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

Why does the self persist?


Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 280 in total
Mon, 08 May 2017 #181
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 240 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
There are some conversations between K and Bohm in a book of talks between just the two of them. I've lost the link (I would appreciate some help to get a link back)

I think you're referring to this dialogue:

Krishnamurti: I was thinking about the question of what is truth and what is reality and whether there is any relationship between the two, or whether they are separate. Are they eternally divorced, or are they just projections of thought? And if thought didn't operate, would there be reality? I thought that reality comes from ``res'', thing, and that anything that thought operates on, or fabricates, or reflects about, is reality. And thought, thinking in a distorted, conditioned manner is illusion, is self-deception, is distortion. I left it there, because I wanted to let it come rather than my pursuing it.


J. Krishnamurti, Truth and Actuality -- Part I Chapter 1 1st Discussion
with Prof. David Bohm Brockwood Park, 18th May 1975 (Reality, Actuality, Truth)

Continue reading following THIS LINK (follow the links in the page for further reading)
Or listen to it following THIS OTHER LINK (1st of 12 audios)

Personally, i will suggest to go to the original audio, as transcription is VERY, very bad, it lacks a lot of things discussed, and i detected at least, one bad transcription when D. Bohm talks about Bishop Berkeley -- Dr. Bohm says that he said that everything was 'mind', and in the text it says 'thought' ... Anyway, do whatever you want ;-)

"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, 08 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 May 2017 #182
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 260 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
To further the discussion "Why does the self persist", I offer the following quote from K, from Ojai 1949:

"Surely, the freedom from the self, and therefore the search of Reality, the discovery and the coming into being of Reality, is the true function of man".

Part of my self-image - the idea I have of myself, what I believe about myself and what I want others to believe about me - is that I am not violent, that I am kind and considerate. The socially accepted morality - the social propaganda - says that violence is wrong, that violence is a moral failing, reprehensible, frowned upon, that good people are not violent, that violence is a scourge on humanity. But “morality” also says that I must stand up to others, that I must fight all wrongs, that backing down is a shameful sign of weakness. So there is a contradiction between the violence I feel within and the image I have of myself. There’s a contradiction between the violence I feel within and the socially accepted morality. "Morality" itself is full of contradictions. Like the emperor’s new clothes, the socially accepted morality is itself false. It is merely an idea or image which does not reflect the actual truth or fact about violence, fear, anger, jealousy, and so on - the fact being that all of it throbs in our collective chests. In any case, the fact is that violence - i.e. rage, turmoil, anger - arises in me, whether it expresses itself physically or psychologically.

In the same way, there is a contradiction between the hurt that I feel and the self-image. Morality/propaganda says that being hurt shows weakness, stupidity or immaturity. A strong, smart, mature, person knows how to hit back, punish, frighten others and put them in their place, and avoid being hurt, or at least ignore your hurt, carry on. So my cherished self-image - the ideal - is that I don’t get hurt, that I am confident, mature and strong. So it is, like with violence or fear, filled with contradiction.

One can face the fact of being violent, hurt or afraid without taking up the ideal of the opposite and without resorting to analysis, blame, revenge, retribution, explanation, justification and pretense to hide the fact. To adopt the ideal, to put together the explanation, to blame, to take revenge, is to deny the fact of violence, hurt, fear, that is within; it is pretending to be untouched, peaceful or serene, while the fact is that, in response to a challenge, violence, hurt or fear is being felt within. No?

So what makes me or you say that the self persists? It’s not when I’m having a pleasant conversation with my neighbour, or when I’m figuring out my tax return, how to budget my money, what ingredient I can substitute in a recipe, is it?

When fear, anger, violence, jealousy, compulsion, hurt, arise within, don’t I immediately afterwards start asking why why why, how to resolve it, what do I do, blaming others, blaming myself, blaming the past, trying to put together a plan of action, trying to stay calm, to meditate, and so on? THAT process of cogitation, reasoning, explaining, analyzing, seeking, IS SELF, isn’t it? Fear is not self. Isn’t it in the instant following fear that self is assembled, put together? So when fear arises, I behave as I have always behaved --- by thinking about it. I never actually "face" fear without thinking about it, do I?

