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

What to do, when one sees that there is nothing to do?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 67 in total
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #31
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Reminds me of K. saying "You want to know my secret? I don't mind what happens."

Re#28

K doesn’t mind what happens to the body or the body-mind.

K knows he is not the body, and not the body-mind, but infinite unlimited awareness/consciousness.

Nothing can ever happen to awareness/consciousness.

All what happens is to the imagined separate self.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #32
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 764 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
K doesn’t mind what happens to the body or the body-mind.

K knows he is not the body, and not the body-mind, but infinite unlimited awareness/consciousness.

Nothing can ever happen to awareness/consciousness.

All what happens is to the imagined separate self.

Yes I think that is what is meant by that statement. It is a description of 'freedom'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #33
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
K knows he is not the body, and not the body-mind, but infinite unlimited awareness/consciousness.

Nothing can ever happen to awareness/consciousness.

How do you know what K knows....knew? I recall him saying once that he was nobody. I don't recall him saying he was infinite awareness. He maybe said that he was nothing, however.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #34
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes I think that is what is meant by that statement. It is a description of 'freedom'

'Free' from a limited identity or identification....from ANY idea of himself. I don't know if that makes sense. But the identifications(beliefs, ideals, images, etc) are the prison, as I see it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #35
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 764 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
'Free' from a limited identity or identification....from ANY idea of himself. I don't know if that makes sense. But the identifications(beliefs, ideals, images, etc) are the prison, as I see it.

I see it as a description of total freedom from the false 'I', the 'individual' self. That is the "prison" isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #36
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I see it as a description of total freedom from the false 'I', the 'individual' self

Not sure you can be free of something that doesn't exist. What does exist are the identifications, as I'm seeing it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #37
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 764 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Not sure you can be free of something that doesn't exist. What does exist are the identifications

The 'self' is the center around which all those "identifications" revolve,'stay in orbit'. That center, as I see it, is you and me. We are the central image, the one with the name, the memories, the experiences, the one who says: "I". It is the 'dissolution' of that central image of a 'me and mine' that I'm seeing as the 'freedom' that is our possibility.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 13 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
We are the central image, the one with the name, the memories, the experiences.

Right....but it IS an image. And we are all the other images as well. We are the conditioned consciousness, aren't we? Bernadette Roberts(in The Experience of No Self and What is Self?) said that self = consciousness. It's important to understand the nature of this central image as well as the nature of all the psychological images.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 13 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
It doesn’t matter what word you use, attack or love.
When thought B arises, thought A is not present.
And when thought C is present, thought A and B are not.

I did not dispute that only one thought can be present at any one time, Olive. What I said was:

Clive Elwell wrote:
Now you say, Olive, that this means it is not possible for one thought to attack another. We are using the word "attack" loosely. Hmmm...I do not see this. it seems that thought B arises in the mind as a reaction to thought A. Why cannot this be described as B attacking A?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Strange, even wierd that you write this here, Olive. It is exactly what I lived through yesterday. Writing to someone I felt an increasing openness, vulnerability. A mixture of feeling started to grow, to multiply inside me. Including fear that I would be somehow "overwhelmed" by the feelings. And yes, one eventually found refuge in words, in describing, analysing the phenomena. And so never lived the feelings to completion.

Adding to my own post here - I was not suggesting that this is the whole basis of thought, of psychological thought

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Olive: When thought B arises, thought A is not present.

Tom: But in a sense it is,

I find this an interesting point. It is perhaps too simplistic a model to say: "thought A comes, finishes, thought B comes, finishes, thought C ....... etc.

The idea that each thought is wave, spreading outwards, (even beyond the body) seems a more promising theory. In this was we can imagine thoughts somehow interacting with each other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Thought B is just an other thought, it is not battling thought A, it is just the next thought superimposing on awareness/consciousness.

You might care to look at my post #41 in this thread, Olive. But I am not asserting anything, just inquiring.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #43
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Olive: When thought B arises, thought A is not present.

