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

What can we do?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 131 in total
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Tom asked, in another thread:

What do you think he (Krishnamurti)
means by do something?

This is a very fundamental question, isn't it? So much so that I will start a new thread for it.

When one has read somewhat of K, he seems to take away all concept of doing anything psychologically, he points out the meaninglessness of effort, of pursuing an idea, following an ideal. He negates all 'becoming' in fact. And one sees that this is so, this is necessary.

So where is one left? What is one left with? We are so conditioned into the idea of “doing something”. Of trying to solve our problems – remember we are talking psychotically. It is a fundamental tenet of society. Making an effort is greatly admired, is seen as virtuous – and the more effort the more virtue. Never mind that effort doesn't diminish the basic human problems of conflict and suffering, rather it continues them. The answer must lie in greater effort!

So what is one to do? I am not at all sure that this is a right question. It is certainly a question that we are conditioned to ask. Perhaps it comes about because we have carried over the question from the practical realm, where it does have meaning, into the psychological realm, where it has no meaning, and is, in fact, destructive.

If we have negated psychological effort, seen the falseness of the associated stuff, the idea, the ideal, then does not something new open up? So is there any need to ask, “what is one to do?”. In fact the question is an indication that the mind has NOT put aside effort, is still caught in the idea of becoming, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Juan wrote:

... Basically, listen to oneself
through what is being said without any
resistance caused by thinking about
what is seen of oneself and therefore
dividing oneself from the flow behind
the words that are being uttered by
the other ...

Yes Juan, sorry to complicate things by opening a new thread. I think we are basically saying the same thing.

This "dividing oneself" (thinker and thought) may be the "something new opening up" that I referred to above. When it is seen that the thinker is the thought, the actor is the action, etc, etc, does it mean anything at all to ask "what shall I do?". Surely not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

The JKOnline daily quote today refers to:

" .... the immense understanding that
thought does not solve the problem of
existence"

Here is the whole quote:

We assume that thinking will solve our problems, but we have never gone into the whole issue of what thinking is. So long as I remain a Hindu, a Christian, or what you will, my thinking must be shaped by that pattern; therefore, my thinking, my whole response to life, is conditioned. So long as I think as an Indian, a German, or whatever it is and act according to that petty, nationalistic background, it inevitably leads to separation, to hatred, to war and misery. So we have to inquire into the whole problem of thinking. There is no freedom of thought because all thought is conditioned. There is freedom only when I understand that all thought is conditioned and am therefore free of that conditioning- which means, really, that there is no thought at all, no thinking in terms of Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, German, or what you will, but pure observation, complete attention. In this, I think, lies the real revolution -in the immense understanding that thought does not solve the problem of existence. Which does not mean that you must become thoughtless. On the contrary. To understand the process of thinking requires not acceptance or denial but intense inquiry. When the mind understands the whole process of itself, there is then a fundamental revolution, a radical change, which is not brought about through conscious effort. It is an effortless state, out of which comes a total transformation. - Krishnamurti, Hamburg 1956,Talk 6

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #4
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
To understand the process of thinking requires not acceptance or denial but intense inquiry.

Hi Clive,

This investigation can not be conducted using the usual tools, because the usual tool of investigation are designed to investigate objects. And that what is the subject of the investigation is not an object and therefore we cannot use the usual tool so that the methode here is a little different.

Methode to investigate a subject/ consciousness/awareness:

Question:is consciousness/awareness real?

Question:is consciousness/awareness limited, conditioned, subject to time/space?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1827 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
in the immense understanding that thought does not solve the problem of existence. Which does not mean that you must become thoughtless. On the contrary. To understand the process of thinking requires not acceptance or denial but intense inquiry. (JK)

Doesn't 'inquiry' imply thought? Thought which is obviously conditioned? So aren't we attempting to wash the blood off our hands with blood?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #6
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 709 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Doesn't 'inquiry' imply thought? Thought which is obviously conditioned? So aren't we attempting to wash the blood off our hands with blood?