K says face the fact itself, the fear, the hurt, the anger. Don’t analyze or explain it. He says, "try it" - not "try" in the sense of effort but experiment with it, try it out, find out. Can’t we face the fact in the moment, without thinking about it? Doesn’t seeing the nature of self, seeing the process assembling self, seeing the limitations of thought, seeing the significance of thinking about our pain, mean that thought can end in that moment, without having to make an effort NOT to think?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 08 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 May 2017 #183
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1562 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Doesn’t seeing the nature of self, seeing the process assembling self, seeing the limitations of thought, seeing the significance of thinking about our pain, mean that thought can end in that moment, without having to make an effort NOT to think?

I think most of us are aware, at least somewhat, of the limitations of thought, yet when strong emotion arises, thought normally rises up to 'deal with' it. Logically we can understand what you say in bold, yet the thought/emotion connection continues in spite of our understanding. It's probably so deeply ingrained in human consciousness that it persists in spite of all our reading of K, Buddha, and/or Christ. I probably should speak for myself only, but I doubt I'm alone in dealing with this emotion/thought connection ...the 'me' struggling against itself. The thought part/fragment of 'me' struggling with the emotional part/fragment.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 May 2017 #184
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 260 posts in this forum Offline

re 183:

Tom,

Can't I, you, one, in the heat of the moment, with eyes open or closed, stay with the turmoil? Does that take effort? It is the thinking about it, the seeking, striving to find a solution, which takes effort, isn't? The emotional part is not struggling to become something else, to express itself or not to express itself. The emotional part is not looking for a solution, a plan or a method. It is right THERE. It came up without "me" looking for it, seeking it. There is no avoiding it... except through thought, through thinking about it. Making an effort or seeking is what thought/"me" does, not fear or anger. No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 08 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 May 2017 #185
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 567 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t it in the instant following fear that self is assembled, put together? So when fear arises, I behave as I have always behaved --- by thinking about it. I never actually "face" fear without thinking about it, do I?

When reading this, the image that arose was one of a physical injury to the body, say a cut. The body mobilizes to fight the possibility of infection, white blood cells surround any foreign bacteria, blood clotting agents arrive, etc. In the case you describe of a reaction such as anger, hurt etc., thought arrives to do what it can to calm the situation. So rather than there just being whatever 'sensation' has arisen, thought recognizes it from the past, labels it and tries to alleviate, justify it in some way. So what would it take for this reaction of thought to not take place? To allow whatever sensation is there to be, to 'flower' as K. puts it and subside 'naturally'? I think for that, the reaction of thought, to not take place would mean wouldn't it, that thought itself had seen the utter futility of escaping from 'what is? The utter futility of creating a false 'duality' which attempts to act on and change 'what is'? And as you suggest, only experimenting with a simple 'facing' of whatever is present, could bring about the intelligence needed for thought to not interfere where it understands that it has no 'place'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 May 2017 #186
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 260 posts in this forum Offline

Re 185:

Dan,

Whatever psychological reaction takes place, it can be faced just as the fear or anger is faced, right? Thought keeps splitting off, fragmenting, enticing "me" into a "new" direction with a new idea, but observation is steadfast, it doesn't follow thought...

Also, I want to understand the functioning of the mind because I see that for 1000s of years, I (the human being) has been living in a rut, in a vicious cycle of war and peace. At this point, I don't want just to understand it so that I - the particular name, form, image, individual - can find a way to live in peace and the rest of humanity be damned. Right? Is there more to life than getting the most out of it for "me", than being respected, admired, than achieving, becoming - you know, all the things K talks about?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 08 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 May 2017 #187
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 567 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Is there more to life than getting the most out of it for "me", than being respected, admired, than achieving, becoming - you know, all the things K talks about?

From what I get from K., he doesn't consider it 'living' at all, this "self-created bondage of the brain".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 May 2017 #188
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 567 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Whatever psychological reaction takes place, it can be faced just as the fear or anger is faced, right? Thought keeps splitting off, fragmenting, enticing "me" into a "new" direction with a new idea, but observation is steadfast, it doesn't follow thought...

Richard was just posting about this which he thinks is important: that 'sensation' prior to being recognized, named, judged etc. can be seen as 'just' sensation and 'defused' as such without as he put it "anyone" having to 'experience' it,i.e. anger, hate. As he put it: " To be attentive, to be present to the sensation allows the defusing of the consciousness, of the appropriation, of the I etc... And dissatisfaction, suffering, anger, jealousy, sorrow etc ... can be reduced to sensations Without anyone to feel it..."