Tom: But in a sense it is,

I find this an interesting point. It is perhaps too simplistic a model to say: "thought A comes, finishes, thought B comes, finishes, thought C ....... etc.

I think what I was getting at, Clive, was that the thought that anger is wrong(thought B), for instance, is stored in the brain, so that when I feel anger and think, 'I am angry'(thought A), thought B which is already part of consciousness reacts to thought A. Our beliefs and conclusions about anger are already part of the stored content in the brain. When thought A ..I am angry(or I want a cigarette, whatever)...occurs, the stored content reacts. I don't know if I'm explaining this correctly.
It's the dance of the opposites, perhaps.....I'm afraid/you shouldn't be afraid. I'm bad/I should be good. I feel lazy/I should work harder.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

In relation to my above post, I did a search and came up with this interesting quote:

Traditionally, the investigating of psychological weaknesses in relation to social action has been taboo, not acceptable. As long as a social activist provided service to others, it was considered irrelevant whether he or she suffered from greed, jealousy, anger or fear. "It's my personal business, not yours," has been the attitude.

In truth, the inner life or the psychological life is not a private or a personal thing, it's very much a social issue. The mind is a result of collective human effort. There is not your mind and my mind, it's a human mind. It's a collective human mind, organized and standardized through centuries. The values, the norms, the criteria are patterns of behavior organized by collective groups. There is nothing personal or private about them. There is nothing that could be a source of pride or embarrassment.

Privacy in personal life is not possible. This statement may seem shocking, but please do realize that thought is very subtle matter that emanates from each of us. The moment a thought is born, whether it is expressed or not, it emanates in the form of a wave, and floats in space. We may close the doors to our rooms, and feel that nobody knows our thoughts, but what we do in so-called privacy affects the life around us. If we spend our days victimized by negative energies, negative thoughts, if we yield to depression, melancholia, bitterness, these energies pollute the atmosphere. Where then is privacy?

We need to learn as a social responsibility to look at the mind as something that has been created collectively, and to recognize that our individual expressions are expressions of the human mind. Our thoughts, feelings and emotions are all a playback of the memory contained in us. What we each call "my response" is really a response of the collective.

*Vimala Thakar

http://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=2095*

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #45
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But the identifications(beliefs, ideals, images, etc) are the prison, as I see it.

Yes, idenitification is a crazy thing to do. Creating more and more extensions of oneself, all of which can be attacked, hurt, need defending.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #46
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
When thought A ..I am angry(or I want a cigarette, whatever)...occurs, the stored content reacts. I don't know if I'm explaining this correctly.

Sure Tom, I go along with that. And it points towards the basic problem of psychological memory, of thoughts as conclusions being recorded, and emerging as thought B.

So is it possible not to record, as K often asked?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

This battle between thought B and thought A is not a battle between equals is it? Because thought B has a secret weapon. As thought B attacks thought A, B is actually in disguise, in camouflage. It's pretending not to be a thought at all. It's pretending to be some superior entity, some authority which must know better than A. This makes the battle a bit unfair (not that that affects the outcome of the battle, because there is no outcome, only conflict).

On the other hand, thought B has a weakness. Which is, at any moment, the next moment, whatever that means, the next instant, thought C is going to come along, (perhaps A's big brother) and reveal B as the impostor that it is. Of course there is some problem with this also, because in the wings is D …...

A serious question – can thought B be revealed for what it is without any thought C?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #48
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
A serious question – can thought B be revealed for what it is without any thought C?

Hi Clive,

For what it's worth the following:

Seeing the thoughts A, B, possibly up to Z as a loss in details....
does this not brings the focus to the chain of thoughts ??

And is it not clear that it's just that chain that captures your attention ??

Is not this awareness that interrupts and frees that chain ??

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
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #49
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 597 posts in this forum Offline

after posting my reply I saw the QOTD:

Awareness is the process of freeing the conscious mind from the bondages which cause conflict and pain and thus making it open and receptive to the hidden.

