2017 #207
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So why does the little child accept the words like good and evil...God and the devil...that the parent uses? Is it because he sees the parent as an all knowing being?

But it is interesting to note, Tom, that another movement develops in a child/young person. That is the movement of rebellion, of going against authority. I can remember precisely when it manifested in me.

Is this mere reaction, or does it have a deeper significance?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #208
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Link Smickman wrote:
Its because you only hear what you want to hear.

Clive: I have to decide whether this “you” means “me personally, as distinct from all others”, or the “you as being representative of all human beings”. As you talk about the forum and moderation below, I take it you mean the former, Link.

People cannot communicate with you because you dont want disturbance.

So what is the basis of your saying “people can't communicate with me”?

For a person to communicate with you they would have to say things which you get offended by and you cant handle that.

So what is the basis of your saying “I can't handle that”?

Thats why you need a safe space. You sound like you put more importance over politics then you do Krishnamurti. You ignore what doesnt line up with what you want to hear and scorn everything else.

Clive: I think this is a tendency in all of us, or most of us at least. I say “tendency” because I actually make a point of look hard at the challenges thrown at me, as I am doing now. This does not mean one automatically accepts all criticism levelled at one, but one examines it for the truth it contains.

Where did you get the idea that Krishnamurtis silent mind meant to block out what you dont like?

Clive: Did I get such an idea? Present some evidence please.

Krishnamurti meant nothing like that.. There was no resistance or withdrawl. When we speak of a quiet space with an over-zealous moderator is that any different from the borders and divisions you are against?

Clive: I am not “against” divisions. Division exists, and as such it has to be examined for any meaning it might have. But yes, to divide human beings by race, nationality, ideology, colour of skin, etc, has a destructive effect on society, does it not?

I think you are making too much of the name of the forum, “A Quiet Space”. It was merely based on a chance remark by a previous moderator.

Krishnamurti talked about balance. Balanace doesnt mean being a hardcore SJW leftist or an alt-righter who hates blacks. You all sound fairly politically biased. You all sound like these foolish people who go to these gender riots and wind up killing themselves.

Clive:You certainly read a lot into my words, Link! I do not know what “SJW” means. I gave up politics as a means of bringing change to the world a long time ago. I cannot remember that politics has played a part on the forum since its inception.

[cut]

I dont feel hurt or sad or angry or fearful but i do realize when people project that onto me. I do realize when i would have an image of myself if i didnt understand how those things worked. If my mind was like yours and everyone elses then i would have an image and its resulting response such as low self esteem. I dont have these things and i realize clive is very political

Clive: Frankly, Link, I find the label Clive is very political” does not fit at all.

and the rest of these people are not really serious. They dont actually want to understand their suffering. What a strange bunch.

Clive: And you imply above, Link, that you don't have any images. I wonder in what light, then, your view these statements about others?

Dont like that? Then ban me.. Its no problem..I dont get my head misled like that but what i see is what i see. As krishnamurti has clearly pointed out, it is only the few who are true revolutionaries, it is only the few who have true initiative that hold onto what they see. K said that the seeing is the doing.
Why do we wipe our butts all over this message? I bet clive has a asymetrical bob with one side shaved and a nose ring. LOL.

Clive: I am also smiling. Smiling at the incongruity of such comments from someone who implies he doesn't form images.

Dont like words huh? Then why dont you inquire into your inward state and reactions. Im not going to cut my humor off just because you are sour, sir.

You seems to be carrying some sort of model in your head of how you think I am, and the responses I am making, or going to make to you. I wonder were such a model comes from? You don't question at all if it is accurate or not.

You can ban me if you want i dont care. Even if i died i would not be able to be happy either way and i would do what i do until i died. Getting banned from this forum doesnt mean much to me.
Like i said in my other post, what is keeping these people from learning about Ks message first hand?

Clive: not sure who “these people” are, but are you so very sure that “these people” are different from you? Are people not the world, and are you not the world?

Why do they keep asking overly simple questions that would be obvious if they were genuinely interested in the root of Ks teaching and not shallowly dancing around the rim of it with esoterics? Its because they dont actually want to learn or understand.

Clive: Well, that is your assumption, Link. There is another possibility, which is that we genuinely want to inquire into the nature of ourselves, without drawing assumptions, which as K pointed out, brings inquiry to a halt.

But perhaps I have drawn an assumption that K's teachings were all about inquiry.

I guess that insults them, i dont care..

Clive: When I set the ground rule about not insulting others, I was referring to a one-to-one personal level. I have often pointed out (too often) that if people demand the “freedom” to insult others, there are plenty of other forums they can join where this happens. And the rule was not set as some sort of protection, but simply because I cannot see that personal attacks play any useful part in inquiry.

Personally I don't care if people insult me (and I have certainly received a lot of it as a moderator!), but I see no reason why others should be exposed to it on this forum. And is it not, as was once said of nationalism, “the last refuge of scoundrels”? If one wants to question, to doubt, the words of another, obviously one is free to do so. To resort to personal insult implies, does it not, that one has no real argument?

Not even a little. If i did i would be departing from compassion.
Is not the very desire for a quiet space the factor which keeps the mind unalert, wondering why it still has problems but cant grasp anything?

Clive: Yes, there is certainly truth in that.

Youve shielded yourself from these things which would make you alert and dont know what to make of it. I noticed youre a little mad about it. I actually think its kind of funny, not in an unfriendly mean way but in a friendly way like someone taking a crud in a porta-potty and the porta-potty tipping over on then and them running out of it all angry. Its pretty funny but i insist that there is no malevolence in that. I just think its funny.

Clive: Seems to me you have strange idea of what is funny, Link. But I leave you to your opinions of me. Is this what you meant by “discuss” at the end of your last post? Is your idea of discussion merely to criticise me personally?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #209
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But it is interesting to note, Tom, that another movement develops in a child/young person. That is the movement of rebellion, of going against authority. I can remember precisely when it manifested in me.

Is this mere reaction, or does it have a deeper significance?

I don't know, Clive. By the time the child rebels he has his own share of desires and wants, and those come in conflict with the parent's desire for the child to conform, so it's the child's self centeredness vs. the parent's self centeredness most likely. Do you see any deeper significance to this movement of rebellion? Is it a longing for 'true freedom'? I tend to doubt it. What do you say? Anyone?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 16 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #210
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Do you see any deeper significance to this movement of rebellion?

I don't know. There might be, at times. But as you say, it is all too quickly smothered. And often it just a matter of a young person struggling to drop a particular identity, only to succeed by taking up another one - while thinking he has achieved some sort of freedom. One could think of numerous examples of this.

"Standing alone" seems altogether too dangerous a proposition for the mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 217 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.)