Shri Anirvan once said I recall that "emotions are misplaced sensations". Perhaps that is what we are talking about here? 'Misplaced' (or misappropriated?) sensations.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 08 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 May 2017 #189
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1562 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The emotional part is not struggling to become something else, to express itself or not to express itself. The emotional part is not looking for a solution, a plan or a method. It is right THERE.

This part is not at all clear. The emotional part doesn't exist in isolation. It's related to the psychological part....thought...and also to our 'external' life situation. The emotional part is also a form of pain/discomfort that tells me that action is needed....like the pain of hunger or thirst. We don't feel fear in isolation, right? I feel fear when my job is threatened....when my relationship which gives me a feeling of stability is threatened, etc. The emotional pain seems to be similar to the pain of hunger. I don't sit and stay with the pain of hunger, right? I take action. In a similar way it appears that emotional pain is telling me that action is needed. Well, this at least applies to fear. Perhaps loneliness or some other emotion like greed is not a call for action. I need to look further into this issue.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 09 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #190
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 567 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Whatever psychological reaction takes place, it can be faced just as the fear or anger is faced, right? Thought keeps splitting off, fragmenting, enticing "me" into a "new" direction with a new idea, but observation is steadfast, it doesn't follow thought...

Jan put this up on John's forum, it isn't a quote from K. (non-dwelling mind)

"By spending a little time each day refraining from following our thoughts around like a slave, and instead just observe them arise and dissolve without attaching to any of them, we would soon come to the direct recognition that we are not the person we had assumed ourselves to be. We are not our thoughts, and in fact we are a total mystery — undefinable and inconceivable. In reality each experience has its own experiencer. The sense of some continuous identity which we habitually cling to is actually based on bits of thoughts and memory. Upon thorough inspection, no real person can be established. Indeed, what can be noticed, in the course of sincere inspection, is that both thought and thinker are empty".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #191
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 260 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Is there more to life than getting the most out of it for "me", than being respected, admired, than achieving, becoming - you know, all the things K talks about?

Dan McDermott wrote:
From what I get from K., he doesn't consider it 'living' at all, this "self-created bondage of the brain".

Yes, the heart doesn't rejoice from the becoming of self-created bondage. There may be sense of pleasure, of pride, vanity, conceit, superiority, but whatever I become, whatever I accomplish in this world, does not bring a deep abiding joy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #192
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

J. Krishnamurti, Truth and Actuality -- Part I Chapter 1 1st Discussion 
with Prof. David Bohm Brockwood Park, 18th May 1975 (Reality, Actuality, Truth)

Continue reading following THIS LINK (follow the links in the page for further reading) 
Or listen to it following THIS OTHER LINK (1st of 12 audios)


Juan, Thank you for the links above, much appreciated. I will listen to the audio.

In my rememberance the transcription for the talks in he book *The Ending Of Time * has similar flaws.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 09 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #193
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 260 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

The emotional part is not looking for a solution

Tom Paine wrote:
This part is not at all clear. The emotional part doesn't exist in isolation. It's related to the psychological part....thought...and also to our 'external' life situation. The emotional part is also a form of pain/discomfort that tells me that action is needed....like the pain of hunger or thirst. We don't feel fear in isolation, right? I feel fear when my job is threatened....when my relationship which gives me a feeling of stability is threatened, etc. The emotional pain seems to be similar to the pain of hunger. I don't sit and stay with the pain of hunger, right? I take action. In a similar way it appears that emotional pain is telling me that action is needed. Well, this at least applies to fear. Perhaps loneliness or some other emotion like greed is not a call for action. I need to look further into this issue.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly... or maybe I'm mistaken.

By the "emotional part", I mean the physical sensation of fear, anger, etc. There's the physical sensation first, isn't there? Then I start to think about it in all the ways we are familiar with.

With hunger, there is a clear solution: food. It is not just an idea or opinion that I need food. It's a fact. I may not be able to get food but I do what I can to get it and if I absolutely can't get it, I will starve.

With fear, the solution is not clear, the action that needs to be taken is not clear. In fact, can't we say that whatever "I have done" through the ages, has only exacerbated the problem, not solved it?