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Jun 14, 2017

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
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It's pretending to be some superior entity, some authority which must know better than A.

Absolutely! Good point....B knows better than A. Like the Democrat knows better than the Republican. B think he's more rational. He becomes the authority over A. Of course where there's authority, there's conflict and fear....division can never lead to peace...oneness...harmony.

Clive Elwell wrote:
can thought B be revealed for what it is without any thought C?

Can we see/understand that it's simply a thought...limited and conditioned as any other? That's the question, yes.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #51
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 764 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Seeing the thoughts A, B, possibly up to Z as a loss in details....
does this not brings the focus to the chain of thoughts ??

Doesn't each thought need the space to 'flower'? Who decides which thought is 'better'? Why 'resist' or judge any of them? Doesn't that create conflict? When there is a new thought, it has never been 'seen' before. Shouldn't there be an 'openess' to any and all of them? Isn't that what is meant by self-study, by 'learning'? Isn't that what is meant by "watch" every thought? Isn't doing anything else, resistance to 'what is'?

I see this by K. in the QOTD: " If every thought-feeling is thought-out, felt-out, as fully and deeply as possible, without condemnation or comparison, acceptance or identification, then all the hidden layers of consciousness will reveal themselves."

This implies to me the development of a 'faculty' able to do such a thing: the "thinking-out and feeling-out of every 'thought-feeling. A faculty or 'instrument' that can move with a swiftness, that 'takes in' and 'lets go' at the same time. That doesn't get entangled with each thought and when it does drops it and moves on. Moving like the wind through the leaves and moving on?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #52
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Doesn't each thought need the space to 'flower'?

How do you mean that, Dan? 'Anger is wrong!'...thought A. Or, 'I wish I was a better person....less prone to anger...more enlightened'.....thought B. How does thought A or B flower?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #53
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 764 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
How does thought A or B flower?

By 'learning' about them? By watching them? They arise on their own and each 'flowers' on its own. Then it dies and is replaced by another and so on...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #54
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

51:

Dan McDermott wrote:
I see this by K. in the QOTD: " If every thought-feeling is thought-out, felt-out, as fully and deeply as possible, without condemnation or comparison, acceptance or identification, then all the hidden layers of consciousness will reveal themselves."

This implies to me the development of a 'faculty' able to do such a thing: the "thinking-out and feeling-out of every 'thought-feeling. A faculty or 'instrument' that can move with a swiftness, that 'takes in' and 'lets go' at the same time. That doesn't get entangled with each thought and when it does drops it and moves on. Moving like the wind through the leaves and moving on?

Dan, Isn't this faculty K mentions "awareness? In other words awareness of every thought-feeling that arises; then awareness of the thinking-out and feeling-out the thought-feeling as far as it goes, as far as thought has the urge to go, without an attempt to repress or interpret or direct it; then awareness of the hidden layers of consciousness which reveal themselves through intimations, fear, anger, etc. --- because there is no effort to repress or escape. Isn't it awareness following every movement of thought from start to end this way? Isn't that the faculty K is talking about?

So that, if this is so, the faculty is not something new that does not already exist, it is not something new that needs to be "developed" or "fashioned", is it? I daresay it is clear to all of us here that thought is certainly incapable of developing such a faculty. (Sorry if I misunderstood you, if I did.)

For ease of reference, I'm pasting the entire QOTD here:

Awareness is the process of freeing the conscious mind from the bondages which cause conflict and pain and thus making it open and receptive to the hidden. The hidden layers of consciousness convey their significance through dreams and symbols. If every thought-feeling is thought-out, felt-out, as fully and deeply as possible, without condemnation or comparison, acceptance or identification, then all the hidden layers of consciousness will reveal themselves. Through constant awareness the dreamer ceases to dream, for through alert and passive awareness every movement of thought-feeling of the open and hidden layers of consciousness is being understood. But if one is incapable of thinking-out, feeling-out every thought completely and fully then one begins to dream. Dreams need interpretation and to interpret there must be free and open intelligence; instead, the dreamer goes to a dream specialist, thus creating for himself other problems. Only in deep extensive awareness can there be an end to dreams and their anxious interpretation.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #55
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 597 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

Seeing the thoughts A, B, possibly up to Z as a loss in details....
does this not brings the focus to the chain of thoughts ??