I don't see that. To understand the thinking process, it needs to be 'seen', not 'thought about'. The 'thinker' has no role in a serious ("intense") 'inquiry' into 'thinking'. It is the 'mind' itself that has to understand its process of thinking. (As K. has said in relation to this, "thought must become aware of itself")

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 05 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1827 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So where is one left? What is one left with? We are so conditioned into the idea of “doing something”. Of trying to solve our problems –

Yes!

Clive Elwell wrote:
So what is one to do? I am not at all sure that this is a right question. It is certainly a question that we are conditioned to ask. Perhaps it comes about because we have carried over the question from the practical realm, where it does have meaning, into the psychological realm, where it has no meaning, and is, in fact, destructive.

Carried over from the practical realm, yes. My roof leaks and I must 'do something'.

Clive Elwell wrote:
If we have negated psychological effort, seen the falseness of the associated stuff, the idea, the ideal, then does not something new open up? So is there any need to ask, “what is one to do?”.

I don't know, Clive. I'm not sure we have totally negated all that. Once suffering arrises it seems that we attempt to 'do something' about it no matter how much we understand 'intellectually' about 'effort'...'doing something'... and the 'teachings'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 05 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #8
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
“doing something”

A tremendous effort is required to maintain the belief and the feeling in separation.

Whereas no effort is required at all to be present because it is what you are.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #9
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 709 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
A tremendous effort is required to maintain the belief and the feeling in separation.

Whereas no effort is required at all to be present because it is what you are.

Is what you are saying here: 'thought/time' creates the "separation" and maintains it with the projection of a 'thinker' a 'me' (who struggles with these questions) whereas in reality there is no 'me' apart, just the ever new unfolding present?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1827 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Whereas no effort is required at all to be present because it is what you are

Yet understanding ourselves is 'arduous' according to k. "The speaker is working very hard. Are you working as hard as the speaker?" What we are is presence? Even when we’re not present but lost in thought....in emotions like anger or depression? That would require belief....that one believe he is separate from the anger or depression that he is feeling....is identified with.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #11
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

re #7:

Clive Elwell wrote:
If we have negated psychological effort, seen the falseness of the associated stuff, the idea, the ideal, then does not something new open up? So is there any need to ask, “what is one to do?”.

Tom Paine wrote:
I don't know, Clive. I'm not sure we have totally negated all that. Once suffering arrises it seems that we attempt to 'do something' about it no matter how much we understand 'intellectually' about 'effort'...'doing something'... and the 'teachings'.

Tom,

Are you saying it's all or nothing? That only permanent negation is actually negation? In a moment of awareness, where the slightest movement of thought is simply seen and not
resisted or countered with more thought because psychological effort has been negated through understanding, isn't this non-resistance awareness? Isn't the negative action of not-resisting the only thing to "do"?

And if awareness is once again obscured, "lost" and then active again, so that there is no resistance in THAT moment, isn't this negative action true action, action in which there is absolutely no division or conflict because the observed is not being resisted? Isn't this the action of awareness in the moment? And can't there be awareness in the moment that suffering does arise.... so that there is no identification with the suffering, and no situating it on the continuum of time?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #12
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 709 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What we are is presence? Even when we’re not present but lost in thought....in emotions like anger or depression?

That is how we think about ourselves isn't it, as somehow existing apart from these emotions and then getting "lost" in them?..not seeing that there is 'no-one' to get lost, the emotions; the anger, the depression etc are what we are. It is thought that creates that 'separation' of a 'me' apart.

We're 'conditioned' to run from them , escape, (which is like trying to run away from yourself) and I think it takes a certain 'free-space' in the brain even to begin to look at them as "jewels".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 05 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1827 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Are you saying it's all or nothing? That only permanent negation is actually negation?