When I seek food, I'm not denying hunger or escaping from it. When I seek a solution to fear, I am. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #194
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 567 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Yes, the heart doesn't rejoice from the becoming of self-created bondage. There may be sense of pleasure, of pride, vanity, conceit, superiority, but whatever I become, whatever I accomplish in this world, does not bring a deep abiding joy.

I think that that is true."Abiding joy" is not possible as long as we are 'cut off'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #195
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3234 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So what makes me or you say that the self persists? It’s not when I’m having a pleasant conversation with my neighbour, or when I’m figuring out my tax return, how to budget my money, what ingredient I can substitute in a recipe, is it?

Well yes, I find that the self can and does arise in all these situations. Just below the surface there is this boiling, or at least simmering, pot of thoughts, emotions, reactions. They are constantly appearing and disappearing. With awareness of them they do not actually have to manifest in relationship, with awareness they can subside. But they may manifest. I am tempted to say it is as if another being takes over the relationship, and if I look back later I wonder why I projected this or that image of myself, why there was such and such a reaction, and so on. And probably I interpret a “ conversation with my neighbour as pleasant because it has boosted my ego

Huguette: When fear, anger, violence, jealousy, compulsion, hurt, arise within, don’t I immediately afterwards start asking why why why, how to resolve it, what do I do, blaming others, blaming myself, blaming the past, trying to put together a plan of action, trying to stay calm, to meditate, and so on? 

Yes, this one of the chief characteristics of the self. It always thinks it has something useful to add, it always thinks it knows what to do, what should be done. Given how it has failed a million trillion times, it is very curious how it keeps trying. This is very much part of the question “Why does the self persist?” I see that Dan has something pertinent to say on this matter.

Huguette: Fear is not self.

Is it not? I can see that physical fear is not self, self being a construct of thought, and not a thing of the body, but I presume that you are talking about psychological fear, Huguette? Surely psychological fear arises in response to an imagined threat to the self, a challenge to a self image, a threat to its (imagined) security? So in what way is psychological fear not the self?

Huguette: Isn’t it in the instant following fear that self is assembled, put together? So when fear arises, I behave as I have always behaved --- by thinking about it. I never actually "face" fear without thinking about it, do I?

This is so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #196
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3234 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote :
In reality each experience has its own experiencer.

That is so true. Wonderful to see it expressed in words.

Dan McDermott wrote:
The sense of some continuous identity which we habitually cling to is actually based on bits of thoughts and memory.

So true. So liberating.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Tue, 09 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #197
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3234 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
When reading this, the image that arose was one of a physical injury to the body, say a cut. The body mobilizes to fight the possibility of infection, white blood cells surround any foreign bacteria, blood clotting agents arrive, etc

I think this is a good analogy, and it may point towards the origins of this persistence of thought in trying to "solve" its own reactions - the movement has been internalised, from what was a genuine and appropriate physical movement.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #198
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3234 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
There may be sense of pleasure, of pride, vanity, conceit, superiority, but whatever I become, whatever I accomplish in this world, does not bring a deep abiding joy.

More than that, Huguette, A question that has been with me is: "Why does pleasure always change into pain, sorrow?". For it surely does. It may take the space of a thought to do so, or it may take years, decades, but it surely does.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #199
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1562 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
By the "emotional part", I mean the physical sensation of fear, anger, etc. There's the physical sensation first, isn't there?

But the physical sensation is a result of thought...often unconscious....but it's a result of the conditioning of consciousness, for sure. So there's these two parts to fear, I think.

Huguette . wrote:
When I seek food, I'm not denying hunger or escaping from it. When I seek a solution to fear, I am. No?

What I was trying to say is, that we are not necessarily seeking a solution to the fear itself, but to the life situation that has caused the fear.....like the threat of losing one's job or one's spouse. We take action when possible, but when no obvious action is apparent, we suffer from anxiety...fear. But the fear is obviously related to conscious or unconscious thinking. It doesn't exist in isolation. So when we attempt to observe the fear quietly, all the unconscious conditioning may begin to come to the surface. In my grandparents day there was a saying, "those that don't work, don't eat." reminding one of the crucial importance of holding onto one's job, even if it was terribly exploitative ...stressful.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 09 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #200
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 260 posts in this forum Offline

#195:

Huguette . wrote:
So what makes me or you say that the self persists? It’s not when I’m having a pleasant conversation with my neighbour, or when I’m figuring out my tax return, how to budget my money, what ingredient I can substitute in a recipe, is it?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Well yes, I find that the self can and does arise in all these situations.