Doesn't each thought need the space to 'flower'?
Who decides which thought is 'better'? Why 'resist' or judge any of them?

Is ones focus one the chain of thoughts prefenting the flowering of them ??

When I see a flower bud and imagine how beautiful it will bloom afterwards
and its decline shall that stops the bud to flourish
- seeing this thought chain as distraction -
brings me back me at the moment of looking and possibly seeing the flower open !!

No interference,....no resistance what is,.......no judging at all.

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
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #56
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 764 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
When I see a flower bud and imagine how beautiful it will bloom afterwards
and its decline shall that stops the bud to flourish
- seeing this thought chain as distraction -
brings me back me at the moment of looking and possibly seeing the flower open !!

No interference,....no resistance what is,.......no judging at all.

Same with thinking: the thought comes, then the next association to it and the next and the next...I think that's what K. means by "thinking-out" " If every thought-feeling is thought-out, felt-out, as fully and deeply as possible, without condemnation or comparison, acceptance or identification,..."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #57
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 764 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Dan, Isn't this faculty K mentions "awareness? In other words awareness of every thought-feeling that arises; then awareness of the thinking-out and feeling-out the thought-feeling as far as it goes, as far as thought has the urge to go, without an attempt to repress or interpret or direct it; then awareness of the hidden layers of consciousness which reveal themselves through intimations, fear, anger, etc. --- because there is no effort to repress or escape. Isn't it awareness following every movement of thought from start to end this way? Isn't that the faculty K is talking about?

I would say yes. I brought this up on John R.'s forum, that it's easy to say "follow every thought" but my experience and reaction always was "are you kidding?" John recounted, that in private someone asked K. if he followed every thought and he said: "no, there are too many of them."(!)

So the faculty, I'm referring to is as far as I can see it, is a different part of the brain coming 'on line' that can operate in tandem with the flow of thinking, that can be 'aware' of them but not become identified(?) with them in the normal way. Does that make sense, its like using a 'muscle' that is there, but has been forgotten? 'Meditation' touches on this...moving with the thoughts, like an 'open' hand that because of the habit of millennia keeps closing, grasping and has to be remembered to open again...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 14 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #58
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

57:

Dan McDermott wrote:
So the faculty, I'm referring to is as far as I can see it, is a different part of the brain coming 'on line' that can operate in tandem with the flow of thinking, that can be 'aware' of them but not become identified(?) with them in the normal way. Does that make sense, its like using a 'muscle' that is there, but has been forgotten? 'Meditation' touches on this...moving with the thoughts, like an 'open' hand that because of the habit of millennia keeps closing, grasping and has to be remembered to open again...

You seem to differentiate this from awareness, that's what I don't understand. Are you saying there's this faculty and then there's also awareness or attention?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #59
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 764 posts in this forum Offline

I think what I'm saying is that in order to 'do' this "watching every thought" in this special way, something has to change. You have to 'do' it. And that means the brain has to do something radically different than it has done 'forever'. (It has never seen the need to do such a thing until K. pointed out the necessity.) Call it whatever you want, 'awareness', 'attention', but it still somehow has to actually happen. It may be an effortless act (of non-movement?) but it is ,in any case as you try it,again and again,"arduous".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Jun 2017 #60
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is not this awareness that interrupts and frees that chain ??

I think it is true that awareness is outside of this chain of thougts, as you so rightly describe it, Wim. Choiceless awareness is the essence of K's teachings, woud you say? It sounds so simple! Why isn't it? Why does it prove so difficult in practice? (I am not referring to 'practice' as the "carrying out of a method").

This might deserve a new thread. You start one, Wim, it seems to be only me who ever starts new threads, I don't know why.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 67 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.)