Not at all. I was replying to Clive, but really speaking for myself when I wrote , "I don't know....". I don't know if I've put all that aside....negated all that Clive mentioned. I've been realizing today that the whole of consciousness must be negated. Not speaking of an intellectual realization. It seems that the whole of it....'me', consciousness, beliefs, ideas(psychological), ideals, conclusions, must be negated.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1827 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
We're 'conditioned' to run from them , escape, (

But if we really see that "the emotions; the anger, the depression etc are what we are", we'd see that we cannot run.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jun 2017 #15
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 520 posts in this forum Offline

Buenos Aires, Argentina | 3rd Public Talk 19th July, 1935

"..... I am telling you that you can make of this world a paradise by your own intelligent awakening and action, by your own questioning of those things about you that are false. No system is ever going to save man, but only his own voluntary intelligence. If you merely accept a system, you become a slave to it; but if, out of your own suffering, out of your own questioning of those values and traditions, you begin to awaken true intelligence, then you will create that which cannot exploit man...."

what more can there be said !!

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, 05 Jun 2017 #16
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 709 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But if we really see that "the emotions; the anger, the depression etc are what we are", we'd see that we cannot run.

Yes, that is the 'awakening' of intelligence...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #17
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

#13:

Tom Paine wrote:
I've been realizing today that the whole of consciousness must be negated. Not speaking of an intellectual realization. It seems that the whole of it....'me', consciousness, beliefs, ideas(psychological), ideals, conclusions, must be negated.

How is the whole of consciousness negated? What does it mean? The whole of consciousness does not move all at once, does it? A portion or fragment of consciousness stirs in the moment, no? Then is the whole of consciousness negated in one fell swoop, like the uprooting of an entire tree - roots, trunk and branches? Or is it negated in each moment there is awareness and understanding of a single stirring of thought?

Is it - and I include myself in this- that we are too eager, that we look forward to reaping the rewards of meditation? Such looking forward is time, isn't it? It is still the movement of thought. Is it that we "expect" (i.e. thought/time) suffering to end instantly where the separation of thought and thinker has been understood? The eagerness, the expectation, the hope, the desire, the fear and the suffering, are all still the stirrings of consciousness, aren't they?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 06 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
This investigation can not be conducted using the usual tools, because the usual tool of investigation are designed to investigate objects. And that what is the subject of the investigation is not an object and therefore we cannot use the usual tool so that the methode here is a little different.

Seems to me, Olive, that that if we talk of 'tools', usual or not, to investigate, then those tools must be part of the process of what one is investigating, - that is thought itself.

Is not a tool always from the past, and so does it not hold one to the past? Is it not part of the known, and so it always binds one to the known?

Yes, I question this business of tools. For one thing to use a tool there must be a wielder of the tool. But is it not that very wielder who we are investigating?

K said that no problem can be solved at the same level at which it exists (something like that)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Doesn't 'inquiry' imply thought? Thought which is obviously conditioned? So aren't we attempting to wash the blood off our hands with blood?

In the night, Tom, one felt that one had entered quite a different movement. It was a movement of ending, disappearing, dying. A movement that had nothing to do with the everyday world, which is based on endless becoming.  A movement in the opposite direction. Or rather no direction

Was this movement part of “inquiry”? Or was it the ending of inquiry. Sorry, asking myself these questions really. It had no direction, it was the ending of all directions. It was certainly not deliberate. It was certainly not a verbal inquiry, along any lines. And yet I feel the word "inquiry is not inappropriate. An exploration without an explorer.

But I don't know if it matters if I put the label “inquiry” on the movement or not.

Is inquiry something we do, or is it something that happens to us? Or perhaps both play a part.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I don't know, Clive. I'm not sure we have totally negated all that. Once suffering arrises it seems that we attempt to 'do something' about it no matter how much we understand 'intellectually' about 'effort'...'doing something'... and the 'teachings'.

Yes, that movement is definitely there in human consciousness. We are looking at it, examining it.

Is it a valid movement, do you think? Does it work?

After all, what thought is trying to change is already in the past, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
A tremendous effort is required to maintain the belief and the feeling in separation.

Whereas no effort is required at all to be present because it is what you are.

I would say this is so, Olive. Which points to the fact that we are conditioned into making an effort, into struggle. So we need to let go this constant battle, it has no meaning.