Why look for the exception to the rule or for the example which "proves" the ubiquity of self in all relationship? I'm not saying that what you describe ("and if I look back later I wonder why I projected this or that image of myself, why there was such and such a reaction, and so on") never happens,
or that ego is never involved in making a recipe, and so on.

But surely it does happen sometimes that one engages in an activity such as preparing one's tax return and one is engrossed in it, without existential questions popping up. Surely one sometimes engages in a conversation without reason or motive.... where it doesn't matter what we talk about, no one is trying to outwit or outdo the other. We might have run into each other or be at work, and there is an unsought sense of fellowship, no competition, no intention, no duty or obligation.

Doesn't that ever happen? I say it does, that there are innocent moments -rare though they may or may not be - of chatting, cooking, working. On those moments, one doesn't ask what is the source of suffering, why does self persist. Does one?

The question for me was (not that it’s “right”), doesn't self persist because fear, anger, etc., persist? Fear and anger arise from the depths of consciousness and when they arise, isn't that when self arises? And when fear and anger do not arise, self does not arise.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #201
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 260 posts in this forum Offline

#195:

Huguette: Fear is not self.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is it not? I can see that physical fear is not self, self being a construct of thought, and not a thing of the body, but I presume that you are talking about psychological fear, Huguette? Surely psychological fear arises in response to an imagined threat to the self, a challenge to a self image, a threat to its (imagined) security? So in what way is psychological fear not the self?

#199:

Huguette . wrote:
By the "emotional part", I mean the physical sensation of fear, anger, etc. There's the physical sensation first, isn't there?

Tom Paine wrote:
But the physical sensation is a result of thought...often unconscious....but it's a result of the conditioning of consciousness, for sure. So there's these two parts to fear, I think.

I'm not saying that the physical aspect of anger or fear is all there is to it. The anger or fear is caused by a movement in the unconscious or subconscious, I don't deny this. We cannot remember the initial incidents in childhood when we were hurt for the first, second, third time. We can't remember the moment when we rebelled and became angry. But those unconscious memories are part of self, of consciousness. Current challenges stir them up, and up pops fear or anger.

What I'm saying is that if we stay with the observable aspect of fear or anger - the physical manifestations of it - we still do not remember the original events, but certain thought patterns do become clear. If I face fear in the form that it arises, in the form that is perceptible, I understand the pattern of my further reactions.

But I am immediately turning away from facing the manifestations of anger by concluding, for example, that "you have insulted me and that's wrong; you deserve to be put in your place for your insolence". If I don't turn away from fear, if I don't make retribution my goal, I discover that my reaction is not about doing the right or noble thing. My reaction is to protect something which took root ages ago. I was innocent, good, and suddenly I was made to feel that I was devious, bad, incomplete, lacking, unsatisfactory. That changes everything for the child, doesn't it?

So I see that I'm afraid of appearing foolish, of being made a fool of, of appearing weak, of being weak and foolish, and so on. I want to be made whole, undivided, innocent, "good", again. No?

Then the problem is not "you", not "right and wrong", not morality, not what I "should do". The actual problem is the fear which is rooted in me, which I'm trying to remedy through my action.

Of course, it's not always that simple or straightforward. It's just a small example which, for me, shows that our motives are not always what they seem to be. There are times when a situation really seems to call for a "heroic" action in which there is real danger. Even then, facing the psychological fears removes a barrier to acting freely without the useless burden of psychological fear. Then one does what one can, with no assurance of security, which there never is, either physically or psychologically.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 09 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #202
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 240 posts in this forum Offline

Why do you guys don't go to the root of it all, which is becoming?

Does not self persist because it is constantly becoming one thing or another: moral, immoral, this or that? ... Should not Clive's original question be changed into "Why do i want/need to become all the time? ...

How difficult seems to go deeply into oneslef to find out what is the real meaning of those words: "I've no problem because I don't mind what happens"

Do we see that our talking about morality, immorality and so on so forth, is still in the field of becoming, and therefore in the field of the persistence of the self?

