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

The fundamental challenge is: Can the self end?


Displaying all 6 posts
Page 1 of 1
Sat, 13 May 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3812 posts in this forum Offline

It was never my attention to start a theoretical discussion on the nature of the self. I think we are all aware that mere descriptions, clever explanations, will never meet the problem. Yet somehow all our threads, including the previous one, seem to have a tenancy to drift into the philosophical, the abstract.

The fundamental challenge is: can the self end? I don't think it can be disputed that this is the real challenge facing mankind. Of course many people would and do dispute it as being impractical, but the fact of the matter is that ALL of mankind's problems are basically psychological ones, and they will never be solved if treated as economic problems, political problems, social problems, ideological problems, etc. The trouble is, this is exactly how the vast majority of people do approach human problems, and this is where most of human energy goes, not into self-understanding.

So I start a new thread to take up this issue afresh. Although perhaps it is futile to add more words. It certainly is futile unless those words go hand-in-hand with awareness of our everyday living. I present this quote from K:

The self is to be understood in our everyday speech, in the way we look at another. If we can be aware of every thought, of every feeling, from moment to moment, then we shall see that in relationship the ways of the self are understood. Then only is there a possibility of that tranquillity of mind in which alone the ultimate reality can come into being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 587 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:quoting K.
The self is to be understood in our everyday speech, in the way we look at another. If we can be aware of every thought, of every feeling, from moment to moment, then we shall see that in relationship the ways of the self are understood. Then only is there a possibility of that tranquillity of mind in which alone the ultimate reality can come into being.

Hi Clive,

where is it that K. stating : " the self end " ?

IT ' the self' could not be understood if it doesn't exist.
But if the self is understood it is silenced.

What happened in the Dutch Retreat, which I mentioned earlier, can't be expressed in words. I've tried it several times but every attempt to do it feels a violation of that what happened.

Words loosing their meaning and the real meaning is revealed.

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
Tue, 16 May 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3812 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
What happened in the Dutch Retreat, which I mentioned earlier, can't be expressed in words.

Good to here the retreat was so powerful, Wim

Wim Opdam wrote:
where is it that K. stating : " the self end " ?

IT ' the self' could not be understood if it doesn't exist.
But if the self is understood it is silenced.

Can you explain what you see as the crucial difference between "the self ending" and "the self being understood and so silenced"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #4
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 587 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Good to here the retreat was so powerful, Wim

Was the retrait so powerful, was I otherwise receptive or was it the whole situation.... I really do not know...... something very special happened that's all I know.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can you explain what you see as the crucial difference
between "the self ending" and "the self being understood and so silenced"?

I was responding to your used topic name: ' Can the self end ?'
in my understanding of ' end ' it is a definitive situation
and now you're asking for ' ending ' which is a dynamic process.

it's very crucial for such delicate descriptions to establish a common ground for what we are talking about.

it's clear to me that ' the self, I ' is part of the whole, one can not deny that...... otherwize where are we talking about.

Every part of the whole has a certain role to forfile and seeing this part acting out of it's order is ending its interference but not ending its existence.

it's as if a child is ending its interference a dialogue between adults by seeing it is not apropiate.

One can only hope that this explanation is clear because English is not my native language and words are already so much less than what's clear.

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 Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3812 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
in my understanding of ' end ' it is a definitive situation
and now you're asking for ' ending ' which is a dynamic process.

I now see the distinction that you are drawing, Wim, and it is certainly an important one.

Are there any "definitive situations" at all, or are there only dynamic processes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #6
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 587 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Are there any "definitive situations" at all, or are there only dynamic processes.

isn' that the queste for humanity, the search for ' any "definitive situations" ',
belief and science made atemps to establish a certain definitieve situation.
David Bohm and Krishnamurti went into it very deep and logical
in there 'Ending of Time' dialogues and from that one can understand that 'oneness' is blocked by our fragmentness ( i've no idea if such a word is even right or exist'.

If there is a definitief situation it's certainly one and not situationS !!

I once wrote a poem line:
"Even a rock in the surf is on its way to sand"
(it sounds much better in Dutch ;-).)
But it indicates that the only thing what's sure that 'nothing' is certain.

Now I realize that in my reply I've used 'part' but this must be
'parttaking in the whole' and being a very subtile but strong energy it has the potential to grow too big too large if it's not seen for what it is.
In the biological world one could call it a cancer !

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 Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 6 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.)