Now the mind, conditioned as it is, tries to let go. How does it do this? It creates an idea of non-struggle, and wants to achieve that. So this is the same conditioned action! This is still struggle! Do we see this? Seeing this trap – the seeing MUST have an action!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
We're 'conditioned' to run from them , escape, (which is like trying to run away from yourself)

This is beautifully, simply put, Dan. Yes, that is the basic state of human consciousness – trying to run away from yourself.

And the mind looks at that, reacts to that, and that reaction appears to be me. It appears to be something different from what is seen, and in that separation is implied the ability to act, this “Doing something about it”, which is what this thread is about.

Yes, this is the basic trap of the mind. “Doing something about it” is the basic condition of consciousness. And we can see how that created a society based on the same principle, thought has reproduced the human mind externally, and so all the divisions, and also the endless politics which are attempts to reconcile the divisions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #23
Thumb_ws_hp-wave_2560x1600 Mina Martini Finland 594 posts in this forum Offline

“Doing something about it” is the basic condition of consciousness."

m: Yes. Consiciousness as we know it, or the limited or the dualistic consciousness (just different words describing the same) is being created every time that the 'the one to do something about something' is born. It cannot exist in any other form than that.

That is the same as the observer and the observed. That is the cause and the effect of all division, of all sorrow, of all pain and misery in the world. Consciousness can only survive in the illusion of the division between observer and observed, or between cause and effect, or between the one to do and what is being done...

Love...is action in which none of the above exists.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 06 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #24
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is what you are saying here: 'thought/time' creates the "separation" and maintains it with the projection of a 'thinker' a 'me' (who struggles with these questions) whereas in reality there is no 'me' apart, just the ever new unfolding present?

Hi Dan,

Thought creates the separaration, the separate self, apart from the whole, unlimited everpresent consciousness/awareness.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #25
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What we are is presence? Even when we’re not present but lost in thought....in emotions like anger or depression? That would require belief....that one believe he is separate from the anger or depression that he is feeling....is identified with.

Hi Tom,

You are (always) everpresent unlimited awareness/consciousness.

Only the separate self is lost in thought, emotions depression.

Awareness/consciousness doesn’t know thought, emotions depression.

It is either experience or belief.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

This post was last updated by Olive B Tue, 06 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #26
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, I question this business of tools. For one thing to use a tool there must be a wielder of the tool. But is it not that very wielder who we are investigating?

re 18

And therefor I said in #4, we cannot use the usual tool, because that tool is to investigate objects.

When we investigate an object it feels like a process at the end of which we get the answer.

But to investigate a subject is different because we get the answer right away.

That what is the subject of the investigation is also the agent for conduct the investigation, so the subject of the investigation is always present.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #27
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Now the mind, conditioned as it is, tries to let go. How does it do this? It creates an idea of non-struggle, and wants to achieve that. So this is the same conditioned action! This is still struggle!

re 21

The separate self is not an entity it is an activity, an activity of resisting what is.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #28
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1827 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
How is the whole of consciousness negated? What does it mean?

It means to see the whole movement without looking at individual fragments....or to perceive the whole in observing ...understanding the movement of....one of the fragments. It's nothing like a conscious action to negate which would be fragmentation...but a seeing which comprehends the whole at one fell swoop....sees the nature of consciousness which divides.

Huguette:The whole of consciousness does not move all at once, does it? A portion or fragment of consciousness stirs in the moment, no? Then is the whole of consciousness negated in one fell swoop

T: The whole is understood and negated through seeing/understanding one of the fragments, yes.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 06 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #29
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1827 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Awareness/consciousness doesn’t know thought, emotions depression.

It is either experience or belief.

I not sure what you're saying here, Olive. Take a simple example like anger. Let's say my wife or child does something which makes me angry. Where is consciousness/awareness in a moment of anger? Of course we could use any emotion....strong fear or deep depression.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #30
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Where is consciousness/awareness in a moment of anger?

Re 29

Tom, consciousness/awareness has no location.

Consciousness/awareness is what you are, unlimited and everpresent.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 131 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.)