Have we ever faced our non-becoming, or all our discussions are to not face that, and therefore to continue becoming in a way or another? ... And if you let me say that, think twice before trying to give a response to this question, because becoming can be very, very, very subtle ...

"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, 09 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #203
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 483 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But the physical sensation is a result of thought...

Hi Tom,

Can you imagine there are physical sensations that have nothing to do with thought ?

I have just returned from a short trip to England which started participating in "Dutch Retreat" in Brockwood. In the 44 years I studied K.'s teachings, something happened to me on the third day that has never happened before and it not repeated itself. I have no explanation why the tears went out of my eyes while observing a DvD, could still follow what was said and can only say that to my humble opinion it had nothing to do with thought.

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.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Tue, 09 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #204
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Juan,

Don't remember, did you say everything one does involves becoming?

Would you say shareing something one has seen with a friend involves becoming?

Just asking.

Peter

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #205
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 240 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Would you say sharing something one has seen with a friend involves becoming?

I think that absolutely nobody can give a response to that question but oneself to oneself alone ... It is known (himself said this) that K retired many times to question himself about the real meaning of his talks, to find out if there was something hidden behind that ...

So, forgive me, but i will not give a public answer to your question (or have i given one already with this post?) ... Anyway, let me add that one has to be REALLY, REALLY serious to oneself to give a response to that question put to oneself alone ...

May i ask you now, if there can be becoming in giving a response to that question to anybody else other than to oneself? ... What do you think?

Do 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)

This post was last updated by Juan E Tue, 09 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #206
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 260 posts in this forum Offline

#202:

Juan E wrote:
Why do you guys don't go to the root of it all, which is becoming?

Does not self persist because it is constantly becoming one thing or another: moral, immoral, this or that? ... Should not Clive's original question be changed into "Why do i want/need to become all the time? ...

Isn't there a root to becoming too? Isn't the root of self and the root of becoming the same root? "I" want to become because "I" am this and "I" want to become that, no?

a couple of minutes later:

So "I", self, desire, becoming, and so on - it is all the same root, isn't it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 09 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #207
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 240 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
did you say everything one does involves becoming?

It may, or may not ... but as i've said in #205, one has to be REALLY, REALLY serious to oneself to find out if this is so, or not ... Becoming is a VERY, VERY subtle thing and is deeply rooted in oneself (either consciously as well as unconsciously) ... I've listen many people along my life, saying in a way or another "I've no problem because I don't mind what happens" ... But it was enough with a small unforeseen situation of life, to prove that they were just words ...

REALLY, REALLY serious ... That's it!

And we seem not to be that serious most of the times in our unaware talks (subtly based on our becoming, or if you prefer ... in our subtle persistence as a self).

"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
Tue, 09 May 2017 #208
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 240 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
"I" am this and "I" want to become that, no?

No, it is much more subtle than that ...
"'I' am this", implies already that i come from an already existing becoming ...
As i have said, becoming is a very, very subtle matter.

"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
Tue, 09 May 2017 #209
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3234 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:

"'I' am this", implies already that i come from an already existing becoming ...

"I am this", I am anything, is just a myth, is it not?

Juan, I do not understand why the self and becoming cannot be seem just as the two sides of the same coin. Why should it be seen as an "either/or" dichotomy?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #210
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3234 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But surely it does happen sometimes that one engages in an activity such as preparing one's tax return and one is engrossed in it, without existential questions popping up.

Yes, it is fairly simple to get engrossed in an activity, to "loose oneself" in something. I wonder if this is the great attraction of entertainment, and why it is expanding so much?

Huguette . wrote:
Surely one sometimes engages in a conversation without reason or motive.... where it doesn't matter what we talk about, no one is trying to outwit or outdo the other. We might have run into each other or be at work, and there is an unsought sense of fellowship, no competition, no intention, no duty or obligation.

Doesn't that ever happen? I say it does, that there are innocent moments -rare though they may or may not be - of chatting, cooking, working. On those moments, one doesn't ask what is the source of suffering, why does self persist. Does one?

Indeed. My daughter is visiting me, and she corrected me along the lines you are doing, Huguette, just last night :-). Although she recognises that tremendous human suffering in the world, the chaos of relationship, the sadness of life as we live it, she points out, quite correctly, that this is not the whole picture.

And indeed, being with her is the very proof of that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 280 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.)